Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcchambers | Hacker News Reader

> nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck.

Why is that?

Because they're tiny and can't carry much. There's a world of difference between a pickup and a truck. It's difficult to buy them with 8' beds, most have 6-6.5' bed which makes carrying construction materials more difficult/dangerous. They have small load limits, which probably is for the best because you rarely can bring down the sidewalls to forklift decently sized stuff anyway!

They have their niche, but that's what they are, niche tools that got heavily pushed/marketed to everyone when a car/van or actual truck would be so much better of a fit for their needs.

there's no electric plugs where I take my truck.

and my truck can haul a lot more at a longer range.

love ev's for casual roadtrips and jetting around town, but not for 4x4 adventures.

You have a very unique definition of "truck". Sure, totally understand it may not fit your needs given where you need to drive it and what you do with it, but I'd posit that none of your constraints require redefinition of a commonly understood English word.

I wouldn't say it's unique, very common around here, but sure you can have the semantics debate if you want.

my point was I don't consider it a truck as it doesn't meet my needs for a truck.

I don't see how that wasn't obvious, you're being pedantic.

It's not pedantic. You were wrong. You said "it's not a truck" when you meant "It doesn't fit my needs". Those are not subtle distinctions. Language is often murky and meaning can shift over time and across different areas. This is not one of those times.

Sure I should have said "I don't consider it a truck". But that's very clear from my followup "nor do I consider the lightning a truck" that it's my personal opinion about the functionality that is missing, which I go into detail of what's missing in the same post.

It's being very pedantic.

> sure, you can have the semantics debate if you want

Helpful rule: Don't start a semantics debate and then complain that people are having a semantics debate with you.

They spawned one out of one sentence while ignoring the sentiment of the rest of my post.

You're defining what the word truck means.

I'm defining what it means to me.

I don't think I understand. Are you saying that any electric vehicle is by (your) definition not a truck?

Does any established definition of the word "truck" agree with you?

it doesn't meet the requirements to function as a truck for me.

obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.

Maybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.

that sentiment was in my main post. I even said "nor do I consider"

you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.

You know what? I think I kind of agree with you. At least the cybertruck is a stupid vehicle which I'd be comfortable saying pretends to be a truck without doing any of the things a person who needs a truck needs their truck to do.

I think gating the definition of "truck" behind "not electric" is stupid, which is what I thought you were doing (and to be honest, your comment is worded to make that a reasonable interpretation); but if you just meant "these trucks are stupid and don't do what I need a truck to do" then I can't disagree.

thank you, that's pretty much my reasoning.

I one day hope that EV trucks will be useful to me to replace my ICE truck, but for me none of them hit the boxes.

some of them are logistical in relation to charging vs having an extra can of gas though, so it's hard to say.

You need to understand that you are not the arbiter of definitions.

You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.

would you like to reply to my points or continue to attack the phrasing of one sentence?

don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.

Since when did recreational offroading make something a truck? Wouldn't that make it a toy instead of a working vehicle?

Did you miss where I also said I need it on the ranch too?

There's no electricity in large parts, and often we'll be out there for the full day.

An extra can of gas is cheaper and easier than getting the electric company out to run a line so I can install plugs.

I guess I could haul a generator but... uhm, kind defeats the purpose right?

That doesn't make it not a truck.

it makes it not function as a truck for myself.

use whatever definition you want for it though.

> it makes it not function as a truck for myself.

No, you use a truck to accomplish tasks for which vehicles don't get named "truck". That's perfectly fine; you can and should do whatever you want with the vehicles that you buy. When you go out in public and say "that's not a truck" about something that clearly is, it's you who is "using whatever definition you want", not everyone else.

Okay. So want to talk about my points I outlined or continue with your definition tirade?

If it's the latter, you'll have to do so amongst yourself.

Here's my answer, living in Arkansas.

Body on frame? Solid axles? Lockers?

Missing any of those, not a truck.

I almost spat my drink out when I read this as I interpreted it to mean it wasn't body on frame.

Looks like the lightning is just missing the solid rear axle, which is fair. I agree: it's not truck.

F-150 Lightning:

>Body on frame?

Check

>Solid axles?

Not required for EVs.

>Lockers?

Not required for EVs.

Final score: It's a truck.

Doesn't need lockers or solid axles?

Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components.

This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543

>Doesn't need lockers or solid axles?

No, EVs do not require those for the same reason they do not require gas tanks.

>Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components.

You have it backwards: ICE trucks will never be able to mimic the instant torque and torque vectoring that EV motors provide. Rivian is a good example of this:

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stoc...

>This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543

That's not a Ford F-150 Lightning. The Rivian stock will outperform almost practically every other stock vehicle as shown above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com