The Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger
toddofmischief.blogspot.com
toddofmischief.blogspot.com
In other words: consumer ego (wanting to drive a big, mean looking truck) is an underlying pressure in the market, even if the sufficient mover for the current size explosion is emissions dodging.
[1]: https://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-talk-about-truck-design-righ...
I think what you’re actually observing is the counter-reaction to all cars looking like jelly beans due to aerodynamic styling driven by emissions regulations. A squared off looking car stands out in the crowd. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which looks like an evil Japanese robot, partly for this reason (my wife hates the jellybean trend).
Nobody knows why this is, because most people live in subdivisions and not farms, where you might feasibly need giant mean trucks with flood lights. And yet the big mean, loud, bright trucks are quite popular.
But isn't that sort of an easy thing to generalize? (forgive me). It's not about need. It's about want. Everyone surrounding you has a big truck, you need one too. You buy a bigger truck than them, now it's up to everyone else to step and make theirs bigger, meaner, louder, etc. You spit coal out of your exhaust? Cool, now I spit more. Pretty simple human behaviors, unfortunately.
Tail fins used to be a big things on cars, but no one knows why that was, because cars don't fly. /s
Perhaps try adjusting to your new location instead of blaming the locals?
If you’re a pedestrian crossing in front of one of these or sharing a narrow residential street while riding your bicycle you might feel it. Last time I felt this was when I was in a shopping center parking lot and someone, parked gangster style (facing the wrong way in a no parking zone), pulled out much too quickly (it’s a frigging shopping center parking lot) in front of me on my motorcycle.
The curb weight can rival a light armored Humvee. And the grill is very high, promising to plow you under the vehicle.
Add lifters, 20+ inch rims, battering ram grill attachments, and all black trim…then you’re looking at the grim reaper of vehicular death.
Actually the profile of the current MacBook Airs when closed is less “sharp”, reducing potential velocity and penetration as you swing it around wildly while walking down the street.
Yes, they are designed to look mean.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
---
I don't see any fix for this arms-race besides legislative. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles are threatening to smaller, greener vehicles, and we need to be greener.
While there are EV trucks coming, those EVs require like 3X as much battery materials as a normal-sized vehicles, and even normal-sized vehicles are too large for the dominant commuting use (single-passenger). That massive battery use is a concern since supply is constrained by real-world limitations.
Also, the larger vehicles create urban planning problems -- bigger vehicles means bigger lanes and parking spots, which hurts walkability. Again, we're back to climate change concerns.
But if you've got the money, the downsides of an oversized vehicle are wholly externalized to the other road users.
I don't really see any feasible way to solve this besides legislation. At the very least, large vehicles should be punished more heavily for highway infractions because they represent a larger risk to other road-users. Speeding in a truck is intrinsically more dangerous than speeding in a car - the larger mass, poorer bumper compatibility, and larger cross-section are a risk for others on the road.
But because of the culture war issue, no mainstream politician is going to ever have an adult conversation on the subject because it will come back to "why do you hate farmers/working men/whatever you latte-sipping urban liberal elitist".
Don’t forget that “green” EVs are also extremely heavy. At 4,300 to 5,000 lbs, a Model S is squarely in the same weight class as a Ford F-150. When you get hit by a 4,500 pound vehicle, whether it looks “mean” or like a jellybean doesn’t make much difference.
But there are also the dudes who get fake testes to hang from the back of their trucks, eh?
E.g.
2023: https://www.autojakal.com/2022/04/2023-bmw-7-series.html
https://www.wapcar.my/news/bmws-big-grilles-are-the-tastes-o...
So the reality is 180 degrees opposite to what your claim is.
Or to be more precise: a current trend in automotive fashion is a larger grille, and some blogger framed that tendentiously for clicks.
This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
I used Jalopnik as a source, since they’re a well known car website. I’ll try to find additional sources; I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
People in this thread keep dancing around it but I think nobody has outright said it yet. Maybe it's as simple as: aggressive, belligerent truck styling is uniquely fashionable in America because American culture is getting more and more aggressive and belligerent. Maybe I'm browsing too much r/PublicFreakout, but in the last few years, there's been a visible rise in road rage, people berating service workers, belligerent angry protesting, people trashing businesses over minor transgressions, people losing their shit on airliners, and so on. The public is turning into "that guy in the bar constantly looking for a fight." It shouldn't be surprising that trucks styled such that they look like they're about to bludgeon you are more and more fashionable. Admittedly, this is more of a political statement based on anecdotes than one that comes out of research and data, but hey, this is HN, not Nature.
It isn't just trucks. Someone posted a picture of a BMW sedan with a really big grille in this very thread. The Toyota Camrys* even has a similar design: https://www.cars.com/articles/how-the-2018-toyota-camrys-tri....
> The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
It's just a big grille. I think the "aggression" aspect is more in the eye of the beholder (or the trolling concept).
> I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
Assuming that's true, are you interpreting the word "aggressive" correctly? It has many senses besides "hostility", e.g.:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggressive:
> 3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent
> aggressive colors
> aggressive flavors
Because European pedestrian safety requirements all but demand big bulbous front ends, it's uneconomical to design that much of a car or SUV twice and a fugly grill is the solution OEMs have deemed most effective at prettying that up. The trucks are all but forced to copy the same rough shapes because "brand identity" and "design language".
