[HN Gopher] 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning ___________________________________________________________________ 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning Author : awb Score : 542 points Date : 2021-05-21 13:57 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ford.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ford.com) | ziml77 wrote: | What weird marketing. Is there really any overlap between a | person who buys an F150 and one who is comfortable uttering the | word "frunk"? | cduzz wrote: | It looks like a great vehicle. | | I hope ford's got a plan for making millions of battery packs for | these things. | | I wonder if "backfeed from the EVSE" is going to be a regular / | standardized feature of some vehicle chargers in the future? | | Combine this with time-of-use awareness and auto-auction | mechanisms to backfeed the grid when power's necessary (and turn | off back-feeding to not kill linemen repairing wires) it seems | like a pretty good extension to car charging. | | Elevator pitch: | | Public charging installed on streets; charges 3 prices -- "I need | power now", "I need this much power before this time" and "I need | this much power by this time and you may draw power out of my | battery between now and then so long as I have this much charge | by this time". | | Then you network interconnect these chargers and make a | distributed peaker power plant and also make subscription / power | deliver fees. | FridayoLeary wrote: | I just remember Clarkson talking about the hybrid f150 on TG. He | said then that Ford had a survey of features that customers | wanted added to the truck. A hybrid powertrain, he claimed, was | something like number 24 on the list. In other words there are 23 | things customers want more then a hybrid. If that is true, then | i'm unclear how much of a profit- maker a fully electric f150 | will be. | crazyjncsu wrote: | "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said | faster horses." | | -- Henry Ford | | The people answering your survey probably weren't aware they | could power an entire jobsite with just a truck. Killer | features such as this will be how electric vehicles penetrate | the holdouts. | aaroninsf wrote: | Hot take: this, as some like Ars Technica have observed, stands a | decent chance of being a _real_ game changer. | | Everything about this vehicle launch appears masterful, from its | technology to its branding to the obvious care taken to ensure | that in almost every respect it is so superior, and offers so | many no-brainers, as to make anyone who can (both individuals and | especially, fleet managers), buy these as fast they can. | | This thing has more than one killer app. | | The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage high | draw tools at the jobsite. | | If you have never worked on a jobsite, this is a BFD. | | This is itself a game changer, it offers the ability to "disrupt" | in a material way a whole class of project. Logistics just got | 20% simpler and projects 30% cheaper. | | Sure, it can go super fast; yes, you can lock your stuff in the | truck... | | But the other killer feature for fleet owners is that these are | remotely manageable. | | Your fleet now has detailed telemetry and its only going to get | better. | | And this is on launch. | | We just got a RAV4 Prime and if I didn't live in SF proper, I | might be seriously regretting not waiting for this thing. (I | don't, and don't think this makes sense in the city.) | | If we move to e.g. Sonoma and work remote? This would be that no | brainer. | | Hallelujah. Now, to invest in Ford... | rootusrootus wrote: | To be fair, some of these features are available on the | recently released hybrid, as well. | | What I would like to figure out is if it can actually backfeed | the home with 240V split phase power. That would be a seriously | big deal if it could, it's not a common generator feature as it | is. I'm skeptical, but they did claim it could transition from | charging to supplying the house and back to charging when the | power returned. Probably some fine print there where they say | "only with the 120V charger". Otherwise, that would just be | killer. An automatic whole-house UPS that can easily support | all your needs for hours or even a couple days in a pinch. | wearywanderer wrote: | Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer | feature... but not in the way you mean. It can be done | safety, but when done incorrectly (if the house isn't removed | from the grid first) it can kill linemen. It's a good thing | most generators a homeowner might causally buy at the | hardware store don't have this feature. Unfortunately I've | seen male-to-male extension cords sold online for this | purpose. I think these are actually illegal, at least in some | places. | | https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/elecgenerators.html | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer | feature... | | oh, you mean like solar PV on-grid setups ... | michaelt wrote: | Your basic solar inverter monitors the grid voltage, and | if the grid goes down it stops generating. | | Needless to say, if you're looking for a backup power | source this isn't a property you want. | mike_d wrote: | People with generators and suicide cables know to shut | off the main breaker. Per my buddy who is a lineman in a | rural area, DIY solar systems in cabins and such are much | more of an issue. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | d'oh. i'm an idiot. | | (an idiot who the state of NM certified last year to | install his own on-grid solar PV system, so doubly an | idiot!) | wearywanderer wrote: | Those are generally fine because they are generally | installed and configured by licensed electricians. | Generators with suicide-cables installed by homeowner Joe | Blow are the problem. | FooHentai wrote: | Close. It's not the electricians qualifications that make | it safe, it's a feature in generating home inverters | called 'anti-islanding'. | | A correct install is of course also required as it's | possible to screw up and unintentionally cripple this | important safety feature. | zrail wrote: | The language on the site talks about requiring a whole house | manual or automatic transfer switch. Plus the thing has a | 240v outlet. (presumably split phase, 240v single phase is | not common in US residential settings). | | I wonder if the wiring is basically plug the 240v split phase | into a special outlet in the house that feeds the transfer | switch. The 80amp charger is then just a charger. | | Could be completely wrong though. We'll know more at launch. | madengr wrote: | Yes it can, through the Ford EVSE (i.e. charger). | jes wrote: | _The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage | high draw tools at the jobsite._ | | I have a TIG welder and a solid state linear amplifier that I'd | love to be able to power from my truck instead of from a | generator. | francoisp wrote: | Actually if they can build an Expedition SUV on this platform in | short order, they could have another model T on their hands. That | little e at the end of the bar crossing the capital F would | finally take its meaning! (seriously in this price range, it | could be a Panel van replacement for amazon, FEDEX, plumbers etc. | A suburban ppl mover would be an absolute hit, I'd buy one in | advance. (not a 100$ deposit, and cancel my CT reservation that | I'm hoping to convert on to a yet to be announced hypothetical | tesla SUV based on CT...) | hbarka wrote: | Old Ford Ranger is my sidekick. Got it used and has paid for | itself many times over. I'm interested in the off-grid potential | of the Lightning. Who knew Ford with be the first to offer | "offloading capacity of 9kW, and based on an average daily power | demand of 30kWh, can provide full power to a home for around | three days". In contrast, Tesla has a cigarette-lighter port | offering 12V. There's an additional one in the back in case you | want to charge an iPhone while tailgating. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | My first vehicle I bought with my own money was a truck. In | retrospect, it was a mistake. It got shitty gas milage, had | downright _dangerous_ performance (0-60 in 16 seconds made for | some white knuckle backroad passing), and 90% of the time my bed | was empty. | | If I had been smart, and bought a small hatchback or wagon, I'd | probably still be driving it to this day, and it'd have 90% of | the hauling capability of my truck. | | An electric pickup solves _a lot_ of the issues I had with my old | truck, but understand, this is a premium product. Pickup truck | owners are a stubborn bunch. EVs will have a hard time | penetrating that market. It may take a few decades. | samfisher83 wrote: | F150 is the best selling vehicle in America. The price is | actually comparable to the gas version. This might be the vehicle | that really changes the EV game. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | If they have the capacity to produce the battery en masse, | which is doubtful given what they announced so far. Only Tesla | and VW seem to be serious about this. | rootusrootus wrote: | If Ford falls on it's face in battery capacity due to a lack | of planning, it will be the biggest belly flop in years. They | have to know they're sitting on a gold mine with this. At | this moment, the game is theirs to lose. The Ford I know and | love is likely to screw it up, unfortunately, now that | Mulally is long gone. | m3kw9 wrote: | 900 comments so far, Tesla is in trouble. | rhodozelia wrote: | Tesla has achieved their goal of making EVs mainstream and | reducing c02 emmissions | [deleted] | outside1234 wrote: | Wow - so if the grid goes down the Truck will power your house? | That is awesome! | | ref: https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/ (see | bottom) | js2 wrote: | I'm not sure it makes sense though. Now you have to choose | between transportation and powering your home. As well, the | power needs to go out when the truck happens to have a full | charge. I think it cost them little to add (because they | already have on-board power ports, which does make sense), but | from a practical standpoint, I don't know how useful it is. | kingsuper20 wrote: | In the age of purposeful blackouts for fire prevention or due | to an undersized grid it makes all the sense in the world. | | There's a lot of $10k-$15k natgas whole house generators | going in around my neighborhood. | | Your view of electricity reliability depends on where you | live. | tzs wrote: | In many scenarios, you can anticipate power going out and so | make sure to charge up before that. | | I do a similar thing with my ICE car. We don't get a lot of | snow here, but every few years we'll get a storm that leaves | up to a foot on the ground. Significant snow like that is | rare enough that the cities and county don't keep a large | fleet of snow removal equipment, so they only clear the | bigger streets. | | I'm on a long dead end street that won't get plowed for quite | a while, if at all. People with the bigger trucks and SUVs | can still get through, and there are enough of those further | up the street from me that usually in a day they'll have made | enough trips that my smaller SUV can get out. | | When it looks like we might get one of those storms, I top | off my car. If I lose power, and my house cools off enough | that even with a sweater and jacket it gets too cold to stay | in, I can move to my car. A full tank of gas will run the | engine idling just enough to power the heater and radio and | phone charger for about 24 hours. | | Power would almost certainly be restored by the time I'd be | running out of gas. | js2 wrote: | That's a good point. I've been through a couple hurricane- | caused outages for up to two weeks, but in one of those, I | required transportation. I've been through probably half-a- | dozen outages of a few hours to a couple days that were due | to equipment failure by the utility that I couldn't have | anticipated. That's over decades though. | | Grid power is so damn reliable in most places that any | backup solution is going to have limited use. I guess I see | this feature of the F-150 as icing on the cake, not | something that would sway my purchase decision. | outside1234 wrote: | Its not a complete solution obviously - but it is pretty good | in a pinch - and doesn't require installing a bunch of | dedicated batteries. | | And for most scenarios it works - having some energy is | always better than none. eg. The fridge will stay cold enough | while you go shop for more food or whatever. | vageli wrote: | > Now you have to choose between transportation and powering | your home. | | It is interesting to me that this is phrased as a negative | thing. If you are at the point where you are choosing between | transportation and powering your home, at least you _have_ | the choice and it is not made for you. | eloff wrote: | > Available Ford Intelligent Backup Power, enabled by the 80-amp | Ford Charge Station Pro, allows you to use your truck as a backup | power source to your home during a power outage. * The power | transfer can be triggered automatically or manually based on | customer preference. | | Good, now maybe Tesla will offer that too. Last I checked they | didn't because of warranty concerns on the battery. They don't | want you using the vehicle to arbitrage electricity prices. Which | is probably not worth the wear anyway. But as an emergency backup | or place to store surplus solar energy - now that's useful. | analog31 wrote: | I'm happy to see this. It's the most popular vehicle, so it will | reach a large audience. Also, at least in my imagination, work | trucks are a perfect use because they are used locally and parked | on the job site. So the range and need for a charging station | might not be impediments. | | My pet peeve is that vehicles are getting bigger in general, and | I don't need a big vehicle. An F150 won't fit in my garage. | | An amusing anecdote, my friend got a brand new pickup, and was | being really fussy about keeping it clean. I asked him: How do | you keep the bed from getting dirty and scratched up? He said: | Don't put anything in there. When he drove back to the family | ranch, his mom noticed that he was being too prissy with his | truck. So she waited until he was sleeping in on a Saturday | morning, and borrowed his truck to haul manure. Lesson learned. | ;-) | lovemenot wrote: | Is there a market for a stand-alone rolling-coal device? Can be | used either in the normal way or ironically. | endisneigh wrote: | I'm curious, with the advent of electric what's the advantage of | a truck vs. a minivan for a lot of situations? IIRC there were | literal space constraints before which is why a minivan couldn't | tow like a truck, but since the motor and batteries sit | underneath the car, couldn't one build a van/minivan with just as | much power as this? | | If that's the case, other than hauling very tall objects, why get | a truck? A minivan with the 2nd and 3rd rows folded is already | longer than most truck beds. | | Curious to hear thoughts on this. I know culturally a van would | never beat a truck, but I'm curious more | mechanically/technically. | | Another thing I'm curious about with a truck in particular is if | a custom fit gasoline tank could be placed in the bed of a truck | that has an inverter that could charge the car, so even if your | battery was dead you could effectively use the car as a gas one, | in a pinch. | | --- | | As an aside I'm willing to bet within a decade this will outsell | the gasoline version. A F-150 used frequently requires a lot of | maintenance. I imagine this will be significantly easier to | maintain. | intrepidhero wrote: | I love my minivan for its versatility but it can't haul gravel, | or dirt, or bark dust, or sand, or manure... | gibspaulding wrote: | This is the big one for my wife and I. We've been using an | old Buick Rendezvous (somewhere between a van and SUV) with | the back seats removed as our "truck" for a while now and | while you can actually load quite a bit of mulch in the back, | you have to load it all by hand which is pretty awful. | | Ground clearance is another issue in a lot of places. Our | Rendezvous is higher than most minivans, but I've still | scraped the bottom before, and have had to turn back from a | water crossing on a dirt road. | | Generally my experience has been that the Rendezvous can do | most of the same things my old Ranger did, but not as easily | and with a lot more anxiety about breaking things. Ohh and | come to think of it, it actually gets worse gas mileage. | blamazon wrote: | Minivans are not "cool." | | It pains me. They are cool. Anyone who thinks they aren't needs | to test drive a Chrysler Pacifica with powered stow-and-go | seats. | | I am hoping that the E-transit is a sleeper hit and I can | someday pick it up in a nice passenger configuration. | nsxwolf wrote: | The Pacifica is nearly as good as a pickup truck with stow- | and-go. I was sad when I realized the hybrid version lacks | that feature because of the batteries being in the floor. | JamesSwift wrote: | The minivan has the space but only if you plan ahead and | allocate the space to hauling. I've underplanned trips in my | minivan for large/bulky items (e.g. beverage fridge, ikea | bookshelf) several times and had to do impromptu adjustments of | the seats/positions to get items in. It doesn't help that I | have a bunch of kids car seats to deal with when converting to | "hauling mode". | | Much less futzing w/ the truck I'm sure. | tbihl wrote: | Trucks have the ability to use fifth-wheel couplings. They also | have higher ground clearance. | | I suspect the first is rarely used. The second is paraded as a | feature, for reasons which escape me. | [deleted] | dsr_ wrote: | Look, if people made rational decisions all the time, economics | would be a real predictive science. | | Based on utility, most minivans beat all SUVs in tasks not | involving going off-road. Minivans definitely beat pickup | trucks for moving people, and often for moving stuff -- but not | always. | | Purchasing a vehicle in the USA is only partially based on | function, for most people. Price and culture figure in a lot | more. | linuxftw wrote: | Depends on the "SUV" you're referring to. Full size SUVs like | the Suburban can tow heavy loads, have lots more storage | capacity, have actual 4wd (snow), and generally have a | powertrain that's going to outlast a minivan. | WillPostForFood wrote: | The advantage of a truck is you can carry more, or taller | things, and they don't get the inside of your vehicle dirty. | imagine you just mowed a wet, muddy lawn, do you want the mower | in the back of your minivan, or in the bed of truck? Also, many | tall things that you might haul in the back of truck can't | simply be reposition into a minivan (tall and long or tall and | many). | endisneigh wrote: | Ah yes, that's a good point. Other than tall _or_ dirty | objects, is there any reason to get a truck? Genuinely | curious, because at some point I 'll have kids and wonder | what the trade-off is between minivan (more people) and truck | (more hauling) is with an electric vehicle. | VLM wrote: | There's a certain lifestyle aspect where my high school | friend dropped a pulled junkyard engine in the bed of his | truck and shoved it into place and strapped it down and he | doesn't care about the interior of his truck bed, its | "outdoors" for hauling "outdoors" rated objects. | | Technically my wife's van could carry that engine very | easily but the process would almost certainly destroy the | carpet and leather seats and maybe some windows and the | bumper cover etc. | | My buddy had hoists on each end of the trip to insert and | remove the junkyard engine. This is widely understood in | industry and construction in general and using a crane with | a pickup truck is no big deal. With a van I guess you could | use a forklift and pray the inevitable damage to the | interior doesn't turn the vehicle into an instant insurance | writeoff, but ... | | Imagine for example how easy it would be to wipe out the | stereo speakers or the wiring for the GPS in the back of a | van vs a seemingly indestructible truck bed. The older the | truck the tougher they were built and the more likely the | owner doesn't care if its beat up, so you can toss bricks | into trucks and similar behavior that would not be | tolerated with a van. | | I will say the best way to haul 1000+ pounds of yard | landscape rock is to pay home depot $59.99 to have truck | delivery with a forklift drop the pallet within inches of | where I asked. I could have bought a $75K pickup truck and | loaded and unloaded all that rock myself by hand, but sixty | bucks sounds like a better deal LOL. If I had a full time | landscaper job the numbers would be different... | blisterpeanuts wrote: | For a family, a minivan is very practical. Not only for | your one, two, or more kids, who will easily be | accommodated in a 7-seater or 8-seater (if you add the | optional middle seat in row 2), but when taking their | friends along to the park etc. | | My minivan is a Chrysler with the stow'n'go fold-down | seats; in about 5 minutes I can fold all the passenger | seats down into the floor and have 8' x 4' cargo space, | which is more than most pickup beds. | | Pickups have the advantage of height, as pointed out | previously; if you need to move a refrigerator or a Harley, | probably a pickup is better. Also, pickups can tow trailers | & RV's. | | But for taking my family on holiday, or when transporting a | sound system, musical instruments, and 2 other musicians | all in one vehicle, the minivan works best for me :) | mikeg8 wrote: | One problem here though is the combo of family holiday | _and_ moving lots of objects. When you need all the | mentioned cargo space, the van becomes a two-seater. A | crew cab truck can move 5 adults comfortably as well as a | full load in the bed. Huge advantage for camping. I know | you can use roof storage on a van, but i 'd argue its | more of a hassle, with less capacity, and more dangerous | as the vehicle is much more top heavy. | 1123581321 wrote: | I like vans and own a van. However, in addition to the bed | being outdoors, lined with a shell and having no roof, | truck suspension can also receive heavier loads without | risk of damage. They also have a higher clearance, which | has some utility off of roads as well as allowing the truck | to settle with a heavy load without affecting its safe path | or speed as much. | | It's a good thing for consumers that the two vehicle types | have so much overlap in utility. | rootusrootus wrote: | > why a minivan couldn't tow like a truck | | Length. The size of trailer you can pull behind a tow vehicle | is very dependent on the stability of the tow vehicle, and a | lot of that comes down to wheelbase. As long as people want to | tow 30+ foot long RVs, they will have to have tow vehicles the | size of HD pickups. | bananabiscuit wrote: | If you are hauling concrete or mortar mix, you wouldn't want | the dust getting into the cabin. You can of course get vans | that partition the passenger space away, but then that would | make it impractical as a family car. | greenonions wrote: | Ford is making an E-Transit: https://www.ford.com/commercial- | trucks/e-transit/2022/ | | The initial models have a far smaller packs than the F150, | however, given that most of these will be for business use | locally, not distance hauling. If Ford were to make a model of | the transit with a large pack, you'd have the much larger bed | space along with towing. This would likely be a hit with the | van-life community. | voisin wrote: | Beyond the practical reasons re irregularly hauling something | to the dump or picking something up for a Reno, two reasons we | got a truck that don't seem mentioned here are for (a) | visibility on the road (it is just nicer IMO to be up high) and | (b) my wife has long legs and often sits between our kids in | the backseat on long drives and it has as much legroom as a | Bentley. | dahfizz wrote: | 300 miles of range unladen seems very low to me. When towing, | this range will likely be cut by more than half. The truck is | priced competitively, so it will make sense for "Regular daily | driver, and occasionally I need to put something in the bed" | truck owners, but definitely not "Tow my trailer to the mountains | once a month" truck owners. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I think you're exactly right about the classification. Most | people I know who have a full trailer to bring to the mountains | have larger than an F-150. | crazypython wrote: | The F-150 is considered a heavy-duty truck, I think the Ford | brand and advertising would help | greenonions wrote: | This will electrify a lot of fleet vehicles when people see the | lower maintenance and input costs. | bryanlarsen wrote: | I get to eat my hat somewhat. I hope it's tasty. Just a few days | ago I made the comment that the Cybertruck's killer feature is | it's $40K price tag, if and only if that price tag actually | happens. I said that Ford could not make a decent EV F-150 at | that price point unless they throw their dealerships under the | bus. And here we are with a $40K EV F-150. | | I'm glad I added the caveats though -- the $40K F150 is for | commercial fleets, so will be missing crucial features for the | passenger market and might bypass dealerships. Even so, $52K is | still a competitive price for a SuperCrew with a few options. | kingsuper20 wrote: | I expect that a real advantage to an EV F150 over any Tesla | truck (or car) will be repair costs, most particularly | collision repairs. | | Of course, they'll always cost more than the estimates, plus | you get to throw in sales tax and the annual registration tithe | to the state. | | I'm always surprised that people are willing to spend so much | on new vehicles but I guess it keeps the money moving through | the economy. The spice must flow. | fastball wrote: | Why do you think the F-150 Lightning will be cheaper to | repair than the Cybertruck? | N00bN00b wrote: | Cybertruck is unpainted (or varnished) stainless, isn't it? | | Means that you can't fix small dents with filler, have to | swap panels instead. | bhouser wrote: | I think the $40k price tag is deceptive if you look a bit | closer. The extended range 300 mile battery is only available | on the Platinum edition which starts at $60k IIRC, otherwise | you're stuck with 230 miles which IMO going to make the truck | feel hamstringed. | | The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles. | m463 wrote: | the $40k cybertruck gets you 250 miles. | | (...in late 2022) | fastball wrote: | The Lightning isn't supposed to be going until 2022 either, | and Ford is having supply chain issues with chips, which | this truck probably needs more than any car they've ever | made, so we'll see which ships first. | bhauer wrote: | Yeah, the $40K version of the F150 Lightning is the | "commercial use" one, which will presumably be utilitarian. I | think they plan to reveal more about the commercial version | on Monday. | | If the $40K commercial use version is the right truck for a | given consumer, great. But most consumers will want to step | up from that for a personal vehicle. I think for most people, | we will find $53K is the real starting price. | | It feels as if the $40K commercial-use version was added in | order to capture some headlines that group "$40K" alongside | features of the more expensive trims such as "4.4 second 0 to | 60," and I believe they have been successful in that. | mceachen wrote: | Ford also hasn't sold that many EVs (yet), so it's still | eligible for the US $7500 federal tax rebate (unlike Tesla). | | (BTW: It seems like such an arbitrary and ultimately bad | decision to cap rebates by manufacturer. Rebate caps for | expensive luxury cars? Sure. But penalize a manufacturer for | making _too many_ of the thing you're incentivizing doesn't | seem right). | jaywalk wrote: | You're not penalizing anybody, you're adding a temporary | incentive to get the manufacturer up to speed. Once they're | selling enough, they don't need to incentivize people to buy | them. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Ford has already sold over 100,000 EV's, and if they can't | sell 100,000 Mach-E's in the next 12 months then they're | doing something wrong. So by the time the F-150 becomes | available their credit should be in the wind-down phase. | | Another likely scenario is that Biden gets his infrastructure | bill through and the credit becomes available to all US- | manufactured EV's. | zip1234 wrote: | The Mach-E is a great vehicle. The only thing that may hold | it back is high price tag, but tax credits will help. | syshum wrote: | The inflation that the infrastructure bill cause will make | the credit pointless | bhauer wrote: | > _if they can 't sell 100,000 Mach-E's in the next 12 | months then they're doing something wrong._ | | Specifically, the thing they are doing wrong is not having | enough capacity to make 100K Mach-Es this year. It's not | that demand isn't there, but rather the supply can't meet | demand. Same problem Tesla has, just in smaller numbers on | the Ford side for the time being. | jsight wrote: | As far as I know, Ford is capacity constrained to the point | that they will only be able to ship ~50k Mach-E's this | year. | | Not only that, but the phaseout process for rebates is VERY | slow. Its likely they will still have at least some rebates | until some time in 2023, even without a change in the law. | m463 wrote: | The $40k cybertruck pricetag is good. | | It is setting customer expectations and it is competition. | FPGAhacker wrote: | I like Ford and have driven mustangs for 30 years with a short | gap where I had a truck. | | Just a preface to say I'm not hating on Ford in particular | here, but the msrp is bogus. I can nearly guarantee that the | actual base on a vehicle you can actually by will be $10k | higher once a dealer is involved. | | Edit: side comment, wow 800 plus comments on an F150 hacker | news submission. Did not see that coming ;) | lancemurdock wrote: | im just bummed they went with the modern body style and did not | revive the early 2000s Lightning body style that had a more | street racer vibe. That car was sweet | sjg007 wrote: | I'll buy one.. it's a little more expensive than I'd like but I'm | tired of gasoline and the fumes. | tbihl wrote: | We've added ~1000lb to the weight of these monstrosities (now | 6,500lb), faster acceleration from a stop, and preserved the | enormous front, with its twin features of blindspot and zero | chance that someone can roll over top of it when you hit them. | But now it's there for trunk space... | AshamedCaptain wrote: | The song from the Simpson's canyonero advert is still stuck in | my head after seeing this | modzu wrote: | ive always wanted touch screens in my truck! | SigmundA wrote: | Previous discussion: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27218029 | pp19dd wrote: | Bluecruise - "driver-facing camera and radar-sensing technologies | allowing for hands-free driving on prequalified sections of | divided highways called hands-free Blue Zones" | | Struck me as a far different way of easing into the autonomous | driving gig. | mcguire wrote: | One question: what is the range at, say, 2/3 of the max towing | capacity, with a normally aerodynamic trailer? | lurkerasdfh8 wrote: | yep, suspect how they never mix the two. Just like laptop | reviews. | | - can carry X tons / X petaflops and ai engine! - can drive up | to Y hours / last Y hours | | but never mention how long is Y with X being true. | marcodiego wrote: | Panel features a large tablet-like touch screen, advertisement | highlights over the air software updates... Definitely not what | I'd like to have. | blisterpeanuts wrote: | Similar features to Tesla - is there reason to believe Ford | will do a worse job? | | Can you at least disable the OTA updates if you don't want it? | [deleted] | api wrote: | This might be the most significant EV after the Tesla Roadster, | which is the EV that made them cool and started tipping the | market. | | Once your average truck driving country boy sees what "instant | full torque" means, ICEs will start to get a reputation for being | wimpy. | zero_deg_kevin wrote: | I was all for this truck until I saw the range. As someone who | has to run the heat in their car 3/4 of the year, I don't | consider an EV with a sub 400-mile rated range anything but a | toy. | tibiahurried wrote: | Who wants a Cybertruck anyway :) I am all for F-150 | outside1234 wrote: | yeah, the cybertruck is looking dead on arrival now. | mkoryak wrote: | Why? | fvdessen wrote: | because it looks stupid | outside1234 wrote: | and it doesn't look like an F-150 | ffggvv wrote: | i think they are different markets. | | cyber truck is for affluent city people who probably never had | or wanted a truck before but like the design. | | f150 is more for normal people who actually just want a normal | truck that's electric | pa7ch wrote: | People are overlooking the CT saying its a lifestyle vehicle. | Its gonna be lighter (unibody, structural pack, | megacastings), more efficient (triangle for aero), and have | better range per cost of vehicle. That has to mean something | for fleet managers looking at cost. | | The design looks avante-guard from a consumer perspective, | but its a result of making it more functional and easier to | manufacture which is hard to argue with when your using for | business even if you think its hideous. I think the f150 will | compete for sure but its traditional branding and smaller bed | will probably attract more consumer oriented existing pick-up | owners. City people will continue to buy model Y because they | have to run errands in tight spaces. | ffggvv wrote: | lets see if it even ships in 2022. | throwaway292893 wrote: | Currently Tesla cars are the only practical EVs on the | market. | | We'll see how the F150 pans out, but I'm more hesitant in | Ford's ability to deliver than Tesla continuing to | deliver. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >f150 is more for normal people who actually just want a | normal truck that's electric | | Why? Does the look of the truck make it more practical? The | Cybertruck does not have any paint, and can sustain far more | scratch/shock that the F150. | tzs wrote: | One issue I see with the Cybertruck is the angled sides of | the bed. There are a lot of things designed to go on the | back of a normal pickup truck, from simple shells to | campers like this [1]. | | Cybertruck seems like it would require special versions of | these kind of things. One of the reasons people buy pickups | is versatility, and you lose some of that with Cybertruck | because of its different shape. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_camper | kibwen wrote: | Ironically, the frunk on electric trucks is a game-changer. | Complementing the bed with an enclosed, waterproof, secure place | to carry things (and no mucking around with insecure bed covers) | is a killer feature. No more springing for a crew cab just to | carry groceries in the rear seats. In terms of practical carrying | capacity this dominates an SUV. | pokstad wrote: | My Ridgeline truck has a trunk in the bed. It's amazing. | rootusrootus wrote: | And think how much better it will be when it isn't covered by | the stuff loaded in the bed. | pokstad wrote: | Bed is usually empty, but yea that's a concern when you're | hauling on a long trip. The trunk also contains the spare | tire, so it's hard to access the spare tire when hauling | stuff. | na85 wrote: | Why do you own a truck if you usually don't use the bed? | throwaway0a5e wrote: | The same reason I own a car with a rear seat and a roof | rack. | pokstad wrote: | It's a short bed with large cab. Meant for occasional | light hauling, not for everyday usage. The Ridgeline is | more car/SUV than truck. Refined for city driving and | light duty. | Steltek wrote: | I'm sure it's a great truck but I'm not seeing any | refinement for city driving. Not in my city anyway. | tclancy wrote: | Using the bed doesn't necessarily mean leaving things in | it at the end of the day. | bombcar wrote: | You can buy giant drawers to put in the bed of a pickup, | and still have access to what's in them even when loaded. | | Example: https://truckvault.com/vehicles/pickup but there | are others. | kingsuper20 wrote: | You'll probably continue to see camper shells in California due | to the absolutely insane registration rules. | tantalor wrote: | Please elaborate | kingsuper20 wrote: | https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/vehicle-industry- | regi... | | Registration is much cheaper if you have a camper shell | because the vehicle ceases being 'commercial'. | knodi123 wrote: | Although | | > Adding a camper shell to a pickup truck does not | necessarily constitute a change from commercial to auto | registration. The addition must meet the definitions for | human habitation or camping purposes. Otherwise, the | vehicle may be subject to citation from law enforcement | for not meeting the definition of an auto. Human | habitation is defined as living space which includes, but | is not limited to: closets, cabinets, kitchen units or | fixtures, and bath or toilet rooms. | zip1234 wrote: | Trucks are more dangerous to pedestrians because of the higher | and flatter front--means people end up underneath rather than | above if they are struck. I understand why they kept the look | the same and why they used that space but in the future would | prefer that they made changes to make it safer for everyone and | not just the occupants. The high hoods make for poor visibility | around the front. | WhompingWindows wrote: | This is a true point, but it applies to SUV's as well as | trucks. This is more an argument for moving to a sedan- | dominated fleet than an argument against trucks... but good | luck: in the USA, SUVs and trucks are two very hot market | segments. | ScarZy wrote: | Here's one for you on that topic from London: | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128 | | Cities should start taxing the size of vehicles too if | they're going to let people park on the street. Smart cars | are a fantastic utility vehicle for example, but are not | incentivised enough. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | Every single near-miss I've had while walking in Minneapolis | has been due to the driver not paying attention. There wasn't | a single time it was due to lack of visibility from inside | the vehicle. | | My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while | driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where | she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid | driving into traffic and being hit by a bus! | | No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them. | jszymborski wrote: | The gp was simply stating that being struck by a truck is | more lethal than a car due to their flat, tall fronts. They | weren't, by my reading, insinuating that trucks are more | likely to hit people. That is indeed, in my opinion, a | function of operator error all things equal. | noobermin wrote: | News articles[0] vs. anecdote | | [0]https://www.wthr.com/article/news/investigations/13-inve | stig... | tuxone wrote: | Totally agree with you. Now, would you prefer being hit by | a Ford F-150 or Fiat 500 (same speed)? | yboris wrote: | Related: _Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue | Overlooked?_ by Douglas Husak | | Because of high crash incompatibility, more overall damage | and death occurs because of SUVs (and other similar | vehicles). | | https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447?seq=1 | jessriedel wrote: | Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in | car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to | make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in | deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about | seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are | fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax | to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would | be a quite small fraction of the total car price, and letting | people buy what they want to buy. It's clear consumers in the | US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for | it. | SECProto wrote: | Cars&trucks cause a large majority of the pedestrians | killed in walking-around-the-city accidents, though. | Lumping those deaths in with highway deaths makes the | statistic meaningless. | taneq wrote: | Not if saving 5k pedestrians kills 10k highway drivers. | (Numbers made up, I'm just saying you have to consider | them.) | Chico75 wrote: | Why would design changes that improve visiblity to avoid | killing pedestrians end up killing more highway drivers? | TchoBeer wrote: | >So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead | to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to | care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor | yet think cars are fine in general. | | unless the form factor has some very significant upside | that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be | prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. | | >It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck | format and are willing to pay for it. | | no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the | lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the | free market to determine what types of things get made. | sgjohnson wrote: | Surely you can't be serious | kiliantics wrote: | Wow, 6k or 15% of deaths is not worth doing anything | about... This is peak car-brain thinking. | | Pedestrians are the ones who should be the first to reach | zero deaths IMO, since they weren't the ones who decided to | drive around in a deadly machine in the first place and are | usually completely innocent in their own danger. | philshem wrote: | Thank you. As a cyclist and pedestrian (who does own a | normally-sized car), I was getting pretty frustrated by the | lack of safety discussed in the comments. | | https://twitter.com/lloydalter/status/1395326192908218371?s=. | .. | Miner49er wrote: | I agree this is less safe for pedestrians, which matters in | cities, but it is maybe safer in rural areas? I'd much | rather hit a deer or moose going 80 in a tall truck then a | short truck. Also, in my experience, people drive much | slower in smaller towns, and are therefore less likely to | hit a pedestrian or cyclist. | | Plus the added visibility is nice and certainly would | increase safety, I would think. | philshem wrote: | I guess suburbs are where these trucks and people most | often encounter each other. | jacurtis wrote: | > As a cyclist and pedestrian _(who does own a normally- | sized car)_ | | I love that you threw in some completely unnecessary | information into that short comment to virtue signal that | you aren't evil like all the pickup truck drivers are. | DangitBobby wrote: | Sounds like a common sense reasoning about this. Are there | stats to back it up? Do trucks pose a significantly greater | risk to cyclists and pedestrians? I'm actually a truck | owning cyclist myself. | gregsq wrote: | Front visibility issues come up from time to time. | Especially with children sometimes hidden from sight. | | https://www.wthr.com/mobile/article/news/investigations/1 | 3-i... | bombcar wrote: | You'd need a study that actually looked at more than just | "what happens if you hit a pedestrian at 25 mph" - | because it's quite possible that a truck does more damage | when it hits, but hits less often because it's higher up | and has better visibility. | rxhernandez wrote: | I feel like I'm much more able to see pedestrians in my | Cayman than in my 4Runner. People seem to blend in with | the surroundings the higher up I am. | reportingsjr wrote: | Yes, there are lots of studies on this. If you want info | a good place to start is London's upcoming ban on large | vehicles with low visibility (I would provide more info, | but I'm limited on time right now). | browningstreet wrote: | I hope this displaces a lot of the adventure Sprinter vans out | there. Obviously, the built-out vans for long-term living won't | get replaced by a truck, but I live in Tahoe and could use an | adventure ready vehicle for winter skiing and summer trail | running and MTB excursions with the family. | | The frunk makes a big difference for those kinds of things. | rootusrootus wrote: | Oh yeah, I'm totally into that. It's perfect for a grocery run | and you don't need to do anything to keep it from rolling | around the bed of the truck or get rained on. | golover721 wrote: | Agreed, which makes it strange that it's only available as a | crew cab. | Someone1234 wrote: | Most of the gas F-150 sales are crew cab models, so it makes | sense not to target that relatively small niche. | | The long-bed was popular back when people owned a truck as an | extra vehicle/work vehicle _only_ , now many use their truck | as their main vehicle and have need of carrying others. | | If you look at the creature comforts of older bench seat | trucks (bare-bones) and the trucks sold today, a truck today | will have everything an SUV will have in terms of comfort and | maybe _more_. