Comment by daisystanton | Hacker News Reader

Comment by daisystanton | Hacker News Reader

As for the "why": I'd love to learn about all of the historical and regulatory incentives here. From what I've managed to cobble together, this is partly due to CAFE standards[1], partly due to Section 179 of the US tax code[2], and possibly(??) due to contractor demand[3].

[1]: In 2006, the NHTSA adopted a "footprint" approach to CAFE standards, where fuel efficiency standards are set based on the vehicle's wheelbase multiplied by its average track width. I haven't dug into why this is the case, but people seem to agree that this results in less stringent fuel economy targets for larger-sized vehicles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

[2] A key piece of U.S. tax code, Section 179 allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment up to $1M(!) For trucks, the vehicle must have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) over 6000 pounds to qualify for the Section 179 deduction. This incentivizes businesses to purchase larger, heavier trucks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_179_depreciation_deduc...

[3] A friend told me (citation needed!) that the ability for a truck bed to carry 4x8-foot drywall sheets is often advertised as a selling point (is this true?). I suspect a lot of this is just the US market lusting after "bigger is better", but I'd love to hear anything others know about this.

Anyone have details they could add to this?

Actually, a lot of these new trucks have smaller beds than older ones, despite being larger overall. I'm sure would be much less capable of carrying plywood or a motorcycle in the back because they have cabs with generously sized back seats instead of a three across bench seat. They're basically sedans that looks like trucks, but can't do truck stuff even as well as older compact trucks.

It's hard to figure the importance of #3. As just a home DIYer, I would generally think transporting 4x8 sheet goods would be critical.

But I happily move sheet goods with a trailer now, towed by a light SUV. Even not having much truck experience, I'd say it's easier to load/unload than a truck (can you fork things from the side out of a standard pickup bed?). So if I wanted a truck for more towing capacity, the sheet goods thing wouldn't really matter as I could always use the trailer.

But I also think a lot of contractors tow enclosed trailers that keep all their tools and whatnot, so perhaps they're back to wanting larger trucks for times when they need one or two sheet goods easily (for larger quantities they'll often use delivery. I love those three wheeled rough terrain forklifts)

I'd think I'm solidly in the target market for something like a kei truck, but they don't have much appeal for me. Little towing capacity. Poor crash standards means they wouldn't be good for the case of driving a medium highway distance to pick up something off craigslist. Perhaps if one with a dump bed fell into my lap.

> partly due to CAFE standards

Posted above; CAFE plays a larger role than you might assume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azI3nqrHEXM

The elephants in the economic incentive room are:

(1) Taxation of environmental externalities caused by fossil-fuel driven transportation are nowhere near the socially optimal level.

(2) Fossil fuel production is massively subsidized, even beyond the lack of taxation offsetting environmental externalities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com