Aggressive styling and goes over the decades. You can make these cars look however you want with a little bit of black plastic and fake chrome with no impact on safety. The actual underlying shapes and dimensions that you are muddying the waters by conflating with aggression are driven by technical requirements.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
For example, consider the Mazda Miata -- perhaps the most "feminine" car imaginable.
1990s: https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1997_ma...
Now: https://cdn.drivingline.com/media/21637/drivingline-2016_maz...
For almost every single car model that has existed for more than 10 years, the old model is friendly, open, soft, "feminine." For the new one, the design language is angular, closed, hard, and "masculine." There's no way to say for certain why this is the case. In my opinion: aesthetic design of products reflects the id of the consumer. Our id has changed.
[1] https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/why-do-deer-get-tr...
I think the article would have done well to also discuss America's general lack of vehicle safety inspections. There's a reason people don't drive around in lifted pickups with ridiculous wheels in Germany.
google has many studies and articles on the dangers of this but a link to get you started
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
Slogan of the company is literally "There's no place for mercy!"
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't the governing principle of America.
I guess you could say "big mean bug," but that's because "big mean" is a separate idiom in US English for "nasty looking." But we're talking about an aggressive aesthetic, which is both separate from nastiness and purely human in origin (unlike a bug that provokes a disgust reaction in someone).
It's an arms race.
I used to live near a couple who were both doctors in the ER and they both drive the biggest trucks that they could find because they saw that people in large trucks tended to be fare better in accidents.
I have a small sedan for myself and a smallish SUV for my wife and kids. I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
I don't drive a truck but my family has been in life threatening accidents and my parents both drive massive vehicles. All Black Secret Service like SUVs. I cant really blame them.
Maybe for Ford/GM/etc.
But it looks like Kia/Hyundai/Honda/Toyota are still pumping them out with vigor. And Tesla basically _only_ makes sedans.
> Trusks are also way more profitable than cars and thats another reason there are so many of them.
Maybe that explains the supply side, but it doesn't explain the demand side.
This is one of the weird things which makes the US an outlier among other highly industrialized nations.
Everyone knows that's not happening anytime soon.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 - arguing that SUVs are immoral.
International produced a line of pickup trucks that might suffice.
The 5 MPG hurts a bit after awhile, however.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenworth_W900
Or Peterbilt 379 (Optimus Prime)
So when F150 lightning gets 5 star rating, it's within class. If you hit an overweight dumptruck you're going to have a bad time. Luckily dumptruck drivers know how to drive and that rarely happens.
However if you're in a ecobox compact, if you hit that dumptruck you're literally flat. If you hit one of the new electric vehicles which weigh in the area of 7-9000lbs. You're going to have a bad time.
If you were to properly measure safety rating not within class. It basically is just a measurement of size. So why do they do this? Clearly misrepresenting safety of smaller vehicles? It's entirely a political decision.
Bigger vehicles are more expensive. Transportation is one of the highest costs to society. So you dont want everyone driving the biggest vehicles. You want to adjust society so they choose smaller vehicles. The total cost of ownership to society is thusly less and you produce more wealth for your own people.
You can see where it's going. Private ownership of cars will remain, some people need full time access to personal transportation. However there's lots of people who really just need to be brought somewhere.
Municipalities can offer autonomous electric vehicles that say an elderly person can jump into and get to their destination much like a taxi at much lower cost than a taxi. The cost per trip is going to be measured in cents, maybe dollars with inflation? The cost of transportation to society dramatically decreases. We will be significantly wealthier.
Just a consideration: Would integrating 5-point harnesses and an rollover cage into these trucks help to mitigate this problem? (I am of course aware that the latter would make to truck even heavier)
They are two very different approaches to safety that aren't really compatible.
I'm fairly sure that safety standards essentially require the roof to not crumple in rollover conditions.
Roll cages are necessary in racing where speeds (and forces) are much higher than road speeds.
Arguably the strengthening of the roll-cage in vehicles has lead to the a-pillar problem. https://www.thewisedrive.com/the-a-pillar-problem/ - my small modern car has a much wider a-pillar than my massive boat from the 60s.
Modern F150s come with Advacetrack sport mode for TC/Stability that essentially lets you hold a slight drift angle if you want without letting the rear get out of hand - it monitors yaw, tire speeds, throttle e.tc.
http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...
The fraction of that damage and injury borne by the occupants of that vehicle, the only people with the power to make the decision to use that vehicle, is reduced.
The volume of damage, injury, and death borne by everyone else increases by multiples when a modern passenger pickup enters the mix.
Larger potentially means even in a single-vehicle accident, there is a greater distance to decelerate over and things are less likely to intrude into the vehicle.
The IIHS, which systematically tests vehicles in simulated crashes, says:
> A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences. The part of the vehicle between the front bumper and the occupant compartment absorbs energy from crashes by crumpling. As a result, the longer front ends of larger vehicles offer better protection in frontal crashes. Heavier vehicles also tend to continue moving forward in crashes with lighter vehicles and other obstacles, so the people inside them are subject to less force.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight
There is some simple actuarial data there on their page, too, which shows there's a marked advantage but it is less than it used to be.
Pounds That Kill: The External Costs of Vehicle Weight
"Heavier vehicles are safer for their own occupants but more hazardous for other vehicles"
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/591f304fa5790aa5cc8df...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
Pickup trucks are getting larger and becoming a hazard to pedestrians and drivers of smaller vehicles
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/passe...