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | The supercab F150 has serviceable back seats. There is no | need to gimp the bed with an oversized crew cab. | AshleyGrant wrote: | Serviceable, sure. But the crew cab has a cavernous rear | seat area. I used to drive a BMW 5 series and now drive | an F-450 w/Crew Cab (my wife and live full-time in a | Fifth Wheel RV, otherwise I'd never own such a large | vehicle). I was astounded when I saw just how much more | rear leg room the truck has compared to the 5 series. | davio wrote: | If the airlines were in charge of the F150, they would | squeeze in 3 rows of seats | cpwright wrote: | I have a supercab and I am happy that I have the 6.5' bed | to go with it, I can lay 4'x8' sheets flat with the | tailgate down. Combined with a backrack/hitch extender I | can get 16' long lumber. | | The backseat is passable with my dog and kids, but | barely. If they were able to take some room from the | front where there is no engine and give me both a | reasonable bed and a crew cab I would be happy. | | A lockable frunk is pretty attractive though so that you | don't have to worry about leaving tools in the bed. | rhodozelia wrote: | My selection of vehicles agrees with you but friends who | are new parents were shocked to see that child seats | don't fit in the back of Tacoma or I presume f150 | supercab | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Child seats will fit in an F-series supercab. The Tacoma | isn't a full size truck so not exactly comparable. | rhodozelia wrote: | My friends Tacoma backseat didn't seem much different | from my f150 with suicide doors, so thank you for the | confirmation i'm Good to go | rsync wrote: | "The long-bed was popular back when people owned a truck as | an extra vehicle/work vehicle only, now many use their | truck as their main vehicle and have need of carrying | others." | | My favorite configuration is: | | - 8 foot bed | | - extended (not full) cab | | - rear doors are "suicide" doors | | Our ranch truck is a Silverado 1500 in that configuration | and it is nice to have optional seats but not lose the 8 | foot bed. Suicide doors allow you to open the entire | vehicle up with no pillar in the way and _I love that_. | | Chevy no longer offers this but I think Ford does, | currently ... | rootusrootus wrote: | The vast majority of pickups these days are sold either for | work or family, and both benefit from additional people | capacity. It makes sense to go after this huge market first. | kibwen wrote: | Indeed; I was trying carefully to not imply that this was | some unique advantage of the F-150, but rather an interesting | property of the electric truck category in general. | zippergz wrote: | Yeah, this is a bummer for me. I don't really like crew cab | (either how it looks, or how it compromises bed length vs. | overall truck length), and this really doesn't need it. | gilbetron wrote: | That's what I was most excited about, and agree it is a game | changer. Hopefully we can get small e-pickups at some point - I | have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing | with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size | anymore. | gpsx wrote: | Ford is supposedly coming out with a smaller pickup, the Ford | Maverick, that I think is similar in size to the old Ranger. | rootsudo wrote: | but will be a horrible unibody truck | driverdan wrote: | And the 2004 is large compared to earlier small pickups. | Vehicles keep getting unnecessarily larger. | scruple wrote: | I drove a 1997 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab for about 12 years. | I recently came across a 2021 Ford Ranger while I was | running some errands and have not been able to get it out | of my head. It looked like it's practically twice the size | of the 97 model. It's a full 12" longer, 8" wider, 6" | taller... But the bed length has remained the same or | _gotten shorter_. I don 't pay any attention to this stuff | but it is strange to me, I don't understand why mid-size | and light-duty trucks are / feel so gargantuan today. | soperj wrote: | My dream car is an electric 1955 ford f100. | gok wrote: | Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV | soperj wrote: | Those are ugly as sin though. | gilbetron wrote: | My "when I'm rich" car is actually an old truck like that | rejiggered to be an EV. | JeremyNT wrote: | > _I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be | amazing with a frunk, but you can 't really get small pickups | that size anymore_ | | You're not kidding! I was in the market for a small pickup | and checked out the Tacoma and Frontier, which I previously | understood to be "small" trucks. They're massive these days, | just like the F-150! I guess it's perceived that there's no | market for that size any more. | | A small electric pickup would be a super handy thing to have | around, potentially appealing to urbanites too since they can | toss their groceries in the frunk. There's really no reason | the frunk needs to be so _big_ on the F-150 Lightning - that | part of the design is really a head scratcher. | giarc wrote: | The new Ford Ranger is a smaller size, but it's perhaps the | worst looking truck available. I'm not sure what Ford was | thinking there. | birdman3131 wrote: | The new ranger is the size of my 99 F150. I have an 01 | ranger that is way smaller. | | The only thing the same is the name. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Still much bigger than the Rangers of years past. | sswezey wrote: | Indeed. I think the defining feature of a small pickup is | the ability of an averaged height person to be able to | reach over the sides and grab something from the bed of | the truck. All of the current trucks on the market you | can barely even see in to the bed. It makes it super hard | to load the bed without actually being in it. Trucks | today have become so much more vanity symbols than | anything else. | twiddling wrote: | This. I had an old VW pickup which was a charm to use for | my small business. Could also park it in tight spots too. | axaxs wrote: | Agreed on looks - I actually declined buying one because | of that. | | That said, I really wish they would have started there. I | want an electric truck. I don't want one anywhere near as | large as an F150. I understand F150s sell better so know | why they went that route, but an electric Ranger/Colorado | could really dominate the fleet market. | blincolnmercury wrote: | And what _was_ Toyota thinking when they named a truck | the "TRD" (Toyota Racing Division): | | "Hey, Tom, see you're polishing your TRD today!" | | Guess some things get lost in translation. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Trucks, vans, suvs are the size they are, at least in part | a due to CAFE regulations that give fuel efficiency | concessions to vehicles with a larger wheelbase. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econ | o... | | I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Ford did a lot | of internal research, and focus groups, on the | marketability of differently designed electric trucks to | their primary customers and came to the conclusion that | their consumers like the way the trucks look and are more | likely to adopt electric trucks if they look the same and | offer tangible benefits. Consider the massive frunk, that | can hold 400 pounds of gear, or the 2k hauling capacity, or | the on board outlets, including a 240v plug, or all the | fancy new towing features (that are hopefully not useless | vapor ware). If I was in charge of a large truck work truck | fleet that averages less than 200 miles/day I'd be | replacing at least a few of my oldest trucks with these and | give them to the senior guys to break in and see how they | do. This truck could be a serious game changer. Ford's not | my favorite vehicle manufacturer but they've got my respect | for building a serious electric truck at a reasonable | price. | Scarbutt wrote: | You should have look at the Toyota Hilux, not Tacoma. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | I don't think those have been sold in the US for over 30 | years. I miss mine. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | The first thing that we need to change about the perception | of these vehicles is we have to stop calling them e-pickups. | Because e usually means economy. And economy means cheap and | flimsy and no legroom. People who are buying Ford pickups | don't want cheap and flimsy and no legroom. | | Just call it a pickup. | btbuildem wrote: | Yeah like the original Subaru Baja, or even better, the | iconic El-Camino. | bckygldstn wrote: | The 2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz [1] looks like it'll be much | smaller than the current crop of trucks (though still larger | than the compact trucks of 20 years ago). | | [1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36125131/2022-hyundai- | san... | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >you can't really get small pickups that size anymore | | Write your representative and tell them to thank the EPA and | NHTSA for doing their jobs. The death of the small pickup is | squarely the fault of the confluence of fuel economy and | crash safety regulations. | nexuist wrote: | I'm not following - how would a smaller (and presumably | lighter weight) truck have worse fuel economy than the | giants we see today? | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Fuel economy regulations are based on vehicle footprint | and weight. Small trucks are small and (were, still would | be if we still had them) fairly heavy for their size | making them bad for compliance. A small vehicle is also | going to have harder lines (less physical space for clean | curves) so will have worse aerodynamics. | jacurtis wrote: | That is interesting. I wonder if that is why Ford got rid | of their small pickup (The Ford Ranger) for several years | from 2012 until 2020. | | It did come back last year, probably after meeting new | regulation requirements. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | That's exactly it. IIRC they even said so at the time. | They were already producing the "new ranger" elsewhere at | the time so they could have just imported it but looking | at the MSRP difference between it and a based f150 vs the | size of the market they decided it wasn't worth it. | PeterisP wrote: | On the other hand, all these arguments completely go away | for electric cars, so there would be space for smaller | e-trucks. | elihu wrote: | > Write your representative and tell them to thank the EPA | and NHTSA for doing their jobs. | | It seems like those regulations aren't working they way | they ought to if the result is to encourage people to drive | bigger cars than they need and to have more cars on the | road that minimize the safety risk to the occupants while | maximizing risk to everyone else... | | > The death of the small pickup is squarely the fault of | the confluence of fuel economy and crash safety | regulations. | | ...and the chicken tax. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Thanking them for doing their jobs was sarcasm. The | chicken tax existed for decades and small pickups were | fine though I'm no fan of it in principal. | syshum wrote: | >>>It seems like those regulations aren't working they | way they ought to | | Regulations rarely end up with the outcomes the people | pushing for the regulations publicly claim the desired | outcome is. | gilbetron wrote: | Ahhh. So that's why it happened, makes sense now. These are | the types of regulations I want to see disappear (or, | rather, modified to align better with desired incentives). | ginko wrote: | So according to this[1] it looks like the motors and batteries | are in the bottom of the car like in other EVs. Which makes me | wonder: What's under the enormous hood in front? Is it just empty | space? | | [1] | https://www.ford.com/is/image/content/dam/vdm_ford/live/en_u... | aynyc wrote: | It's called a Frunk. Basically, storage space! | cpascal wrote: | It's the "frunk". | | Here's a picture: https://cdn.vox- | cdn.com/thumbor/dTXcXTNslbGIJam0Wy9BRhk_I80=... | [deleted] | voisin wrote: | There's a trunk there for extra storage. | | I understand they did not integrate the motors and batteries | into a new frame built specifically to accommodate them like | Tesla did but rather added them on top the existing frame. I | really like that Tesla is a ground up design and something | about this F150 annoys me for carrying on all of the | institutional inertia of a 100 year old company. | | Also, I read Ford is planning on 40k of these and their Transit | van each year and marketing them toward fleets. | heymijo wrote: | That puts it in perspective. | | Ford sold 787,000 F-150's in 2020 and about 1 million | F-series trucks in total. | neither_color wrote: | After going through their marketing, and considering the needs of | family in the construction industry, I think they've touched on | the right use cases here that a tech worker Tesla fan wouldn't be | interested in but that tradesmen/contractors do need. My | relatives do in fact: | | Use the truck bed always and fill it with tools and supplies. | | Drive around all day going from job site to job site transferring | tools and supplies or meeting with current and prospective | clients. | | Use electric generators and in fact carry one in their truck bed. | | If the onboard generator has enough juice to bring a crew to work | and back, while also powering their tools all day I can | definitely see contractors getting excited for this truck. | aynyc wrote: | Don't forget, the Frunk is a theft prevention system. | itsbits wrote: | Wouldn't it be better if charging stations have Universal ports | kind of standard? | knodi123 wrote: | A lightning connector? | ortusdux wrote: | Tesla's checkout process has spoiled me. It's landing page -> | select a model -> select options and appearance -> enter payment | info for a 100$ deposit. No signups, no friction, just car | creation and transparent info and pricing. | | Step one on Ford's site is to select a dealer. Already I'm | thinking about how much I hate my local dealer and the whole | dealership system in general. Step two is a login screen with | create an account burred at the bottom. Now I'm thinking about | all the ford spam I'll get if I give them my email. Step three is | me checking on the cyber truck status. | Dah00n wrote: | That's quite funny as just today the newest magazine from the | local version of Consumer Reports came out and Tesla was rated | pretty bad and this in total score (dealer rating is way | worse). Tesla is rated on par with brands like Kia and Suzuki: | | https://ibb.co/TgKvP2g | | But of course Ford is even worse here but not in the dealership | rating (which I of course can't find atm. as it were in last | months issue).. | goshx wrote: | Consumer Reports is known for being biased against Tesla, so | take their information with a grain of salt. | [deleted] | barefootcoder wrote: | Put it on your own terms. Every time I've purchased a car for | the last 15ish years, I decided on the model, specs, and price | I want to pay. I then searched inventory at every dealer within | 2 hours of driving and emailed their internet sales manager an | offer. I take the lowest two, try to negotiate a few more times | via email, sending the lowest quote to the next lowest, etc... | once I'm happy with the price, I ask for an out the door | itemized price, agree on it, and agree on a meeting time. I | show up, sign some papers, drive away. | | How is Tesla's process much easier than that? | julianlam wrote: | > ... how much I hate my local dealer and the whole dealership | system in general | | I can't recommend enough just how refreshing it is to go to a | no-haggle dealership after having experienced a regular | dealership. | | The wife and I walked into the dealership, test drove a | vehicle, and walked out with the signed proof-of-sale in just | over an hour. | | Obviously, you're not getting THE BEST price, but the no- | haggles in our area handily beat the prices of every single | neighbouring dealership by a heck of a lot more than I think | I'd be able to beat them down to. | | Last time I bought a car it took probably close to 6-8 hours of | back-and-forth, telephone game with the manager, and I still | felt like I got ripped off. Never again. | ketamine__ wrote: | But how long does it take you to get it? Most people can walk | into a dealership and buy a new car instantly. | LanceH wrote: | instantly - a couple hours of hostile manipulation designed | to screw you over | | It took me 2.5 hours to buy my truck where the price had been | determined before I walked in and I had a check in hand. | That's after the research to get a price upon walk-in ($6000 | less than on the sticker). The process of walking in and | looking at prices that everyone knows aren't real and | negotiating with someone who is lying to you is beyond | tiresome. | Loughla wrote: | I think internet sales have changed that, though. We got | our last car - I did the looking and pricing out online | beforehand. We spend about 30 minutes in the dealership | when we went to buy it. | | They were very straight forward online - all in print in | e-mail. You want x car, in y trim level, it costs $z. Are | you financing or not? | | The only thing they tried to sell us was a maintenance | package that, if we lived closer than 3 hours away, | actually was a good deal for the cost. | | Maybe it's situational based on specific dealer? | Cshelton wrote: | Keep in mind with the dealership model, you are easily paying | a 25% or more premium on that vehicle. | macspoofing wrote: | That's not everyone's experience. My friend bought a Tesla last | July, finally got to pick it up in September. During inspection | he found a ton of major issues (obvious discolorations, and | what looked liked sand under the paint, amongst other things) | refused delivery and swore off the car because he didn't | understand how they could even present the car to him in that | condition. | GuB-42 wrote: | Transparent? | | The price they show you include "fuel savings" and tax rebates | you may not be eligible to. The situation is better now but you | had to go out of your way to get the real price. | | You don't really know what the "full self driving" package is | about. Hint: it is not fully driving itself. It is an improved | "autopilot" that may get to full self driving in the future, no | guarantee. | | And I've just saw an "engineering explained" video about how | they put deceiving numbers for acceleration. | | They use all the marketing tricks in the book and then some | more. | | But they really nailed down the "tech" part. It is almost like | something from Google or Apple. They are smart enough not to | put any obstacle if you are ready to spend your money. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _transparent info and pricing_ | | Sure, "transparent" pricing that can change on a whim, even | after you've purchased the product. "Take-it-or-leave-it" | delivery if you find flaws with your car. | | > _Step three is me checking on the cyber truck status._ | | Let me know when you take delivery of a Cybertruck for <40k, | similar pricing to the Model 3, like the "transparent info" | claims. | Whatarethese wrote: | When I purchased my Model 3 I ordered it online and Tesla | said my price would be $42,500 in March 2019. Signed my loans | docs through docusign. I picked it up 12 days later in Tempe. | Delivery took 15 minutes. My car had 3 flaws. Paint chip on | trunk, hood panel gap, and scratch on aero hubcap. Made | appointment and brought it back a week later. Got a loaner | Model S for two days and then got my car back in perfect | condition. | tills13 wrote: | Yeah I feel like a lot of the FUD about the buying and | delivery process come from people who have never gone | through the process themselves. | | Yes: it is absolutely unacceptable that Tesla's quality | standards are lacking to the point where you are encouraged | to give your car a look over before picking it up. | Genuinely, the car should have already been looked over on | the lot -- but I guess that's the price to pay for the | make-to-order process Tesla has embraced. | | But you are absolutely _not_ in a position where you "take | it or leave it." You look your car over, note what needs to | be fixed post-delivery, and make a (free) appointment to | have those issues corrected. The best part? Depending on | the severity of the issues, Tesla will send some to your | home instead of you having to bring the car to them. | | My story is the same as yours: I test drove the car on the | 15th, I put my deposit down, and on the 30th I drove off | the lot in my new car. There was no negotiation, no up- | selling, just me paying for my car and getting what I | expected. | | Best purchase I've ever made. | julianlam wrote: | > Yes: it is absolutely unacceptable that Tesla's quality | standards are lacking to the point where you are | encouraged to give your car a look over before picking it | up. | | Why? Everybody else pays for the privilege of the | dealership rep to do it for them. It's called the pre- | delivery inspection. | | If Tesla has no PDI then I suppose it's just them pawning | it off on the end user. Sounds very 2020 of them to do | that. | Cshelton wrote: | Tesla does not really have "Model Years". The vehicle is | constantly changing week to week, and priced so. You just | need to buy when you want and be happy with the product. Just | like an Iphone! | | Also, other car manufactures actually change their prices all | the time based on cost of materials, shipping, etc. The | Dealer will change the price based on inventory space, cost | to hold, etc. You just don't see it as much because it is | hidden behind Dealership "Deals" and "Promotions" that come | and go. | | Traditionally, it has always been the best to buy a vehicle | at the end of the year, when the dealers are trying to make | room for the next "model year". | ortusdux wrote: | I've read several articles about when is the best time of | month/year to buy from a dealer. Some say end of the month | is best, because people are trying to meet their quotas. | I've read an article written by a hostage negotiator about | how to get the best price from a dealership. | | I can list off the top of my head a good 20 or so | considerations that would go into buying the right truck | for my needs. All of them are more important to me than the | famously shitty minutia of the actual sale process. Buying | a vehicle is a whole can of worms, and Ford's site forces | me to open than can before I can even start imagining life | with my fancy new truck. | annoyingnoob wrote: | Getting the best price from a car dealer isn't that hard, | you just have to be prepared. 1. Decide on the vehicle | you want. 2. Research the options and shop around for | pricing. 3. Find the bank with the best auto rates and | get pre-approved. 4. Visit a dealer and make them an | offer. 5. If the dealer balks then just leave. 6. Visit | another dealer and make them the offer. 7. Leave this | dealer too. 8. Tell each dealer that the other offered | you a better price. 9. Repeat, using other dealers if | needed, until you get the price you want or the best you | can find. 10. Take the best deal, use your own financing, | don't take any dealer options or add-ons. | ummonk wrote: | "Just like an Iphone!" - wait, what? An iPhone changes week | to week? Since when? | jayd16 wrote: | >Traditionally, it has always been the best to buy a | vehicle at the end of the year | | This is still fairly true with the Tesla. They change more | often but they still do larger changes that seem to sync up | with the calendar year. At least the Model 3 interior | refresh did. | | Although the _best_ time to buy a Tesla is when Elon needs | to hit an earnings goal. | ryanmarsh wrote: | I sold cars for a brief portion of my life. The independent | dealership model is more predatory and rent seeking than people | understand. I'm saying it looks worse from the inside than it | does from the outside. It's an entrenched financial interest as | well. It will be destroyed eventually but not before taking | it's toll on ordinary people who just need to buy a car. | | At one time it was a useful financial tool to keep production | high and reduce the shock (to manufacturers) of fluctuations in | demand. Today with a streamlined and JIT supply chain, easy | financing for buyers, and the internet, the independent | dealerships really have to fight for every penny and the only | way they can do that is by screwing you. | cheeze wrote: | > transparent info and pricing | | TSLA literally lies about the cost of the car on their website | though. | | "* Costs above include potential incentives and gas savings of | $4,300." | | Gas savings... What? This isn't some special tax credit you | get, they lie about their pricing by including savings over | time of ownership... | andykellr wrote: | I'm not sure how you consider it lying to have an asterisk | that clearly explains their calculation along with a slider | that says Potential savings with said asterisk. That same | asterisk is on every mention of the price on the page. | cheeze wrote: | Asterisk = read the fine print... That to me is super | deceptive. Tell me the acutal price of the car that I'm | going to pay. Hell, include a rebate if I'm gonna get it in | the next year. But gas savings over life of the vehicle is | an absurd way to psychologically trick people. | | You don't see the prius product page saying "well actually | it's cheaper because it's a hybrid, you save 2300 over the | life of the vehicle on gas!" No, they just tell you what | the damn car costs. | | Tsla is doing many things right, but that's just a perfect | example of some of their deception, which I don't love. | NoSorryCannot wrote: | I don't necessarily agree that it's clear cut lying but I | do think it's deceptive. Claims with asterisks are an awful | invention by advertisers with lawyers. Price tags as widely | understood do not encode savings beyond the time of sale. | | Similarly, the public has a definition for what "unlimited" | means and mobile carriers using asterisks to redefine the | word is exploitative. | christophilus wrote: | I'm glad I have a local Honda dealer. It's the cheapest oil | change in the area. They have a full service kitchen that makes | killer breakfasts while you wait. Their sales team is no | pressure. I'm extremely happy with them. | | I guess my point is that one size doesn't fit all. That said, I | do hate going to the typical car dealer. | giarc wrote: | You are right, dealerships aren't by definition terrible | places. It all comes down to how they are run. If they are | run by people just looking to make the fastest dollar, then | yes you are going to have a bad time. But some are run by | people that know a repeat customer is a good customer and | therefore go out of their way to make you happy. | notJim wrote: | Sure the checkout process is great, but as someone who ordered | a car in March and is still waiting, it kinda goes downhill | from there. | belval wrote: | That's for most EVs though... My parents waited over 8 months | for their Chevrolet Bolt. | | Now add the chip shortage. | hoffspot wrote: | For those wondering why some people move to trucks as a commuter | vehicle, I moved to a 4 door Tacoma because I don't fit in cars. | I'm 6'1' with a highly athletic, broad shoulder based build. I | tried all kinds of cars in 2015 looking for one that was easy to | get in an out of, had comfortable seating where my head didn't | hit the roof, and I wasn't squashed in there like airplane | seating. Good luck. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Why is snowplowing absent on all the EV trucks? Are they not | capable of the heavy duty use or is the market not ready to buy | them? | rhodozelia wrote: | I don't often see vehicles advertised with snow plows? Aren't | they all aftermarket ? | 1970-01-01 wrote: | The plows are all aftermarket but the trucks are sold as | plow-ready or with prep packages. | | https://www.balisefordcapecod.com/Snow-Plow-Prep- | Package.htm... | gibspaulding wrote: | I'd imagine the weight and traction control would make an EV | truck great for plowing. | | Their marketing team must be based in So Cal and unaware of the | use case. /s | bluthru wrote: | Every stylistic choice to make a vehicle "look electric" is | always a failure, IMO. I don't like the LED unibrow at all. | leesec wrote: | I'm really happy Ford and others are starting to actually deliver | on EV's. I do however think there will be a long list of issues | as they scale the roll out, given the newness and complexity of | this product. Here are some concerns I think people should be | aware of: | | 1. No comprehensive supercharger network. This is a real big deal | still. Using existing non-supercharging networks is not feasible | for any long distance. You cannot do a roadtrip only charging 30~ | mph. Thats 2 hours charging for every 1 hour driving. | | 2. Battery range for certain use cases. The base model is rated | for 230 miles. If you've ever driven a Tesla on a highway you | know you'll not get the full 230 at highspeeds. And so what | happens when a truck is pulling a heavy load? You may end up | literally getting half that range. This will be quite a shock for | some users. | | 3. Software rollouts. Ford has been working on this but it is | still not Solved. They've already bricked Mach-E's (1), and I | expect there to be many more technical issues popping up. | | 4. No Autopilot. This is a big sell for many EV users. As far as | I know Ford is no where close to having a viable competitor. | | Anyways, I'm sure these things will smooth out over the coming | years and I wish them all the best with this amazing migration to | electric vehicles. | | (1) https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/8/22373903/mustang-mach-e- | de... | rootusrootus wrote: | > No comprehensive supercharger network. This is a real big | deal still. | | I agree that this is important, but it is 99% psychological. In | the entire time I owned my Tesla, I used the supercharger a | half dozen times. Most people with an EV that has 200+ miles of | range will rarely use DC fast chargers. | leesec wrote: | Whether you ever take a roadtrip is not 99% psychological. | Sure you more commonly stay within range but for instance I | drive several hours to see my family regularly. No | supercharging stations would prohibit that or 2-3x the time | taken. | ggreer wrote: | What do you do for road trips? The supercharger network is | essential for that. | rootusrootus wrote: | I use DC fast chargers for road trips, yes. I don't have my | Tesla anymore, just the wife's Bolt, but conceptually it's | the same. | ggreer wrote: | I'm surprised you find it tolerable. My Model 3 can get | from Portland to Spokane (350 miles) with one charging | stop in Kennewick, taking about 6 hours total. | | If I use ABRP to simulate the same trip in a 2020 Bolt, | it requires 3 stops and over 90 minutes of charging, | bringing the trip time to 7 hours and 23 minutes.[1] It's | not clear if the trip is actually possible, as the the | first stop is at a used car dealership in The Dalles | which claims to only allow Nissans to charge there.[2] | The latest checkin says it's inoperable. | | With the supercharger network, you know in advance if the | station is having any issues (including simply being | full). Other charging companies are getting better, but | the current patchwork is too uncertain for me to deal | with. If I had a Bolt, I'd probably rent a car for long | distance trips. (Please don't take this as insulting the | Bolt. It's far less expensive than a Model 3 Performance. | With the money saved, you could probably _fly_ for every | long distance trip for the lifetime of the car.) | | 1. https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=4912118b-c0 | bd-486... | | 2. https://www.plugshare.com/location/1538 | jsight wrote: | > With the supercharger network, you know in advance if | the station is having any issues (including simply being | full). | | We've had a couple of cases recently where this wasn't | the case. Supercharger was recording availability as if | it was working, but in reality people were plugging in | and getting failures. Rare, of course, but it can happen. | | Also, that trip plan seems to just be ABRP bugs. Better | to stop at the EA in Hood River, OR than the one they | have by default. | dripton wrote: | And I've used (checks file) 56 different superchargers in the | last 4 years, some of them many times. It comes down to how | many long road trips you make. Fast chargers are totally | unnecessary for local-only driving if you have a slow charger | at home, but critical for convenient road trips beyond your | vehicle's range. | bhauer wrote: | Indeed. Also, GP comment might want to remember we're in a | thread about the F-150, a truck that many consumers will | want to use to get to job sites. Arguably, such a use case | needs even more charging infrastructure than average | electric vehicle use cases. | thomascgalvin wrote: | I very, very rarely drive my car further than a hundred miles | in a day; for my day-to-day work, a 200 mile range would be | more than comfortable, and I'd be able to recharge to full | overnight. | | But every once in a while we drive about 200 miles to visit | the in-laws, and I would be super nervous about attempting | that in an EV. At best we'd be close to empty by the time we | arrived, I don't know the state of the charger system on the | highways we use, and we'd be stuck using a low-amp charger at | their house, which would take forever. | | I was 50/50 on buying an EV last year, but decided against it | for this reason; I felt like we were still a couple of years | away from EVs being practical for all of my use cases. I'm | sure we'll get there soon, but right now they aren't a drop- | in replacement for everyone's ICE. | leesec wrote: | Tesla's handle this pretty well, it auto routes you to | supercharges and tells you how long to charge, etc. | ggreer wrote: | With Teslas, you plug in your destination and it provides | directions with charging stops. For example: I drove over | 600 miles from Portland to Berkeley starting at 25% | battery. It routed me to three charging stops[1] and | included times for both arrival and how long charging would | take. | | If you have the navigate on autopilot feature, it | automatically drives you from freeway onramp to exit. It's | far less mentally taxing than driving manually. | | 1. https://i.imgur.com/n8QmiPb.jpg | topkeks wrote: | It amazes that people like these are able to get a driving | license in the US. Simple google search is too difficult | for them? | patall wrote: | > I don't know the state of the charger system on the | highways we use | | I totally understand your situation, but sorry, that had me | laughing: Yeah sure, there is nothing to be done about that | :) | Merad wrote: | I think GP is pointing out that most people who own an ICE | vehicle aren't used to having any limits on refueling their | vehicle. If they need to take a long trip they just go. In | the vast majority of the country there's a gas station at | basically every interstate exit and refilling the tank takes | 5 minutes. | | All of a sudden with an EV you most likely need to plan your | route around charging stations and allow for charging time. | This isn't to say that EV's are bad or that they should be | avoided - simply that most people don't think about these | things in advance and may be surprised the first time they | take a long trip with an EV. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Depends on where you live and what you do. I would agree, | based on population density in most of the world, that this | is probably true. | | But in an area like New Mexico, there are lots of people | doing jobs where they will drive 150+ miles per day without | even thinking about. | pokstad wrote: | Re autopilot: | | I want an electric truck, but there's no way in hell I'm | trusting my life to Bay Area tech. I want to save money on gas | and be more eco friendly. My truck driving for me is not a want | until the tech is perfected. | basch wrote: | That leaves Korea and FCA? Japan has fallen behind in | infotainment/software. Hyundai has a Santa Fe and the Ioniq | coming out, so probably a combo of those two shortly after. | ummonk wrote: | You shouldn't trust driver assistance features, Bay Area tech | or not. They're there to assist you and decrease the burden | of constant throttle / steering wheel management; you should | still be constantly monitoring and ensuring the driver | assistance tech is doing what it should. | jdhn wrote: | >4. No Autopilot. This is a big sell for many EV users | | Is it really? I'm looking at an EV for my next car, and not | once have I considered Autopilots availability as a musthave | feature. Then again, most people who get excited about | Autopilot seem to think that driving is a chore that should be | removed, while I love driving. | jsight wrote: | I love driving, but AP is also really useful on the highway | and long stretches of road in general. Its a much bigger | advantage than I expected, tbh. | | Ford has something similar, but it fails more unexpectedly | and often. Although, Tesla AP still has major phantom braking | issues... sigh. | cbm-vic-20 wrote: | > No comprehensive supercharger network. This is a real big | deal still. | | I agree- this is really going to be a big deal, especially with | how large the F-150 EV battery is (150kWh). For comparison, the | Chevrolet Bolt hatchback has a 66KWh battery with a similar | range as the F-150, which makes sense, because the Bolt is much | lighter and aerodynamic. | | The vast majority of public charging stations in the US ("Level | 2") max out at under 10kW; these are great for smaller cars | used for commuting to-and-from the office or local shops or | whatever. This isn't so bad for the Bolt, but the F-150 will | recharge (from a range perspective) much more slowly. | | There are very few Level 3 "fast" chargers around. These | typically charge at 50kW until the battery is at 80% capacity, | then slow down to 10kW or so. Public chargers often charge per | minute ($.30 or so), so you get the best bang for the buck to | get off the charger once you hit 80%. So, let's say your F-150 | is down to 20% capacity, and you need to charge up to 80%. 60% | of that 150kWh is battery is 90kWh- that will take nearly two | hours ($36) on that fast charger. | notJim wrote: | This info seems a little out of date at this point. This is a | map of 120 kW+ Electrify America charging stations from | PlugShare: https://i.imgur.com/1dcM6UX.png. I agree we need | more, but I don't know if it feels right to say there are | "very few", when they line most of the major interstates. | | > These typically charge at 50kW until the battery is at 80% | capacity, then slow down to 10kW or so. | | I'm not sure where you're getting this number, but according | to this data [1] about the Mach-E, it charges at 150 kW until | about 10%, then 100 kW until 35%, then 70 kW until 80%. This | is much faster than what you are saying. They have a chart | showing that depending on your starting SoC, you can get an | average of up to 90 kW. If you start at a reasonable 10-15% | state of charge, your average charge rate up to 80% will be | 80 kW, not 50kW. | | > So, let's say your F-150 is down to 20% capacity, and you | need to charge up to 80%. 