Not only will the bigger object experience less F=ma acceleration in a collision, it will also have a stronger frame and deeper crumple zones.
> I feel pressure to upgrade both to something larger.
It's same for me - one really starts to double think choice of next car when someone clearly distracted, on the phone etc. stops in perpendicular street and huge ass grill or bumper is at the level of your eyes when looking at side window.
People don't generally consider that the bigger cars are more likely to be in accidents in the first place even if they come out of it better. Ireland would have much smaller cars than the US but much better traffic record.
So bigger == safer -- isn't giving a nuanced story or understanding. For sure though bigger == less fuel efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
Is there actually an indication that larger cars are more prone to accidents or are their drivers inherently more aggressive and accident prone?
I read a similar thing, many years before Obama, about the rise of SUVs - that emissions standards were tightened for cars, but not for 'light trucks' and SUVs could dodge the standards by claiming to be light trucks.
So this isn't the first time automakers have responded to tightened emissions standards by selling more products that aren't subject to them.
The article also claimed US vehicle makers had the quiet support of a lot of people in government, because Japanese automakers were kicking their ass at making sedans - but due to market differences and import tariffs [1] the foreign manufacturers weren't as competitive in the truck market. As the rise of bigger and bigger vehicles was bad for emissions but good for US automakers, legislators turned a blind eye to it.
It can be other things, too: it can be useful to move shit around, it can be safe relative to the car you pancaked, it can lug your family around, it's the result of poorly thought out regulations. But it is also a vanity purchase. It's not bad as the justifications people would make when they bought Hummers back in the 2000s, but it's closer to that than a sheer calculation of utility and efficiency, which should be obvious because they don't have to be that goddamn big to move things around.
Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Fit. These trucks could turn me into paste. I'm irritated that I have to consider upsizing just to ensure my infant son survives a collision with a vehicle whose driver can't see in front of them. But I confess my car is a vanity statement, too. I bought it because I won't have to go to the shop as often (fingers crossed) and I won't have to buy another car for good long while. But it also has the vibe of being smart and urbane. Americans very much buy their cars based on image.
- Rarely need to transport more than myself and one passenger
- Frequently need to pick up lots of supplies or drop off junk at the dump
- Drive in the city with lots of parallel parking/stop and go traffic
But used versions of those trucks were either quite old and/or still demanding quite a premium due to scarcity. All newer trucks were bigger than I needed, seemed to be focused on cab size over bed size, and a lot more expensive than what I had in my budget.
Instead I just got a Fit for under $10k cash. I've transported a full sized door and can even squeeze in a sheet of plywood or drywall if I cut them down the middle before loading. Most everything else is no problem. For the rare occasions where I need to haul something bigger, I just rent a truck for the afternoon.
I'd still love a small truck to make these trips easier, but I'm not currently willing to spend more or get something huge.
Also, I'm bummed that they stopped selling new Fits in the US. Great little cars.
I was traveling down the interstate not long ago, and had one of these new trucks to my left, and a semi tractor to my right. The front end of the truck was a FOOT higher than the semi. (These trucks has all the design finesse of a brick with a cutout for a bed.) I presume that the auto makers justify the ridiculous sight lines with all-around cameras and warning sirens or something.
I've long been a "hey, you do you" kind of person when it comes to vehicles and emissions, but I really, really resent this trend. I think it creates unnecessary hazards.
Also, have fun with paying for the gas, and good luck finding parking spaces.
I'll also frequently see massive trucks parked on the street that block all or most of the adjacent bike lane, further proving that a bike lane next to street parking is nothing more than a death trap.
But God forbid we give up any of our free street parking in US cities.
The ratio is probably around 0.1 today on average (just an intuition, I don't have the actual numbers), and ideally it should be close to 1, or maybe over 1.
For an ebike for example, it's around 3.
Moving 2-5 tons of metal to transport just one human being is positively insane.
Make gas expensive and keep it that way, regardless of the political cost.
Massively increase insurance rates for bigger cars. Again, this would have to be done through laws.
Tax vehicles based on weight.
Effect a radical transformation in culture that changes what people value.
Which of these are most doable?
You can always buy the smaller truck from OP's article if you truly just need to haul something.
Also going off maximum human capacity isn't great in context, as the average car journey has <1.5 occupants. Not to mention if this was codified, car manufacturers would simply put folding seats in the trunk.
Fair enough, but then we could decide the relevant ratio is one human / GVW.
[0] https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2021/featur...
The Yukon SUV that Arnold Schwarzenegger drives weights over 2.7 metric tons (6k pounds).
The Tesla truck is announced to pass the 8,500 pounds mark, or around 3.8 metric tons (!!)
If we try to penalize people for buying a two-seater truck, they'll just buy an even bigger extended cab with more seats. This is pretty much the exact kind of metric game the article cites as causing these giant trucks in the first place -- companies were penalized for building small fuel-inefficient trucks, so they just built big fuel-inefficient trucks that weren't penalized as much.
On the odd occasion that either I or my wife need to drive a car into town and don't have to take the family too, there is simply no way either of us would ever voluntarily choose the larger vehicle for the simple reason that it's much, much harder to park it.
The little car will happily fit in every single car park space known to mankind. It fits into car parking spaces that aren't even real spaces, too. It's the single best feature it has.
It's got a tiny engine, and is hopeless at accelerating hard - particularly up hills - but who cares? It gets up to four people from A to B in relative comfort and great efficiency. It cost us $10k, brand new.
Could it be that we should talk about setting higher taxes on more expensive and/or larger-engined vehicles? Downsizing our vehicles might be a way to help save the planet without compromising on personal mobility.
Don't fall for the Oil Lobby's trap of blaming individual consumers for Global emissions issues.
Trucks have been getting bigger since long before 2008, including light trucks. The Ranger's platform was ancient by the time it was retired -- it was going to go regardless. It does seem that the author has correctly picked out one of the many factors pushing things in that direction, but also during the time frame in question (2008-2020) overall American vehicle fuel economy increased (see the EIA's total energy consumption report). I realize that wasn't the direct point the author was making, but it seems like an important note.
The author's weird insistence on the "own the libs" snark really takes away from the impact of what this could have been -- a reminder of the importance to consider unintended consequences when rulemaking.
Drive a heavier car, pay more tax. Funnily enough, you don't see a lot of pickup trucks or minivans.
Tax criteria by canton:
Displacement only: AG, FR, GL, GR, LU, NW, OW, SH, SO, TG, VS, ZG
Gross weight only: AI, AR, BE, BL, JU, SG, UR
Horsepower and gross weight: SZ, TI, VD
Displacement and gross weight: ZH
Net weight and CO2 emissions: BS
Horsepower only: GE
CO2 emissions only: NE
And for the full picture you still need to add the discounts or exemptions for low and zero emission vehicles that also vary wildly.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201015-suvs-targeted...
Most SUVs around there aren't based on trucks or minivans.
Over the last decade or so people are increasingly preferring SUVs.
Most of these are soft-roaders, and not trucks or minivans. They aren't very capable off the road. Some of them aren't even 4/AWD, and most are monocoques and not body-on-frames.
Edit: lifted trucks, after market front bars, louder exhaust with larger exhaust tips, truck nuts, American flags or thin blue line flags covering the rear window.. None of these are from government regulations
For example "In the trailer for "The End of Men," Tucker Carlson worries about "the total collapse of testosterone levels in American men,"
I like that when I hit two deer in it there was zero, absolutely zero, damage to the vehicle. Thank you brush guard.
As for safety "In 2013-16, car occupants were only 28 percent more likely to die in collisions with SUVs than with cars" [1] So you are correct. There is one problem here and that's
"Although pickups are also less of a threat than they used to be, in 2013-16 they were still 2½ times as likely to kill the driver of a car they crashed into, compared with a car colliding with another car"
This reminds me of hoarding, thinking the way you or your wife does just keeps upping the game. Maybe you'll need an even bigger truck because all trucks are large to feel safe. Now everyone is driving fuel inefficient vehicles both wasting money and hurting the environment. You said you are rural so I wonder how much you spend on gas and what could you do with that savings.
Sure. Now she's the one making others feel unsafe.
But, in the USA, you can drive up to 26,000 GVW with a normal license, so everyone should be driving box trucks or similar.
Also, size is only one prominent factor in masculinity. E.g. a pickup truck is frequently seen as more masculine than an RV.
Assuming most don't offroad; There was a study that said trucks are used for hauling/offroad less than 20%~ more than once a year). I can't find it anymore so you can call me on that.
Lifting a truck reduces efficiency by creating drag and uplift (I believe that's what it's called). It also raises the center of gravity which greatly reduces handling and increases the possibility of rolling over
Chunky off-road tires wear out faster, are less efficient, and reduce handling on the road.
Extra lights, as well as lifting your truck without adjusting the lights, blind other drivers creating a safety hazard.
So more gas, more money, less safety for everyone, but the person stands out more, like large horns on animal, it's all about peacocking.
And yes, I know this is done in other ways, fancy loud sports cars, showing off money, clothing, etc. If that was going to your response, then I'll throw down the whataboutism card and do a double reverse move and point out those have less effect on the environment and safety. Yes, I know fast fashion is bad for the environment, kids in blahstan, but it's about levels not bad or good.
As opposed to what? Having Obama and its administration build more efficient engines? Have them run a car pooling scheme across the US? Not transfer it to authorities with actual subject matter knowledge? They emitted policy, I don't know what else an administration can do.
Instead they demanded companies engineer vehicles to conform to weird mpg/area curves that accidently skew towards "huge." It was in effect backseat engineering.
But that's bad politics. Voters don't like paying more for gas, and if you make it expensive enough to drive engineering changes, you make yourself open to attack on that issue.
Also, making gas more expensive would have a lot of perhaps bad follow-on effects (e.g. getting people laid off/lowering growth because you made many industrial/commercial activities more expensive).
> Instead they demanded companies engineer vehicles to conform to weird mpg/area curves that accidently skew towards "huge." It was in effect backseat engineering.
But that's good politics. You're saying "make things better."
Personally I would at least like to hear some arguments why a cheap national railway system isn't a thing that the government should do.
Larger trucks & suvs also seem to have higher safety features these days in strength and crumple zone coverage. If so many other vehicles are so much bigger than my car, how do I fare in an accident in my ford fusion vs "everybody else's" f250. Someone else here called it an arms race and I absolutely see why.
I would rather drive my 4runner than my car even though my car is absolutely the better choice for practicality - I feel better and safer in my 4 runner.