60% of that 150kWh is battery is | 90kWh- that will take nearly two hours ($36) on that fast | charger. | | The F-150 has a larger battery than the Mach-E, but assuming | the rates stay the same, it would take a bit over an hour to | charge this much, not two hours. | | The pricing varies on Electrify America, but looking at a few | stations here [2], as long as you have a membership, it looks | like this would cost somewhere from $10-30. Some stations | charge by the minute, and others by the kWh. | | [1]: https://insideevs.com/news/492727/ford-mustang-mache- | fast-ch... | | [2]: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/pricing/ | vel0city wrote: | And as a note for everyone else, Electrify America is just | one brand of chargers. Other brands currently exist and as | more CCS compatible cars hit the road I imagine even more | chargers will spring up. | outworlder wrote: | > The vast majority of public charging stations in the US | ("Level 2") max out at under 10kW; these are great for | smaller cars used for commuting to-and-from the office or | local shops or whatever. This isn't so bad for the Bolt, but | the F-150 will recharge (from a range perspective) much more | slowly. | | This only matters for road trips. In general, L2 availability | is the sticking point. Cars generally spend most of their | time parked somewhere. All you need to do is to get back the | miles you have spent getting to where you are currently | charging. This is how I could survive my 25 mile commute | every day with 110v power outlets. I didn't need to charge to | full every time, just recover what was spent. | | One thing that's impressing me is that Ford FINALLY took the | "Tesla" route and made the car communicate with stations in | the Electrify America network. No more fussing around with | card readers that don't always work, or having to call a | number with a bad cellphone connection. Just plug in, it | works. That's easier than a conventional gas station. | notJim wrote: | For the first one, are you considering the Electrify America | network? I follow a guy on YouTube who takes road trips using | the EA network. The issues he has are not so much that the | stations don't exist, but that the charging is slower than | optimal and buggy due to bad software. He's still able to | roadtrip though, just with more hassle. | outworlder wrote: | > No comprehensive supercharger network. | | Agreed. I've been driving a Leaf since 2015 (two different | generations by now) and the main reason that makes road trips | unpalatable is NOT range. Not at all. Charging more often? | Sure, whatever. Unless it's a business trip or a trip across | the country it's fine. I've discovered some stuff I'd probably | would never have otherwise, by routing via chargers in small | towns. | | No, the problem is how sparse some quickchargers are, and the | fact that many don't even work - and the best you can do is | check comments to see if people have complained about them | recently. Some of them (specially Nissan owned!) are located in | places that _close at night_. That's not acceptable, we can | find 24/7 gas stations almost everywhere. | | However, that only accounts for 0.1% of my trips. I've | optimized for the most common use-case (city driving) and don't | regret that one bit. | | > If you've ever driven a Tesla on a highway you know you'll | not get the full 230 at highspeeds. | | Yeap. Same way you won't get good mileage on any car if you do | that. Thankfully liquid fuels have a ridiculous amount of | energy, so we can afford to waste 70% as heat plus drag and the | only real consequence is the wallet (and filling up more | often). | | US highway speeds are crazy and it is indeed shocking when you | see it the first time. It would also be quite shocking on ICE | cars too, but they don't have accurate fuel gages, let alone | accurate range estimates. At least most don't. | | > I wish them all the best with this amazing migration to | electric vehicles. | | Me too! | raspasov wrote: | >>> US highway speeds are crazy | | Crazy as in high or low? | | I-5 between San Francisco and LA is about ~70mph limit. | That's ~113km/h. | | A lot of highways in Europe are often at 130km/h sometimes | going up to 140km/h limit. | | P.S. And if you think those limits are even remotely | observed, try a road trip in Italy or Bulgaria :P | vinay427 wrote: | I'm not sure they were drawing a specific comparison | between the US and some other country, and there's quite a | bit more diversity among European countries. There are at | least many in which speed limits are stringently enforced | using speed cameras or other more "ruthless" methods, | accompanied with even heftier penalties than in most of the | US. Meanwhile, I don't know if there are any states in | which minor speeding is systematically enforced. | Rebelgecko wrote: | At least for my use cases, I think Ford actually has an edge | over Autopilot. Any car with adaptive cruise control and | autosteering is gonna behave identically to a Tesla with | autopilot for 99% of the time behind the wheel. Ford doesn't do | lane changes or summoning, but from what I've seen both of | those features have some jank with Tesla and I wouldn't use | them. | | The big pro of Ford's system is that on some highways/freeways | the cruise control is _actually_ hands free. IIRC Teslas have | torque sensors in the steering wheel to make sure that your | hands don 't wander. | leesec wrote: | "Any car with adaptive cruise control and autosteering is | gonna behave identically to a Tesla with autopilot for 99% of | the time behind the wheel." | | This isn't even close to true. Most LKAS and ADAS systems | will only last a few seconds before they require human | intervention. It is not at all the same experience. | ummonk wrote: | Autosteering / lane-centering (which is increasingly | standard in driver assistance technology, including | bluecruise which will be available on this truck) is not | the same as lane-keep assist. | Rebelgecko wrote: | I'm not sure about most systems, but whatever Subaru puts | in their cars works pretty well in my experience. It has a | little trouble on windy mountain roads when the shoulder | isn't well marked (it doesn't drive off a cliff or | anything, but the autosteer disengages), but on the freeway | I can usually go 10+ minutes without any manual | interaction. | reedjosh wrote: | regarding 2. | | Why are companies not putting out electric gas hybrids that use | a tuned generator as a backup source of energy like the Chevy | Volt did? (I suspect then the vehicle wouldn't qualify for | subsidies) | | It's crazy to me, as it adds maybe 300 lbs to the vehicle and | provides all the benefits of electric, but with the potential | range of gas. | | I find electric vehicles as a technology highly appealing, but | current offerings atrocious. I want a privacy (crazy I even | have to say this) respecting electric vehicle with a backup gas | charging generator. | | This truck would be ideal to _me_ if it met those two | criterion, but as is it's a no go. I may just have to build my | own someday. :sigh: | outworlder wrote: | The Volt was "hybrid done right". It was 90% an EV, it just | had backup generation, which didn't even have to provide that | much power. It can run at a constant (optimal) speed, with | the variability absorbed by batteries. It doesn't take that | much power to maintain speed in cruise, as opposed to | accelerating. | | No complicated drive train either. The Prius drivetrain is an | engineering marvel, but looks complicated to me. It seems to | be reliable, which is incredible. | | Sure you need to carry the extra weight, but maintenance is | (supposedly) much simpler. | | The I3 is an even better example. It's marketed with the | 'range extender' as an option. Only issue is that it had a | teeny tiny fuel tank that only added a pitiful range(I | suspect some incentives were in play), but it demonstrates | the concept. Maybe this could even be optional. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | The BMW i3 has a gas range extender option[1] (though it's | not exactly a pickup truck...) I personally went with a | Toyota Prius Prime[2], which has been a solid vehicle. | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3#Range_extender_option | | 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug- | in_Hybrid#Dr... | sunflowerfly wrote: | Why not have every dealer install a couple of fast chargers? | They could build out a nation-wide fast charge network in a | month. | outworlder wrote: | Nissan did this and it sucks. Because dealers have to sell | their vehicles too, so guess which vehicles get plugged in | those stations? They are almost always busy. | | Plus dealerships have business hours. I had a bad time once | with an earlier Leaf generation trying to charge at night, in | the cold. TWO quick chargers just a few miles away, both | inaccessible. | leesec wrote: | Sure but it's not just about quantity. They need to be along | the highways to be useful for roadtrips. And no one else even | has the tech for supercharging at the moment, it's 72kwh | supercharges vs 50kwh (rare) ( as far as I know ). | yumraj wrote: | > software rollout Nope, don't want automatic over the air | software update. I want it in the field when others have tried | it, found issues and then I get it. | | > autopilot Again, don't want a half baked marketing-speak | technology. Driver assist with sensor driven safety features | are all I want. Don't want extremely intrusive analytics and | camera monitoring sure where after any accident the car company | CEO would be testing how it was my fault. | | Supercharger network is the only thing that will ever make me | want to get a Tesla, hopefully other networks will soon be | sufficient. | | Yes, Ford dealerships and in fact all dealerships can be shady, | but for other cars I generally don't have to deal with them | once the warranty is over. With Tesla I'll have to deal with | the company for the life of my car. | duffyjp wrote: | We owned a Ford plug-in hybrid. Amazing power, every creature | comfort imaginable, great price-- what could go wrong? Sort | answer: everything. It was an absolute nightmare. First and | last Ford I'll ever buy. | gautamcgoel wrote: | Can you elaborate? What went wrong? | duffyjp wrote: | I could rant for ages, but already got downvoted so I'll | keep it short. It was the only car I've ever owned to leave | me stranded. It did so at least half a dozen times. The 12V | battery (which we replaced) would be drained flat by the | janky electronics of the car. It would be 100% fine when | you park, and the dead when you're done shopping. | Eventually I bought a battery charger to top it off every | weekend. | | We had recall after recall to deal with. I still get | notices in the mail and we sold that car two years ago. | None of the recalls dealt with any of our problems which | were common when googling. | | Selling that car for 25% of it's purchase price after 3 | years was the final insult, but nobody wanted it and I | can't blame them. | | For anyone curious, it was a 2013 Ford C-Max Energi. | mikeg8 wrote: | While it's unfortunate you had so many issues, I think | some of them can be chalked up to the risk of being such | an early adopter. EVs in 2013 vs 2021 would seem to be | quite different machines. | mullingitover wrote: | > No Autopilot. This is a big sell for many EV users. As far as | I know Ford is no where close to having a viable competitor. | | Autopilot (as in ADAS Level 3) is and always will be vaporware | on existing Teslas. Meanwhile my 2016 Civic has the same type | of ADAS Level 2 driver assist. It's not quite as fancy as | Tesla's version but it's 90% of what I need. I think for 90% of | buyers, anything that does ADAS level 2 is fine. | loudmax wrote: | I agree with your issues 1 and 2. Batteries do not yet match | the energy density of petrol. There are plenty of cases where | the shorter range isn't a problem, but buyers need to know have | a clear understanding up front. | | I don't think issues 3 and 4 really need to have much to do | with electric vehicles. Autopilot and electric are orthogonal | properties. The only connection is that they're both pioneered | by Tesla. Otherwise there's no particular reason you should | expect one with the other. The same goes for over the air | software updates. | leesec wrote: | Autopilot sure but software updates are obviously an issue if | they can brick your car. | Unklejoe wrote: | Autopilot is commonly lumped together with electric cars, but | they're really two completely unrelated things. | | It just so happens that one of the most popular autopilot | implementations is on Tesla, but it could have just as well | been implemented on an ICE car. | leesec wrote: | Agree in theory but no one has built in a similar sensor | suite to Tesla or added a powerful enough computer chip in | their cars. This roots back to Tesla treating the whole car | like a unified piece of software and having much better | programmatic control over it. I only mentioned autopilot | because the leading EV does have it as an included feature | and so when weighing options people might question why it's | not there on other models. | vel0city wrote: | It's not an included feature on the Teslas, it's a $10k | option. | [deleted] | topkeks wrote: | No, it's not a $10k option. People should stop repeating | this TSLAQ meme. | judge2020 wrote: | You're not wrong about 'full self driving', but | "Autopilot" - which is just lane steering and adaptive | cruise - is standard on every car you can get from | Tesla's site (you might still be able to get a model 3 | without it by calling sales, but I haven't heard of that | working as of recent). | bhauer wrote: | Several pieces of the Autopilot software suite are | included at no charge. The "FSD Capability" (pre-payment | for a future delivery of full self-driving) is the $10K | option you are thinking of. | | Buyers of the FSD Capability package get some additional | beta features such as "Navigate on Autopilot" which will | do lane changes on freeways, but is otherwise | significantly less than actual full self-driving as it | would be understood by a layperson. | fdroidmstrrce wrote: | I haven't kept up with Ford, but I know they have lane keeping | and some sort of adaptive cruise control. | | That's Autopilot like anyone else has, it's just not marketed | as autopilot. | | Anyway, I don't care about Effonefittys, I want an 8 passenger | Autopilot vehicle that I can buy used. | vel0city wrote: | Ford also has a hands free driving mode called Blue Cruise. | It relies on highly accurate mapped roads as well as on-board | sensors so it probably mostly works on just major highways. | Still though, major highways are about the only time I'd | really trust technology like this at the moment. | | https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021. | .. | claytoneast wrote: | It amuses me now many asterisks are on this page. "Some big | claim"* *Only with x package and x accessories | | Seems like more statements have asterisks next to them then | don't. | stadium wrote: | This is going to accelerate ev adoption and ic obselecence. | Mainstream electric, here we come. | aluminum96 wrote: | I can't wait to be run over by an _electric_ truck instead of a | gas one. So green! | canada_dry wrote: | Does the old adage _never buy the 1st year 's model_ apply here? | xyst wrote: | It's a nudge in the right direction. The amount of driving is not | going to change in the near future, so making transportation | cleaner is the only way to make it sustainable. | | Now we need to figure out how to make sure the electrical grid is | able to support the new load (hopefully with clean energy | solutions), and deploy public electrical charging destinations | across the entire US to make it feasible. | jrsj wrote: | There's a lot of stereotyping of truck owners going on in this | thread which is kind of funny given how pro-EV HN normally is. | It's like the aesthetics of a pickup truck is offensive to some | people. Kind of bizarre and not something I'm used to seeing but | I guess I live in Ohio so that probably has something to do with | it. | | A lot of people just want to move stuff, they don't want to | like...burn your house down while wearing a MAGA hat or | something. There's no reason to have an irrational hatred of a | vehicle that is pretty practical in non-urban settings. | | Edit: since this ended up as the top comment I'll add some | thoughts on the truck itself in the spirit of not being overly- | negative. I'm interested to see what exactly is included in the | base model and when that will become available since they've only | given us information on higher trims so far. $40K for this | vehicle is very affordable, that's about as cheap as you can get | a new Model 3 right now but at least for awhile it could be | eligible for electric vehicle tax credits. Especially if the | government extended these credits they could get A LOT of people | to buy these trucks (and more Teslas which would help with EV | adoption since demand for the Bolt and Leaf seem pretty low) | throwaway413 wrote: | El Camino. | | Problem solved. | elihu wrote: | It's a shame Truckla isn't a real product. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R35gWBtLCYg | [deleted] | thescriptkiddie wrote: | Both pickup trucks and SUVs, electric or not, are a public | health hazard. However, only one of those has deliberately | tried to run me over. | [deleted] | hintymad wrote: | > burn your house down while wearing a MAGA hat or something. | | That's not what I saw last year and this year on news channel. | I saw "mostly peaceful" protests, or so CNN/WaPo/NYT/MSNBC/ABC | told me, from justice warriors. And I don't why those media | were not sticking to the truth, as everything has been | peaceful. Just as my trusted author of The 1619 Project said: | "Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence". | hintymad wrote: | Since when stating facts deserves downvote? Did the media not | say the protests were "most peaceful"? Was it not CNN | reporter who said the exact words in front of a burning | building? Did Nicole Hanna-Jones not say "Destroying | property, which can be replaced, is not violence"? Was it not | justice warriors (I use it as a neutral word, as it does not | makes sense to use left vs right) who protested last year? | What did I miss? | [deleted] | cheeze wrote: | Because you're being disengenuous. Pretty simple. | tha0xb1 wrote: | Inconvenient facts that go against the narrative are going | to get down voted, [flagged][dead]. Can't have any | wrongthink now can we? | | The fact that this post will be [flagged] only proves my | point. | kgermino wrote: | Pickups are convenient any many (probably most) owners have | them for good reasons, but living in a Midwestern city I run | into so many "bad" pickup drivers it's hard not to get | frustrated with them generally. | | A lot of people around here have big, tall pickups with tiny | beds that they drive very aggressively. They rarely use them | for anything I couldn't put in my Fit (I've known several | people who would never haul dirt or the like because they don't | want the truck to get dirty). Many modern pickups have a high | front grill that is dangerous for pedestrians and designed to | be intimidating. It sucks to constantly run into trucks like | that being driving fast and aggressively when I'm just trying | to walk to the store. | | I know that's a minority of trucks, but the worst cars by me | are invariably pickups and it's hard not to generalize it. | jacurtis wrote: | > Many modern pickups have a high front grill that is | dangerous for pedestrians and designed to be intimidating | | I get what you are trying to say, but had to mention that all | front grills of vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians. | | It's just a bit of a strawman argument to say _" Well when I | hit people with my car it will be worse if I own a truck, so | I'm going to own a Prius so that the pedestrians roll right | off"._ | dashundchen wrote: | Trucks have been getting taller, with higher hoods, steeper | windshields and worse forward visibility for the same | capability. Not to mention more common in the US in | general. | | https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/133805159285609267 | 2 | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/the- | dange... | | https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against-american- | tr... | | As a cyclist and pedestrian in the city it's a nightmare - | you can never tell if the driver can actually see you vs | sedans and hatchbacks at your eye level. | | Unsurprisingly pedestrian deaths from drivers have spiked | in the past few years. | dgfitz wrote: | As a cyclist and pedestrian I always assume nobody sees | me. Full stop. What they are driving doesn't matter. | calabin wrote: | I think the argument is less that the grill on a truck is | especially bad in the case of a pedestrian collision, and | more that the limited forward visibility provided by a high | front grill results in a greater likelihood of not seeing | pedestrians directly in your vehicle's path. | mrwh wrote: | Yeah, it's _both_. More likely to hit someone and more | likely to kill them when hit. | ambicapter wrote: | How is that a strawman? You will roll off a 2 foot prius | grille and you will get your skull caved in and your body | ejected twenty feet backwards onto asphalt with a 4-5 foot | high pick up grille if you get hit. | robotresearcher wrote: | The probable outcomes of these are very different, | particularly at low speeds downtown where pedestrians tend | to be. Why not pay attention to that? | brewdad wrote: | You are right that the front grill of any car is going to | be bad news for a pedestrian. The issue I have with the | higher front grills is the front blind spot they create. | | https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/14/21065319/suv-truck- | front-... | wiremaus wrote: | It's arguably not a strawman argument in the slightest. | | There have been changes made to these trucks that do a | great job of looking aesthetically "tough and mean" and | selling trucks, while also making them more dangerous to | other road users: not just to pedestrians, but to other | cars via the bumper overlap issue. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/the- | dange... | 29083011397778 wrote: | I went for a walk out in my suburb one night. If you can | show me a single Honda Civic or Mazda sedan where the | _hood_ starts at 5 ' off the ground, I will bow down and | say you have a point. Note that I mean the grill ended, and | hood started, at the top of my shoulders. I'm six feet | tall; how the hell has this happened, and why is it | considered acceptable? | | Until then, I (and presumably many others) will view trucks | as objectively more dangerous, and contributing to a less | walkable city. I recognize going under a vehicle is a bad | time regardless of how tall it is, but my girlfriend can't | hide _right in front_ of a Toyota RAV-4 or Audi Q5. | Dig1t wrote: | Honestly do not understand it either. It's nice to have a giant | bucket attached to your car! It lets you do all kinds of useful | things plus you can still get to all the places that smaller | cars can. | DHPersonal wrote: | > It's like the aesthetics of a pickup truck is offensive to | some people. Kind of bizarre and not something I'm used to | seeing but I guess I live in Ohio so that probably has | something to do with it. | | The vehicles are gigantic and are capable of carrying thousands | of pounds but are operated by people who may not be able to | handle something considerably smaller without getting into an | accident. Suburban neighborhoods are plagued with tailgating | road warriors in consumer tanks that endanger people for the | sake of having an adventure on the road. The aesthetics of a | truck are as much a problem as the drivers operating them. | jrsj wrote: | In my experience suburbanites in large SUVs are much more | reckless than pickup drivers I encounter. Obviously an | anecdote but they tend to be far more oblivious to their | surroundings. | DHPersonal wrote: | Very good point and a sign that I'm prejudiced against | trucks. There are bad drivers in every category and it's | unfair for me to target only one group. | francoisp wrote: | Totally unrelated: has anyone noticed that the bar on the F in | the FORD logo ends with an e? It has been like that for a | while. I remember reading somewhere that Henry Ford had | forecasted that transportation was going to be all electric in | the future; maybe related? Anyway, I think the demand for this | will take them by suprise, and incidently, CT and Rivian need | to get those factories churning quick. | chrisBob wrote: | As far as the trim is concerned: I also wonder what the cost | for the 4-door model will be. _All_ of the marketing photos are | 4-door "Super-Crew" models. Currently a Super Crew truck with | the base trim and 4x4 starts at $42k. The electric version | sound like a bargain if they are actually talking about that | version of the truck. | travisr wrote: | The F-150 Lightning only comes in Super Crew (4-door). | jcims wrote: | I've lived in rural communities for 95% of my life. There are | times when I really think that electoral college is obsolete | and should go away, but all it takes is a thread like this | where I just see comments from adults that seem wholly | uninformed and underexposed to basic aspects of living outside | of metropolitan environments. Yes, by itself, doesn't really | bother me as I am certainly a group of the inverse in many | ways, but the derision that comes along with it is the part | that really makes me think we're probably not quite ready for a | proportional representation at the level of each citizen | citizen. | bananabreakfast wrote: | So are you in essence stating that because metropolitan | people do not understand the needs of rural life that they | deserve for their votes to continue to be worth less? Even | despite rural people not understanding metropolitan life to | the same degree? | jcims wrote: | There's a fairly well established pattern that direct | democracies are not friendly to minority intersts. US being | a republic creates a buffer there, but it would just slow | the inevitable in a popular vote. | stfp wrote: | Lots of the negative comments are about how tall this truck is | (and how tall trucks in general are getting). | | Truck owners don't just use them to carry rocks and trees, they | also drive them to the city, where the high grille, large | footprint, crazy rate of acceleration make them threatening, | dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, and frankly just | detrimental to improving the quality of life in cities. | | It's absolutely rational that a vehicle optimized for rural | workload isn't going to be ideal in cities. | | What's irrational is pretending they have to be taller and | wider every year. | loudmax wrote: | I'm not going to defend stereotyping. There are lots of | legitimate uses for a pickup truck, whether it be hauling | things around or off-road capabilities. | | In the suburban environment where I live, the majority of | pickup trucks are effectively commuter cars. They haul their | owners' asses to a cubicle farm and back home again. These are | people who fully buy into the stereotype and have bought a | truck so they can purchase their masculinity on a monthly | payment plan. | pkulak wrote: | > It's like the aesthetics of a pickup truck is offensive to | some people. | | When a vehicle is driving in front of my house with a grill | that's a foot higher than my oldest child... yeah, I don't much | like those aesthetics. And it has nothing to do with "moving | stuff". The UPS delivery vans that are actually built to, ya | know, move stuff, have lower grills and way safer sight lines. | jacurtis wrote: | Maybe you have different UPS trucks where you live. But the | UPS trucks where I live are far bigger than pickup trucks. | The drivers sit much higher, and the grill comes up just as | high, or higher. | | There is also a huge variability in pickup sizes because many | of them have been customized. But truthfully the standard | stock pickup truck doesn't have a grill much different than | many SUVs. In fact most SUVs are built on truck frames. | | So I know there are trucks out there that have been lifted | with 24" tires. But the standard truck that you buy from your | dealership isn't much different than an SUV in size. They | might be longer because of the bed... but your concern seems | to be height, and they are often identical to SUVs. | | Edit: Crossovers are a bit different. Those are designed to | be more like cars (hence the name). But a standard SUV is | usually built on a truck frame. So the body is different, but | the main vehicle is similar in size. | ajford wrote: | They're also optimized for having a driver hand-deliver | packages from the back of it hundreds of times over an 8hr | shift. That's moving entirely different things than you'd | move in a truck. A pickup truck would make a shitty parcel | delivery truck, and a UPS truck would be a shitty way to move | construction materials. | [deleted] | bombcar wrote: | Amusingly enough a "step van" - the technical name for the | type of thing a UPS truck - is often a much better truck | for the average construction worker (the type who brings a | truckload of tools to a job site) - as you can get into the | truck and find things without having to unload the entire | pickup. | | A friend started construction and bought a Tacoma new | because he saw everyone else using one - and it had to go | in for a repair and during that time the dealer lent him a | van, and at that point he had serious regrets about buying | the truck. | | But then again visit most construction sites and you'll see | one or two company trucks full of tools, a delivery semi or | two, and acres of pickup trucks with nothing in the bed. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | I'm in a neighborhood with a ton of construction and | remodeling. Here step vans, sprinters, and the like are | very clearly much more popular with construction workers. | Much easier to keep tools organized and securely locked | and even more capacity than a truck bed. | bombcar wrote: | What I have see is construction workers where the step | van is the "work vehicle" and a crew cab pickup is the | "family car" - though as often it's an SUV or a minivan. | wanderingshi wrote: | yeah show me where you can buy a ups delivery van type | vehicle lol | bluGill wrote: | Every city has a auto dealer who handles trucks like that. | UPS has their own custom trucks so you can't get that | model, but there are a lot of options. | | You won't find them in the typical dealer though. They are | a niche, and most customers are buying several at once for | their business and so the way the whole process works is | different. Though there are just enough small buisness | buying exactly one that you won't confuse them by buying | one - but they may have trouble figuring out what tax | applies. | jagger27 wrote: | It's called a Ford Transit. | brewdad wrote: | Mercedes makes a couple of models as well if the idea of | driving a Ford offends you. | ceejayoz wrote: | Same place UPS does: | https://morganolson.com/products/parcel/ | bombcar wrote: | They're called step vans and available anywhere commercial | trucks are sold: https://www.comvoy.com/bodytypes/Step-Van | | You can find used ones in running condition relatively | cheap. | adrianmonk wrote: | Driving off road is a more common use case for pickups than | for delivery vans. Some pickups get driven around on | construction sites, and some are used as farm vehicles. | | Obviously some people take this way further than practically | necessary, but the basic form of a pickup does have a legit | reason to be different than a delivery van. | jrsj wrote: | As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot of | mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a typical | single family homeowner would want that you absolutely | wouldn't want to transport in an SUV or minivan (which is all | that is really worth talking about because pretty much no | individual owns the type of delivery vehicle you're talking | about, which are meant for transporting packages anyways). | | People would have me load this stuff for them into SUVs of | course, and we would do our best to line them with plastic | first, but it still made an awful mess everywhere. | | And that's not even getting into towing, there are common | things having a truck bed is just better for. | | As for the tallness, you can partly blame EPA regulations for | that as it's more cost effective for manufacturers to make | trucks taller and wider than more fuel efficient. That's the | #1 reason why the small truck market declined and why smaller | trucks got bigger | beerandt wrote: | >blame EPA regulations | | To elaborate, since I've even had to explain this to some | "eco-conscious" engineers: | | This is also partially why trucks have gone from steel to | aluminum, which is lighter (to gain a marginal increase in | mpg), but also requires larger shapes (moment-arms) to | achieve the same amount of strength and resilience (crumple | zone rigidity & required crumple zone size, etc). | | Of course the other side effect is that using aluminum | frames/engines won't last as long, since they deform | easier, so all that saved energy from increased mpg doesn't | make up for the wasted embedded energy from decreased | useful lifespan. | herbstein wrote: | > As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot | of mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a | typical single family homeowner would want that you | absolutely wouldn't want to transport in an SUV or minivan | | People should do what is generally done here in Northern | Europe. Get a Stationwagon/Estate with a tow hitch and a | trailer. With that you get a smaller, more practical, car | in terms of day-to-day driving. And when you really need to | move something bigger/something you don't want inside your | car you still have options. | | Renting a trailer locally is incredibly cheap too, costing | just $26 at a nationwide gas station. IKEA, and similar | local stores, will lend you a trailer for free. | | Here's how two friends and I transport our gokarts. One in | the trailer, another secured on top. The car on the day of | the picture is a Mercedes CLA Coupe. Other times it's the | other friend's Ford Fiesta. And yet other times it's one of | our dads driving an Audi Q5 or a Peugeot 3008. | | https://imgur.com/jOoEzuS | | A hitch gives you the price and size advantages of e.g. a | Ford Fiesta while still having the option of hauling | several hundred kilos worth of stuff. The Q5 can haul a ton | and a half. I'd wager that very few people regularly | (weekly) need to haul several tons worth of stuff, and the | few that do have a legitimate reason for owning a pickup. | lstodd wrote: | That only works if you've got good roads that get snow- | plowed regularly in winter. | | F.ex. where I live a Hilux or a Landcruiser is a must. | theshrike79 wrote: | You can tow stuff with a Hilux or a Landcruiser too. | lstodd wrote: | Well, yes. But in case of a Hilux or an L200 you often | don't need to. | | What I wanted to say is that a 'station wagon' is useless | for half a year in some climates. And it doesn't make any | sense to keep two cars, one for 'summer' and one for the | 'rest of the seasons'. | AuryGlenz wrote: | I drive my rear wheel drive Camaro year round in | Minnesota. | | The best vehicle I've ever driven in the snow was a tiny | 2001 Mercury Cougar. Snow tires make a world of | difference. | ghaff wrote: | I owned a 1970s vintage Camaro in Ithaca NY of all | places. (For those who don't know, think hills and snow.) | No snow tires--poorish student. I used to say it tended | to skid with a forecast of snow. | londons_explore wrote: | In most of Europe you now need a special extra driving | test to be allowed to tow any reasonable trailer. | | It effectively means trailers are now only for | professionals. | cameldrv wrote: | In principle, the small trailer with a small car plan is | great. It doesn't really work in the U.S. though. There | is some combination of towing practices and regulations | that make this not work here. | | In the past few decades, we've seen many cars here go | from having some decent tow rating to a very low tow | rating or saying in the manual not to tow. | | Just for example, the Mazda 3 in Australia has a tow | rating of 1200kg. In the UK it's 1500kg. In the U.S., | towing is not allowed at all per the owner's manual. | | I'm not sure what all the reasons for this discrepancy | is. I know when I lived in Germany where towing fairly | big things with fairly small cars was more common, I | noticed some differences in towing practices: | | 1. They use a different style of hitch that flips down | under the bumper instead of the receiver style hitch in | the U.S. The German style hitch kept the ball closer to | the bumper, which improves stability. | | 2. The trailer is loaded with a fairly balanced weight | distribution so that there is not much weight on the | tongue of the trailer. This keeps the rear suspension of | the car from being compressed and keeps weight on the | front wheels of the car. It has the downside of making | the trailer less stable at higher speeds. | | 3. Presumably because of this lower stability, many | trailer/car/driver combinations are limited to 80kph. | Car/trailer combinations tend to have a critical speed | where they become unstable if the weight from the trailer | is not loaded in the front, and 80kph is a typical speed | where this can start to happen. | | 4. Germany requires extra licensing to tow a trailer. | Someone who actually gets some training and has to pass a | test is going to be a lot safer towing than someone who | got 5 minutes of instruction at U-Haul. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | "HN-class" Americans refuse to tow stuff with cars | because social media tropes have convinced them that it's | massively dangerous, easy to screw up and that they will | be a danger to society. | londons_explore wrote: | Having lived next to a boat launching area, I can tell | you an average inexperienced driver is pretty likely to | make an expensive mistake with a trailer. | | I have seen a lot of trailers reversed into expensive | cars, flooded cars, trailers falling off and hitting | things at speed, cars driving into the sea because the | driver got out to check the trailer, etc. | | A lot could be fixed with better software and sensors. | For example a car should be able to measure the angle of | the trailer and apply the brakes when someone tries to | reverse-jackknife. It should measure oscillation | frequencies and damping factors at highway speeds and set | a safe max speed. It should refuse to start the engine at | all if a trailer isn't correctly hooked up including | electricals and brake lines, etc. Finally, trailer brakes | need an overheat/wearout sensor so the driver is aware if | their trailer brakes have failed _before_ they find out | when going down a hill at 70 mph. | matwood wrote: | > Having lived next to a boat launching area, I can tell | you an average inexperienced driver is pretty likely to | make an expensive mistake with a trailer. | | As a kid we would sit down at our neighborhood landing in | the summer and watch boat launches for entertainment. I | saw at least 2 cars get submerged, people run into each | other, many many fist fights. Prior to allowing me to | pull our trailer, my dad made me back up (with trailer | attached) in circles and figure 8s in a parking lot and | then in and out of the driveway many times. Showing up to | busy landing on summer holiday is NOT the time to learn | how to back down a trailer. | DangitBobby wrote: | I had a trailer for my Dodge Avenger. I have a truck now. | Believe it or not, as a person who had periodic need for | a trailer, it's easier to be a person with periodic need | of a truck bed. | yuu11 wrote: | "HN-class Americans" don't know how to tow. They rely on | their non-HN teammate to tow the adventure stuff to Tahoe | for the weekend, where they will gripe about epics and | backlogs every moment they're there. | pkulak wrote: | I'm not at all saying that trucks aren't useful, or that | they aren't the best vehicle for a lot of people and/or | tasks. I'm saying that the trend right now is for trucks | that are way taller than they need to be purely because the | buyer prefers that look. I had zero issues with pickup | trucks 10 years ago, before they turned into a | political/biological/emotional statement piece, instead of | a tool. | beerandt wrote: | Believe me, the market would prefer the older, smaller, | steel framed trucks than the newer aluminum ones. But | they're no longer an option, new. | | EPA regulation and govt overreach/ unintended | consequences are what led to these design changes, not | market demand. | | The blue-book price for my 12 year old steel-framed truck | has _gone up_ every year since I bought it used. | | >before they turned into a political/biological/emotional | statement piece | | The anti-truck crowd, which supported all the regulations | that led to the current state of vehicle design, are the | ones that made this a political/emotional issue, whether | they realize it or not. | CincinnatiMan wrote: | I'm new to trucks and Ford always acts like their | aluminum frame is superior to a steel one. Can you share | details on the differences? | symfoniq wrote: | Ford trucks still have steel frames. Only the body is | aluminum. | jrsj wrote: | I don't think this is really the primary reason for this | at all. There's an element of that of course, but there's | other factors as well. This is a decent short article | about it. But the tl;dr is popularity of crew cabs + a | gap in recent regulations that encouraged trucks to | become larger | https://www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup- | truck... | dougmany wrote: | This is what I got from that article: | | >In other words, the regulations put in place to get | better mileage out of vehicles also led to an increase in | truck size. "There was kind of an incentive to maybe | stretch the wheelbase a couple of inches and set the | tires maybe an inch [farther] apart, because you get a | bigger platform and slightly smaller target," said | Edmunds. "Now, the bigger vehicle would be heavier and | might use more fuel, so it's not as easy as just doing | that. But certainly there was a feeling that if they did | need to make it bigger to accommodate more passengers, | the fuel economy target wouldn't be onerous. They could | do it." | | That statement is not very convincing that the | regulations lead to bigger trucks. | xyzzyz wrote: | The trend for growing truck is mostly due to EPA fleet | fuel efficiency regulations. If you make a small truck, | it gets classified as a car, so it counts for car fleet | efficiency. That's also why you see decline in sedans and | rise in relatively small crossovers SUVs: these also | count as light trucks, not cars, for fuel efficiency | purposes. | lotsofpulp wrote: | This is why problems should be tackled directly. There | was no reason to force vehicle manufacturers to meet | arbitrary efficiency standards. | | If the goal was to reduce fossil fuel consumption, then | fossil fuels should have been slapped with a huge tax. | | Immediately the automakers would have been incentivized | to produce more efficient vehicles. | | Of course, it's politically impossible to do the right | thing due to the general public wanting to have their | cake and eat it too. | beerandt wrote: | It's more that people prioritize incentives for objective | "A" and are totally surprised when it comes at some cost | to "lesser" objective "B." In this case, being | "environmentally friendly" vs being "safe." | | I think a lot of "environmentally conscious" people don't | realize that more and more of these types of | environmental regulations will come at some direct cost | in terms human-safety. | | And also that a surprising number of | politicians/activists/people are so committed to the | dogma that they don't have any problem with that. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Higher, larger pickup trucks did not come about as a | result of safety requirements, they came about from fuel | efficiency requirements (or needing to get around them). | | So net result of indirect regulations to decrease fuel | consumption is increased fuel consumption, and more | dangerous vehicles for everyone to contend with who is | not inside as large of a vehicle. | | Simply making people pay more for fuel would have | incentivized them to prioritize what kind of vehicle to | buy, and make it possible for smaller pickups to still | exist and/or a rental market for pickups to flourish. | cameldrv wrote: | It's also the "footprint" model of fuel economy for CAFE. | The required MPG for a truck is based on the area of the | rectangle made by the wheels. This means that for 2021, a | larger F-150 is expected to get 25mpg, but something like | the old Chevy S-10 would be expected to get 41.8mpg. [1] | | The automakers have determined that this is not | practically achievable, and so you can't buy a truck like | the old S-10 or a pre-Tacoma Toyota pickup anymore. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_ | economy... | ummonk wrote: | As much as I think a body-on-frame truck is way more | practical, some of what you're describing is really a | matter of attitude. As far as I'm concerned, dirt, scrape | marks, etc. in my SUV is just a sign that I'm making good | use of it. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | It's pretty easy to cleanly haul stuff with a suv. You | throw a nice, thick blue tarp in the back, load your stuff, | boom. Job done. Bonus, it makes unloading easier too. | ben7799 wrote: | Good point. | | It's also super easy in these situations at a nursery, | etc.. that the car or SUV owner has to make multiple trips | and waste tons of gas because the vehicle can't hold much. | | People who don't own homes too easily forget it's really | really common to have jobs around your house/yard where | you're dealing with thousands of pounds of supplies. | | You can overload an SUV/Wagon/whatever incredibly quickly | with sand, mulch, rock, etc.. and it will be nowhere near | full. | ianai wrote: | Of course many home improvement stores will just rent you | a truck for the afternoon. That's the principle reason I | see against owning a truck for a homeowner. Just rent the | right tool for the odd job(s). It's poor optimization | otherwise. | mcguire wrote: | It's cheaper to borrow it from your truck-owning friend. | eldaisfish wrote: | I find it ironic that you bring up fuel spent for what is | a one-time inconvenience when pickup trucks are some of | the most inefficient vehicles out there. A regular pickup | will do about 14 l / 100 km. A modest ford focus will | easily do 5 l / 100 km on the highway. | mcguire wrote: | A bicycle would get you 0 l/100km. | aidenn0 wrote: | My mom was an avid gardener and regularly moved mulch and | manure in her station wagon. We cleaned it out afterwards | and it smelled musty for about a week afterwards. It was | usually in the spring though, so we just drove with the | windows down if it wasn't raining. | [deleted] | y-c-o-m-b wrote: | I see a lot of "rent one for a day" type of comments. I paid | $4k for a 93 F150 a couple of years ago. I live on a 1/4 acre | lot in the suburbs and just the amount of stuff I've hauled to | my small property over the last two years would've far | surpassed the $4k in rental charges. Mulch, compost, rocks, | lumber, etc. Lots of back and forth with not knowing whether | I'll need more or not... so many unknowns in-between. Take into | consideration the time it takes to rent a truck, sign all the | forms, repeatedly argue with the rental rep about why you don't | want their shitty insurance, and the anxiety of renting a truck | to haul items that could potentially damage the rental. I've | probably put on about a 1000 new scratches, dings, and dents in | the short two years I've owned this thing. | | On top of the landscaping and project work I use it for, it's | perfect for going dispersed camping in rough areas that need | high clearance. I would never be comfortable risking a rental | for such activities. | dahfizz wrote: | All of the "just rent a truck for the day" comments are from | city dwellers who can't imagine a lifestyle different from | their own. | GordonS wrote: | Not all. I live in the countryside (rural Scotland), in a | house with a decent sized garden, and only need something | as big as a pickup or van 1-2 times a year _at most_. | | Same deal with almost everyone I know nearby - the ones | with a pickup I know are farmers, or one guy that's honest | and just likes the aesthetics and the way it drives (and it | counts as a "commercial vehicle", so it was some kind of | tax dodge too). | | I get it's indispensable for a farmer or business owner, | but for for the vast majority (not _all_ , obviously) of | regular folks, even outside of cities, it's really not | needed. | jpindar wrote: | I wonder how many of them NEED all the fancy computers they | own? (I know I don't.) | reedjosh wrote: | And the comments completely ignore that means a return trip | for the rental too. When you do as many trips as someone in | rural/burbs with fixer houses, that's completely | impractical. | S_A_P wrote: | Well said. Lots of people like to assert that light trucks are | pedestrian killers compared to cars but according to at least 1 | source[0] they are responsible for fewer deaths than passenger | cars. I have worked in downtown Houston, where a lot of walking | was the norm. There were multiple times that I would walk down | the street and see vehicle, after vehicle occupied by a | distracted driver. At one point in time I counted 7 vehicles in | a row where the driver was moving and looking at their phone | and not the road ahead. IMHO _this_ is the real problem. | Another problem is there seems to be a migration towards the | hot take tabloid for car magazines /websites. More clicks are | generated with hot takes about cars than something I would | prefer which was objective testing and data. | | Now for the tongue in cheek ironic part of the post Finally had | to just stop visiting sites like Jalopnik(a car site written by | people who hate cars), TTAC(used to just be the right leaning | car website, but now is having Jalopnik envy), and The Drive(A | new car site by the guy who started Jalopnik and decided only | one toxic car site attributed to him was not enough). | | [0]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 | ben7799 wrote: | Right the stereotyping here is ridiculous and full of out of | control virtue signaling. | | If you live in an apartment complex it's ridiculous to have a | truck. | | But Even if you own just a reasonable suburban house with a | small amount of land you need to do a lot of dirty truck type | jobs every year. | | I only have half an acre of land, but due to tons of trees I | have yard work every year that causes me to have to do many | many trips to the compost center with my car (Outback) that | could probably be accomplished in one trip if I had a truck. | | And almost without fail every year I have times where I have to | make multiple trips so that I don't overload the cargo capacity | of the car. Even a gas F-150 would use less gas to make these | trips and save CO2. | | I couldn't see driving an F-150 to work solo commuting with gas | as something I could ever stomach, I hate that my Subaru barely | gets 20mpg doing that. | | But with electric I could see it. The ultimate joke would be | someone driving a CUV that burns gas or even a hybrid and | trying to virtue signal over someone with an electric pickup | truck. | | Do I want to spend $50k on a Tesla Model Y and put yard waste | inside it's luxury interior on a semi-regular basis? I'm not | sure. Versus destroying a luxury EV an F-150 looks pretty cool. | | Bottom line you live in an apartment you don't need one of | these, because you're paying someone else with a truck to take | care of you. When you have to maintain property yourself you | either start paying a contractor with a truck to do things for | you or you start doing it yourself. When you do it yourself you | start going down the slippery slope to wanting a truck. | throwaway9870 wrote: | > If you live in an apartment complex it's ridiculous to have | a truck. | | Many tradesmen that don't get company vehicles like to own | pickups because they can haul stuff for work and their | jobsite. Some of those people might even live in apartments. | Imagine that! | | The amount of arrogance on this site is ridiculous. Just | because you might know how to hook up a NAND gate or write | some javascript code doesn't mean you are qualified to decide | what vehicle someone should own. Please just stop the | judgemental posts. | AuryGlenz wrote: | I live in a rural area. I personally know plenty of people | that own truck that shouldn't, and plenty that actually use | them. | | Both sides are right. There's a significant portion of the | population that think trucks are "men's vehicles," even if | they never actually use the bed. All of the dealerships | around here (usually) have their front highway facing row | all pickups and maybe one sports car. | blisterpeanuts wrote: | >> If you live in an apartment complex it's ridiculous to | have a truck. | | Maybe better to say, if you live in an apartment complex, it | can be difficult to keep a truck. | | There are a lot of people in the trades (carpentry, | construction, etc.) who can't afford to own a standalone | house. | ianai wrote: | Have you considered renting a truck for a day or two around | those events? I think the rate I've seen is like 20/day. | ben7799 wrote: | I have rented trucks and cars plenty.. it would be quite a | bit of a hassle for a lot of these jobs though. The | traveling back and forth to pick up the rental and then | take it back would add significant time and require someone | else to take me back and forth. $20/day would rent a truck | like an F-150 plus extra costs for mileage. (not a big deal | at all.) | | It's not necessarily worth it with my Outback, which is | itself a large car that city folks would sneer at. | | But until this F-150 EV was introduced I was pretty much | fully convinced I was buying a Tesla when my Outback needed | to be replaced. | | Spending $40-50k on a Model Y vs one of these F-150s is a | whole different scenario, that's all. | | Gas F-150 I'd feel like a jerk on my commute, EV F-150 I | would not, I'd feel better than doing the same in my | Subaru, and in many ways it would fit my use case better. | | My Outback was < $30k and it's 8 years old. Putting dirty | stuff in the back of it is not the same as putting dirty | stuff in a brand new Tesla. | ianai wrote: | Agree. Bigger vehicles going EV quells a huge portion of | my resistance from owning one. The safety tests of these | for pedestrians being better would further the point for | me. It'll be interesting to see those tests. | nightski wrote: | Hah, I am in the exact same spot with my Outback (it's a | 2010). These new EV trucks are very tempting, just | waiting for the right one! | realreality wrote: | Using a huge EV to commute one person to an office is | still a waste of energy. | shard wrote: | One thing I've noticed from doing WFH all this time | during the pandemic is that I started noticing the | inefficiencies of burning gasoline to move a one ton | piece of metal to some store and do some minor thing like | mail a package or buy some small items. | ianai wrote: | You can help that by shopping for an entire week at a | time. I think some places will pick a package up from you | too. | | In general the first step to cutting emissions is | electrifying everything that can be electrified. Whether | moving lots of metal around in a vehicle is efficient | regardless of energy source wreaks of the perfect | becoming the enemy of the good - or in this case the | perfect being the enemy of the critically needed change. | realreality wrote: | I think the first step to cutting emissions is cutting | unnecessary energy use, regardless of the source of | energy. | | Try crunching the numbers: you'll see that it's not going | to be feasible to replace all of the vehicles on the road | with electric cars and trucks, while also electrifying | everything else. We need to take a triage approach to | energy use, strictly rationing the remaining fossil | fuels. | TheHypnotist wrote: | I live in an apartment and am about to move to a house, I | wish I had a truck right about now. | realreality wrote: | The concept of "yard waste" that has to be exported in a | vehicle should make you see a flaw in the system. Can you | change your system to use trimmings on site or nearby? | throwaway9870 wrote: | There is not flaw in the system. Trees and large shrubs | come down. Municipal compost sites have the space and | equipment compost large amount of material that home owners | can't deal with. The arrogance in this thread is | unbelievable. | OminousWeapons wrote: | Its because environmentalism is quite literally a | religion for a subset of users on this forum and they | cannot believe that other people don't want to optimize | their entire life around reducing their carbon footprint. | | The attitude in this thread is even more ridiculous | considering that this is the exact sort of product which | could bring EVs main steam (so you would think | environmentalists would love it), but of course this | vehicle is unacceptable because you aren't forced to make | a whole series of quality of life compromises to use it | like you are with a bike, public transportation, or an | impractically small car. | realreality wrote: | People in the global south, who have a tiny fraction of | the carbon footprint of those in the north, are the first | to be devastated by the climate and ecological crises, | which they're least responsible for. | | If you're considering shopping for your next $40k | monstrosity of a vehicle, try to take a broader | perspective than your own short-term desires. | OminousWeapons wrote: | Instead of harassing the ancestor for not perfectly | optimizing their use of resources (which has zero impact | on the climate one way or the other) or harassing me for | suggesting that an 80/20 solution to a problem is better | than no solution, perhaps you should try to take a | broader perspective and realize that most people are | selfish: they aren't going to massively sacrifice their | quality of life in order to help people in the global | south that they don't have relationships with. Aligning | incentives to help them do the right thing (e.g. by | creating a vehicle with a form factor they can readily | accept while still being an EV) is the smart way to go at | the problem. Brow beating people for not being totally | altruistic and demanding they make massive cultural | changes is the dumb, ineffective way to tackle the | problem, although it does allow the participants to feel | morally superior as they fail to convert anyone else to | their cause. | beerandt wrote: | Religion requires penance, and there's no penance in a | non-believer buying a quality product that they like | based solely on its merit per value. | | If someone's not buying their EV out of a sense of guilt | (for the original sin that is exhaling CO2), then how are | they supposed to exploit that guilt into other forms of | behavioral modification? | realreality wrote: | You can heat and cook with wood. If so much tree material | is falling on your property every year, and you're | carting it elsewhere, you're just throwing away a useful | resource. | [deleted] | eldaisfish wrote: | this is a weak argument on several levels. if you need to | move things five times a year, rent a pickup truck. Unless | you're moving things on the regular, there's no point owning | a very inefficient and heavy vehicle. | bluGill wrote: | You can't do that. You can rent a truck no problem, but a | truck that you can actually use as a truck cannot be | rented. They carefully check to ensure you didn't scratch | any paint, and that means no hauling. | | There are work a rounds, but they are limited (home depot | will rent a truck but the fine print is only to go from | home depot to your house, no other trips). If you have a | CDL you can rent a commercial truck that lets you work it. | However for general purpose I need a truck to be a truck | the average person can't rent. | ben7799 wrote: | You can rent from U-haul and use it as an actual work | truck no problem. | | I damaged a U-haul once and it was fine, it was all | covered. | | We rented a U-haul this year and hauled about 2000lbs of | stuff to the dump with it in one trip. | bombcar wrote: | Home Depot et al also rent pickup trucks by the hour | (something like $20) and they're quite capable and nobody | checks the paint. | | As long as you bring it back and it's not on fire they're | unlikely to care. | | You can even optimize by buying your own trailer so you | can load and unload at your convenience, and only rent | the truck to move the trailer - and trailers (even | enclosed ones or dump ones) are significantly cheaper | than trucks, and really only need tires as maintenance. | eldaisfish wrote: | your comment is flat out wrong. Lots of places will let | you rent a pickup truck and use it for work - that is | literally the point of a pick up truck. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | This is just wrong. Besides Home Depot, who aren't going | to literally sic the gestapo on you if you use it to run | a 2nd errand, there are plenty of companies that rent | beater trucks for hauling anything you like. | xyzzyz wrote: | I don't know about your state, but here in WA you can | rent a "commercial" big box truck from UHaul, Penske and | others with no CDL. I rented a 26 feet box truck for my | move and drove it around town just fine. They do care | about damage, but they don't consider scratches to be | damage. | ben7799 wrote: | Who said anything about 5 times a year? | | And most people on this site are driving ICE cars and SUVs | which are much less efficient than an F-150 EV and are | themselves very oversized. | shard wrote: | This is also an argument against most people owning a car | larger than a subcompact like the Honda Fit. | meroes wrote: | George Bush was giving everyone $10k back on new fullsized | pickup trucks. _Why not_ get one was my question at the | time. | beerandt wrote: | $10k and getting a brand new truck every tax year has to | be one of the greatest and most successful "carrot" tax | incentives ever conceived of by a government office. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | There's a lot of things you can move with a car that are | simply easier and less hassle with a truck. | | And I say this as someone who owns a fleet of station | wagons. | bluGill wrote: | Depending on how you drive and what options you get (engine | is the big one), the F150 may well get the same fuel mileage | if you are barely getting 20mpg. | | Though the real answer is a truck for times when you need a | truck, and bus/bike for everything else. Too bad transit in | the US is in general horrible. | nightski wrote: | I think if you are going to take an environmental stance | all the city dwelling commuters (the ones who drive an | hour+ each day) are the real offenders, Trucks or not. | | I'm considering buying a Truck, but I work from home and | drive only a few thousand miles each year or less. | Koshkin wrote: | > _If you live in an apartment complex it 's ridiculous to | have a truck._ | | There's nothing "ridiculous" about people loving their toys. | (People often own things not because they _need_ them, but | because they _want_ them.) | ben7799 wrote: | Different argument but I can support that. | | Point being people who live an apartment are far more | likely to be buying a truck because they want it, and far | less need for it for actual jobs & chores. | kbenson wrote: | Also, plenty of people use pickups for work (plumbers, | carpenters, electricians, etc) and there's no reason they | might not live in an apartment. | | There's even a whole class of pickups for the people that | find the occasional use but don't need the big ones, and | want to fit easier in places designed for cars. The small | pickup. | carabiner wrote: | Toyota has pivoted marketing for the Tacoma as an | adventure vehicle rather than a work vehicle. It is | awesome for that. Small enough to get around in a city, | but big enough to fit four sets of | skiing/climbing/backpacking gear. You don't have all that | crap in the cab getting snagged on stuff or falling into | the foot wells. No skis knocking my elbows while driving. | I've had mine packed up to the ceiling of the camper | shell. I used to live out of it. Now I usually spend | 10-15 nights per year in it rather than getting a motel | for $100/night. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Toyota has pivoted marketing for the Tacoma as an | adventure vehicle rather than a work vehicle. | | Toyota spends good money on market research. They know | the difference between Tacoma buyers and Colorado buyers. | Teknoman117 wrote: | I drive an older "full size" SUV ('04 Ford Expedition), | mainly because my parents' gave the thing to me when I | graduated college. It's fairly easy to work on, so I kind | of just keep the thing running. The fuel economy is very | bad (like 17 mph highway, 11 in the city), but it's one of | those situations where even if I bought a new car with | double the fuel economy, it'd take me over a hundred | thousand miles of driving to make up the cost difference in | fuel savings alone. | | It's also really nice to be in a situation where literally | everything I own can be moved with it. Strapped my box | spring / bed frame to the top of it once. | ndespres wrote: | There's something worse than "ridiculous" for insisting on | a toy that has so many drawbacks for the people around you | while you're using it for your own enjoyment. It's selfish. | 1234letshaveatw wrote: | Like bikers pretending they are in the tour de france | amiright? | enjo wrote: | What are the drawbacks exactly? | kevincrane wrote: | They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and | bikers if you're not paying attention for one. | munificent wrote: | You're 5x more likely to kill a pedestrian in an urban | area than a rural one, and 2x as likely to do so after | 6:00pm. | | The relative risk of being killed by a light truck | compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) and is | 0.96 for a heavy truck (in other words _less_ likely than | being killed by a car). Buses have a relative risk of | 7.97. | | So living in a city and driving at night is custom- | designed to kill pedestrians and selfish to do so. | Encouraging public transit is even worse. | | Or you could just, you know, not turn this into a giant | moral argument. | kevincrane wrote: | Just to clarify, he asked for a downside of trucks, I | said they're far more likely to kill pedestrians and | bikers than normal-sized cars in the event the driver | hits someone (which is true). And the next logical step | is "we should all live in the farmland and not leave the | house at night"? | munificent wrote: | I think there's a difference between "One drawback is | higher pedestrian fatality rates" and "They're basically | custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers". | FireBeyond wrote: | These things are not remotely comparable. | | You're 5x more likely to kill someone in an urban area | because more people live there (in fact, well above 5x | more, so...) | | > being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only | 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) | | "Only"? "You're 50% more likely to die if a light truck | hits you than a car, that's "only" a bit more!" | | > and is 0.96 for a heavy truck ... buses have a relative | risk of 7.97 | | People tend to bounce off of heavy trucks, for better or | worse. Buses are 1) significantly different in design | than most heavy trucks, and 2) for obvious reasons, | operate in very heavy pedestrian environments. | [deleted] | shard wrote: | That would include most motor vehicles, due to brake | dust, tire wear, and exhaust, since the alternative of | using a bicycle is always available. If you need to | travel long distances once in a while, you can always | rent a car. | ben7799 wrote: | I hope you draw and quarter your friends who spend $50k+ | on sedans/coupes/sports cars that have no reason for | being other than to go faster than is legal and to burn | extra gas. | | It's a slippery slope to go down to say you know better | than others what they should be allowed to own. | trboyden wrote: | The problem is, this is all marketing, and pricing it lower | than Tesla is just a head-turner for the press, not the average | citizens that actually buy these things. The base model F150 | the low-end of the Lighting line compares to is only $28,940. | That's $10,000 less than the electric model. Most consumers are | not going to be buying a base model and dealers rarely carry | them on their lots. So, the realistic starting point for these | is most likely going to be around $50k. Slap on top of that the | $10k to $20k dealers are currently getting above MSRP and this | will be out of reach for most people. | jrsj wrote: | It depends on how ordering them works and if the base model | is actually available and if it's still a crew cab; finding a | new affordable near base model F150 is actually pretty | difficult. If closer to minimum spec Lightnings are more | common the effective price difference is smaller. | andrepd wrote: | > kind of funny given how pro-EV HN normally is | | _Pro-Tesla_ , ftfy. | misiti3780 wrote: | As someone who comes from a rural area but drives an EV, my | whole issue with trucks is that 90% of the people I know that | have trucks do not need them for work, it sort of a status | symbol in rural America. A lot of these trucks are huge, not | your standard truck, but more like a tank. | | Trucks get shitty gas mileage and potentially cause more wear | and tear on the public roads, and are definitely not good for | the environment. | | IMO - Trucks should be taxed accordingly - if you are a farmer | or work in construction you get a tax break, if you just want a | truck to have one, it's gonna cost you. | mountainethos wrote: | Where (and how) do you draw the line with gas mileage, | materials used, and weight of the vehicle? If trucks are so | bad, what are your opinions of popular SUVs like the Subaru | Outback? | misiti3780 wrote: | There should be a regressive tax rate tied to gas mileage, | with exceptions for people/companies that can prove they | need to use the vehicles. | bombcar wrote: | There is - as gas is taxed per gallon, the drivers of | less-efficient vehicles pay more in tax per mile. | mountainethos wrote: | Yes, but how do you go about deciding which vehicles are | OK to drive? | misiti3780 wrote: | Except it doesnt take into account if you need the | vehicle or not. | TheAdamAndChe wrote: | Im from a rural area too and am in a city. It's the funniest | thing to me when I see a lifted truck or jeep with an | imaculate white paint job, lol. | bluGill wrote: | Most people use their truck for something where they need a | truck about once a month. However the cost of two vehicles | (insurance and parking space) means that they are better off | with one truck than a truck and some other sensible vehicle. | herbstein wrote: | Would an estate or SUV with a hitch and a small/medium- | sized trailer not work wonders in that scenario? It could | certainly be cheaper. | _-david-_ wrote: | It probably depends on how much and what you need to tow. | AngryData wrote: | An SUV is just a truck without the convenience of a truck | bed. Never understood why anyone would get an SUV over a | truck unless they need seating for 6+ people. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Cargo space is covered and climate controlled. | mcguire wrote: | It's good to keep your mulch and gravel comfy. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Some people carry other things. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | It would work fine but be less convenient. And if you can | afford the luxury than why not. | realreality wrote: | The environment cannot afford your luxury. | bluGill wrote: | Maybe, maybe not. SUVs are either trucks without a bed, | and so what is the difference, or not really rated to tow | anything. | tha0xb1 wrote: | >Trucks get shitty gas mileage and potentially cause more | wear and tear on the public roads, and are definitely not | good for the environment. | | The Model X weighs more than a standard F-150. It technically | does more damage to the roads than F-150s do. | jsight wrote: | To be fair, that effect is mostly counteracted by the | reduction in tanker trunks from going to an EV. | | The F150 Lightning will have this advantage too, of course. | jostmey wrote: | I dislike pickups in cities because they are too big. Many | times I've been stuck behind pickup truck driver trying to | squeeze into a parking lot, waiting... I've got nothing against | pickup trucks in rural areas where I grew up | fillskills wrote: | On my drives, I usually count how many pickup trucks are | carrying something/anything. I have one this is Austin, Kansas | City, Seattle, Los Angeles. My assumption when I started was | that this data would differ by location and about 40% trucks | would be carrying something. | | In reality the average is 2 out of 100 trucks carried anything | in my counting. The highest I have seen in Los Angeles with 6 | trucks carrying something. | | That makes me believe that when you own a pickup truck, there | is a small change of needing its large bed and powerful engine. | | It maybe like gaming ready computer, swimming pools or | fireplaces - usage is very low for most people, but you just | might need it urgently someday. Or you think you might change | your habits if you buy it | fmakunbound wrote: | I held out 15 years after moving to the US before I picked up a | Toyota Taco. It's one of those rare life changing purchases | that you wonder how you got on without. | mbostleman wrote: | I moved to Idaho 4 years ago, primarily interested in human | powered mountaineering activities. But then joined the local | SAR team and was fascinated by how snowmobiles and dirtbikes | were such good tools for going further in less time and how | going further in less time is actually important. From there a | pickup becomes essential to get your moto vehicles to the | trailhead. So now I drive an F250 - itself a fascinating tech | platform - and I can't imagine life without one. But the whole | point of this is that I had a similarly dim view of pickup | owners and moto sport culture based on the pop cultural | narratives. And I can feel the stares from the haters as I roll | my dirtbike down the ramp. Hopefully they'll be thankful when | they get help before spending a cold night out. | ghaff wrote: | I live in more or less the country too. I just find an SUV | handier day to day and week to week. Some things I have to put | on the roof or take a short drive home with the rear hatch | partially ajar. I could rent a trailer or have something | delivered. Or I could borrow a pickup. I just find the interior | space is more generally useful than having an open bed every | now and then. | auiya wrote: | Practical?! Have you ever tried loading heavy objects into a | truck bed that's 4.5 feet off the ground? There's literally no | utilitarian use for them at this point even in agricultural | settings, much less the urban and suburban landscapes where | they typically plague. What ever happened to the small truck? | Much easier to load, much less of a road hazard/nuisance. | | For me it's the increasingly large size of all trucks which | have made them hugely inconvenient, and frankly dangerous, to | circumnavigate. You know how you feel when you get boxed in by | a couple tractor trailers on the freeway? That's how everyone | else in reasonably sized vehicles feels driving around your | truck. There are way more blind spots involving the modern | truck compared to other cars which present a danger to everyone | else on the road, I don't care what kind of whizz-bang "safety" | cameras you have. And you also create blind spots for everyone | else who can't see around your absurdly bloated truck in places | like parking lots and passing lanes. | | It's a safety and practicality issue which goes beyond the "you | don't need that" mentality, there's legitimate reasons for | people to NOT like them. | callahanrts wrote: | To further point out the stereotyping in this thread, take a | look at the announcement thread of the tesla cybertruck and | compare the sentiment | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602437). | | Not to mention that the cybertruck has nearly the same | dimensions as the f150 (https://youtu.be/sLvopc9oI4A?t=199) and | has a shape that is more likely to cut you in half if it were | to hit you. It also has a payload that's more comparable with a | ford super duty and will likely weight more than the lightning | to support that. | xwdv wrote: | None of them have ever had to carry planks of wood from Home | Depot. | jimktrains2 wrote: | You can fit a surprising amount of 8' lumber in a small car. | Full sheets of plywood or drywall on the other hand is | another story. | | Pick-ups are also useful for larger furniture and machinery, | but don't discount thr carrying capacity of a car just | because it's a car. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | IMO sheet goods are easier to haul on car roofs than they | are in a truck bed that's too short. A truck bed they can | fit flat in is easiest but not the default these days. | mindslight wrote: | I've happily carried plenty of lumber and even full sheets of | plywood/drywall with my Civic. It fits 10' lengths inside, | and sheets on the roof. What it lacks is capacity, and | convenience for sheet stock. Recently I've gotten into towing | trailers (on a light SUV), which seems like a great | capability for the times that I need to transport more at | once. If you're transporting large things frequently, I get | the utility of a truck. But most truck owners aren't hauling | anywhere near that much. | | FWIW after reading the other thread specifically about home | backup power, I was thinking this new F-150 sounds | interesting. But then reading this whole product page and | coming to "automatic software updates" I remembered why new | vehicles are non-starters for me. I'd rather keep dealing | with gasoline than resigning myself to surveillance culture. | orthecreedence wrote: | Don't know why you're getting downvoted. I feel the exact | same way. OTA updates for my vehicle gives me the shivers. | Why not build the fucking thing right the first time? Why | does every machine need to be a supercomputer? At what | point does it spend more energy _thinking_ then it does | getting me from A to B when I push down on a pedal? | | I do really think the idea of an electric truck seems cool, | and the F150 looks capable, but I'd rather not have yet | another connected device. Give me dumb toasters, dumb | refrigerators, dumb laundry machines, dumb vehicles. I'm | tired of this "smart" bullshit. It doesn't need to be smart | because I can tell it exactly what I want. | cycrutchfield wrote: | The vast majority of suburban pickup truck owners haven't | ever either. | rootusrootus wrote: | This runs contrary to my experience as a suburban pickup | truck owner with many neighbors that also own pickups. | seiferteric wrote: | It is weird, like if you own a house, having a truck is | perfect. I bought a tacoma 1 year ago and have used it | countless times. Getting mulch, buying lumber for | shelving projects, moving couches, chairs etc. Literally | the perfect vehicle for me. Also it is very versatile. | You can get hard tops, soft tops etc. Great for camping | etc. Having a separate trailer (and storing it somewhere) | or always having to rent a truck or whatever just sounds | like a hassle. | bombcar wrote: | I think what people miss is that once you have a truck, | all sorts of things happen that you wouldn't have | bothered if you didn't have the truck, because the hassle | is removed. | losvedir wrote: | Really? I find it hard to imagine that anyone who owns a | freestanding home hasn't wanted to carry some sort of large | item home from Home Depot. It's not some unusual "salt of | the earth" kind of situation. I only have a tiny Chevy | Sonic, and have often thought how handy it would be to have | a truck for carrying home soil, mulch, random wood things, | a new lawnmower, heck even a large TV, etc, and have had to | rent or borrow one occasionally. | curryst wrote: | As someone upthread pointed out, Home Depot will rent you | an F-250 (or another model with a slightly larger bed) | for $20/hr. I buy a fair amount of "too big to fit in my | car" stuff from Home Depot (mostly lumber), but I'd have | to be doing it multiple times a week for it to be cheaper | to actually own the truck. | | It's actually really nice, because if you buy your goods | before you rent the truck, the person that shows you to | the truck will usually help you load your stuff into it. | That can be a godsend if you're trying to manipulate big | sheets of plywood or something heavy. I also like that | they clearly treat them as work vehicles; when they | inspected it before I took off, they were only interested | in fairly significant damage to the body. The truck I got | already had scrapes on the body, and they really only | noted the large and/or deep ones. | snypher wrote: | At $20/hour for a new F-250 rental, Home Depot has better | options available. If people wanted to haul lumber, they | probably wouldn't show up with a trailer attached, they would | buy a truck with a 8 foot box. | codyswann wrote: | You go rent an F-250 from Home Depot and let me know how | that goes. | kesslern wrote: | It's the smoothest car rental experience I've ever had. I | checked the nearby Home Depots and one had a truck. I was | in and out with the keys in 10 minutes. Drove to pick up | a couch, delivered it, and brought the truck back. Parked | it in the parking lot and walked in with the keys. It was | about $30 and painless. | | What do you think is so bad about the process? | bluGill wrote: | You must have missed the fine print that said it was only | to haul lumber from that Home Depot to your house. | | As long as nothing goes wrong they don't care, but if | something does go wrong the lawyers will jump on that. | codyswann wrote: | 1) There are three Home Depots near me. None of them | offer diesels for rent | | 2) The $20 is for the first 75 minutes. I guess I'm | wrong, but I couldn't imagine a use-case where you're | only going to need the truck for 75 minutes. | | 3) Use restrictions. Home Depot greatly restricts what | you can use the truck for, including no towing. | | 4) Availability. At the three HD's near me, good luck | getting _any_ rental truck let a lone a diesel (mentioned | above). They 're always checked out, sometimes weeks in | advance. | jacurtis wrote: | > The $20 is for the first 75 minutes. I guess I'm wrong, | but I couldn't imagine a use-case where you're only going | to need the truck for 75 minutes. | | The idea is that you drive the truck home, unload it, | then drive the truck back to the store and return it. If | you live less than 30 minutes away from the Home Depot | then it is completely reasonable amount of time. | | Example: 30 mins driving home + 15 mins unloading + 30 | mins driving back = 75 minute rental. | | It seems very practical to me. Most people live less than | 30 mins from a Home Depot. In fact Home Depot has an | internal goal that they want 95% of Americans to live 15 | mins or less from a Home Depot store. So if you fall into | 95% of Americans, then you can rent a truck for 75 mins, | spend 15 mins each way driving and have 45 minutes to | unload or mess around before returning the car. | | Home Depot really rents the trucks with the idea that you | drive to the store in your car, buy something at the | store, use the truck to take it home, drive back to | return the truck, and then drive your car home. | hcurtiss wrote: | That extra trip there and back cost an hour out of your | day, though, and usually during prime hours. | dboreham wrote: | I _think_ you mean they wouldn't attach a trailer to their | Camray? I was confused initially by your post because a | trailer behind a pickup I find is a great combination. You | can load stuff much more easily on the trailer but the | pickup bed is there for any overflow. But I think you mean | 10' box, no? | xwdv wrote: | Oh great. Then you return your rental and come back home | and realize you need to buy more of some heavy large item. | Fantastic. | jacurtis wrote: | Large items are pretty easy to predict. You aren't going | to buy a bathroom vanity, then rent a truck to take it | home and then realize you needed two vanities. | | If you are buying wood you can measure the size of the | wall. Estimate the studs you need based on 16" gaps. Buy | that much plus a few extras. | | The constant trips back and forth to home depot is | generally smaller items that you forget. You need a | special socket size, you need a different type of nail, | etc. | GavinMcG wrote: | A truck costs _tens of thousands of dollars_. Even | assuming half the cost would otherwise be put towards an | alternative vehicle, you 'd still need to move stuff | uniquely suited to a truck literally hundreds of times to | make it worthwhile. | codyswann wrote: | Like a boat? | GavinMcG wrote: | Sure. That's a reasonable use case. Needing to get lumber | home from Home Depot isn't, for most people, because of | low frequency. | orthecreedence wrote: | You can get a truck, in CA, for less then $10K (including | initial repairs). Why does everything need to be new? | | The truck I got about 9 months ago has already paid for | itself by saving me from having to hire people to do | things that I could have done myself if only I had a | truck. | | Renting is fine once in a while, but if you're hauling | base rock or lumber every few weekends, I cannot imaging | having to deal with rentals every time. It doesn't make | sense, and would be such an enormous waste of time. | GavinMcG wrote: | > if you're hauling base rock or lumber every few | weekends | | Yes, exactly. If you've actually got a use for it, great! | The comment I was replying to was suggesting that | realizing you need to get one more bulky item would | happen frequently enough to make up the difference for | someone who would otherwise rent, which is ridiculous. | | Even used, the marginal cost of a truck in maintenance | and higher gas bills really adds up. Comparing a used | F-150 to a used Prius, mile-per-mile, the truck is going | to be more than twice as expensive. | orthecreedence wrote: | Yes, it does all depend. I guess where I'm coming from is | people have skewed ideas of the thresholds that define | "need" here, and often say "why do you even need a | truck??" in an almost shaming way, and ignore your | reasons when you list them off (you're not doing that | here, but in general I'm sensing an ideological stigma | against trucks). | | > Even used, the marginal cost of a truck in maintenance | and higher gas bills really adds up. Comparing a used | F-150 to a used Prius, mile-per-mile, the truck is going | to be more than twice as expensive. | | Again, depends! For me, the cost of a truck in | maintenance and gas is much cheaper than a Prius, because | the Prius can't do most of the things I'd want a truck | for to begin with. Gas included: I don't take the truck | on long road trips. But I'm lucky and have a honda and a | truck. If you only have budget for once vehicle, then | yes, weigh the pros and cons much more carefully. If you | have a used car and a used truck though, you can pay | about as much as you'd pay _new_ for either of them | (less, even), and have much more utility. | | Lastly, I'd wager that an F150 from the 90s is going to | be a lot cheaper to maintain than a Prius in the long run | due to the Prius' overall complexity. I wouldn't make | that same bet on any truck built after 2005, though. | linuxhiker wrote: | I will likely never drive anything but a truck. They are the | ultimate useful vehicle. I have an F150 as my daily driver and | an F250 for my farm truck (I have 10 acres). | | No, I am not a Trump flag flyer. I just happen to really like | useful vehicles. | newacct583 wrote: | > There's a lot of stereotyping of truck owners going on in | this thread which is kind of funny given how pro-EV HN normally | is. | | Yet the top comment is a reflexive jab at those woke folks with | zero content about the truck in question. That's very much on | brand for HN. | jrsj wrote: | I certainly didn't expect it to be, or I would've added | something about the truck lol | | I'm interested to see what exactly is included in the base | model and when that will become available since they've only | given us information on higher trims so far. $40K for this | vehicle is _very_ affordable, that's about as cheap as you | can get a new Model 3 right now but at least for awhile it | could be eligible for electric vehicle credits. If the | government extended these credits they could get A LOT of | people to buy these trucks. | rspeele wrote: | The level of "you don't need that!" judgement is weird. I guess | it's just a matter of degree though. Here in the southeast US | if somebody drives a pickup instead of a sedan or minivan or | whatever, it doesn't register as unusual or excessive. I don't | think twice about it, it's just another kind of vehicle. | | But then again, I _do_ notice (and sometimes make fun) if they | 've got a lift kit on it, tow mirrors when I've never seen them | tow anything, big roof mounted light bar, etc. So maybe it's | just a matter of degree as to where you draw the line and make | stop-liking-what-I-don't-like judgements. | ctdonath wrote: | Indeed. 