This is in addition to edge case buying. Large vehicle purchases are also popular due to what those vehicles bring to the buyer, including: cargo capacity, towing capabilities, ground clearance for rural needs, and in the case of large vans&suv's extra passenger space.
This is only a problem for someone who is tailgating.
Perhaps some of you remember trucks of the 80s. Not much has changed dimensionally, without safety improvements. Those did ~8-10 mpg unloaded while making 25% of the power with half the tow rating of a recent truck and none of the modern safety features for collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, etc. The armchair distortion is real here. Please visit the numbers before making blanket anecdotes—the manufacturer websites have good uptime for their brochures. :)
> The lightest 2016 Chevrolet Colorado outweighs the full-size 1986 version by about 260 kilograms.
> The Frontier and Tacoma never went away, but overall buyer preference for larger trucks brought an end to smaller models like the Ford Ranger and its Mazda B-Series sibling, Dodge’s Dakota, and Chevrolet’s S10.
Completely untrue. I have a 2003 GM 1 ton extended cab truck. A 2022 long bed, extended cab F150 is longer, hood is higher, has much larger blind spots, and significantly larger wheels. My truck is wider because of dual wheels but if it was single it would be about the same width.
Trucks have gotten unnecessarily large with ridiculous blind spots.
As for your other comments, my truck does get worse mileage unloaded but about the same while towing. I've upgraded the injectors and tuned it so it has a lot more power than it did stock. The $50k I saved over a new truck will pay for more than a lifetime of fuel.
Thank goodness you drive a diesel.
Can somebody explain why people tend to prefer petrol engines for trucks America?
Doesn't diesels haul better, because of all that torque from a lower RPM, from a smaller engine?
A majority of truck owners in the US will never haul anything more than groceries, and we love V8's
More people drive gas, so more gas vehicles continue to be available.
Biodiesel along with moving more of these passenger trucks to diesel would go a long way toward reducing overall carbon, but cost is the main issue there.
Fuel and maintenance costs. Gasoline is currently $3.58/gallon here, and diesel almost $5/gallon. Also, diesel isn't necessary for most pickup truck usage. I would consider replacing my gasoline truck with diesel if I had to haul lots of weight often. I would also have to upgrade from a half ton. I have no problem hauling most building materials that I need for work, but I wouldn't want to move for example heavy equipment on a regular basis with my (comparatively) small gasoline truck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://carbuzz.com/news/5-amazing-trucks-the-us-can-t-have-...
Yes, Europe and Asia have different cultures from North America. The impulse for ego may be biological, but the expression is cultural.
Also, trucks have some of the highest inventory levels of any new vehicle type right now. If ego is the only way to explain this, why did folks buy so many more trucks last year? Did the American ego Change more than gas prices?
If you re-read my comment, you may note that I did NOT say this.
[Edit: I originally cited 280cm as the wheelbase cut-off from [1], but on a re-read, it's more complicated; see below.]
The best-selling vehicles:
F-series pickup[2]: 392cm
Dodge Ram[3]: 367cm
Chevy Silverado[4]: 373cm
Correction/Edit: The relevant definition for a light truck is based on a number of criteria which relate to the wheelbase but don't actually specify it. If someone wants a fun trig problem, you could determine whether these vehicles are designed to be just long enough to satisfy the requirements listed here [5].
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150
[3] https://carsauthority.com/2023-dodge-ram/#:~:text=2023%20Dod....
[4] https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/specs/...
[5] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
That's certainly possible, but is that necessarily the outcome? What if there are two maxima for optimum truck size and the line that this regulation establishes is on the up-slope towards the higher of the two? E.g. It used to make sense to build a small, two-door truck, but now that trucks need to be at least x size, it's better to make an (x + 50cm) four door vehicle rather than an oversized two-door.
I'm not saying that the article's theory is wrong, just that it is empirically testable if anyone cares enough to do some math (another day, I'd be up to the challenge myself. It would be a neat blog post).
And nobody wants to drive a minivan so they opt for a truck (need the bed) but they also want to be able to haul four people, so they go for a crew cab.
I don't drive enough outside of work to justify the costs to keep my car on the road in addition to my truck. I would have preferred a cargo van instead of the truck though, but they were 4x the price when I was buying.
There were CAFE (emissions average over all mfg’s products) changes that also lead to some strange things.
Example… in order to make the 392 Wrangler, Jeep also had to make the plug-in hybrid (which is good. In order to make more 2-door Rubicon models they had to make more larger 4x cylinder JT model trucks.
The best thing to remember with regulations is that nothing is ever built to regulation, it’s built around regulation.
F-150 13th gen (2015-2020) SuperCrew 6.5' length: 6,190 mm, width 2029 mm
CAFE is a huge driver of truck sizes and this has been known for many years. There is consumer demand in there as well, and once one of the big three go bigger the rest have to follow, but if the CAFE rules didn't take size into account it would be far, far harder for auto makers to increase the size since there is a fuel consumption penalty for more mass and frontal area.
The truth, of course, is that ALL car and truck sizes in the US have been rapidly increasing for several decades now, and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that. Pickup-truck culture had a lot to do with it, but isn't entirely to blame: look at the current Honda Civic vs. a 1980 model or a 1990 model.
That said, this is the same time period where the old Ranger died which was one of the few compact pickups left. when it came back it grew to a midsize and it wasn't until a decade after the ranger died that Ford release the Maverick, which is compact but doesn't have the towing capability or long bed options of the decade old ranger.