1/3 vehicles here are pickups, 1/3 comparably large | SUVs & minivans & Jeep Wranglers, 1/3 sedans. Contrast NY | having 3/4 sedans. | | Considering vehicle sizes & speeds here, wife doesn't feel | safe in anything smaller than an older Ford Explorer SUV. | [deleted] | hwbehrens wrote: | > I do notice (and sometimes make fun) if [...] | | I think this is the key point in the whole thread. I have no | idea how many people who live on my street have pickups -- | I've never noticed. | | The only pickups I notice are the ones which are "coal | rolling", have multiple flagpoles flying political slogans in | the bed, or are lifted so far I have clear sightlines beneath | them. | | I have never seen a "coal rolling" Honda Accord, in contrast. | mcguire wrote: | How about the Honda with an 8" diameter tailpipe that | sounds like it's behind a poorly-tuned, asthmatic turbine? | op00to wrote: | In my area, I rarely see pickup trucks actually used as work | trucks. | ianai wrote: | I live in rural America. I have a bit of generalized fear | toward truck drivers exactly because they tend to be the most | aggressive and dangerous on the road. They also belch diesel | pollution and that can get into my cabin. So I own a big | vehicle to be somewhat closer in footing, which is itself | ridiculous. | publicola1990 wrote: | In my view it appears more to me that some Americans are | reluctant to give up their world view on why they need to drive | bigger, larger automobiles than using environmentally better | smaller cars. | mountainethos wrote: | > give up their world view on why they need to drive bigger, | larger automobiles than using environmentally better smaller | cars | | To me this is the same as someone who smokes one pack of | cigarettes a day judging someone who smokes 2 packs a day. | GongOfFour wrote: | For sure these responses, which are predictable and common on | pretty much any thread related to American trucks here or on | sites like Jalopnik, don't reflect actual, real general | sentiments about trucks or SUVs. It happens all the time and | I've learned just to ignore them. | Miner49er wrote: | I grew up in a place where I can't even think of a family that | didn't have at least one truck. I'm honestly confused by the | dislike of them. I really don't understand how you can own a | house with a decent sized yard and not own a truck or at least | a trailer. How do you get any yard or house work done without | one? | aidenn0 wrote: | When I was in college a friend of mine who did construction | work drove a Ford Ranger from the mid 1980s. It had a larger | bed than the typical truck I see on the road today, while | also being far smaller. | | I live in a wealthy town, and you can tell someone's | political affiliation like this: | | - Tesla -> Democrat | | - Immaculate crew-cab pickup truck -> Republican | | - Beatup truck with 8' bed -> rancher | hbarka wrote: | Now that's a clearly doubtful Venn diagram. Tesla owners I | know in wealthy towns are Republicans. God forbid if you | have a Nissan Leaf and an immaculate crew cab truck, what | would they call you then? | bryanlarsen wrote: | Much of the hate is for modern trucks. Trucks from 40 years | ago were much more practical than the modern truck -- 8 foot | beds, sides you could reach over, et cetera. The massive | height of current trucks just makes them more dangerous, less | fuel efficient, less practical. | Loughla wrote: | Massive height, less durable materials in the work areas | (aluminum bed, I'm looking at you), more seats, and much | smaller bed areas. All of those things contribute to the | fall of practicality. | | I tried to find a regular cab, regular bed F-150 about four | months ago. To do that, I would've had to buy a fleet | vehicle intended for a manufacturer or to be converted into | like a plumbing truck. Everything else has 4 doors and a 5' | bed. I don't want an SUV, I want a truck with a full sized | bed. | | The sales people were genuinely confused as to why I | wouldn't want a quad-cab, and why I needed an 8' bed. They | legitimately never had that conversation with anyone unless | they were looking for a fleet truck. | | What a world. | jacurtis wrote: | Yeah I don't think that Ford even makes a 2-seater | anymore in anything other than their XL/fleet model. You | can buy the "extended cab" in the XLT (the base trim sold | to consumers), which is the 2 seater with a small bench | in the back, but even those are really hard to find, you | don't see them often. | | But after you get above the base model, the only thing | available is "crew cabs" which is the full 4-seat SUV | size interior. | | Really trucks have become 4 seat vehicles now. The super- | crew (4 seat) cabs are essentially standard at | dealerships. The only way to get a 2 seater truck is by | buying one through a fleet program. And right now that | would be essentially impossible. Trucks are hard to get | right now and most dealerships won't sell a fleet vehicle | to a consumer because the demand for fleet trucks is too | high right now. | massysett wrote: | I see the practicality of a crew cab every day when I see | one truck after another of landscaping crews. The crew | cab is full, the bed has stuff in it, and many are towing | trailers. | Koshkin wrote: | Same with sedans, actually: today's Corolla looks like it's | twice as big as the 90s' Camry. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >today's Corolla looks like it's twice as big as the 90s' | Camry. | | With almost the same interior dimensions. Those tree- | trunk pillars, thick doors and smooth sculpted | aerodynamic shape all take up space formerly reserved for | drive-train and passengers. | | Safety and fuel economy are not free. | Miner49er wrote: | Yeah, people around there also seemed to prefer taller | vehicles. Easier to see, generally had 4 wheel drive | (better for rough roads and winter conditions), safer (for | the people in the car anyway, especially for things like | hitting a deer). | lotsofpulp wrote: | It is also a stark reminder of one's socioeconomic class. | I can afford to consume this much fuel and sit this high | and be safer than you, who can only afford the smaller | vehicle and be subject to more risks, including being | constantly blinded by the LED lights of all the higher | pickup and SUV in your rear view mirror. | whymauri wrote: | >It's like the aesthetics of a pickup truck is offensive to | some people. | | I got a rental car recently and they gave me a bright red | pickup because it was the fastest option. I was surprised by | the good vibes I got from all the other pickup drivers, lol. | It's like I got inducted into a secret club for a day with a | lot of waves and thumbs up. A woman went up to my group in a | parking lot and said something like "Hell yeah, you guys look | like you're having fun." | | And I thought, yeah -- I fucking love this. Kinda subverted my | perspective on the aesthetics of these trucks and the people | who drive them. Led to some self-awareness about how silly the | city stereotypes are of such people. | matwood wrote: | I'm bought a Tundra mainly because I needed something tow my | boat (my old 4-runner was just too small). But, once I got | used to sitting up high, having all the space, and having a | full sized truck bed for hauling whatever, it's pretty nice. | jes wrote: | Same. 2012 Tundra, 140K miles now, bought it new. | | Great truck. | | Went to surf toyota.com today thinking maybe it's time to | get another one, almost exactly the same. | noir_lord wrote: | Same reason motorcycles nod to each other (in the UK) or give | the hand signal in the US. | | For the UK if you are mad enough to ride on two wheels in our | weather you are in the club. | criley2 wrote: | It works OK that way, they accept new members of their club | when you conform. However, I've had my Prius damaged by rural | folk (in lots mostly full of pickups) on multiple occasions. | (Joys of having family who decide because of politics that | they're rural farmers now). | | I'm sure rural pickup drivers are lovely folk when you | conform to their cultural, racial, and/or lifestyle choices | -- that's the point! | | But I've never met a Prius driver who felt the need to key or | slash a pickup trucks tires, both of things which have sadly | happened to my Prius in rural parking lots. | NullPrefix wrote: | Ever thought about doing a diesel engine swap? | beaner wrote: | It's just the age-old bias of disliking what you don't know | because you haven't spent time around it. It's not | categorically any different from something like racism. | lotsofpulp wrote: | What if someone dislikes pickups (and other vehicles with | those size/height characteristics, purchased for vanity) | that objectively make life more dangerous for kids playing | in the street, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others in | smaller vehicles? | | Is that in the same category as racism? | rout39574 wrote: | If it's done without any attempt to comprehend why | someone would make the choice, to interrogate your | assumption that "vanity" is the only possible reason for | it, then yes. It's a prejudicial evaluation rooted in | your caricature of someone's nature. | | Of course, it's an elective choice, and in that way very | different from prejudice founded on appearance. But the | incomplete analysis, and the contemptuous reduction of | the target's motivations, are in common with racist | tropes. | __blockcipher__ wrote: | Car accidents (including a car hitting a pedestrian) is | certainly a problem but I just don't see how someone | could genuinely dislike pickup drivers for a reason like | that. Seems like a conclusion in search of a reason. | crooked-v wrote: | The trend towards BIG is a major part of that. Compare, | for example, the classic Toyota Hilux to a Ford F-150. | The latter is substantially taller off the ground and, | given how much of the driver's view is blocked, much less | safe in a residential area than the former. | rsync wrote: | "I got a rental car recently and they gave me a bright red | pickup because it was the fastest option. I was surprised by | the good vibes I got from all the other pickup drivers, lol. | It's like I got inducted into a secret club for a day with a | lot of waves and thumbs up." | | That's interesting ... | | Our ranch truck is a "work truck"[1] - basically a fleet | vehicle, colored white, with an 8 foot bed. | | I get no vibes at all :) | | [1] Silverado 1500 with no options. | wombatmobile wrote: | I had the same experience when I bought mine. | | My self concept changed. Suddenly I was someone who could | move anything anywhere. I felt like an animal that had | crossed over into a new phylum. | | Now I'm someone important to all my friends, and I have new | friends. I'm in the club, wherever I go. | | Nobody tailgates me. Life is good. | Aperocky wrote: | Hahaha they still do it's just harder to see. | ryanmarsh wrote: | Story time: Back in 2001 I lived in San Francisco and my | little Mazda was going to be in the shop for a while and I | needed to rent a vehicle. Long story short the only vehicle I | could get my hands on was in the east bay and was a (I shit | you not) Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel. Absolutely obnoxious. Being | from Texas I was used to driving pickups but a this thing is | just shy of a two ton payload capacity. I have no idea what | this was doing on the lot at Enterprise or whoever I rented | it from. | | Well, the dirty looks I got every time I belched black smoke | on the streets of SF were a given. What I did not expect (or | notice previously) was the other truck drivers (however few) | there were in San Francisco. It seems I too was inducted into | a little club. Whenever I saw another truck there was always | a thumbs up, or a "nice truck". Kinda funny when all I got | was dirty looks from everyone else. | crooked-v wrote: | > every time I belched black smoke | | If you've got visible smoke coming out of a diesel (in any | color), something's wrong with the engine. | jes wrote: | "Rolling Coal" is a thing in some parts of the USA. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | It's not, I think, so much that the idea/aesthetics of a pickup | truck is offensive to people. | | There are obviously many cases where a truck of some kind is | exactly what you need to do some task or other. | | I think it's more like there are a bunch of people who have | never owned a pickup truck, and have rented trucks when they | needed to "move stuff", and are suspicious of the explanation | given by others about why they bought them because those | explanations don't match their own life experience. | | If the answer to "why did you buy a pickup truck?" was "I like | to see past the other traffic, I'm worried about the safety | implications of a smaller vehicle when there are so many pickup | trucks on the road where I live, the infrastructure here is set | up for them with wide roads and ample parking so it's not | really a thing, plus I very occasionally avoid needing to rent | a truck when moving lumber" then things would be less | contentious. | | Of course, one can then proceed to the question of if there's a | double-standard on why the question doesn't get asked to owners | of sports cars with speed and handling limits that are of no | relevance to public roads. | tbarkow wrote: | The whole concept of ev truck as portable power generator is an | interesting concept to explore, and one I'd love to see evolve | into other EV vehicles. | beezle wrote: | There are two types of truck owners: those who do truck things | and those who show off. The latter are mostly what I call | 'house' truck owners, most they might do is pick up a desk or | chair. | | The first thing I did when moving to a rural area was to get a | F-150. I plow my own driveway. I pick up dirt by the yard for | lawn/garden use. Tow. Get big things. I look back now three | years later and am thankful I did not waste any coin on a bed | cover as I'd be very tired of putting it on and taking it off. | Living nearly two miles in on a dirt road I only bother washing | the truck twice a year as 'clean' is very fleeting. | | The issue with this e-F150 is the low payload and tow capacity | of the standard models. Think I'm rated 2350 payload and 13K | tow on an out the door $44k XLT supercab. | dboreham wrote: | Story from when we moved to Montana 20 years ago: | | We buy a freezer at Costco. Checking out, we ask for details on | delivery. Costco employee says "Oh, we don't deliver". We had | been used to Costco in CA which at the time would deliver large | items. | | I ask "Well, how do people get big things like freezers home". | | Costco person says "Easy, just put it in your pickup, we'll | help you load". | | "Hmm...we don't own a pickup". | | Costco employee looks somewhat confused. | | Then says "Easy, just get your neighbor's pickup". | | The next week we bought a pickup. | jcelerier wrote: | ... why not just rent one for the day ? | [deleted] | dahfizz wrote: | Renting is a hassle, and its cheaper to buy if you need to | rent more than a couple times a month. | jcelerier wrote: | > Renting is a hassle, and its cheaper to buy if you need | to rent more than a couple times a month. | | ... how expensive is renting a vehicle there ? here in | france it's like 40-50EUR for a day | dahfizz wrote: | That's about right. So if you rent 3+ times a month, | thats 150 euros ($180) a month. That's easily a car | payment on a used truck. Not to mention the amount of | time you spend dealing with the rental place, and doing | the extra return journey. Considering the hourly rate of | the average HN user, that's firmly in range of a truck | payment. | | Also consider that you get to eventually sell / trade in | the truck. Vehicles depreciate, but you get some value | out. Rental payments all disappear. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >Renting is a hassle, and its cheaper to buy if you need | to rent more than a couple times a month. | | What kind of activity requires so much transportation? | 0xffff2 wrote: | Rural home ownership. When you own 10 acres and want to | make use of it, there's always a project to do. I've | owned my current 10 acres for almost 3 years, and lived | up here full time since last October. Prior to moving, I | spent every other weekend up here (other family lives | here full time). | | There has hardly been a weekend since I bought the place | in that time where I don't have some project that | involved some amount of construction material. Even just | a weekly shopping trip can fill up a full sized truck | when you live 30 miles from town and do _all_ of your | shopping at once. Also, I have 4 horses on the property | (not at all uncommon here), so that alone justifies the | truck since I have to go get a few thousand pounds of hay | every so often. | dahfizz wrote: | What do you mean? Like boating, boondocking, 4-wheeling, | house work, fishing, going to the dump, landscaping, etc? | | You may live in a city, and never need to move anything, | but for lots of people they use a pickup every weekend. | xeromal wrote: | If OP is out in montana, most fun things are going to need | a pickup. | | Offroading, boating, horseback riding, dealing with snow, | hauling firewood. Sure, you can get a 4x4 SUV like a | 4runner but just get a dang truck. lol | selimnairb wrote: | Or just rent a pickup when you need it for $50 a day? Fancy- | boy pickups easily cost upwards of $50k. | orthecreedence wrote: | Depends. If you're using it a handful of times a year, | sure, rent it. If you're using it every weekend or two, | coordinating picking up and returning a rental adds a lot | of work to an already (generally) busy day. | | Also, don't get a fancy-boy pickup. You can get a capable | truck under $10K if you look around for a bit, and it will | pay for itself in no time if you do a lot of your own work | around the house. | colinmhayes wrote: | Who actually does stuff that needs a pickup more than 10 | times a year that doesn't work in a field that obviously | requires a pickup? | soared wrote: | People who live in the country, which is OPs point here. | rout39574 wrote: | Or anything like suburbia. I live in Gainesville, | Florida, very near the center of town. It's a 130K city | limits burg, and our property still has a yard, and good | use for trucklike patterns. I solve that with a Cheep | Jeep at the moment. | briffle wrote: | Millions of people own RV's. Most people that tow them | with their SUV are way, way over the limits for the | vehicles they use. (the salesperson will ALWAYS say your | vehicle can pull it) | rootusrootus wrote: | I know a guy who for several years towed a 30' travel | trailer (7500 GVWR) with a Jeep Grand Cherokee. That's | one of those "well, technically, it could work in a | narrow set of circumstances" situations. He swore it only | had a tongue weight of 500# because that's what he got | told by the salesman. | | Not someone you want to share the road with. He was a big | guy, married with two teenage boys and a dog. He was so | far over the payload limit on that Jeep... | cpwright wrote: | If you are into home improvement it is very easy if you | are getting materials, hauling garbage, bringing tools | from one place to another. You could substitute a trailer | for a lot of stuff, but then you need to park that. | Parking the truck instead of an SUV/car is easier than | parking the SUV/car + a trailer. | rootusrootus wrote: | I tow my travel trailer once every two weeks on average | for about 8 months of the year, and in between those | trips I routinely haul stuff for my projects around the | house and some hobbies. | throwaway9870 wrote: | I do maintenance on an office building and use it all the | time. | bradstewart wrote: | I do. I'm a software engineer, living in a city, but | slowly renovating a house on the weekends. I routinely | need a few sheets of plywood and dozen 2x4s, or drywall, | or bags of concrete, or something to that effect. | quickthrowman wrote: | https://www.homedepot.com/c/Delivery_Services | bradstewart wrote: | I used that, once, during the early stages of the | pandemic to avoid going into the store. | | They showed up outside of the expected delivery window, | left a stack of drywall in my front yard in the rain, and | didn't ring the bell or notify me in any way. I found it | several hours later. | | While I understand they were likely overworked due to | Covid in this instance, this kind of thing happens often | enough I can only use it when I have space to securely | store materials delivered several days before I need | them. | | To their credit, Home Depot did refund me; but I still | had no dry wall when I needed it. | | Also, you can't get immediate delivery when you're in the | middle of a project and mess up a cut on your last sheet | of plywood. There's no ctrl+z with a saw. | orthecreedence wrote: | Not the same. Deliveries are often late, incorrect, or | don't show up at all. It can wreck an entire day of work. | Read that page...you have to pay extra to get even a | 4-hour delivery window. This is great if you want to sit | around with your thumb up your ass instead of building. | "Just deliver the day before." Oh yeah, I'll take every | Friday off of work to wait around to receive a delivery | that I could have picked up in an hour with a capable | vehicle. | Dig1t wrote: | This is a thing, but there are a million edge cases that | you can't rely on this for. Sometimes you underestimate | the amount of material you need, sometimes you need to | make sure that the sheets of drywall you're getting | aren't damaged, sometimes you need to pick individual | pieces of lumber from the pile because there is a ton of | variation in the grain etc etc | | If you're doing a project you very much need to be able | to run to Home Depot that same day and pick up additional | bulky items. | tha0xb1 wrote: | More expensive than owning a truck. | zenron wrote: | Good luck when you get into an accident with your | teardrop trailer, rv camper or even motorcycle trailer | and you find out your insurance company won't pay it | because you were over your tow capacity (if you even had | any) with or without e-breaks. | rootusrootus wrote: | Short of doing something criminal, you will always get | covered by your insurance policy in this situation. But | they will drop you like a hot potato the moment they cut | the check. Insurance covers stupidity at least once. | orthecreedence wrote: | Me, for home and property renovations. | | Oh, the hill is starting to give way. Cool, build a | retaining wall (including getting the base rock to fill | it). Oh, we ran out of firewood this winter. Cool, build | a bigger wood shed (BTW, firewood is a lot cheaper if you | pick it up yourself). Oh, the siding on the house is | rotting. Cool, grab some plywood, tar paper, and siding | and fix it myself. Oh, the weeds on the property have | overgrown again? Rip them all out and haul them to the | dumps. | | I've saved probably tens of thousands of dollars | _including the price of my truck_ by doing these things | in-house instead of hiring. All thanks to my truck. | | When you don't have one, you don't do these things | (because hiring people is expensive). But once you get | one, it opens a completely different world of "wow I can | do this myself." I found rentals don't cover that gap. I | resisted getting a truck for so long, but once I got one | I kicked myself for not doing it sooner. | maxerickson wrote: | My friend with a pickup gets a lot of his building | materials delivered still. | [deleted] | nexuist wrote: | Home repair and gardening / recreational farming come to | mind as hobbies where a flat bed would be useful. BMX or | dirt biking too. | DangitBobby wrote: | I don't drive that much. Why would I buy a sedan and give | myself the hurdle of arranging to rent a pickup any time | I need one? If I must own a vehicle, why not make it one | that provides utility? | xsmasher wrote: | Because the fuel efficiency on pickup trucks is terrible. | You could double your fuel costs by driving a truck all | the time. | foobarian wrote: | > Because the fuel efficiency on pickup trucks is | terrible. | | >> I don't drive that much. | | ^^ | sciurus wrote: | If only someone would come out with an electric truck... | orthecreedence wrote: | So if you're going on a long trip, just rent a car. | DangitBobby wrote: | Or arrange to use my wife's car or my brother's van. So | many options. | orthecreedence wrote: | No. Sell your truck and get a car. You're not allowed to | have a truck. | shard wrote: | That's an argument for not owning a car at all, actually. | jabart wrote: | New F150 XLT Supercrew (4-door) in 2014 for me was off the | lot at $29k. | mcguire wrote: | 2013 XLT Supercab (the suicide mini doors), $26k used in | early 2015. But I wanted the 3.5l Ecoboost. (20-21mpg, | i.e. in the same ballpark as the WRX upthread.) | linuxhiker wrote: | You are funny. A "new" truck can easily run you 70k. | GordonS wrote: | Yep, here in the UK for very rare occasions we need to move | something big (like, once every 1-2 years), we just hire a | pickup or van for PS50-70 depending on size. Even a small | lorry with a tail lift is only PS100 for 24h. | | Seems like madness to _buy_ something as big as a pickup | and drag round that weight (with the poor MPG that comes | with it) and deal with parking such a behemoth, all for | something you do so rarely * | | * obviously if you're a farmer or running a business or | something, that's different - but that's not what this | thread is about. | bombcar wrote: | For those in a similar situation, note that most home- | improvement stores rent a pickup for something like $20 for | 75 minutes, usually enough to get a load home. | | And one step up from that, full truckload delivery is often | $75-150, and sometimes even comes with a forklift. Often | you can get it thrown in free if the order is large enough. | reedjosh wrote: | The rental is fine for one offs, but if you're constantly | doing home improvement projects or have a hobby that | requires this sort of trip, then you're doubling the | trips you make to the supply store. | | Also, HD is not the only place I buy supplies. Sometimes | I drive an hour one way to get supplies at a rate _far_ | better than HD. | [deleted] | rcpt wrote: | Combination washer dryer in our prius https://ibb.co/Dp8YxM0 | | We've moved 5 times in the past 6 years and I spend a lot of | time with outdoors hobbies (mountain biking, surfing -- | pickups are hugely popular for both). But not owning a truck | has never been an issue. | hirundo wrote: | Now do a 4'x8' sheet of plywood. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Should be fine with a roof rack (or without if you don't | care about the paint) | | When I buy sheet steel I use a station wagon because it's | easier to plop it down on a roof rack and get it off | later then it is to stick it in a truck or van. | enjo wrote: | It's actually devilishly hard to strap plywood to a roof | rack in a way that it won't take off in the wind (you're | essentially turning your car into a giant kite) but also | won't warp. It can be done.. but it's hard. | foobarian wrote: | Once I needed a good amount of plywood for some cabinets. | At 8 sheets and other assorted lumber I started feeling | really uncomfortable mounting that much weight on my | roofrack - I know the rack has a limited capacity like | 100-200lbs. Would have had no issues with a proper pickup | truck. | pengaru wrote: | Miata Is Always The Answer | aidenn0 wrote: | I can just barely do that in my Mazda 3. Dimensional | lumber is much easier since you can angle it more. | temp8964 wrote: | Easily fit in a Minivan ^_^ | orthecreedence wrote: | No joke, minivans are actually great for a lot of things | people think they need a truck for. | sturgill wrote: | We use our minivan for a lot of these things, but I'd | love to buy bulk mulch / topsoil instead of the bags. But | loose mulch doesn't play well with the van. | | I've always considered myself a GM//Chevy guy, but I'm | strongly considering this truck. | | And I love that it doubles as a Powerwall... | | Eliminates the need for a generator (I work from home so | if the power is out I can just take the ICE for errands | and have the truck power the house -- you don't have to | be a truck person to find that pretty nifty!) | orthecreedence wrote: | > And I love that it doubles as a Powerwall... | | That is a _really_ cool feature. I think for extended | outages (which we do have) a propane generator fed by a | big tank is great. But most outages are a day or less, so | having that all ready to go in your truck is really cool. | yuu11 wrote: | But then you're driving a minivan. | obelos wrote: | I've renovated four houses with my minivan. | etrautmann wrote: | Same, I pack two bikes inside our regular Prius all of the | time. I moved across country with it packed full, and | regularly do furniture moves, skis, climbing gear with 4x | people, etc. | ses1984 wrote: | Be careful, just because you can fill your car with | stuff, doesn't mean you should, I learned that the hard | way when I damaged my car's suspension. | | Be aware of the weight limitations of your car. | lostlogin wrote: | Firewood in the boot will do this I'm sure. There are a | lot of big trees near me that like to fall over. Putting | large sections in the boot to process at home can easily | overload the car so much that the wheels at the front | start to lift. You turn and nothing happens. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | I own multiple station wagons fully agree with you. But | what you're missing is that it's not about the ability to | do things, it's about the image projected when doing them. | | Over-specing vehicles is one of the ways the well to do | advertise their well-to-do-ness. It's like a marble | countertop but for the roads. | | Sure you can put three kids in the back row of a Sentra, it | has three seatbelts there after all. Sure you can haul | plywood on anything with a roof-rack, that's what it's | there for. Sure you can shove a washer in a Prius. All | those things work great. Bust for most of HN to do them | regularly would be "behavior below one's pay-grade" so to | speak. | avereveard wrote: | or, you know, rentals, no need to drop 20 grands on a pickup | to get a fridge home | linuxhiker wrote: | Better 20 grand for a truck than a prius | jacurtis wrote: | I moved to Idaho a several years ago and went through the | same experience. I showed up in my Toyota Corolla and | everyone kept saying it was a "cute car". This was just a | normal car in Seattle. But here everyone was like, "oh how | cute... a little Corolla". I also got comments from co- | workers that were like "oh does your wife drive your truck?" | | Here every family basically owns a pickup. Idaho has a lot of | BLM land, (second in size only to Alaska). So sports like | boating, RVing, and ATVing are very popular here. As we got | more ingrained into the culture here, that is very outdoor | activity oriented, we decided that with a truck we could own | an RV. We have always been huge mountain bike riders and the | convenience that a truck offers for mountain biking is | incredible. We also drove in friend's trucks and realized | that with the Platinum trim from F-150 for example, you get a | very luxurious experience inside. Trucks offer HUGE cabs | (larger than a lot of SUVs), with the convenience of a huge | bed for throwing toys or moving things, a hitch to tow | incredible amounts 10,000lbs+ and 4wheel drive that can take | you anywhere. There is a lot to love about modern trucks. | Even the gas mileage isn't much different than SUVs (mid-20s | mpg). | | Yeah, we ended up buying a truck within 6 months of moving | out here. Our family was shocked because "they never saw me | as a pickup truck driver". Every time I told someone back | home that I bought a truck it was always pure shock as they | reconciled the stereotype of a pickup owner with what they | knew about me. | | When my parents visited they were absolutely fascinated by | the endless sea of pickups. When you parked at a restaurant | for dinner, the parking lots are almost entirely pickups, | with only a handful of cars scattered throughout. | | When my mom first drove in my pickup, she was shocked at how | nice it was. It offered great views of the road. It has | heated, cooled, and massaging seats. Panoramic sunroof. A | huge interior. A huge mulimedia touchscreen. And they drive | like any modern SUV in comfort. She eventually said "Yeah I | see the appeal to pickup trucks now". | | Eventually I convinced them to move out here during COVID. | They have been really happy with life out here. But now my | dad is getting the itch and now he too is shopping for a new | pickup. He never considered owning a truck before in his | life. | | I don't fit that stereotype for a pickup driver. And whenever | I meet people through work or whatever that find out I drive | a pickup, they are always taken back. Everyone has a certain | type of person in mind for a pickup, especially people in the | city. But pickup trucks are the best selling vehicles in | America. Much of middle America lives and dies by their truck | and they are standard purchases for a lot of families. | | Edit: Ok so I'm seeing from a lot of the comments now that | everyone is quick to say "You don't _NEED_ a pickup ", "You | can rent one when you need one", or "I go mountain biking all | the time with my Prius/Tesla". So just to be clear. I am not | saying that you can't go mountain biking unless you have a | truck. I mountain biked for 10 years in a VW Passatt and | Toyota Corolla. But the truck offers a lot of convenience and | is nice to have. I love having it and thats why I bought it. | I'm sure I could jigsaw stuff I am hauling into the back | seat. I did exactly that for several decades. But I love | tossing stuff in the truck bed and not worrying about it | scratching the leather, making a mess, or making it fit. Just | toss it in the bed and drive off. Wash the bed out with a | hose when you are done. Go anywhere in the truck. Tow | anything. It's Comfortable and safe. Try fitting a kayak | and/or paddleboard in your car. Yes, again you can buy racks | to put it on the roof, and I used to own those. They are a | royal pain. Now rent a pickup and throw it in the bed and | drive off. You'll be at the lake before the Prius has | finished safely attaching their kayak to their roof. I enjoy | it and that's why I bought it. | farrarstan wrote: | Damn hope u can fit all of those words in your truck | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | I hope you workin Ford's advertising department... | DangitBobby wrote: | It's okay to advocate for things you , especially when | people are confused about why you would like it! I like | my Tacoma as well, no, I do not work for Toyota. | whateveracct wrote: | re: your username | | Adult Bobby buying his first pickup truck but it being a | Toyota Tacoma feels like a real episode of a KoH sequel | DangitBobby wrote: | Pilot Synopsis: | | Robert starts his new remote office job and buys a new | truck for its utility as a non-commuter vehicle. Hank | desperately tries to hide the fact that his son would buy | a foreign-made truck. The Gribble boys unravel it all. | | _This episode brought to you by Toyota._ | bboylen wrote: | I don't think people realize how expensive pickup trucks | are. The 2021 F-150 Platinum Trim you mentioned starts at | $59,110 - these are luxury vehicles. | rootusrootus wrote: | That's just cap cost. Pickups do very well on | depreciation, _much_ better than a similarly prized | luxury car. The TCO is pretty respectable by comparison. | | But I'm a bit of a cheapskate and I only ever get the | XLT, not the Platinum. Only luxury I really care to pay | for is CarPlay. But to each their own! | mahogany wrote: | Just a small point: | | > Trucks offer HUGE cabs (larger than a lot of SUVs), with | the convenience of a huge bed for throwing toys or moving | things | | Generally, the huger the cab, the smaller the bed. It | actually annoys me how popular 6 ft (or less!) beds have | gotten in recent years. Especially when so much lumber | comes in 8 ft length. | na85 wrote: | >It actually annoys me how popular 6 ft (or less!) beds | have gotten in recent years. Especially when so much | lumber comes in 8 ft length. | | Most people buying pickups don't use the beds for | anything other than groceries. Buying a pickup is just a | form of social signalling that you belong to a certain | in-group. Those people buying trucks with 6-foot beds | don't care that lumber doesn't fit in them because they | use their trucks exactly like I use my Volkswagen. On the | rare occasion they need to put lumber in the bed they'll | let it hang out the back, just like I put it on my roof | bars. | gotoeleven wrote: | Like strapping a safety blanket to your face when you're | vaccinated. | linuxhiker wrote: | I call my truck my, "moving living room" | | I love it | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >We buy a freezer at Costco. Checking out, we ask for details | on delivery. Costco employee says "Oh, we don't deliver". We | had been used to Costco in CA which at the time would deliver | large items. | | I every one owns a pickup, why don't you simply rent one (a | la Airbnb, e.g with GetAround) for just a day? | | I've never owned a vehicle (other than a bicycle, but I live | in Paris) but can easily rent any kind of car/truck/van | anywhere in Europe. It saves me a lot. | rootusrootus wrote: | > can easily rent any kind of car/truck/van | | This works when you're the outlier. If we are ever | successful in making cars the exception rather than the | rule, it will be far more difficult to just go rent one on | demand. | doytch wrote: | Generally it's the hassle of getting it because in car- | centric American cities, the rent-for-a-day renting process | isn't streamlined. Rental companies aren't convenient (or | possible) to walk/bus to so you need to get there somehow. | Which means you need a main car already, or you have to bug | a neighbour/friend and do it on their schedule and not | yours. The ability to be like "oh, I've got a spare hour | here, I'm gonna go grab that lumber I need next weekend" | isn't possible anymore. | | So at the end of the day, you need a car, period. I live in | a midsize American city after living in a major Canadian | downtown and wish we didn't need the car (we both bike a | lot), but I really do. And personally, an electric pick-up | is gonna be mighty appealing for my next car in however- | many years because it removes the main reason I've never | gotten one before: gas. I can only imagine how big a win | the lack of gas is gonna be outside of America where gas is | hilariously cheap. | sharkweek wrote: | Here in Seattle, I have one close friend with a pickup, | everyone else drives Subarus (no exception). | | But in all seriousness, he gets asked about 1.5x a week if | someone can borrow his truck, it's insane how far this "ask" | stretches itself. It drives him a little bonkers, but he's | also a pretty nice guy so he says yes more than he should. | | Anyways, I'd probably buy a smaller pickup because of how | often my partner buys and sells used furniture as a hobby, | but I don't want to be the friend with the truck in the city. | singlow wrote: | I used to own a pickup. I resolved to never own another one | because it resulted in requests to help haul stuff or help | someone move at least twice per month. | quickthrowman wrote: | It costs $19 to rent a truck for 75 minutes from Home | Depot and $20 an hour after that, or is what I would tell | people if I owned a pickup. | hbarka wrote: | Yeah, and it's a pain in the ass because you realize the | renting overhead equates to about 4 hours of wasted time | to and fro. Then you're rushing your project because you | hear the clock tick and then need it again on Sunday. | Will never do a truck rental again. | DangitBobby wrote: | I'm actually the opposite here, I love being asked to | help people. I feel that it strengthens my relationships | with them and makes me feel important. | lostlogin wrote: | Ah, the privilege escalation attack. | munificent wrote: | My too. This is literally why I bought a pick-up truck 20 | years ago. (Which I still drive today. The Tacoma will | outlive me.) | | I love it myself. I've moved with it, carried music | equipment to gigs with it, brought home countless DIY | projects from the hardware store with it, and even camped | in the back of it. But I also have done many many favors | for friends. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Some people count on that to take advantage of you. One | of the easiest strategies is to start asking for small | favors, and then move on to bigger ones. Because the | person has already granted you a small favor, it's harder | for many to say no to the bigger ones even if they want | to. | | But if it makes you happy, I guess that's all that | matters! | DangitBobby wrote: | I'm not particularly worried about being taken advantage | of. "No" is a well-established part of my vocabulary. | Andrex wrote: | That sounds like the natural progression of a | relationship/friendship to me. I'd ask my better-known | friends larger tasks than people I don't know as well, | too. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Yes, of course, if it's a two way relationship. But I've | seen plenty where the "mark" is unaware or cognitively | dissonant that they are being taken advantage of. | | Initially, they take pride in being able to help someone, | but eventually they're giving much more than taking, and | they cannot bring themselves to say no, whether it be to | keep themselves happy because "if I've helped them | before, why should I not help them now...even though I | don't really want to", or to avoid confrontation. | | Pride is always a liability, so I like to try to keep | away from it as much as possible. | ncallaway wrote: | > Pride is always a liability | | That statement seems so broad that it can't possible be | true in every circumstance. Always? | lotsofpulp wrote: | The saying is "pride comes before the fall". | | It is more of a general principle of keeping one's | emotions at bay to prevent your biases from clouding the | data and your judgment. | | I am sure there are evolutionary reasons for pride (i.e. | ego) such as helping you fight with intensity for scarce | resources or for maintaining tribal bonds. But in the | modern world, it those circumstances are rarer and | someone can use it against you pretty easily. | ncallaway wrote: | I agree that pride _can_ be a liability. The idiom "pride | comes before the fall" itself doesn't imply that pride is | _always_ bad, but rather that it has the potential to be | bad. | | I think pride has all kinds of positive and negative | features in the modern world. When I take pride in my | work, I think about it more carefully and try and deliver | a higher quality work. "Pride" and "Craftsmanship" seem | very linked to me. That pride helps me deliver high | quality work, which keeps clients around and earns | referrals, which keeps me paid and food on the table. | | When I don't take pride in the work I do, the standards | and quality can slip. I'm much happier if I can deliver | work to a client that I can stand behind and be proud of. | I think that's in many ways an asset. | | I certainly don't disagree with you, though, that there | are many scenarios where pride , hubris, and ego end up | being problematic. | Arrath wrote: | I owned a pickup in the city. I absolutely hate moving. I | do, however, love free beer and pizza. | | ...I helped a lot of friends move. | bombcar wrote: | If you want the utility of a pickup truck without the | stigma, go for a minivan and a trailer. | | Of course a minivan has other associated stigma, but you | can haul things around without being asked to haul other | things. | | I once read an article by a crane operator that mentioned | something like 40% of his jobs were for people who saw | him craning something and asked if they could hire him to | crane something else nearby. | rootusrootus wrote: | Just need to learn how to politely say no. If they're | friends, they won't take advantage of you, and if they're | not friends, it's really easy to say no. | | Hasn't been a problem for me, but I recognize that this | is probably because all my friends have some kind of | pickup of their own. | freeopinion wrote: | A lot of acquaintances have asked me for help fixing | their computers, or advice on buying a computer, or help | setting up their smart TV, or email on their smart phone. | Some have asked me to build apps or websites for them. | All expecting help for free. | | Some people have asked to use my truck, or asked for help | loading a moving van. | | I have asked for free legal advice, tax advice, help | installing flooring, help loading a moving van. I have | borrowed a neighbor's truck. | | I have asked for tons of help debugging code or learning | some new concept. | | Sometimes I have turned people down who asked for help. I | am grateful to the hundreds of people who have helped me | in ways big and small. I understand when people can't. | For the most part, I am happy to lend out my truck on | occasion. While it is getting used, I'm probably using a | browser for free on an operating system for free. | | A while back I was using a park "for free" when I noticed | a family I know working together to pick up all the | trash. I know they weren't being paid. They're just super | cool like that. | | Sometimes it just feels great to be super cool in some | small way. Some people go out of their way to feel like | that at least twice per month. | cannaceo wrote: | I had an employee once who told me his pickup provided him | job security. Every company he worked for wanted him to use | the truck for errands. He was able to get $2-3/hr more than | everyone else. | | There were a few times I wanted to let him go but we needed | his truck. | bena wrote: | Wouldn't just buying a truck for the company be cheaper | than a whole employee? | smabie wrote: | I mean, the employee presumably isn't adding zero value. | Maybe he's not as great as someone else, but his truck | tips the scales just over the line in his favor? | zdragnar wrote: | If the company owns the truck, they then have to get | insurance for it, and to get reasonably priced insurance, | they will likely need to run background checks on | everyone allowed to drive it. | | It is _much_ less hassle and money to throw a few bucks | an hour at the guy who is willing to use his own to run | the errands if thr company doesn 't need the truck for | anything else. | bena wrote: | There are liability and insurance concerns with having | your employees use their own vehicles for company work as | well. | | That does not go away. | shard wrote: | I would imagine someone without a truck was let go | instead. It's just the delta between a him and a truck- | less employee, not a whole employee. | downut wrote: | In the 90s we lived in SF SOMA and I had a 4WD pickup. It | was excellent for hauling antique furniture and oddball | arty type things (store couldn't possibly deliver). And it | was perfect for exploring the Lost Coast, Trinity Alps, | Owens & Saline Valley etc. Manual steering, so || parking | was a nice upper body workout. The apartment garage space | was $100/month, well worth it. | | But... the idea that you would have to plug it in on a | multiday trip... yeah, I'm laughing. I just drove central | AZ->Sacramento->Ft. Bragg->SF->San Jose->Sacramento->AZ in | a Prius. Nope, I'm not digging the charging idea. | | I don't recall having that many problems with the | borrowers. I helped some people move, maybe once a year. | The way it works is they reciprocate with something else, | or else, you discover they are not your friend. That's | useful to know. | pengaru wrote: | Being a giant pickup truck, how long do you think it'll | be before there's a variety of petrol range extenders | that go in the frunk and/or bed? | | I fully expect that to be something the local u-haul | rents out for cross-country road-trips. | beerandt wrote: | I still can't believe a diesel-electric, "train- | locomotive-on-tires" hybrid concept has never been | attempted stateside. | | Electrical motor torque (from rest) screams to be | marketed to American truck buyers. It's the one EV market | that probably didn't ever need environmentalism as a | boost to be successful. | hourislate wrote: | Uhaul rents pickups for $20 a day plus mileage in Seattle. | Let your friend know so he can point everyone there. | carabiner wrote: | Many Tacoma owners in Seattle (fun fact, Tacoma is the | native name for Mt. Rainier). I'm one of them. I've owned | it for 7 years, 3 in Seattle, and I've never once been | asked by someone to borrow it. Guess I must be a loner. You | can rent a cargo van from UHaul without much trouble. | | Also, I have to laugh at all these anecdotes about owning a | pickup as a personality trait. I wasn't inducted into some | pickups dudes club when I got mine. People haven't treated | me any differently - still a nerdy, introverted guy who | does a lot of outdoors sports. I drive to the grocery store | or trailhead or city park in my truck, do my thing, and go | home. | enjo wrote: | "You can rent a cargo van from UHaul without much | trouble." | | Maybe we have different definitions of what "much | trouble" is. It takes like an hour to do anything with | UHaul where I'm at. It's insane how bad that company is | at doing the most basic thing that they've been doing for | like 4 decades. | cozzyd wrote: | Zipcar used to have cargo vans. Not sure if they still do | (don't use them anymore). | | But I haven't had a terrible experience at UHaul, as long | as you go to one of their big locations. (I always go to | this location in Chicago: https://www.google.com/maps/@41 | .8543365,-87.6406812,3a,75y,1... , even if it's not the | closest, it's easy enough to get to and they don't run | out of stuff...) | carabiner wrote: | Fair, it's been a few years since I rented one. It still | works better than a truck in most cases since it protects | your stuff from rain, car exhaust, mud splashes etc. | DHPersonal wrote: | I needed to pick up a bunk bed I bought on Facebook | Marketplace, so I rented a small U-Haul in my | neighborhood last year to make the whole process simpler. | I downloaded the U-Haul app to schedule the rental, used | the truck for about an hour and was pleased that the | return process took about five minutes. There may be lots | of horror stories about renting a U-Haul in a big city, | but the process of renting a U-Haul in the suburbs -- the | place where the truck got lots of its stigma over MAGA | owners rolling coal down Main Street -- has only been | incredibly easy for me, so much so that owning a truck | seems rather pointless. I've also rented a U-Haul for | most of the times I've moved, either across-city or | interstate, and each of those processes have been simple | and not time-consuming. | drewg123 wrote: | I rented one last fall, and they have a mostly electronic | pick up and return process now. The biggest delay was | getting the keys when I went to the gas station to get | the van. I waited ~5 minutes in line for the cashier, and | then she had to call somebody from the back. | | The return was easy.. just take a few pics on my phone as | part of their return process, and then drop the keys in a | drop box. | xattt wrote: | This obviously depends on how forward-looking the manager | is at a particular location. | rizzom5000 wrote: | UHaul rentals are painful, but Home Depot has a truck | rental program that is relatively painless if you can | deal with the no reservations policy. I've done some | fairly substantial remodel projects without owning a | truck. | foobarian wrote: | I live 5 minutes from a HD and it is still a giant PITA | to rent their truck. Usually there is a line and the | transactions are relatively slow. Then you have to gas it | up. Then you have to make an extra trip, even more if | you're not using it to bring home a Home Depot purchase. | Then you only have it for 75 minutes. | olyjohn wrote: | I have a Harbor Freight trailer I tow with a Honda fit. | It's 8 feet long, and I built sides on it about 4 feet | tall. It's got a 1500lb capacity, and my hitch on my car | is rated to 2000lbs. The trailer was $300, the hitch for | my car was $150. Spent a few bucks on wood for the floor | and sides of the trailer. Been using this thing for about | 20 years. Never needed a truck. Most truck beds anymore | are less than 6 feet long, because everybody needs a 4 | door. A trailer is $35,000 cheaper than a truck, and when | you unhook it from your car, you can still use the car to | take a trip and get 35-40mpg. I tow motorcycles, dirt, | trash to the dump. I tore off my old roof and hauled it | all to the dump in my trailer. I have used it to bring | home 16 foot boards, plywood, sheetrock. It's light | enough that I can move it around when it's unhooked. It | takes about 30 seconds to hook up. | | My neighbor did the same thing, and built his entire | deck, brought in all his concrete, boards, materials, etc | in with his Mazda 3 on a small utility trailer. | | These small trailers are so useful and cheap, I don't | know why you'd spend any money renting one. And they're | actually more useful than these pickups with short stubby | beds that are only good for a half ton anyways. | foobarian wrote: | I've been considering a trailer. Problem is it's annoying | to store; I don't have a lot of space and hate it out in | the open. | | Mind you I don't have a pickup truck either, I have a | Honda Fit-sized car. (See re: no space). Just considering | it for when this car wears out. | rizzom5000 wrote: | I just check online and see which store has the truck I | want. I haven't had any issues with lines and there is no | limit on how long I can keep it where I live. I'm in a | major metro area though so ymmv. | ethanjstark wrote: | So bad--it boggles my mind. We joke that their company | moto is: "U-Haul: It's Always Somthing". | | So many instances of showing up after reserving online, | and the staff says, "Uh, we don't have that truck." | | Most recently, my friends couldn't get their reserved | truck (on their moving day) because their site (and | backend) was down nationwide. They had the truck, but | _because_ everything's digital now, they had no fallback | ability to rent out the reserved truck. | olyjohn wrote: | Not only that, but their arbitrary safety rules get | really annoying. "No you can't hook that onto the bumper | hitch, even though its rated for 4500lbs. The rules say | you need a receiver." The receiver is still rated for | 4500lbs but that's okay. | | But then they are happy to slap a receiver onto any | passenger car that is not rated to tow at all and let you | load up as much as you want into one of their box | trailers. | zardo wrote: | In Seattle, there's a good chance it takes an hour to go | pick up your friend's pickup. | orthecreedence wrote: | Yeah, I moved out to the country(ish) recently after living | in SF and swore off ever getting a truck. Within a year of | being out here, finally caved and got one and haven't looked | back. I still have the smaller honda for longer trips, but | the truck has opened up an entire world (getting plywood | sheets/siding/lumber, dump runs, towing, etc). So much of the | stuff I used to think "I can't do that myself" now just takes | a weekend or two. Re-siding? Sure. Retaining wall? Done. The | list keeps going, and I couldn't do it without the truck. | | Having a truck in a big city if you're a in tech or some | other desk job is probably kind of pointless. But if you're | not in the city and plan on saving thousands and thousands of | dollars doing some of the work on your property yourself, you | can't really live without it. Seriously, the thing has paid | for itself already (bought it used) and haven't even had it a | year. | rypskar wrote: | Why not use a small trailer instead? I have a small hybrid, | have driven 2200km since last time I filled the 40 liter | tank, when I want some plywood, lumber or dump run I | connect my trailer which I can load 1000 kg on. I do live | in a country where petrol isn't almost free so am not only | saving the environment but also lots of money from not | driving a lorry | Ichthypresbyter wrote: | A lot of cars (rather than trucks) sold in the US either | aren't rated to tow at all, or are rated to tow much less | than the same car sold in other countries. For instance, | a 2005 Subaru Forester is rated to tow 2400 lbs (1088 kg) | in the US, but 1800 kg in Europe. | | The reason for this is different countries have different | ideas of trailer safety- the US prioritizes allowing | larger total weights to be towed at higher speeds, but | Europe prioritizes allowing people to tow larger trailers | with smaller cars. | | The European approach is to have less weight on the | tongue of the trailer, which allows a smaller car to tow | more without being overloaded, but results in a less | dynamically stable configuration. They compensate for | this by having lower speed limits for trailers and | additional licensing requirements for drivers towing | heavy trailers. | | See here: http://web.archive.org/web/20150520115726/https | ://oppositelo... | Enginerrrd wrote: | As someone that owns a truck, I actually recommend this | to a lot of people. It's really quite affordable and easy | to rent one as needed too. However, there are definitely | situations where a truck is vastly superior. | | I own a consulting company and I am a civl / | environmental engineer that ends up driving a lot of | forest service roads. ...so I have a 4wd truck. There are | definitely weirdos out there that make a lot of judgments | about me because I drive a truck. | rootusrootus wrote: | > As someone that owns a truck, I actually recommend this | to a lot of people | | So they don't constantly ask to borrow you and your | truck? ;) | Enginerrrd wrote: | Lol! No, I just genuinely think its a very pragmatic | approach. | orthecreedence wrote: | My honda can't really haul anything but a few people and | some surfboards. If I attached a trailer with 2000lb of | base rock in it, it would probably kill the engine but | more importantly would be super dangerous to drive since | there's no real hitch or brake controller. | | So another vehicle was warranted: why not get one with | the trailer "built in" (truck bed) so I don't have to | have an SUV _and_ a trailer that I have to hook up every | time? There 's other reasons I needed a tow-capable | vehicle, but the utility of a truck just made the most | sense. | | I agree that there's an entire class if stuff | (lumber/plywood) you can strap to your roof or get a | little trailer for that doesn't warrant a truck, but | having one makes a lot of the stuff I do weekly so much | easier. | wffurr wrote: | Do you really haul 2000lb loads weekly? | | Your list of items "(getting plywood | sheets/siding/lumber, dump runs, towing, etc)." all seems | perfectly doable with a trailer. I never had any trouble | hauling trailers with my Subaru WRX sedan. | orthecreedence wrote: | Weekly? No. But it has happened enough times (20+) in the | last eight months to justify a vehicle that can do it, | among all the other things the truck can do that my honda | cannot. Also, depending on the weight of the loads you're | hauling in your trailer (lumber is obviously fine), you | could be putting a lot of people on or around the road in | danger. The brakes on a WRX are not designed for towing. | | I don't understand the weird fascination with people | trying to convince others that they don't need a truck. | Does it occur to you that I was aware that trailers | existed before getting the truck and that their existence | factored into the decision? | rich_sasha wrote: | Pure interest: would you mind listing the things you | transported in more detail? Maybe not so much the raw | materials but the end purpose. | | I don't live in rural US (neither rural nor US). Here in | UK you see more 4x4s in the countryside, part fashion, | part poorer roads - but there is definitely plenty of | countryside perfectly well served by regular cars, and | you do see a lot of them about. Few trucks meanwhile. | | So my imagination can't quite figure out the difference. | Snoozle wrote: | I think it's easy to underestimate just how large and | undeveloped the majority of the USA is. | | England has a population density of 275 people per square | kilometer, 281 if you consider the entire UK. UK also has | an agricultural area of about 23 million acres, at 70% of | available land. That means that a huge majority of UK | land is developed and actively used, and over an area of | 23 million acres. | | The US population density is 36 per square kilometer. | That is about 1/8th the population density, which is | already a huge difference. In addition, the total USA | land used in agriculture is about 900 million acres, | which is nearly 40x greater an area. So we are currently | at 40x the agricultural land, at 1/8th the population | density. | | The kicker to this is that the US agricultural land use | is only 44%. So not only do we have 1/8 population | density, 40x the agriculture land mass, we also don't | even break 50% of land use for agriculture purposes. This | all combines to mean a few things. | | 1. People that have land in the USA tend to have a lot | more land. | | 2. There tends to be large amounts of unused land all | over the place with no development. | | 3. A lot of land is being developed for the first time, | instead of redeveloped. | | This doesn't directly answer your question as far as | needing a trailer vs a truck, but it should give you an | idea that the USA is much less developed and a lot more | rugged than the countryside of a much older and more | established and smaller land mass like the UK. Trucks | make it a lot easier to handle all the unexpected | situations that occur from having the land situation we | have. | | One other point I'll add at the end of this. The USA also | has extremely different and varied climates compared to | the mild oceanic climate of the UK. This means more of | every type of weather and bigger extremes. This takes | huge tolls on both the roads and how tame undeveloped | land is. For instance, in the midwest, it is not uncommon | for large semi trucks and pickup trucks with huge tires | to be the only cars capable of driving on the highway as | the highway is covered in a foot of snow and they're the | only vehicles capable of driving in it. | orthecreedence wrote: | Sure. A 3000LB (dry weight) travel trailer, a few larger | deliveries where the driver didn't want to come to the | house but instead wanted meet on a main artery, I | mentioned the base rock (several days, multiple loads) to | fill in a retaining wall, a decent number of loads of | firewood (1 cord per load, generally) since we are | primarily wood-stove heat in the winter, a lot of | construction debris from renovations (not sure on the | weight, but certainly more than a honda could pull on a | tailer) and green debris from clearing the property (fire | season, yay) sent to the dumps, etc. When building the | retaining wall, I could have tamped the base rock down by | renting a tamper and spending an afternoon...OR...drive | the 4000lb truck back and forth over it for 15 minutes | until it's completely packed in (the honda would have | gotten stuck likely). | | There have also been a number of mudslides in the | neighborhood that block the only exit road in the past, | and having a 4x4 vehicle would be the only manner of | escape. Similarly, it's in the forest, so a when a tree | falls across the road (and they do), freedom is only a | truck, some straps, and a chainsaw away. | | So how much of this could have been done with an SUV? | Maybe 60%. And SUV and a trailer? 90%, and a lot more of | a pain in the ass to deal with. So why get an SUV and a | trailer when the workload specifically calls for | regularly hauling oddly-shaped or bulk items? That's | exactly what a truck is designed for. If I already had a | vehicle capable of towing a heavy trailer, the truck | would have made much less sense. But given the needs, | another vehicle was warranted, and mid-size 90s 4x4 truck | checked all the boxes. | drewzero1 wrote: | Around here (semi-rural WI, US) it's not so much the | terrain where you're going as what you need to haul. | 4'x8' sheets of building materials are one that get me a | lot; I recently had to cut a sheet of styrofoam in half | in the parking lot of the home improvement store to get | it to fit into my car. There's also pieces of equipment | that won't fit in the trunk (boot), like lawn aerators, | rototillers, sod cutters, and stump grinders. (They might | fit in a van or CUV, but then you have to deal with gas | fumes and dirtying/damaging the interior.) Dirt and | compost could fit but would be a pain even with a tarp. | | I see a lot of fashion trucks but most of them also get | used for towing or hauling on the weekend, and a lot of | that stuff wouldn't fit in a car and would be unsafe on a | trailer. A lot of people around here also have motorboats | that would be too big to safely pull with a car. | rypskar wrote: | You don't need a truck to tow a larger trailer. My Audi | A3 is rated to tow 1600kg. I did tow my 1000kg race car | many times using a normal car without any problems and it | was both safe and legal when I was racing. Trucks, and | SUVs, are bad for the environment and are more unsafe for | both the driver and for others. | beezle wrote: | That rating is for a braked trailer. Hope your was that | type. | orthecreedence wrote: | You don't need a vehicle to do anything. You can just | walk or bike. If you need to move a large load, lift some | weights or ask your friends to help you. People in egypt | built the pyramids without vehicles. Vehicles in general | are bad for the environment and are just plain unsafe for | the driver and for others. | | Snark aside, why would I buy an Audi A3 when I already | have a Honda? My truck is much more capable than your A3 | and was probably much cheaper. Regarding safety, it's | actually _really_ safe because I only drive it when I | need its hauling or towing capability. | sithadmin wrote: | Most pickup trucks are not going to be cheaper than the | A3. A3's are not especially expensive if you factor out | maintenance costs, and pickup trucks are inordinately | expensive due to high demand in the US, plus dealers | refusing to carry very many of the cheapest trim models | for sales (unless doing a bulk deal for work fleet | sales). Yes, in theory, an F-150 starts at 28K MSRP vs | 32k for an A3...but good luck finding a new F-150 for 28k | out the door. | | That said, as a former A4 owner, towing 1000+kg with an | A3 seems like a death wish to me. | orthecreedence wrote: | I got my truck for <$7000. If towing/hauling are the | goal, I'd trust a 90s pickup over any sedan regardless of | manufacturer claims. And I do tow more than the A3's | limits, so either way it's out the window. | | Agree with you on the tow ratings though. It's a really | good idea to have some healthy margin between the stated | limit and the actual load, unless you're just going down | the street. | rootusrootus wrote: | > healthy margin between the stated limit and the actual | load | | Not only that, but in some applications the stated limit | is irrelevant. Utility trailers aren't usually a big | problem, but a lot of people mistakenly think they can | tow a 7500lb RV with a half-ton truck just because the | manufacturer says the tow rating is some ridiculous | number like 11,300 lb. | orthecreedence wrote: | Interesting, up until now I would have trusted most tow | ratings. How can you tell if a manufacturer is fudging | the numbers or not? It it mostly a matter of engine/truck | size? | sithadmin wrote: | Ah, yeah the used market is a completely different beast. | Hard to compare across vehicle classes and models. I was | thinking in terms of 'new' truck sales, which is | currently bonkers for pickups and have been for some time | in North America. | reedjosh wrote: | I have a little trailer and an older small SUV. I also | have a house built in 1920. I would _really_ love a | pickup. The trailer is a pain when you do as many runs | for supplies as I do. | orthecreedence wrote: | Yeah, people seem to forget the "pain in the ass" factor. | mcguire wrote: | And then there was the time I discovered that you | _cannot_ get 10 ' rebar into a Corvette. 6'? 8'? Sure. | 10'? Not without shattering that fancy curved rear | window. | efsavage wrote: | I had the SUV/trailer combo for years, and it was handy | but there are lots of things it's just not worth the | hassle for. Now I have a pickup and making a daily trip | to the town compost pile (to eventually get rid of the | large pile of stuff that accrued over the trailer years) | is super easy. I still have the trailer but haven't | touched it once, I'd rather just make two trips with the | truck. | | P.S. Trucks are just more fun! P.P.S. They're also | cheaper to lease than SUVS thanks to crazy resale values. | dahfizz wrote: | Does your car have an official towing capacity? | | In America at least, its rare for a non-SUV or truck to | be officially rated for towing. So when you put a trailer | on your little sedan and your brakes fail going down a | long hill, insurance will have your head. | willyt wrote: | Towing with a car is normal, you need to let your | insurance know if you fit a towbar to a car that didn't | have one. You are limited to a max trailer weight of | 750kg without an upgraded driving license. Also many | normal sized cars have a max towing capacity which is | about 750kgs anyway. | rypskar wrote: | >>Does your car have an official towing capacity? | | Yes. Don't remember if it is 1500 or 1600kg. If a trailer | is heavier than 750kg it does also have brakes, so that | isn't a problem. It is an American thing thinking that | you need a car 2x the weight of the trailer to tow it | rootusrootus wrote: | > It is an American thing | | ... to tow RVs. Different game entirely than towing a | utility trailer, which is more commonly all that you find | Europeans towing behind a sedan. | beezle wrote: | 1600kg is not a lot of tow capacity - only 3500 lbs. A | base model Mustang for instance comes in at 3600 lbs. | Most campers are going to exceed it as well especially | when you add in supplies, etc. And that is not using a | trailer. | | Most people also do not realize - you need to count the | weight of the trailer, hitch, cargo and passengers | against the rated tow capacity of the vehicle. | dbatten wrote: | Also worth mentioning that U-haul trailers are very handy | for this. There's at least 3 U-haul dealers that I can | think of within a 5-minute drive of me. The one I prefer is | probably 2 minutes away, I can rent a trailer for a day for | like $15, they're never out of stock, and the owner of the | U-haul dealership is the most chill person on the planet. I | get all the benefits of a pickup truck, but don't have to | pay for one. Win-win. | | You're of course welcome to own a pickup truck if you want, | nothing wrong with that. And I'm sure plenty of people | don't live in suburbia with U-haul dealers everywhere. But | if you do, it's stupid simple and you can save a ton of | money. | rootusrootus wrote: | IMO for people who don't want to own a pickup, the Home | Depot rentals may be a more convenient option. Especially | since you're as likely as not buying whatever it is you | need to haul from there. | nsxwolf wrote: | It's a pretty painless process, but I save that option | for the "big" hauls. If I didn't have the minivan and | renting the Home Depot trucks was my only option, I'd | probably organize my life around hauling less stuff. | m463 wrote: | A friend of mine just owns a trailer that he occasionally | hooks to his minivan. | | The main disadvantage is that you're driving something | larger and more unwieldy, like backing up. | | But the advantages are numerous. Still lots of seating in | the minivan. Much lower deck to roll/drive/ride things on | (I can't recall if the trailer tilts). | | It's basically a portable pickup truck bed, maybe it's | even bigger. | [deleted] | JohnBooty wrote: | I agree with you and the U-Haul idea makes loads of | sense, but _dear heavens_ are those unpleasant places. I | wish there was a business that was like.... _U-Haul, | except nice_ although I 'm sure it would cost 3x as much. | | I'm sure the experience varies somewhat by location but | it usually involves some combination of: | | - very long lines, particularly on weekends. | understandable, but adds hours and stress | | - the vehicle you "reserved" online last week so you | could do that job today? yeah, it's not really reserved. | it may or may not be available; they "overbook" because | they expect a certain number of cancellations. again this | is understandable and something you see in a lot of | industries, but yuck. | | - lots of bogus-ish fees like "cleaning fees". | | That all said, I own a home and have never felt the need | for a pickup truck. I do fine with a hatchback and a roof | rack. | lamontcg wrote: | I just scuba dive and a truck is a lot better for hundreds | of pounds of wet smelly gear than anything else. Plus you | can go to the dump, or pick stuff up from Lowe's, etc. | | But its only an old Ford Ranger and not a F950 that is | raised enough to crawl over boulders on Mars. | orthecreedence wrote: | Yeah, honestly, I couldn't justify the utility of a truck | buying new. The price tags are nuts. I got an old T100. | They run forever, cost less than $10K (even in CA where | the truck market is crazy), and are very capable for all | the stuff I throw at it. I love the thing. | sllewe wrote: | Here in upper US East Coast - most of the older Japanese | Trucks that are perfect as a cheap hauler are piles of | rust. Really unfortunate. | alexose wrote: | I drive a 1999 F-150 for all the reasons you describe. The | sheer amount of _stuff_ that needs to be moved around the | countryside was so surprising to me when I first moved out | here. I remember thinking how insanely huge a 2 cubic foot | back of potting soil used to feel. Now I routinely buy two | yards (54 cubic feet) at a time. | | It all still feels a little weird to me. There was a time | not long ago where I never thought I'd own a car, much less | a big pickup! I'll admit that this lifestyle feels very | inefficient. | | Though, I wonder if my carbon footprint is actually | smaller, since I spend most of my vacation time working on | stuff at home (rather than flying places). | [deleted] | happymellon wrote: | When I lived in Texas I didn't need a truck all the time. But | when I did, it was critical. | | I found that since I didn't need it most of the time the Home | Depot Truck Rental for a couple of hours shifting freezers, | flooring and other bulky items worked out well for me. | | Saved on gas all the rest of the time. | | But it really requires a Home Depot within 30 mins so not for | everyone and if this had been an option, I probably would | have just gone for the truck. | scythe wrote: | When we bought our couch at the Salvation Army, they also | didn't deliver. We rented a pickup truck at Home Depot for an | hour, which cost about forty bucks. Overall, I think that | worked great and I'd do it again. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > A lot of people just want to move stuff | | I suspect most people with big trucks rarely use them for | moving stuff. Not to say they never do, but from my | observations owning a big truck has a lot more to do with | signaling a certain status to others who value big trucks. | mcguire wrote: | Not to say, of course, that owning an EV, a hybrid, or a Geo | Metro (or a converted hearse with a Pratt & Whitney aircraft | engine in the back) has nothing to do with signaling | status.... | UncleOxidant wrote: | > Geo Metro | | Owning a Geo Metro signals that you don't give a damn about | status or what anyone thinks and you don't care much about | how long it takes to get to your destination. The Geo Metro | owner in 2021 is truly the most independent thinker. | mountainethos wrote: | Some people seem to enjoy passing moral judgements onto others. | | What doesn't make sense to me is when someone who drives any | gas car judges someone who drives a truck. Do they feel | validated in their choices because someone made worse choices? | Or do they decide that 30mpg is such a morally superior | position than 20mpg that they have the right to judge others? | stefan_ wrote: | The moral judgement isn't mileage, it's that pedestrian | deaths are _rising_ , partly because of cars that have zero | forward visibility _for no good reason_ (no, the engine doesn | 't need it) and weigh tons. | | This is what is referred to as a _moral hazard_ , because the | people driving these trucks are not taking any risk, even | reducing their own risk, but at the cost of increasing the | risk of everyone else, and most importantly _people who didn | 't drive to begin with and opted out of the risky activity_. | Particularly when deaths are involved this is obviously | behavior worthy of (1) popular condemnation (2) _fucking_ | regulatory action. | munificent wrote: | _> it 's that pedestrian deaths are rising, partly because | of cars that have zero forward visibility_ | | Relative risk for light trucks is only 45% higher than cars | and is lower than cars for heavy trucks. Buses are the real | dangers on the road. | | I suspect most of the increase in pedestrian fatalities is | from pedestrians and drivers staring at their phone instead | of where they are going. I have definitely had close calls | where I watched someone looking at the phone start | wandering through an intersection without seeing if it's | clear. | Seattle3503 wrote: | > I suspect most of the increase in pedestrian fatalities | is from pedestrians and drivers staring at their phone | instead of where they are going | | Seatbelt and airbag regulations were fought on the | grounds that bad drivers killed people, not good drivers. | It was the drivers responsibility to be safe. Since | airbags and sest belts have become important safety | features, hundreds of thousands lives have been saved in | the United States alone. | mountainethos wrote: | My same questions still apply in the case of pedestrian | deaths. | | Have we decided we're okay with the number of pedestrian | deaths caused by compact cars and SUVs? Some SUVs are | heavier, have less visibility, and would presumably lead to | more pedestrian deaths than cars, so why isn't there a | similar condemnation against those vehicles? Or maybe there | is? | dashundchen wrote: | I don't think you would find a pedestrian or cyclist in | the US that would prefer being around an SUV vs sedan or | hatchback. | | But the trend of stock pick-up trucks getting lifted, | having high hoods, small windshields vs their equivalent | models 10 or 20 years ago is so much worse than the | default cross-over SUV in the US. Sales of trucks have | gone up, so have pedestrian deaths. | | https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against- | american-tr... | shard wrote: | I think mountainethos's point is that would pedestrians | and cyclists prefer sedans and SUVs to other pedestrians | and cyclists, or even motorcyclists. The likelihood of | serious injury or death is such a step function from one | to the other that the difference between sedans and | trucks is hairsplitting. | steelframe wrote: | > The likelihood of serious injury or death is such a | step function from one to the other that the difference | between sedans and trucks is hairsplitting. | | Given the choice of hitting an inclined windshield and | rolling over the top of a vehicle vs. taking the full | force of a giant body-length grille, I'd rather take my | chances with the windshield. | shard wrote: | Hmm, perhaps I was not clear. Given the choice between | going over the top of handlebars versus the top of a | vehicle or grill, I believe the difference between the | handlebars and vehicle/grill is much larger than the | difference between vehicle and grill. | bombcar wrote: | Is this not the average state of humanity? Anyone who does | something less than me is an uneducated idiot, and anyone who | does something more than me is a wasteful idiot? | shard wrote: | Yes, I recall a comedian saying that about driving on the | highway, people who drive slower than him are idiots, and | people who drive faster than him are nuts. | rootusrootus wrote: | > stereotyping of truck owners | | It's kind of ridiculous, really. You know who buys F150s? | Everyone. If there were a stereotypical "truck owner" then Ford | wouldn't sell better than a million of these every year. They | have broad appeal to diverse demographics. | bigmattystyles wrote: | It's signaling; in my mind it's the same for many Tesla | drivers. But I mean, same for me, I drive a Subaru Outback | because while I do use it for outdoor exploring and want to | signal that, its off road use is honestly limited to a dirt | parking lot. It's often about image. | | (Edit) consumption waste of traditional F150s, and yes, even | that of my beloved Subaru is not great, but the absolute | worst are coal rollers and those with loud modified exhausts. | That Newsom didn't veto legislation that undid AB1824 was | very disappointing to me. | dboreham wrote: | Come to southwest Montana -- you'd be signaling "I like to | blend in to the crowd" :) | | While nationally Subraru marketing emphasizes being | different by owning a Subaru, around here its far and away | the most common car. You exit Costco, look at the parking | lot and ask "which of these 10 gray Outbacks is mine?". | bigmattystyles wrote: | I think we're saying the same thing - just because it's | common, doesn't mean it's not signaling. You can signal | that you want to be seen as part of the majority. | dboreham wrote: | I think it's also practical -- if there are tons of | Subarus around then it probably means they cope with the | road conditions here and are reasonably cost effective | and reliable. | jacurtis wrote: | If you live in San Francisco and drive a truck than you | might be signaling. But if you own a Tesla you are just | blending in. | | By contrast, here in Idaho owning a truck is just blending | in. Owning a Tesla out here would be signaling. | | It is interesting how perspective changes so much based on | where you are. | | In Oregon I swear 80% of the population owns a Subaru | Outback. The other 20% owns a Prius. So owning a Subaru in | Oregon is just blending in. It doesn't mean anything. But | if you drove that Subaru to San Francisco, now everyone | thinks you are "outdoorsy". | bigmattystyles wrote: | But blending in can also be a form of signaling. I mean, | pretty much everything is I guess. From Zuckerberg's | t-shirt and jeans demeanor to my favorite form of | signaling which are those that wear their faang badges to | malls and restaurants on weekends. It earns an instant | eye roll. I've made my point on signaling poorly and | disjointly in the thread but my original point was that | buying a brand new vehicle, whatever it be, has a lot to | do with image and what you want to signal to others. You | can signal that you want blend in or that you are | different. It's mostly harmless, but when you do so with | a vehicle, you consider actual perf second. | Noos wrote: | The irony in this is that the imaging for subaru outbacks | is "the car of choice for gays and lesbians." It's not just | pickups that have associations with them. | durge wrote: | Yeah you're just signaling being Bozeman or Boulder basic. | ben7799 wrote: | I own a Subaru Outback too and the greenwash earthy crunchy | marketing/image of the Outback is horrible. | | It's a pig of a car in traffic. Mine is a 2013 with the | smaller engine and it struggles to get 20mpg in traffic. | | It was a cheap vehicle, but it most certainly is horrible | on gas for it's size & work capacity. | bigmattystyles wrote: | Agreed, but my point is as long as you get to signal the | image, the actual performance of the vehicle is secondary | for most. Including yours truly. | acomjean wrote: | >You know who buys F150s? everyone | | except those strange ones that buy Chevy or GMC. | | Or the real outlier, those with Ram Pickups.... | | (I didn't realize this was a thing till my civil engineering | company last century bought a GMC to replace the fords). | | To this day I remember a Huge Ram diesel dually with a big | dog in the bed towing in a single roll of landfill liner (23 | ft long and About 2000 lbs of plastic) and thinking.. wow. | basch wrote: | Wouldn't call Ram an outlier. Sells about as well and Chevy | and outsells GMC. GMC+Chevy about equal Ford, and Ram sells | like 65-75% of what Ford does. | | Toyota is the "not quite first tier, not Nissan or a baby | truck." | beerandt wrote: | The recent resurgence in Ram is a bit mind-boggling to | me, not because they are good or bad, but because the | lack of historical brand power has always seemed so | arbitrary to me, and it's resurgence even more-so. | | Whereas Toyota approaching Tier-1 makes a bit more sense. | If nothing else, based on the fact that they're now more | "American" built than the three "domestic" truck | companies. | rootusrootus wrote: | > except those strange ones that buy Chevy or GMC. | | I mean it philosophically. "Everyone," to a rough | approximation, are customers interested in a pickup. | Whether Ford, Chevy, Ram, Toyota, etc. | AngryData wrote: | Buying a Chevy truck makes sense if you are upgrading from | a 90s Chevy truck because they lasted a long time and were | easy to maintain and cheap to repair. Mine is still going | strong at 322K miles. Of course it isn't until after | someone upgrades and puts a few years on a new truck do | they realize they aren't as cheap and easy to maintain as | the 90s version. | bananabreakfast wrote: | Keep in mind this is only in America. F-150s sell terribly | anywhere else because they have to actually compete with | trucks made in other countries, unlike here where foreign | trucks are heavily tariffed. | post_break wrote: | I don't think ford will be able to build enough to meet demand. | And ford dealers are going to price gouge the crap out of buyers. | I have a friend of a friend who is a ford dealer and they are | charging quite a bit over for regular F150's because of the chip | shortage. | gibolt wrote: | The chip shortage will look like nothing, once the EV ramp | increases. | | Batteries are always the bottleneck. Ford announced a 60GWh | plant partnership, but that will only hold them over for | several years of growth and is still a ways away from actually | producing cells. | whatever1 wrote: | The owners will be caught off guard with the horrible range for | truck activities (towing, driving in rough terrain, climbing | hills, carrying cargo). | | On the other hand I suspect that significant fraction of the | trucks are just used for commuting in flat suburbia so range will | not matter. | rhodozelia wrote: | Why would low speed high torque operation be bad for range? Are | the electric motors less efficient at lower speeds? Hill | climbing and off roading probably has bad gas mileage too? | XorNot wrote: | Payload capacity is lower then I'd like to see (tops out at 900kg | I think?). So still short of the something you could get a bulka- | bag dropped on at a distributor and just drive home with. | ethbr0 wrote: | Summarized at | https://www.thedrive.com/news/40675/electric-2022-ford-f-150... | alexanderdmitri wrote: | > Offering an ingenious array of connected, intelligent features | with over-the-air Software Updates to help ensure your truck can | get even better over time. | | Anyone else think it's anti-consumer to not be able to opt out of | these 'features'? | [deleted] | rootusrootus wrote: | Did they say it was something you couldn't opt out of? | | Tesla seems to do okay convincing people to accept OTA updates. | | Also, current F150s can do OTA updates, they're just rare. | yumraj wrote: | > Anyone else think it's anti-consumer to not be able to opt | out of these 'features'? | | Yes, absolutely. | gibspaulding wrote: | I was pretty amazed to see this in the initial blurb. I agree | with you, and I think a good chunk of HN would as well, but | apparently Ford's marketing department determined that this is | something that people want. | | Scrolling through the page, it's the second "feature" that they | advertise (first being that it's "gass-free"). It gets higher | placement than the "Power your home" capability, and much | higher placement than the "Frunk" (in fact, if I just scroll, | the "frunk" doesn't show up until about 2/3 of the way down the | page!) | namdnay wrote: | I guess the fact that's it's electric is a good step. But it | seems insane to me that we don't do more to discourage massive | consumption of what should be utility vehicles. I'm willing to be | 80% of people buying an f150 or similar never have been and never | will be building contractors or lumberjacks. | nabilhat wrote: | It's changed, and recently. In the last 10-20 years the utility | of pickups has changed substantially, as well as the fortunes | of the people who used them in their jobs. Construction, | lumber, and similar are familiar as part of the market of an | industry that I'm working with. Until 10-20 years ago, you | could hop into a new pickup's bed, or reach the bed floor over | the rails. New pickup beds come with folding ladders built in, | because they're so high off of the ground it's a requirement | for many owners. | | New pickups do still get used for construction - but only by | the owners and some management can afford a new pickup. New | pickups on construction sites pull trailers to put cargo at a | human accessible height. | | Pickups in lumber jobs are also a luxury. Any vehicle driven to | lumber sites will effectively be destroyed, they get bent, | bashed, and permanently embedded with filth. The rank and file | drive what they can afford and don't mind destroying due to the | nature of the job, or they ride in with the rest of a crew, or | more and more often they don't drive to a site because they're | forced labor rented from prisons. | | People who need pickups for everyday, practical uses are using | vans, trailers, or buying older pickups. 