So point being, I think there is a grain of truth to what the author is saying, but the evidence isn't well laid out and he should have presented more data about the various trucks available across the 2010's to make a stronger point.
The emissions rule was relaxed/revoked by Trump, however California maintained the higher standard (and the auto manufacturers sided with California). So because California has those standards and manufacturers want to be able to sell in California, nothing changed.
Even if the rule was revoked and manufacturers could make cars smaller again, they wouldn't because of marketing. Who would want to buy a new truck that is smaller than the last?
> Smaller light-duty trucks were regulated out of existence by tighter fuel standards. Because regulations were made looser on larger vehicles, the easiest way for automakers to meet the standard is to build a bigger truck.
Also, it's a fine excuse, basically consumers avoiding responsibility for their own choices. `But it's the Fed's fault!` The size of current trucks and SUVs are completely sociopathic in most urban environments. Certainly because they're dangerous to other road users (as the current rise in fatalities bear out). And, if you wish, because they contribute excessively to carbon emissions. These vehicles don't purchase themselves.
We're trapped in a large vehicle arms race (cars are getting bigger too). Yes, at some level that has to do with ego, or at least, an atrophied sense of civic duty and responsibility.
Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak
Large vehicles are safer for vehicle-on-vehicle or vehicle-on-object crashes, and vehicle-on-pedestrian crashes are a very small fraction of total fatal crashes. The core objection of this blog post^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H paper is nonsense.
I refuse to take seriously anyone who talks about "moral issues" like cars on purely qualitative, opinion-based grounds. When you're talking about hundreds of millions of people, you need to use statistics, and that is a necessary but insufficient condition for you to be taken seriously (as most papers of this type don't use statistics correctly).
(I don't know which one pollutes more).
I will also note I switch between the family minivan and the large truck frequently and the difference in how other drivers treat you is jarring. In the truck people seem happy to let me in and coexist with me.
In the minivan I’m constantly being cut off or blocked from merging. I have people try to pass me no matter how fast I go.
I'm tall. Yes, you sit more upright. There is more headroom sometimes. Nicer trucks mostly have a moonroof installed, which chops 1.5" out of the headroom. Where the seat is located relative to the rollover support (where the seatbelt is attached on the side) is important. A lot of trucks have this too far forward, so a tall person is shouldered up against it.
For the most part, though, the seating and instrumentation are all built for the same size people as cars. Before my current truck, I drove a saturn and then a prius. Probably the width of the truck is more helpful than any height.
The big benefit for me with regard to height is that I step up into the truck, rather than have to slide down into the car. Especially on those days when my back isn't feeling so great.
It is an easier motion, that is true.
My pet theory is that among other factors, being the biggest on the road is desirable as a repilian-brain thing. Also selling larger vehicles that are just higher and wider for more money but that are not significantly different than similar but smaller vehicles is just easy money, really.
The negatives of big cars are not paid for, in large part, by the people buying the car. A bigger car needs more space, making towns and cities less efficient and more expensive. They use more resources, and gas which the negative effects of are not paid for in pollution and CO2. Edit: Also the danger to pedestrians, and people in smaller cars!
Being a normal sized car, amongst huge trucks is dangerous and all over a bad experience. It's hard to see around them, in a crash you come off worse (all other things being equal). So to not suffer this everyone slowly gets bigger, just to not suffer. If people were limited to a standard sized car then everyone would be better off (assuming people don't need a van for work or a people carrier if they have a large family).
1. I live on a gentleman’s farm and actually do use this vehicle for transporting construction materials and such. That bed is rarely empty.
2. I work from home and ride my motorcycle year round. My bike gets great mph compared to even electric hybrids. My truck is used for transporting stuff that needs a truck to transport or for short runs to get kids to/from school or camp on occasion.
With that, Ford walked away from making cars. They now make crossovers, SUVs, and trucks specifically because nobody was buying cars. I have read a bunch about why and mainly it comes down to the fact that cars are just not desirable anymore. The form factor isn’t fun or fashionable, you sit on a skateboard compared to everyone else on the road, and they feel cheap. They are absolutely the economical option the same way that 50cc scooters are, but they are not an option that people actually want. You can’t convince people to buy that little cab Subaru from TFA for the same reason: it just isn’t an aspirational vehicle. I think we will see most of that form factor die out in the next 30 years in favor of hatchback crossovers and small pickups like the Ford Maverick (which by all means looks like a car replacement).
Large cars are also safer for the people in them at least. Car safety ratings are misleading because they're a relative measure based on the class of vehicle. So a "3 star" safety rating on a large SUV is considerably safer than a "5 star" safety rating on a smaller car:
> These ratings are only useful when you're comparing cars within the same size class. If a small car has a five-star rating from NHTSA, that doesn't mean it will protect you as well as five-star-rated large sedan. The same holds true for a Good rating from the IIHS. "The ratings are meant to be used to compare crashes with vehicles of similar size," said Adrian Lund, president of the IIHS. "You can't really go between the segments with these ratings."
People aren't dumb and they realize larger cars are safer for the occupants. That's at least one reason some people prefer larger vehicles.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-...
That regulation is adversarial (largest regulated entities are savvy and often propose the regulations), has higher order and long term effects, this all makes it a hard domain, but also is well known in advance.
What's the current best practice for validating regulation have their intended effects in advance?
Once the majority of trucks is electric they'll have an easier time finding their own identity, which likely includes getting smaller.
Bigger frame allows for bigger battery. Those huge trucks should have not been built, but once they are here and the people like them - probably as a class of car they are here to stay.
It is fun to see Toyota tundra in the middle of small European town - the streets are like upholstery to the trucks.
There is incentive to make small efficient vehicles, but also to make large efficient vehicles. Both will allow more large inefficient vehicles to be sold.
Bikes: flows like water Cars: "flows" like Tetris
Some developing countries have a big majority of people moving around in bikes and it feels so much better (albeit chaotic).
Other countries have developed a local auto industry and ofc it became a big business which the government is happy to "promote"
The miles driven are just much different, and much more necessary. Along with that comes the desire to enjoy the time spent in the car/truck.
Regulations like this don’t come from nowhere. There is no “clean room” process for working this stuff out.
They’re created by government officials based on feedback from industry specialists. The loop is almost completely closed.
The article already mentions the Subaru Sambar. That vehicle is also a result of government regulation.
But Japan’s regulations created a market for very small and cheap cars with real innovations in efficiency, while the regulations in the US resulted in very big and expensive cars, with innovations in passenger comfort.
So what’s the difference?
But sure, it's Obama's fault.
At the same time, though, we can all agree that there is at least some consumer preference for large trucks. The question is how do these compare? Is the state of play now 95% due to consumer preference and 5% to manufacturers trying to push larger trucks. Or is it the other way round, or some other mix? Todd offers no evidence either way.
While in Europe cars have also increased in size, I believe the largest of them is at least a magnitude smaller than the abomination that is Ford F250, for example.
Further, American-style trucks are not considered "classy", those with $50-60K to spend on a vehicle would likely prefer something like a Mercedes.
When Englad still domain India, there was a lot of cobra there, that means a problem for the English people. The solution: pay directly to anyone who brings a dead cobra. The result: people raised cobras to kill them and get paid for that.
Always surprise me the incapability of some countries/governments of think in long term.
It seems like the new regulations are also working, in addition to having some other unintended consequences.
1: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-...
“Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.”
– Dee Hock, CEO Emeritus VISA International
https://www.gao.gov/products/109954
> For example, while a truck axle carrying 18,000 pounds is only 9 times heavier than a 2,000-pound automobile axle, it does 5,000 times more damage.
Sure, this would make goods cost more (when applied to delivery vehicles) but we're all paying that cost anyway.
The problem isn't that the F150 is getting bigger, the problem is that the F050 hasn't come into the picture. (Arguably the Maverick may be an attempt here).
The roof of my Toyota Corolla was below the hood of a GMC Sierra parked behind me
The new Ford Ranger is the size of the F-150 from the 90s
post is saying 'trucks are larger because it decreases their fuel target', I'd prefer a take like 'setting abrupt boundaries in policies leads to strange effects at the boundary'
unnecessary categorization disrupts optimization processes
Not sure why you'd want to regulate vehicles rather than taxing fuel directly, but even taking fuel tax off the table, a continuous scale would let manufacturers find a better balance than imposing a hard limit
The real issue is thus: Trumpers don't actually care what happens to the world or the people in it and if something is "bad for business" then they'll do anything to get around it - regardless of the ethics. People should not be blundering idiots that are continuously drawn towards the next shiny thing; they should be accountable for what they choose to do.
Regular cab pickups exist and they get reasonable mileage these days. You can get combined 22mpg in an F-150 2.7L v6. It's a bigger truck because it is designed to tow 5000lbs and carry 2000lbs in the bed in its smallest configuration. If you launch boats or operate on wet construction sites, you need 4x4. Why? Your rear wheels will be on a slippery boat ramp. If you don't have 4x4, your rear-wheel drive truck's front wheels are useless and your truck can become a submarine by sliding into water.
It is difficult to buy a new truck with an 8' bed that's not a full-size truck. You need to in general look for a fleet vehicle. However, vans exist. My Grand Caravan minivan converts into a cargo van and fits 4x8 with gate closed. It's dead at the moment and so I got an F-150 to tow it home and drive around until I fix it.
So, if you want an 8' bed in a pickup, you are getting a minimum of a 1/2 ton truck. If you don't need one that long, 6' beds are available on smaller trucks. Your other option is to trailer something since they have 3500lbs towing capacity. 6' bed is perfectly usable for 8' loads with a bed extender.
So, why can't you get an 8' bed in a smaller truck? They are prone to getting overloaded. There's the legend of the immortal Ford Ranger that work much harder than they should. 20 sheets of 3/4" plywood is 1200lbs and that will fit inside a truck bed. Unless you have that 1800-2000lbs capacity, you'll overload it. Now, consider the weight of drywall, cement etc... Anything related to 4x8' items can unintentionally overload a small truck's rated payload capacity relatively easily.
Do you need an off-road 4x4 3/4 ton truck, which are huge and tall, for city driving? You do not. I need my 1-ton truck for towing a car trailer weighing more than 5000lbs. However, it's only driven when when I have to tow something that heavy.
FTFY "The Reason Why Trucks Are Getting Bigger".
How so? A driver side airbag sounds like an important safety feature.
Would you say the same thing if it had been made without seatbelts or a driver's side mirror?
Coming up with a new steering wheel for the US seems significantly cheaper than redesigning a new vehicle.
People want a vehicle that works for every (edge) use case they have, even if they forget that usage only comes around once every third year. The bed has to be big enough for plywood, the cab has to fit six adults comfortably, and so on. SUVs are popular for this reason. And beds are getting left behind because it really is an edge case for most to need a long truck bed, while having family ride in the crew cab is at least kind of common. Not to mention, having a crew cab and then a long bed makes for a truck so long, it's really kind of a pain to maneuver it. (Source: Briefly owned a "smaller" double cab Silverado with a 6' 6" (198 cm) bed and it was already ridiculously long.)
It's amazing truck rental hadn't become a bigger business, while everyone gravitated towards nimble, fuel efficient cars, but there has to be a reason for that not happening, and I don't think it's fuel regulations. Among other things, there's an addiction to convenience. Everyone insists that the vehicle in their driveway covers every possible use, instead of the daily uses only, because there's a 20 minute round trip in having to go pick up a rental vehicle for special cases.
All of this is interesting to me, as GMC will reveal the bigger 2023 Canyon later this morning. (You can look at the 2023 Chevrolet Colorado[0] now for a good preview. And for those unfamiliar, it's a "mid-sized" or smaller line of trucks, like the Toyota Tacoma.) The redesign is basically the Silverado/Sierra from 5 years ago and they've eliminated all but one configuration - crew cab and 5' 2" (157.5 cm) bed. No more regular cab, no "long"/standard box. In the car world, the most popular configuration has the best profit margin, so slowly any variations get eliminated by bean counters until only the very middle of the bell curve is left.
EDIT: Also wanted to add that these smaller trucks are much less popular than the larger versions. One reason is the obsession with specifications and capability and features. A lot of times the price difference between smaller and larger is small when you consider extra payload and towing (that only one in ten buyers actually needs), or that features X, Y and Z are included on the larger model but left out on the smaller. Gas mileage is also shockingly similar between the sizes. But in the end, I think too many people buying trucks look around, see that everyone else has full-size, and justify it for themselves, when almost everyone would've gotten their needs met with the smaller options.
[0] https://www.chevrolet.com/upcoming-vehicles/2023-colorado
But why bother? With the chicken tax limiting competition and car companies being able to make higher profit on larger, fancier vehicles why would they leave the extra profit on the table?
Mahindra was going to enter the US market, but eventually backed out for a number of reasons - the chicken tax was no doubt one of many factors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax and https://carbuzz.com/news/5-amazing-trucks-the-us-can-t-have-...
The reason truck rental isn't much of a thing is the same reason people drive into cities with public transportation: time convenience. You can't go when you want and come back when you want when you are dependent on someone else. They want to "just go" without planning. Like you said, most people never use the truckness of their truck and it is a status/ego thing.
Smaller car sellers should make a deal either with the dealers or with U-Haul or something - buy the small 4 seater car, get X days free truck rental per year.
My "dream vehicle" would be something like a cab-over minivan that was short as possible while still having towing capabilities; most "pickup uses" can be replicated by a trailer for those times.
Volume and mass are not the same thing.
The F150 max payload 1,000kg
The Subaru Sambar max load is 350kg
The Ford or any truck in US/Canada may not need to be that big since they were not that big years ago. But the Subaru is too small for US/Canada roads and what is hauled.
It’s all exactly correct.
Obama’s emission rules basically were impossible. So they made a CAFE-exception for footprint.
They told the mfgs “we’re going to grade you on footprint”, the mfgs said ok “we’ll give you footprint”.
Trump admin was 100% right, but this feel good bs damage is done. Biden admin has seemingly doubled down where Obama admin failed so badly. I want to believe it’s good intentions and they don’t know, but I’m pretty sure they all know the cause and effects here.
So... are trucks going to get smaller again now? Is there going to be an improvement to safety, or emissions, because of this change?
The underlying problem of all this is it's nearly impossible for a new manufacturer to get off the ground (that's the most amazing thing about TSLA - not that they made electric cars, but that they made anything).
So the only way to get a new "vehicle type" on the road is to get an existing manufacturer to build it.
> The regulations meant to get better mileage out of vehicles also made it easier for larger vehicles to meet fuel-efficiency standards.
But I live in Montana, where easily 3 out of 5 vehicles are large SUVs or trucks. There is definitely ego there too. Whether it’s caused by owning such a large vehicle or the reason they own the same, it’s definitely there.
They largely hold you in contempt if you’re in a car or less, gassing you out with exhaust, high beams at eye level, or tailgating you until they can roar by in a cloud of exhaust.
They are bloody absurd as a single person vehicle, and even the recent high gas prices didn’t temper the number of pickups or their behavior.
I had to fully tint the windows on my car for this reason.
Trucks with lift-kits are guaranteed to behave this way. If I see one coming, I'll pull over to let them pass before they get the chance to tailgate.
Surely this is the result of inept regulators and not blatant corruption!
inb4 barrage of downvotes
The government skews yet another market with unintended consequences using regulations & intervention. Big surprise. The only solution is more government regulation & intervention.
The OP misunderstands: science, by its modern definition, is the ideas and policy choices that liberals want to pursue and exudes everything they oppose. Nothing more, nothing less.
[This is more a swipe about the corruption that happens when terms get swept up into becoming political labels, than a swipe at any particular party]