20 year old pickups | are so much more practical than new that certain models in | excellent shape will sell for more now than they did when new. | New pickups and their predecessors are entirely different | vehicles. | morty_s wrote: | > 80% of people buying an f150 or similar never have been and | never will be building contractors or lumberjacks | | Yeah, I feel this. I used to have a big work truck, but it was | for work. Everyone has a truck in my hometown (seemingly). Last | week I saw a big F-250 super duty pull up and the dude that got | out was in scrubs (a nurse). | | Friends of mine have considered the super duty's for towing, | but now they're interested in the lightning for the same | reasons. | trackofalljades wrote: | The proportion of pickup trucks (especially the light duty | ones) that are purchased as "lifestyle" products rather than | for utility use is probably significantly higher than 80%, if | that were measured honestly. | dash2 wrote: | Yeah, +1 this. I mean, if you're genuinely in the country | pulling logs, or even just in the US, then fine. People drive | around my tiny country town in England in these tanks. I just | find it obnoxious. It's wasteful and it's intimidating for | others on the road. And it starts an arms race, because now | being in a small car you can't see past other drivers and you | feel more vulnerable. | | Saddest emblem of modern Eurocapitalism that I know: the BMW | "Mini". It's a vast, charmless travesty of the original. | HideousKojima wrote: | I take it you've never had to: | | 1. Take a bunch of trash/old furniture/whatever to the dump | | 2. Move furniture | | 3. Pick up materials for a home renovation like 16 foot long | baseboards, drywall, a few dozen boxes of laminate flooring, | etc. (no need to be a professional construction contractor | here) | | 4. Tow a camping trailer | | 5. Much, much more | | I'm literally using my truck tonight to pick up ~500 square | feet of flooring material, which is saving me ~$300 in shipping | costs. The truck itself only cost me $3,700 to begin with, and | between this and several other home improvement projects it has | saved me ~$2,000 in shipping/moving/other costs so far in just | the two years I've owned it. And I'll be saving a bundle in | shipping costs on new kitchen cabinets in a few months as well. | That's before you get into the convenience factor of not having | to rent/borrow a truck anytime you need to move something big. | slacka wrote: | > saving a bundle in shipping costs on new kitchen cabinets | | Both Lowes and Home Depot offer free delivery for orders over | $45. I've also done several home improvement projects, and | never needed to pay a dime in shipping. Are you buying | directly from the manufacturer or something I'm missing here? | HideousKojima wrote: | I'm buying from a custom builder nearby who charges for | delivery | namdnay wrote: | of course I have for (1-3), as have nearly all home owners | across the world.. and honestly for this type of stuff a | dedicated light dump truck is way more useful (especially for | emptying massive quantities of building or garden debris at | the tip). and that's what? 100 dollars a day? how many days a | year are you really going to need to do that? 3-4 ? | danans wrote: | The same could be said of sports cars - most people don't race | them or push them anywhere near their potential. | | But selling cars has always been the business of selling a | story as much as it has been about selling a transportation | technology. This goes back to the earliest days when cars were | hulking machines owned by the uber-wealthy. | | > or lumberjacks. | | Hah, I bet a puny pickup truck isn't very useful for | lumberjacks' actual work. I think they use giant tree felling | machines and specialized trucks instead. Pickups seem more like | small support vehicles for them. | rhodozelia wrote: | Loggers use pickups to haul fuel to their heavy equipment, | and to commute on sometimes quite rough logging roads and | muddy log sort yards | kingsuper20 wrote: | Oh well, there's a lot of people doing illogical things out | there. | | Folks who sit in their Civic every day for a couple of hours | because they need to live _here_ and work _there_. | | Folks who own Subarus who rarely, if ever, make use of the AWD. | | Folks who never ever use the back seat of their cars and might | as well have a car that's 3 feet shorter. | | Folks who own cars that can go over 70 mph. | pionar wrote: | I've never been one of those things, but they're still useful. | I had an F150 for a while that I only used to transport things | like mulch or helping friends move or moving myself. | | I still have an old Ranger that I use for those purposes today. | | It seems insane to assume you can be the judge of what's | "useful" or "utility". | npsimons wrote: | Nice anecdote. Here, I'll add mine: | | My wife at the time bought an SUV, a Toyota Highlander. She | never went off road, we didn't have any children, she never | hauled anything. 90% of her driving was to and from work on | paved roads, a job that could have been accomplished with a | Honda Civic. | | Now let's play another fun game: how many truck and SUV | owners do you think are like you, and how many do you think | are like my ex-wife? | matthewmcg wrote: | A truck is great to have for all kinds of reasons. I think | the issue is that a combination of automaker marketing and | various regulatory and tax incentves/loopholes drive people | to purchase more trucks than they otherwise would. | alistairSH wrote: | Specifically, the Section 179 deductions available on | vehicles that weight in excess of 6000lbs. A business | doesn't need to prove need to make use of the tax | advantage. This encourages real estate agents, sales | people, etc to buy new large SUVs instead of leasing or | buying second hand sedans that would otherwise be suitable | (Mercedes E-Class, etc). And contractors that could use | smaller vehicles (Transit Connect, Ranger) to buy F-150s or | large vans. | | It's basically a massive kick-back to Ford and Chevy. | namdnay wrote: | I think you're being a bit unfair. We all agree that they're | useful, but surely in a world win which we need to | | a) reduce road and parking space in order to encourage better | forms of transportation , | | b) reduce our consumption of natural resources | | ,maybe we need to discourage individual ownership of 3000kg | utility vehicles? | criddell wrote: | In the US, discouraging individual ownership of vehicles is | probably not going to succeed. I don't want to give up my | car and I suspect that electric vehicles and self driving | vehicles (when they get here) are going to drive the cost | of trips way, way down which will increase the number of | trips by a similar amount. The number of vehicles on the | road is going to increase. | | Because of the increased demand on raods, reducing road | space probably won't happen. When cars can get to and from | parking spaces by themselves, parking space can move into | central towers or edge lots, but the number of spaces is | probably going to increase, not decrease. | | We all want better forms of transportation, but there's a | lot of disagreement about what's better. | tmh88j wrote: | > I think you're being a bit unfair. We all agree that | they're useful, but surely in a world win which we need to | | >a) reduce road and parking space in order to encourage | better forms of transportation , | | I don't see that happening. SUV's and pickups are so | popular in the US because most cities are more similar to | Houston and LA than NYC or Chicago. | kingsuper20 wrote: | We probably just need fewer people. | leetrout wrote: | Unfortunately compact pickups aren't really a thing any more. | | As a homeowner and a parent this would be a great vehicle for | me -- having the utility of a truck bed. | | Not everyone that owns a home does work on it themselves but | trucks are very useful. Today my only options are rent a truck | or put a trailer hitch on my van and pull a trailer when I need | to haul stuff. That's so much more hassle. | alistairSH wrote: | Check out the Hyundai Santa Cruz. Looks like they took the | Honda Ridgeline concept and down-sized it a bit. | | I currently own a Ridgeline - it's not quite compact, but | rides better than a Taco or Ranger and the trunk under the | bed is useful. | | If the Hyundai existed earlier this year, I'd probably own it | instead. | ethbr0 wrote: | This is a regulatory consequence, no? | | My understanding was that classification meant there was a | disincentive for manufacturers to build smaller trucks (fuel | efficiency and/or emissions?). | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Honestly, I'm not handy at all and I've only owned my home | for a couple of years, but the desire for something with a | truck bed grows more every summer, it's just so damn useful | to be able to do something as simple as pick up a lawn mower | or a ladder or not worry about the size of the flat pack | we're getting from Ikea. | rhodozelia wrote: | Ford ranger is back Chevy Colorado and gm canyon Tacoma ... | namdnay wrote: | I do quite a bit of DIY and I have a skoda octavia combi | (which would be considered small in the US). honestly the | only thing i have difficulty with is drywall panels, i have | to tie them to the roof bars. | | obviously a truck would be much easier, but if I'm redoing a | house I'll need to rent a light dump truck anyway for at | least 1-2 days just to get all the old junk out, so I do the | big material buy at the same time | dokem wrote: | I'd love to audit your life and make sure you also aren't using | any more resources than are absolutely necessary. | mkaufman wrote: | you do you. | mywittyname wrote: | F150s are amazing vehicles. It seats six with an extended cab, | haul tons & tons of crap in the bed, gets roughly the same fuel | economy as a minivan, it can tow pretty much anything and It | will also hold its value insanely well. | | Compared with, say, a Honda Odyssey, the F150 is a better | family vehicle in many cases. The only reason I can think of to | go with the Odyssey (which is another vehicle I love) is | vehicle footprint and long-term reliability. | | There's a reason the F150 sells so many units in the USA: it's | the ultimate vehicle, and it comes with almost no drawbacks. | heymijo wrote: | I thought it was due to fuel standard requirements and | loopholes between autos and light trucks like the F-150. | | Cars and mid size SUVs all seem to be converging on the same | shape with minor differences where as trucks still have some | individuality. | | So I went to check this supposition out and whew, I'm confused. | | CAFE standards, harmonic means, compliance flexibility, offset | credits are all more than I can wrap my head around from my | smartphone. | | Not to mention trying to read the actual CAFE regulation is | very convoluted. | | Anyways, I thought I had an answer for you but all I've got is | a rabbit hole in crawling out of. | | https://reason.org/e-brief/cafe-standards-in-plain-english/ | kingsuper20 wrote: | I liked this line in that article: | | "For example, Ford sells both the Focus, a mid-size car that | gets 31 mpg on highways, and the F-150, a midsize truck that | gets 25 mpg on highways." | | I mean, just think about how similar those numbers are given | the vehicles. Pretty wild. | speedgoose wrote: | The perfect vehicle to let everyone think I have a complex about | the size of my penis. | noisy_boy wrote: | It does have some very nice features. However, I think the reason | people who have no need to tow or go offroad would buy this is | the same reason people with light workloads buy i9 laptops with | 64GB of RAM - spec-flex that they can easily afford. | stakkur wrote: | It's simple: Ford will sell a shit ton of these. | | Killer feature: onboard power for external devices. This will be | _huge_ for the trades--and the trades are a primary target market | for Ford trucks. | rhodozelia wrote: | I don't think not needing a portable generator on small | construction sites is going to be a big driver of sales. | | Sales will be driven by the same factors as Tesla's, no c02 | emissions, don't have to buy gas. Everything else is bonus | skynet-9000 wrote: | Most people buy pickups currently probably don't really think | CO2 emissions are a big deal, but perhaps there's an | undiscovered pickup market that Ford's going to tap into; | perhaps an urbanite who normally wouldn't consider a pickup | but thought the Cybertruck looked interesting. | aynyc wrote: | This is a contractor's dream truck. | | * Power supply. This thing supports ton of recharging of power | tools. Lawn cares services will love this as more and more | communities are banning gas-powdered tools. | | * Range. 300 is well within most contractors' home to work site. | | * Frunk. Lock away their valuable tools without unloading the | toolbox. | | * Look. It's what they know and trust. It's something new yet | familiar. | | Next step for Ford, make EV version of Transit. That'll sell like | hot cakes! | aaronbeekay wrote: | Ford released the e-Transit before the Lightning! | | https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-transit/2022/ | aynyc wrote: | Wow, Ford is hitting the commercial market before Tesla did! | bhauer wrote: | I think Tesla's strategy is to start with the total battery | supply and allocate batteries to vehicles with sufficiently | high margin that they can scale as quickly as possible. | | They delayed refreshing the X and S for a long time, I | believe, in part because these two models are low-volume | and therefore don't warrant a high allocation of battery | supply and manufacturing floor space. Why refresh them now, | then? I think they are using the 2021 refresh of X and S as | a spur for the 4680 battery ramp (see conjecture that | Plaid+ is going to be 4680). | | Adding more models and variations doesn't do them much good | when their demand for the mainstream 3 and Y _far_ | outstrips their battery supply, both today and into the | near future, even with them ramping battery supply as hard | as possible. | | Brands that are making a wide range of electric vehicles | are taking a significantly different approach. But seeing | as they too will be constrained by a small supply of | batteries, I am not sure the diversity will be as valuable | on their bottom line. | ed25519FUUU wrote: | The intelligent backup power is such an obviously good feature | that I'm surprised nobody has thought of this before. Out here | people will spend $5-$10k installing a generac for their home. | That thing is loud and takes awhile to turn on depending on the | setting. | | Having your EV plugged in and just "work" when there's a power | outage is stupid simple and absolutely worth it. | dang wrote: | All: this thread has over 1000 comments. To see all of it you | need to click More at the bottom of the page, or like this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=2 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=3 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039&p=4 | | (Posts like this will go away once we turn off pagination.) | | There are also some previous related threads: | | _The Electric Ford F-150 Can Power Your House for Three Days on | a Single Charge_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27232576 | - May 2021 (14 comments) | | _Ford unveils the F-150 Lightning, its all-electric pickup | truck_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27218029 - May 2021 | (88 comments) | | _How Ford Built an Electric F-150 That Can Do Real Work for | $40K_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217386 - May 2021 | (7 comments) | gher-shyu3i wrote: | I'm curious how it will perform off road. No need for a locking | diff anymore if it has 1 motor per wheel. | jordache wrote: | it's one motor per pair of axles. | gher-shyu3i wrote: | I wonder if they're going to provide diff locks for each | axel. | rhodozelia wrote: | That would be pretty sweet | _coveredInBees wrote: | I gotta say, I am very impressed by what I've seen with the | F-150. It's clear that a LOT of thought has gone into this | product and Ford clearly understands their target audience | extremely well. There are so many nice features that are so well | tailored to folks who buy trucks. All the features to power job | sites, etc is really sweet and I can totally see that being super | handy. Heck, it would make it super easy to work on projects in | my driveway without any worries. | | Storage with the massive frunk is awesome. Lots of features | around hitches and making it easier to use them and tow with | them. Pretty good price point, good acceleration to appeal to the | macho truck crowd who will hold their nose while making the | plunge to electric so they can feel good about themselves when | they floor the accelerator at stoplights and onramps. | | There is something for everyone here. Yes, it plays it safe on | the aesthetics side of things, but I don't see anything wrong | with it. The "safer" aesthetics also make it more useful than the | Cybertruck, what with the massive Frunk. Really glad to see some | good competition in this space. The next 2 years are going to be | really exciting in the EV space! | mywittyname wrote: | The only gotcha with this, is that F150s are huge. I have an | oversized garage and an F150 will _barely_ fit. Many of my | full-size truck driving neighbors opt to park in the driveway | because they turn a modern two car garage into a 1.5 car garage | unless designed specifically for giant vehicles. | | I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be | installed outside. Most people have wall chargers in their | garages, but I don't thing this is going to work for the | majority of F150 home owners. | | That being said, this is an otherwise incredible vehicle. The | F150 is pretty much the ultimate vehicle for someone with | enough space for one, and this improves upon it in nearly every | way. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I'm still waiting on the F350 EV :) | jacurtis wrote: | I own an F150 Platinum with the 6.5ft bed (most are only 5ft | beds), and my truck won't fit in my standard size garage. It | is simply too long. | Tiktaalik wrote: | Electric or not, trucks have been getting so big in recent | years it's becoming pretty absurd. | pwagland wrote: | At least in Europe, pretty much _all_ chargers are designed | to be installed outdoors, as pretty much no-one has a garage | anyway. | | So outdoor charging should not be an issue. | scotu wrote: | (European here) do you mean in city centers? Most houses | not in historic city centers have garages in Italy afaik | gjhr wrote: | Here in the UK lots of people have garages but I'd | actually guess its more common to use them for storage | than to keep a car in. Everyone I know who has an | electric car keeps it on the drive with an outside | charging point. | vinay427 wrote: | Underground (or partially underground) parking garages are | fairly common for newer and especially fancier apartment | buildings where I live. I'm not sure how common electric | car chargers are in these garages, however. | outworlder wrote: | > I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be | installed outside | | Most can be installed outside, specially if they are | hardwired. Not sure if there are any rated to be plugged in | outdoor power outlets. | kingnothing wrote: | The Siemens US2 VersiCharge is a pretty popular consumer | charger that's designed to be weatherproof. I have one in my | garage, but I've seen them installed in parking lots for | commercial use, too. | Someone1234 wrote: | I could legitimately see every job site having at least one as | a rolling power station. | | That could be a very useful and popular niche, construction | sites without power at early phases of construction aren't rare | and power tool batteries are expensive. | seem_2211 wrote: | I would be really interested in understanding the breakdown | in F150's as sold by model number. | | For a lot of truck owners, there's going to be some | resistance because they love having a v8 engine etc. I don't | see those people moving over quickly (although they might be | swayed by the acceleration/speed). But if you're using one as | a tradesperson, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. | You're not driving enormous distances regularly and if you're | able to run your entire job site for free, as well as have | lower servicing costs... why wouldn't you? | jrsj wrote: | Many new trucks have used turbo V6s instead of V8s for | awhile now. There's definitely some buyers who just want | the sound of a V8 or don't quite trust the reliability of a | twin turbo BUT I think more people would be open to | electric than you would think, even in people primarily | just using them for transportation | bluGill wrote: | I know a few people who tow big trailers, and they buy | the V8 because once you hook up a real load the turbo | kicks in and you are burning just as much gas. They | figure that larger engine without a turbo is probably | going to last a lot longer. Those who use the truck for a | mix, sometimes with the trailer, sometimes with small | loads opt for the turbo v6 and like it just fine, but | they all agree if towing is the real goal get the v8. (or | better yet get a diesel, and a bigger truck) | seem_2211 wrote: | Couldn't agree more. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of car | users aren't wedded to using gas. There are enthusiasts, | but they are a small minority. | nexuist wrote: | I don't know a single person who enjoys going to a gas | station. Paying $40 a week just to hear some loud noise | is an incredibly lame proposition, and only makes sense | if you drive your truck for fun instead of utility. Most | people buy a car for work, so avoiding the pump is a huge | bonus. | | I'm sure gas guzzler enthusiasts will continue to exist, | but the financials don't make sense; it would be far | cheaper for them to daily drive an EV and keep the old | guzzler for fun days. They'd save on gas and maintenance | by not driving an ICE all the time, and they still get to | use it whenever they have free time. | | In conclusion, my argument is that Ford/whoever will | still eventually capture these enthusiasts, because they | can still keep their old trucks but will always | eventually need a new one. | seem_2211 wrote: | I don't mind it. I drive a v8 Mercedes and love the sound | etc... but at the same time, I've moved to NYC so the | odds that I even keep a car aren't particularly high. | thevardanian wrote: | lol $40 for full tank... | GongOfFour wrote: | I bought my truck used and somehow missed that it had the | extended range tank, which is 36 gallons. I was so | confused when I filled it up for the first time and it | just kept going and going... | JeremyNT wrote: | I think it could be quite useful in construction, food | trucks, events - any situation you normally see generators. | | However, even better for that kind of stuff would be a hybrid | with a smaller battery, but a generator in the frunk (sort of | like the Volt). | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | My self-built sprinter has seen it's solar-charged | electrical system been used many times to power PA systems | at parties and running events. Only 120VAC (no 240VAC), and | only about 2.5kW/hrs of power available, but I've never | needed close to that for anything it's been used for. I've | used it a few times to run power tools, but that's when I | most regret only having 1kW inverter instead of a 1.5kW | one: a router or circular saw startup can trip the inverter | breaker. | Someone1234 wrote: | I agree that would be even better. | | Unfortunately I don't think such a vehicle exists _yet_ , | while hybrids and even plug-in hybrids are common, they | aren't designed to be used as power stations/offer multiple | 110v outlets. | | This new F-150 is rare in that the manufacturer actually | supports its usage like this. If you use a Tesla as a | glorified battery they will actually void your warranty. | bigtex wrote: | Ford has said they reused much of the same parts for the ICE | F150 so it makes sense they look very similar. This will also | help the model be profitable as well. | anotherQuarter wrote: | I hope the ability to use your EV battery to backup your house | power becomes an expected capability in the future. Glad Ford | included it. Too bad Tesla backed away from it, i'm guessing due | to their powerwall business. | ffggvv wrote: | i wonder how long a car could possibly power a house | toast0 wrote: | Depends on the size of the house's load and the size of the | battery and the efficiency of the inverter. | | Ford's promo site says 'up to 10 days with rationing power' | asuming 30kWh use per day with extended-range battery. But | it's not clear to me if 30kWH is normal use, and rationing | would be less, or if that's the rationed use. A 300 kWH | battery seems rather large to me, and i haven't seen an | actual spec for the Ford. | | Edit: reread their site after reading sibling posts, in a | different blurb they say 3 days or 10 days with rationing | with the same assumption about 30 kWH per day; so their | rationing assumption must be getting down closer to 9 kWH per | day. Either way, a nice feature to have that would eliminate | a portable generator for me. | anotherQuarter wrote: | Ford claims three days based on 30 kwh per day usage. | mavhc wrote: | Depends if you need heating/cooling. Otherwise 500W would | cover lights, fridge, TV. So 100kW battery, 200 hours. | pwagland wrote: | So the standard "house battery backup" systems are around the | 20-30kWH range, and they are good for about 1-2 days | depending on your usage. | | The F150 Lighting has up to a 150kWH battery, so somewhere in | the 1-2 week range, depending on use. | kibwen wrote: | From other reports I've seen claims of three days at "normal" | power draw, up to ten days if you're deliberately conserving | power. | rootusrootus wrote: | I want to know if it is 240V split phase. A lot of houses use | multiwire branch circuits so getting split phase power would be | a Big Deal. If Ford puts a big gnarly inverter capable of this | in the F150, then I'm going to be stoked. | | But I need an HD truck, and it has to have enough range to tow, | which means I'm not in the market for a Lightning. Dammit. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I'm interested to see if this leads to people living in places | without power and using their truck as the sole source of | electricity. | | If you have a small cabin with no a/c, wood heat, and a propane | stove - your house is going to use hardly any power compared to | your truck. It would barely make a difference. | moralestapia wrote: | But how would you charge the truck? | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | At a charging station? A lot of people do a lot of their | charging not at home already - at least in cities. | Presumably this could / will be true in rural areas, too. | Aperocky wrote: | That will probably not happen. | | The mentality is extremely different, you do at home what | you can, to the maximum. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | This is the opposite of what is usually said about EVs - | that most people will charge them at home, overnight. | oasisbob wrote: | I just can't see this use case. | | The power draw is probably fine, but the contention for the | battery would be a problem. Think, "hey honey, can we put off | the Costco trip until next week so we can leave the internet | up, and lights on?" | | Implementing a transfer switch and dummy load just to dump | solar generation when your truck is being a truck would feel | like a weird exercise. | progx wrote: | I can park my car in the F150 frunk :-) | WhompingWindows wrote: | 1. I'm really glad they didn't go with the "futuristic" look of | the bmw or Volt, where extra "techie" lines create a muddled | design. Just make EVs look like aerodynamic ICE vehicles, this | will increase adoption rates. | | 2. How much power does the generator/house back-up provide? I can | see it being enough for a couple tools on a jobsite, but how long | will it run a refrigerator, furnace, lights, etc.? | | 3. In this page, Ford claims to have the largest charging network | in the USA. How is that possible, I thought Tesla had a huge lead | on supercharging stations and destination chargers? | | 4. Price: At 40k base, you'll be seeing average costs of 50k+, | even after the 7.5k tax incentive. I'd take the larger battery | for sure, it would greatly increase the utility of the truck for | my cases. 50k is what MANY truck buyers are already spending, I | don't see that being an obstacle at all. | | 5. Gripe: Most people who claim to need a truck don't really need | to OWN a truck; they should just rent. I live in a rural area and | 95% of the trucks I see have 1 passenger and on average almost no | cargo in the bed. We are polluting our planet for the occasional | privilege of using our OWN truck...people simply buy vehicles for | the outlying use case, not the modal case, and it's incredibly | inefficient. | | 6. Overall: These EVs are a step in the right direction. It's | still energy inefficient overall, and renting an ICE truck once a | month would still be better than buying a new massive EV truck, | but this is a step in the right direction. It'll nudge the "I | want my own truck" people in the right direction towards | efficiency. | kevin_b_er wrote: | In response to 2: | | One, we don't know the actual usable capacity of the pack, | because Ford hasn't said. Forbes writer estimates 110-130kWh. | | https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning... | | Estimating home energy use per day really depends on how much | heating/air conditioning you need, if your heater is gas | powered or not. The fridge is like 1kWh per day. So... 100 days | of just the fridge. | | Mid-sized gas furnace will pull about 600W to run the forced | air fan. So... 0.6 kWh per hour of runtime. You'd have to | calculate the runtime given a temperature. If it is an electric | furnace it'll blow through that battery quite fast. | | Lights are now peanuts, because LED bulbs are about 8-10W. | .12kWh per bulb per day for 12 hours of use. | | Also, compare your home's electric bill for a kWh number to | compare: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 | | Average of 877kWh per month. Of course this is averaged as you | use more power depending on local weather and time of year due | to heating/cooling needs. With that over-averaged value, 3.75 | days to drain the battery. This is probably why Ford says about | 3 days and then says "10 with conservation". | | So I'd say if a family really conserved on heating/cooling, and | attempted to be careful with cooking, that battery could quite | easily go 10 days. | slownews45 wrote: | I want a super small pickup truck. My neighbor has a very old | truck, it's SMALL (only font seats, no "cab", smaller width, | height and everything) So they used to make smaller trucks. | | I'm serious. I just need room for myself, occasionally one other | person, and random crap (canoes, boats etc on a rack in back, | garden, house, etc crap in bed). We have a family car for the | whole family. This could be uncomfortable and small (and ideally | cheep) but obviously no market for that or it would be out there. | What's smallest pickup currently sold in US? | seanalltogether wrote: | I'm sure this image is heavily photoshopped, but it looks like | they're trying to make a center console that's half touch screen, | half physical controls. I wonder what that will look like in | reality. | | https://www.ford.com/is/image/content/dam/vdm_ford/live/en_u... | gabesullice wrote: | This is already a reality in the 2020 Mustang Mach E | | https://www.google.com/search?q=2020+mustang+mach+e+interior | intrepidhero wrote: | Is anybody selling conversion kits to replace touch screen | controls with physical or is that too hard/niche? | jaywalk wrote: | How could you possibly cram everything that's controlled via | the touchscreen into physical controls? | intrepidhero wrote: | You mean like in every car made before 2015? Do new cars | really have that many more features? | | With the touchscreen cars I've rented or driven for work | I'd have loved to have a little bluetooth or serial | connected control cluster that sat near to hand with basic | radio and climate controls. Something I could operate by | feel. Seems like there are enough bad touchscreen consoles | out there to make an aftermarket kit viable but maybe I | underestimate the technical challenges. | | Maybe I'll just keep driving my junkers until voice control | gets good. | jaywalk wrote: | The top level Settings menu in my 2020 Ford Explorer | doesn't even fit on one page. It would end up looking | like the cockpit of a commercial airliner if everything | had to be mapped out to a physical control. | Scottopherson wrote: | Every action doesn't need its own physical control. Knobs | and buttons can be multipurpose. My mazda3 has | touchscreen but it's disabled because I can navigate and | control everything with a single "command" knob. | jaywalk wrote: | This is the configuration I've got in my vehicle, which I | feel strikes the right balance: https://www.ford.com/cont | ent/dam/vdm_ford/live/en_us/ford/na... | 13rac1 wrote: | Mazda stopped using touchscreens: | https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- | pur... | | > "Doing our research, when a driver would reach towards a | touch-screen interface in any vehicle, they would | unintentionally apply torque to the steering wheel, and the | vehicle would drift out of its lane position," said Matthew | Valbuena, Mazda North America's lead engineer for HMI and | infotainment. | | > "And of course with a touchscreen you have to be looking at | the screen while you're touching...so for that reason we were | comfortable removing the touch-screen functionality," he | added. | pionar wrote: | I think it's all still touch screen, looks like that new trend, | "Smart depth" or whatever it is. | kingsuper20 wrote: | It's odd that talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal, | but messing with those user interfaces is perfectly safe. | hugihlynsson wrote: | What you are seeing there is a trend in UI design called | Neumorphism. | chasebank wrote: | Someone needs to start a dash company for these auto | manufacturers. They are all hideous and have terrible | functionality. Why would I ever want to control my heated seats | through a touchscreen? Or A/C? Or Radio presets. I want to buy | a newer vehicle but they are all so bad. | jaywalk wrote: | You lost me at radio presets. | jonfw wrote: | Range rovers have been doing something like this for a few | years. Theirs can go between being radio controls and climate | controls pretty seamlessly. I think it's a great compromise | between touch controls and tactility | post_break wrote: | It already exists in the electric mustang, and looks exactly | like that. | | Go to 10:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n5iPqxpaw | seanalltogether wrote: | Very cool, I love it, I hope more automakers figure out | clever ways to keep analog controls mixed in with touch. | FridayoLeary wrote: | For my part i hope that they figure out that not literally | everything needs to be crammed on to a flashy screen. The | purging of tactile controls must stop. | mkmk wrote: | This interface is already in production in the electric | mustang. The buttons are all touchscreen, with the exception of | the physical center wheel which is embedded in a hole in the | screen. The photo on this article may be helpful: | https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/02/im-obsessed-with-the-ford-... | mavhc wrote: | It's just stuck on the touchscreen I thought, like that | microsoft puck thing for their non portable Surface device | WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: | Disgusting and awesome. I hate and love it. | | Just a mind bending and creative design all around. | MattGaiser wrote: | Probably quite functional, but it looks like a tumor on top | of the screen. | space_ghost wrote: | Ford missed a trick by not making it magnetic and easily | removable. | jaywalk wrote: | Then they'd have to add extra hardware to detect whether | it's there or not, and change the interface accordingly. | And for what? I can't imagine an actual use case to | justify it. | tw04 wrote: | It's not half and half, it's touchscreen with a physical volume | knob which in my opinion is the _right way_. Having touch | controls for volume is a horrible idea (my car has touch | control for everything and I despise trying to get the volume | adjusted quickly). | | https://i.imgur.com/Lw4GgNW.jpeg | WillPostForFood wrote: | If a touchscreen is bad for volume, it is probably bad for | most other up and down adjustments too (e.g. temp). I'd argue | touch screens are bad for everything when you are driving, | because you can't feel your way around. | zdragnar wrote: | I _hate_ touchscreens in cars. Avoiding them is a big part | of why my current ride is from 2011. | ddingus wrote: | Same. Want nothing to do with them. | | Also night driving. I love low interior indicator | lighting. The big screens inhibit night vision. The older | we get, the worse this is. | space_ghost wrote: | Touchscreens aren't as bad as the cheap capacitive | switches that seem to be taking over the Appliance | product space. Every appliance in my new house's kitchen | has those damn capacitive switches and they only work | ~10% of the time. | tw04 wrote: | I don't disagree, I just tend not to adjust those as | frequently. I think Ram has a nice balance between physical | and touch: | | https://i.imgur.com/anDbKgG.jpg | | In general I prefer knob controls for things like | temperature and volume, but the physical up/down is _ok_ | FridayoLeary wrote: | >Having touch controls for volume is a horrible idea | | I second that. This also applies to heater controls and | lighting and almost everything else that i can't think of. | The benefit of the tactility of physical buttons and switches | is sadly being coldly ignored by those who design our cars. | CobsterLock wrote: | Maybe I am asking for too much but I want physical knobs for: | Volume Control, HVAC Fan Speed, HVAC Temp. | | A tangential question: Does anyone know why there is an AC | button on older cars? I can turn the temp all the way down | but that just does outside air temp. If i want real AC I need | to hit a button to turn it on. In my ideal car turning the | knob to the lowest temp would get me cold air no matter what. | tw04 wrote: | Because the button is connected to a relay that turns the | AC compressor on or off. The compressor actually draws | quite a bit of power. | | The hot/cold adjustment is adjusting a baffle/mixer that | can either let in "cold" outside air, or air that's been | heated by the engine compartment into the car. Think of it | like driving around on a sunny day in the fall - sun is | heating up the inside of the car, but the outside air is | cold enough it would be silly and a waste of gas to turn on | the A/C compressor. | iamhamm wrote: | I had a 1996 (iirc) Buick that had AC/Heat knob that did | that. It was red on the right, blue on the left. If you | left it at the detente position it was outside air. Turn in | left, AC; turn it right, heat. Then there was just a | separate knob for fan speed. Now that you mention it, I've | never seen that again. | jonfw wrote: | If you want to defrost your windows, you want hot, dry air. | Air conditioning dries your air. If you combine A/C and | heat, you get the best defrost performance. | | A/C also consumes some amount of power and fuel efficiency- | you may want the coolest air you could possibly have | without A/C. | ZekeSulastin wrote: | Two reasons: 1) The compressor uses some power from the | engine, reducing gas mileage. 2) You can actually use it in | conjunction with the heater to get dehumidified hot air. | greenie_beans wrote: | Yuck! I don't look forward to this in my future lifetime of | vehicles. I'll have to wait for "dumb" electric vehicles. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | Good luck. This is like being a fan of non-touchscreen or | non-capacitive touchscreen phones. Been there... | ubermonkey wrote: | There's no real danger of FORD, of all companies, doing | something usable or well-designed here. | rootusrootus wrote: | Well, they one-upped Tesla on their touchscreen design, so I | wouldn't count them out just yet. | CalRobert wrote: | It's great to see the best selling vehicle in the US be zero | emissions. It's wonderful. | | But this truck will be very heavy, very tall, and very fast. | Drivers are already the leading killers of children, and more and | more people are being killed while walking and cycling. | | I'm very worried about the effect of making this vehicle even | faster and heavier. Hopefully reduced deaths from pollution | offset this. | chrisBob wrote: | The problem with trucks like the F-150 is all marketing. My | impression after seeing a recent F-150 is that the goal is to | _feel_ big and luxurious. Even on the ICE version of the truck, | the area under the hood is mostly empty. | | The reason an entire car hide in front of the bumper, out of | the driver's view is that it makes the truck look cooler. The | window sills are also at a silly height, to make the truck feel | bigger, but at least that doesn't create the same safety issues | (for everyone outside the truck) with no real value. | perardi wrote: | ...what a non sequitur. | | The F-150 is already a bloated monstrosity, it makes no | difference if it's electric. It's some tiny bit faster, but | they're all fast enough. | csharptwdec19 wrote: | Well, There's speed, and then there's acceleration. | | This new Lightning (putting it that way because F150 | Lightning once corresponded to a gas-guzzling Supercharged V8 | trim) has 775ft/lb of Torque. For reference, the existing | models are between 265 and 510 ft/lb. | | Additionally, one of the benefits of an electric motor, is | that torque is essentially instantly available, compared to | an ICE where there's only a slim power bad where that max | torque range is hit. | | Unless Ford 'governs' acceleration in software, I can see | some lead-foots getting themselves into trouble quickly. They | probably -will-, but I'd expect them to offer some sort of | switch for that, lest the Ford zealots grab their pitchforks. | Let us not forget that a lot of 'Car guys' are arguably | insane. When Ford considered switching the Mustang to a Front | Wheel Drive Mazda design, they had to deal with death | threats! | stfp wrote: | This. The crazy acceleration rates make speeding easier | (you get to high speeds in no time) and more dangerous (you | surprise other people) while offering no tangible benefit | except maybe for killing the sports car market. | GongOfFour wrote: | One of the things I've seen in the Powerboost (their hybrid | model) reviews is that even when people disable traction | control to launch it, there is something happening that | keeps it from spinning out. I think the electric engine | might have a mandatory control mechanism in it that cannot | be bypassed. | | [edit] | | Example: https://youtu.be/HGzlV4ggudM?t=425 | zip1234 wrote: | And yet we have gps controlled speed for e-scooters but | none for cars... | leetcrew wrote: | first of all, despite its prominence in marketing | materials, engine torque doesn't tell you much about a | vehicle's performance characteristics. torque is | meaningless without knowing the overall gear reduction. a | 911 gt3 is about as fast in a straight line as a tesla, | despite having way less torque. | | > compared to an ICE where there's only a slim power bad | where that max torque range is hit. | | second, this is only true of naturally aspirated engines, | which are pretty rare these days. engines with turbos or | superchargers are usually tuned to make (roughly) peak | torque all the way from 2000 rpm to redline. | | this is a lot of fretting over the peak acceleration of a | truck. I believe the thing does 0-60 in something like 4.5 | seconds. that's really quick for a truck, but only above | average compared to performance sedans. in any case, most | people (even the crazy ones) do not often hit peak | acceleration from a red light, especially in an EV. | tmh88j wrote: | >this is a lot of fretting over the peak acceleration of | a truck. I believe the thing does 0-60 in something like | 4.5 seconds. that's really quick for a truck, but only | above average compared to performance sedans | | Seems like the people in this thread arguing about a fast | truck don't know about the original Lightning, nor are | they familiar with modern sport trucks like the Ram TRX | or Shelby F-150 Super Snake, both of which will give | proper high end sports cars a run for the money in a drag | race. | kingsuper20 wrote: | ...or simply how fast a modern pickup truck is generally. | | It's worth checking out the 1/4 mile times from guys with | RCSB F150s, whether it's an Ecoboost or a Coyote. | | At this point, I'd say that the main limitation tends to | be traction issues. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Let us not forget that a lot of 'Car guys' are arguably | insane. | | You might want to look in the mirror. Car threads bring out | really destructive attitudes, and mostly not from the 'car | guys'. The stuff that gets said here is astounding... | csharptwdec19 wrote: | > You might want to look in the mirror. | | I provided a very real world example of car enthusiasts | doing something that a sane human being would not do. Can | you help me understand what I should be looking for? | rootusrootus wrote: | This is like pointing to a single self-identified | Democrat or Republican and then claiming they speak for | everyone else who also identifies as such. This is | extremely pervasive and is one of the fundamental breaks | in our political dialog these days. | | And yeah, a lot of people on HN are also car enthusiasts. | How many of us sent death threats in response to the Ford | Probe? I was even a Mustang enthusiast at that time. I | never sent any death threats, nobody I know did either. | You are describing a sociopath, who may also be a car | enthusiast, and then claiming that this means all car | enthusiasts are sociopaths. | Dah00n wrote: | Are you a "car guy"? | itsoktocry wrote: | Yes, what of it? | Dah00n wrote: | Hey, nothing wrong with that. Just trying to see where | you both stand. Sorry if it sounded snarky. | rootusrootus wrote: | Yep! | | And I've never sent anyone a death threat. I don't hate | people for their choice in cars, or non-choice as the | case may be. I enjoy interesting cars of all kinds. I'm | not especially into trucks from an enthusiast | perspective, though as a homeowner and RV owner I do | happen to own a Ford F250. And I don't mind people that | _are_ into them. You have to be a bit of an enthusiast, | IMO, to daily drive a super duty if you don 't _need_ it | :). I 'd own a Taco if I didn't need to tow anything, as | it would be far more livable for daily use. | zzzeek wrote: | this is my biggest concern. my dad has a tesla, and you put | your foot on that thing it feels like a jet on the runway. | electric motors are allowing everyday, consumer level cars | that can do 0-60 faster than a Ferrari, and _silently_ as | well. it leads to doing more aggressive turns and stuff | like that which you can only pull off with maximum | acceleration, which means scenarios like the left turn | where you 're whipping out like silent lightning to beat | the oncoming cars, and some kid on a bike suddenly entering | the road to your left where you're going, and in the | opposite way in which you are looking (at the oncoming cars | to the right) is toast. | zzzeek wrote: | to all the idiot downmodders, I am not advocating against | electric cars, I am advocating against their software | allowing unfettered acceleration as well as the lack of | audible cues to pedestrians (some hybrid cars are now | adding artifical sounds for this issue). | FridayoLeary wrote: | Every single car today is bloated. | Mauricebranagh wrote: | Larger cars = safer for the driver and occupants. Look at | an original mini. vs the new ones. | Dah00n wrote: | Like the Toyota Yaris and Fiat 500? | tmh88j wrote: | Yes, compared to cars even a decade ago modern cars are | very bloated. Have you seen an original 500 from the | 50's/60's or 70's? They weighed around 1100 lbs. A modern | base trim Fiat 500 weighs around 2400 lbs. | | We all realize it's due to safety, but a lot of sports | cars have gotten progressively less fun as a result. The | M3 is no longer a small nimble sedan. It's larger than | the 5 series was from only 2 generations ago. That's all | he's pointing out. | Dah00n wrote: | Well then I have to disagree. A motorcycle helmet is not | bloat compared to wearing a sock on your head. Sure an | old car might be more fun but safety isn't bloat. AC | units are. | tmh88j wrote: | I already acknowledged the size increase is due to | safety. It's not an opinion that modern cars are | physically larger and heavier than they were only a few | generations ago. There's nothing to disagree with. The M3 | (now called M4) has become an entirely different class of | vehicle. | | 2021 G80 M4 length: 189.1'', width: 74.3'', curb weight: | 3,840 to 3,890 lbs | | 2011 E92 M3 length: 180.4 to 181.8'', width: 71 to | 71.5'', curb weight: 3,704 | | 2001 E46 M3 length: 176.8", width: 70.1", curb weight: | 3415 lbs. | | 2021 M5 length: 196.4'', width: 74.9'', curb weight: | 4,345 lbs | | 2010 M5 length: 191.5, width: 72.7, curb weight: 4,012 | | 2001 M5 length: 188.4'', width: 70.9'', curb weight: | 4,024 lbs | lovegoblin wrote: | The contention is with your use of "bloat", which implies | that the extra size is useless, or at least not | worthwhile. | tmh88j wrote: | The 3/4 series grew in size so much that they introduced | the 1/2 series to fill the void of a small coupe. They | didn't have to increase the physical dimensions by over a | foot in length and nearly half a foot in width. It | completely changed the driving dynamics. So, yes, it was | absolutely is not worthwhile considering they decided to | make a replacement for it after realizing that they | alienated a lot of enthusiasts. | benlivengood wrote: | Both 500 pounds heavier than an 80's civic. | Dah00n wrote: | And 500% higher risk of death. You might call that bloat | but to me that is like saying a good quality motorcycle | helmet is just a bloated hoodie or cap. | foobarian wrote: | I would buy this truck for the 11 outlets with gobs of power | alone. They get it. | ketamine__ wrote: | This is pretty awesome. | | https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/19/ford-f-150-lightning- | elect... | | > "If your F-150 Lightning is plugged in when your outage | occurs, Intelligent Backup Power will automatically kick in | to power your home," said Ryan O'Gorman, Ford's energy | services lead, in a video briefing prior to the reveal. | "When power is restored, the truck automatically reverts to | charging its battery." | p1mrx wrote: | Wow, I wonder what connector that uses? They'd either | have to backfeed through J1772, or backfeed through the | DC pins with a house-mounted inverter. | ameister14 wrote: | >Drivers are already the leading killers of children, and more | and more people are being killed while walking and cycling. | | I think more worrisome is the center console - pedestrian | deaths had been going down for 20 years until smartphones | became widespread and we've had increases every year since. | deberon wrote: | I try to give a "friendly" honk followed by a "hang up" hand | gesture. Results range from them putting the phone down and | giving a thumbsup to angrily cutting me off and speeding down | the freeway. | TypeCaste wrote: | I ride a motorcycle, and it seems like 30% of the drivers I | see on the road have their phones out. | Dah00n wrote: | Me too but the most scary part is that if you are in a | truck (a real one) you can see way more phones. | TypeCaste wrote: | I take extra caution around pickup trucks and young men | in muscle cars. The former are more likely to not see | you, or be on their phones. The muscle cars are likely to | rapidly and erratically change directions into me at a | high rate of speed. | rootusrootus wrote: | That's a tough pill to swallow for many HN participants | because our industry directly contributes to this. Easier to | just blame cars. | mfer wrote: | With the introduction of smart phones and social media we've | seen lots of negative effects increase. For example, teen | suicide was decreasing until they were introduced and then | started to increase again. Girls especially. | | I wish there was more discussion and acknowledgement of the | dangers here. | ccsnags wrote: | When I'm on a long trip with friends or family we play a | game trying to spot people on their phones by how poorly | they are driving. Police are extra points. You would be | shocked at how many cops you see looking down at their lap | while driving. | | I would rather drive next to people with .09 blood alcohol | than someone on their phone. | | Social media and cell phones are very convenient, but come | with major drawbacks that must be addressed. Phones, for | many young people, are just mental disorders with a touch | screen. | hrktb wrote: | You have a point, but I also think we should be thinking | beyond smartphones and try to act on what they are used | for. | | Not in a "guns don't kill people way", but because I think | smarphone helped spread society's worse effects on girls, | but they were already in a very shitty position, and we | can't just get back to the status quo before the smarphones | and social networks. | | We can of course also work on reducing sns negative | impacts, but I think it will also be a bad, long and thorny | way before seeing improvements. | Unklejoe wrote: | I feel like this same criticism should apply for the Model S | Plaid then too since it accelerates faster than almost every | car and is heavier than most cars as well. | | I'm not sure how much the weight really matters if you're | colliding with a cyclist or pedestrian anyway though. | | Valid point about the height, but it's no different than any | other modern truck on the road today (all of which are too high | if you ask me). | toast0 wrote: | Fuel efficiency standards killed the small truck. In the turn | of the century EV era, Ford had an electric Ranger which was | built on the much smaller (at the time) Ranger platform. But | you can't make an ICE small truck that meets the 200x updated | CAFE standards, so the small trucks either disapeared (S10) or | got bigger (toyota small trucks), or got bigger then | disappeared and later reappeared still big (Ranger). | | An EV truck presumably can be any size, but there's no current | small truck platform to build on. | igetspam wrote: | I've owned and driven a handful of trucks. Ranger sized | trucks feel the least useful. Can't tow much. Can't haul | much. Can't get into muck. Can't hold many people. | Aerodynamics of a brick. An electric F150 is compelling. We | just upgraded to a new one because we need the tow capacity | and the F150 beat out the F250s we were looking at. It's a | great size and checks all the boxes. | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Can 't get into muck._ | | Huh? The shorter/narrower wheel base is better in any off- | roading situation. | igetspam wrote: | That's a strong statement. Heavier vehicles do better in | snow because they fit in better. Trucks with more ground | clearance can get up and over things that smaller trucks | can't. If we're just talking about rock crawling, sure. | If we're talking about practical use cases and messy | conditions, I'll keep torque and weight on my side. | toast0 wrote: | Small trucks may be the least useful, but they often | provide(d) the right amount of utility. Lots of truck | owners never go off the pavement and never tow, but make | good use of the bed. With a 4-cylinder engine, fuel | efficiency was not terrible, but it's a lot easier to put a | pinball machine in the back of a truck than the back of a | Honda Accord. | CalRobert wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax worth a read. | | "The tariff affected any country (such as Japan) seeking to | bring light trucks into the U.S. and effectively "squeezed | smaller Asian truck companies out of the American pickup | market."[16] Over the intervening years, Detroit lobbied to | protect the light-truck tariff, thereby reducing pressure on | Detroit to introduce vehicles that polluted less and that | offered increased fuel economy.[15]" | toast0 wrote: | How effective was this at anything other than making | loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, and | eventually getting assembly moved to NAFTA countries? | | Having a 40 mpg target for a small truck and a 25 mpg | target for a big truck makes it pretty hard to build and | sell a small truck. | a2tech wrote: | I have a few friends that are engineers in the auto | companies. Its kind of amazing how many negative impacts the | CAFE standards had--not on purpose (hopefully), but through | unintended consequences. Apparently the Nissan Leaf for | example was strictly manufactured to generate credits/offset | the environmental impact of the Nissan truck and van line | that could not be adjusted to meet the CAFE standards. | | My dad had a Ranger in 97 that was just about the perfect | truck for day-to-day use. It fit 2 adults comfortably, had a | tiny 4 cylinder engine, got great gas milage, and could be | used to pull a small trailer. He was crushed when Ford got | rid of the Ranger. And what they've released now is basically | the size of the old F-150 from the 90s | kingsuper20 wrote: | >Apparently the Nissan Leaf for example was strictly | manufactured to generate credits/offset the environmental | impact of the Nissan truck and van line that could not be | adjusted to meet the CAFE standards. | | Which seems pretty crazy if the net effect is that any car | manufacturer has to produce a full line if they want to | build any inefficient cars. | Drunk_Engineer wrote: | The "negative" impacts of CAFE standards were entirely by | design. They were written that way to benefit the domestic | auto industry, which is very uncompetitive in the small and | midsized vehicle segments. By making smaller vehicles | uncompetitive (or simply unavailable), it eliminated some | serious competition. | mywittyname wrote: | I think a lot of people don't realize how many | regulations are designed by incumbent domestic companies | explicitly for the purposes of making foreign companies | and upstarts noncompetitive. | | You're right that CAFE is literally designed to favor | trucks. And the definition is so vague that even vehicles | like the PT Cruiser are considered Light Trucks for the | purposes of CAFE. It is also designed to hurt small cars, | because vehicles with footprints (wheelbase * wheel wide) | smaller than a Mustang (literally, to the square inch) | have to face ever-more-strict CAFE standards. | | As a result, cars like the Fit are might face a CAFE | penalty while a base F150 does a-okay despite getting | like half the fuel economy. And that's not even getting | into BS like flex fuel credits (basically, being flex | fuel capable is like adding ~5mpg to the vehicle CAFE | score). | | This is exactly why every small vehicle is a crossover | anymore (they are light trucks for CAFE purposes), and | why cars like the Civic get are today, the size an Accord | was in 2005 (CAFE is less strict the larger the vehicle | is). | brandonmenc wrote: | Motorcycles and busses are more dangerous for pedestrians than | trucks. | | "Compared with cars, buses were 11.85 times and motorcycles | were 3.77 times more likely per mile to kill children 0-14 | years old. Buses were 16.70 times more likely to kill adults | age 85 or older than were cars." | | https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 | analog31 wrote: | That's probably because buses have more interaction with | pedestrians, both due to people getting in and out, but also, | operation in urban areas where there's a lot of pedestrian | traffic. | Dah00n wrote: | A truck in this discussion is a car, not a real truck. A bus | is not comparable to a car. Compare a bus to a real truck. A | motorcycle will in every single statistics drive faster on | average than a car. I'm not saying your point is wrong but it | is at a minimum like a click bait title. | lastofthemojito wrote: | Now the interesting thing will what fraction of F-150 sales | will be electric and how that fraction changes over the next | several years. | peter422 wrote: | I'm very passionate about pedestrian deaths in cities (SF | specifically), but based on all the incidents I can remember I | don't think pickup trucks are causing a disproportionate | number. Pedestrian deaths are mostly caused by normal cars | going at high speeds through red lights or crosswalks. A truck | sold with automatic braking would likely be much safer than a | car from the past in terms of pedestrian safety. | Drunk_Engineer wrote: | SF just has fewer trucks, which is why you probably don't | recall too many incidents. Nationwide, increasing number of | SUV/trucks is a major problem in ped safety. | bb123 wrote: | Electric vehicles often have much better safety credentials | than their ICE powered counterparts for a few reasons: | | * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a | lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in | a moose (or child!) test. | | * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is | a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for | pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important | requirement in road safety standards. | | * The electric motors are able to respond with torque far | faster (in ms) than an ICE engine, so traction and stability | control are more effective. Again good for things like the | moose test. | | * Switching our road transport to electric will probably save | more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime | of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better | pedestrian safety features ever will. | loeg wrote: | I agree with the rest, but I'm pretty skeptical of this | claim: | | > Switching our road transport to electric will probably save | more children, and the adults they will become, from a | lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution | than better pedestrian safety features ever will. | | Do you (or anyone) have order-of-magnitude estimates for | either/both of these figures? I mean, electrification in | general is great, but the F150 cannot take credit for all of | it. I am interested in reduced pollution deaths/QALYs that | can be attributed to F150 electrification specifically -- | that's the topic of this article and thread. | ModernMech wrote: | Here's half of the equation: | https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality- | statistics/detail/yearl... | https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality- | statistics/detail/child... | | Edit: Here's relevant data to the other side: https://www.t | heguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/10/vehicle-... https:// | www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthma_stats/asthma_underlying_de... | xmzx wrote: | Hang out at a bus station or a school during kid pickup | time, you'll feel like you're in a coal refinery. I can't | imagine that's good for your lungs. | orangejuice101 wrote: | Here are some stats on fossil fuel deaths in general | | https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM?t=355 | | On average in the US, the CO2 output required to power an | electric vehicle is 1/3 of an ICE vehicle. So theoretically | this would translate to less deaths as bb123 suggests, but | hard to compare to direct pedestrian deaths. (Yes there are | some logical gaps as ICE C02 output is a very low | percentage of total fossil fuel output). | andys627 wrote: | Remember the emissions to manufacture the vehicle... | they're higher for EVs. Lifecycle emissions for EVs | therefore aren't much lower than ICE. | soperj wrote: | if you're adding those, you need to add the emissions | when actually processing crude oil into gasoline. | [deleted] | bryanlarsen wrote: | The lifetime emissions for EVs are massively lower than | ICE's, unless the EV gets totalled in its first year of | operation. | andys627 wrote: | They are maybe 40-50% lower. Does this move the needle | for climate change? No. And it's not just lifetime car | emissions. It's the car dependent life that cars require | | Source: | https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129478_lifetime- | carbon... | bryanlarsen wrote: | It's only 50% lower because most electricity grids emit a | lot of carbon. Once the grid switches to 100% carbon- | free, the number becomes a lot lower. And most of the | embodied carbon in the car comes from industrial | electricity or transport, so as the grid & transport goes | green the embodied carbon goes down, eventually to zero. | | Electricity only accounts for about 25% of greenhouse gas | emissions, but it also enables industry (20%) and | transportation (15%) to decarbonize too, by allowing them | to replace their fuel with electricity. | | A 50% reduction is already massive, but electrification | of both vehicles and the industrial processes creating | the vehicle will eventually let that number go to zero | which should be our goal. | jschwartzi wrote: | > * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving | a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old | F150 in a moose (or child!) test. | | The important thing to note about the moose test is that it | doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a | test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I | would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test | will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's | center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe | for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose | test. | | But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess | this is okay. | | > * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car | is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle | room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly | important requirement in road safety standards. | | The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and | cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple | zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe | but not designed to keep any other road user safe. | coder543 wrote: | > The important thing to note about the moose test is that | it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. | | The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that | wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle. | | Why did you write this long comment as if you were an | expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the | moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to | do. | | Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw | a2tech wrote: | I assume because they want to see less vehicle traffic on | the road. Arguments along these lines are thrown out by | people that hate cars on the road to help change the | argument from facts to 'what about the children'. | bb123 wrote: | Ideally in the moose test the moose and car never make | contact. It is a test of the car's ability to safely | support extreme evasive manoeuvres, rather than its crash | survivability. | | Tall SUVs typically fare worse at this because of their | higher centre of gravity causing instability: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test | brazzy wrote: | > The important thing to note about the moose test is that | it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's | simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting | a moose. | | Completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test | | The car fails the test (at that speed) if the "moose" is | hit at all (or it skids, turns or tips over). | bb123 wrote: | Your second point is also untrue. The shape and structure | of traditional car crumple zones and impact areas like the | hood and headlights have a significant impact on pedestrian | survivability: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257 | 775117_Crumple_z... | | These zones are explicitly designed with pedestrian safety | in mind, as it is a specific area of testing for | roadworthiness certifications: | https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings- | expla... | hannasanarion wrote: | > The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car | is a huge crumple zone. | | Crumple zones don't help pedestrians. | | The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the absurdly | huge early-00s Hummers. The hood is so tall and long that | they're talking about putting forward-facing cameras inside | the cab because you can't see anything in front of you | shorter than 6" tall out the windshield. | | If Ford was interested in safety, they would reduce the | outrageous length and height of the front end which is now no | longer even pretending to be necessary housing for an engine. | Vehicles made to work prioritize visibility, Ford trucks are | made to intimidate and kill. | bb123 wrote: | That's completely untrue - The design of crumple and impact | zones like the hood, bumpers and headlights absolutely do | help pedestrians. There is a suite of Road safety tests | designed to specifically evaluate exactly that: | https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings- | expla... | zip1234 wrote: | Not in the US. | | See https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/28/vehicle- | safety-standa... | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Nobody is designing market specific hoods and radiator | core supports. Maybe a little of the front body plastic | but nothing substantial/structural. | bckygldstn wrote: | The F150 is only really sold in the US/Canada market, at | least as a passenger car. You might be able to import one | as a commercial vehicle in Europe but I've certainly | never seen one. | CalRobert wrote: | The only time I've seen an F-150 was near a US military | base in Germany. | hannasanarion wrote: | F-150 isn't sold in the european market, and neither are | any other American flat-top high front trucks precisely | because they are too deadly to pedestrians. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Crumple zones don't help pedestrians. | | Not the kind you're thinking of. | | But the top half of the bulbous front end that basically | every modern car has is mostly empty space and flimsy | plastic to create what's basically a crumple zone for | pedestrians. | Unklejoe wrote: | > The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the | absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. | | And a Tesla Model 3 long range is heavier than a 2020 | F-150. | driverdan wrote: | > The new F-150 will be bigger and heavier than the | absurdly huge early-00s Hummers. | | Citation needed | driverdan wrote: | Since I'm getting downvoted I figured I'd post the | numbers. | | New F-150 Lightning curb weight estimate is 6500 lbs. | | H1 is 7200-7500 lbs. | | H2 is 6400-6600 lbs. | | The F-150 is a couple feet longer but both the H1 and H2 | are wider and taller. | | Use those numbers to make your own determination. F-150 | specs are from here: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/f | ordmedia/North%20America... | mdoms wrote: | I'd like to see some actual data rather than some handy-wavy | bullet points speculating on what maybe could be the case. | lurkerasdfh8 wrote: | > The lack of engine means ... This gives designers more | wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. | | this is important. It is an option they DID IGNORE! for | marketing. | | The thing that kills pedestrians (both physically and | preventing vision) is the high trunk. They could have lowered | it since there is no 9L engine or whatever inside. But they | decided to keep it for "frunk" marketing. | dcolkitt wrote: | > Switching our road transport to electric will probably save | more children, and the adults they will become, from a | lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution | | The sizable majority of modern car pollution comes from | particulates that come off asphalt, not emissions from | engines. It's still important to go EV to reduce carbon, but | that doesn't improve local air quality. Modern internal | combustion engines have pretty minimal pollutants in their | emissions. | | Getting older cars off the road is the major way to improve | emission pollutants. Beyond that, improving air quality to | any significant degree requires either fewer cars on the | road, or less heavy cars on the road. Asphalt particulates | scales quadratically with the weight of the car. | proc0 wrote: | So they should not sell any? What's your point? | voidfunc wrote: | Won't somebody think of the children please?!? | | If you get hit by any vehicle you're going to have a bad time. | This vehicle is not an exception. | woah wrote: | You are contending that there is no difference in pedestrian | fatalities between vehicles? And also that it isn't harder to | see children in an unnecessarily tall vehicle? | jrsj wrote: | Is a truck an unnecessarily tall vehicle or is replacing | sedans with taller hatchbacks we pretend are SUVs an | unnecessarily tall vehicle? Because one is tall for a | reason and the other is tall _purely_ due to consumer | preference. | woah wrote: | What reason are pickup trucks tall for, other than | assuaging the drivers doubts about their own masculinity? | You can get just as much construction work done with a | Toyota Tacoma or even a Mercedes utility van. | jrsj wrote: | Gaming EPA fuel efficiency regulations. Making them | taller/wider essentially saves the manufacturers money | because those regulations aren't very well designed. | jeffbee wrote: | It makes a big difference where one is hit. Being hit in the | head by a head-height truck grille is a lot different from | being hit in the shins by a 1964 Datsun. There's also the | small matter that nobody driving this truck can see anything | at all for ten feet to the front. | [deleted] | Der_Einzige wrote: | Automatic breaking systems are getting even better and have | been pretty good for awhile. You can expect preventable | fatalities of pedestrians and other drivers from cars and | trucks to decline as this technology becomes better. | bobince wrote: | It needn't have been this tall. With the internal combustion | engine out, Ford could have designed a lower, more curved, less | deadly front end. | | Instead, they kept the high nose and used the space as a trunk. | After all, injuring fewer pedestrians sells no cars. Indeed, | the market prefers an enormous, deliberately threatening- | looking chariot that makes you feel big and virile. | | Ford are behind this game in that they haven't given their | truck an explicitly hostile name like "People Mulcher". | dls2016 wrote: | Smells like a steak and seats 35! | | https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA | piyh wrote: | I'm sure there's some societal tradeoff between global | electrification and pedestrian deaths. Until the government | adds pedestrian safety to US crash standards, Ford will make | what the image conscious truck market wants. | stfp wrote: | The market can go nuts, and regarding vehicle size, it is. | It's basically an arms race. | jtdev wrote: | Roads are made for large dangerous machines that move fast | and can hurt you. | chubot wrote: | Cities are made for people; the number people outside of | cars greatly exceeds the number inside cars in every city. | | If what you say is true, then cities should not have roads. | theodric wrote: | Just because you live in a city, does not mean the city | was "made for" you. Cities are a side effect of many | people clustering around key resource points. Resources | are almost always much more valuable in trade than they | are remaining at a stationary point, which requires | transport infrastructure and vehicles. The fact that you | don't want to live in a city in which people drive | vehicles is your problem, not society's. | chubot wrote: | What resources? | jtdev wrote: | Almost every major American city is also a shipping port, | freight train depot, major freight airport hub, etc., | etc., manufacturing is still a thing (in fact domestic | manufacturing is on the rise in the last decade). Good | luck feeding, clothing, sheltering, etc. the millions of | inhabitants in American cities without roads that | accommodate large trucks and people who do real work. | pm90 wrote: | Cities are no longer resource points as most economic | activity in cities is generated by services and knowledge | work. Even if you go by your logic of economic supremacy, | society would want to protect the most valued economic | assets in its cities: the people. The death machines are | also noisy as fuck and generate pollution, take up | valuable and scarce urban space ... there is absolutely | no need to have huge roads with unrestricted traffic | going right up to dense urban centers. | woah wrote: | That's why they should only have one lane for cars with a | 25mph speed limit. | hrktb wrote: | That's so sad this sarcasm basically became fact after so | many decades of going the wrong way. | | It's also why cities are taking back whole roads from cars | when they can, as it's so hard to preserve a middle ground | in a lot of areas. | chrisseaton wrote: | Roads predate cars. Cars took them over from people and far | slower horses. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | So what? Its a fact today. Nobody going back to horses. | chrisseaton wrote: | The 'so what' is maybe they should be given back to the | people they were originally built for. | jtdev wrote: | Elitist cyclists?? | chrisseaton wrote: | We had roads before cycles. | jtdev wrote: | Are you proposing that we turn roads over to foot and | equine traffic only? | | The air was co-opted by planes... should we turn that | back over to avian only traffic? | chrisseaton wrote: | I think it should be the default certainly in cities and | much more the default in suburbs than it is now. | | For the main point was that roads weren't built for cars | - cars co-opted them from people. It doesn't have to be | that way. | ben7799 wrote: | Blame for killing falls on the driver of the vehicle, not on | the company designing it or the shape of the front of the | vehicle. | | Don't hit anyone with your vehicle and you won't kill anyone. | I've been hit by a truck bicycling, thankfully not too hard. | But I don't really think it would have been better to have | been hit by a low slung sleek car. It would have put all the | force through my legs. | ajross wrote: | "Blame" is something you argue in a civil suit. | | Vehicle safety regulations aren't about "blame", ever. | They're designed to save lives. If you can do that with | better driver behavior, great. If you can do it with | assistive technology, great. If you can do it with | different vehicle designs, great. You do what you can, | based on the techniques available and the costs involved. | | To wit: if you start your safety analysis with "fuck the | pedestrians, that's the driver's fault, not Ford's", then | you're doing it wrong. | syshum wrote: | How about we start with banning Cyclist and Pedestrians, | that would save the most lives? | pm90 wrote: | Please no more of the personal responsibility bullcrap. | "Don't make a mistake and you won't make a mistake" is a | pretty useless statement. | | When designing mass manufactured items, it is a | responsibility of manufacturers to ensure that their | products are as safe as they can be. | nradov wrote: | Should manufacturers also install governors that limit | maximum speed to 55 mph? That would make them as safe as | they can be, right? | DHPersonal wrote: | You're actually really on to something there. | Tiktaalik wrote: | yes | aeharding wrote: | Indeed. | | Even HN cannot see past the perverse dangers and flaws of | modern auto design responsible for the current vulnerable | road user epidemic in America. [1] When it comes to cars | - it's "personal responsibility". When it comes to | treadmills - it's a "manufacturing flaw" [2] | | [1] | https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs- | killi... [2] | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26846641 | xxpor wrote: | The problem is the high front makes it such that there's a | huge blind spot. | codyswann wrote: | A blind spot that wasn't a blind spot five feet back. | Like, when does this come into play? Describe a scenario. | jbay808 wrote: | You get into your parked vehicle, check your phone for | directions, find a route, confirm your arrival time, then | put the key in the ignition and immediately run over a | kid who stepped in front of your truck to grab their | ball. | codyswann wrote: | So you run into the kid at 1 mph? Are we thinking people | hammer down on the accelerator when leaving Walmart? And | if so, we then blame the vehicle? | hannasanarion wrote: | Ever heard of crosswalks? They're these things that | people use to travel in front of cars while they're | standing still. | | Ford trucks are the #1 killer of children and adults at | crosswalks because drivers can't see what they're about | to run over, vehicles of that front-end design account | for 40% of all pedestrian traffic deaths. | codyswann wrote: | So, you're trying to tell me, it's the truck's fault that | a driver doesn't know they're at a crosswalk? | | Do you own a truck? I do. I've owned a truck for 15 | years. Some of them lifted, and unless you are pretty | much parked on top of a crosswalk, there is no problem | seeing the crosswalk. Especially 3-4 foot objects in said | crosswalk. | | _Edit: F150 is the most popular vehicle in the US. So, | yeah, it stands to reason it will kill more people than | any other vehicle, too_ | hannasanarion wrote: | I'm telling you it's the truck's fault that the driver | can't see the crosswalk. | | There is a such thing as good and bad design. If I sell a | hammer that shoots a bullet whenever you swing it for no | good reason, I'm responsible for people getting shot. | codyswann wrote: | That analogy doesn't hold water. A hammer isn't meant to | shoot bullets. So shooting bullets would be something the | hammer was never intended to do. | | What I'm telling you is that you have an opinion that is | different from mine and also probably an ignorant one | since you didn't answer my question about whether you | have ever owned a truck. | hannasanarion wrote: | And obscuring driver's visibility to the point where they | can't see objects less than 6 feet tall that they are | about to hit all for the sake of aggressive and | intimidating presentation to other road users isn't | something pickup trucks were intended to do. | | That's why professional models typically have cabover or | sharply-sloped hood designs, not the enormous flattops | that are marketed at suburbanites. | | I have owned a truck, I drove a 1999 Chevy Silverado for | ten years, it could haul just as much stuff as a 2020 | F-150 but it also let me see the road. | Der_Einzige wrote: | My lexus has a 360 camera that turns on when the car is | moving at low speeds (e.g. when stopped at a crosswalk). | I assume new ford trucks at even a few trim levels up | will have this feature. You can prevent these kind of | fuck-ups with cameras easily. | hannasanarion wrote: | You shouldn't need to take your eyes off the road to look | at a camera screen just to see what's on the road in | front of you. It's a car, not an armored fighting | vehicle. | xxpor wrote: | Children playing in front of a stationary car, people | walking in front of cars at gas stations/charging | spots/parking lots in general. | | https://youtu.be/NDH3FDfVQl0?t=68 | codyswann wrote: | And you don't see those children there when you get into | the vehicle? | xxpor wrote: | Sure, you do 99.9% of the time. But all it takes is once, | you're distracted, someone's yelling at you from the | house, whatever, and then that's it. | zip1234 wrote: | Blame for killing almost never falls on drivers. Look at | news headlines--"Car runs over person" and not "Driver runs | over person" and you can see how this is viewed. There is a | term to describe this--"windshield bias." Auto safety takes | multiple approaches and not just saying the drivers are | responsible because they are currently not, at least in the | US. Does the person that hit you with a truck still have | their driving license? | buzzy_hacker wrote: | That's why I wish car manufacturers would affix big metal | spikes to the front of cars for the aesthetic value. After | all, they'd be blameless for any casualties. | arwhatever wrote: | Judging the appearance of some late model vehicles, I'll | joke that we might as well skip a few small steps and go | straight to mounting Hellfire missiles on the front. :-) | chrisseaton wrote: | > an enormous, deliberately threatening-looking chariot that | makes you feel big and virile | | Most people with a truck are just trying to get their job | done. They aren't trying to look or feel anything. | stfp wrote: | Incorrect based on 50% of trucks on the road today being | absolutely pristine, and simply looking at commercials and | their wording ("commanding the road") | tenpoundhammer wrote: | Have you been around people who actually use trucks for | work or leisure? They aren't just hitting the side of | their trucks with 2x4's or dropping gravel from ten feet | in the air like commercials. Lots of people use their | trucks for pulling trailers that carry thousands of | pounds of their stuff. They use the bed of their truck | for carrying things that are long, heavy, grain, sawdust, | smaller animals, there is a wide variety of use cases for | a truck and a lot of them don't affect the aesthetic of | the truck. | Rebelgecko wrote: | IMO it's a mistake to judge how a product is used in real | life based on how it's marketed. There's a pretty big | gap, especially for car commercials. | chrisseaton wrote: | Commercials for my tax software tells me it makes people | using it feel ecstatic. It doesn't really - it's used by | people just trying to get their taxes done and they don't | feel anything about it. | isoskeles wrote: | As someone who doesn't own a truck, I always find it funny | when people bring up "big and virile" type lines about | truck owners. "They're compensating for something..." These | people need to get their minds out of the gutter, stop | thinking everything is about penis. Trucks are functional | vehicles, like a giant tool for transporting bulky stuff, | and I remember this every time I think about asking a | friend if I can use his truck for anything. | | No insult intended here: I assume people who have never had | this thought have also never done things like replacing | their kitchen cabinets or some other simple home | improvement project. That's fine, but it's also quite | relatable to many people, and it has nothing to do with | penis. | munificent wrote: | _> I always find it funny when people bring up "big and | virile" type lines about truck owners. "They're | compensating for something..." These people need to get | their minds out of the gutter, stop thinking everything | is about penis._ | | I used to work at a horse racing track and every single | jockey (really small dudes) had the _hugest_ truck you | have ever seen. We 're talking Ford F-350 with a lift kit | and bigger tires. The works. You needed to use a ladder | to get in them. | | There is definitely a thing that _some people_ want | bigger, taller vehicles because it makes them feel bigger | and stronger. And there is definitely a thing that truck | size becomes a pissing contest for _some men_ where it 's | not just enough to have a _big_ truck, you need to have | the _biggest_ one among your peers. | | (And if you think nerds are immune to this phenomenon, | perhaps take a more critical look at your gaming PC, | boardgame collection, etc. We're a tribal species | competing for mates using status symbols. Few of us are | totally immune to this effect.) | | At the same time, many truck owners are not motivated by | that and painting them all with the same brush is | uncharitable and unkind. I drive a pick-up. I absolutely | love it. I have yet to kill any children, destroy the | ozone layer, crush another car in a parking lot, or any | of the other many moral crimes this thread seems to | accuse most truck owners of. | | Paraphrasing Freud, sometimes a truck is just a truck. | chrisseaton wrote: | I picture a gardener turning up to work on a tech | person's yard, unpacking his mower and tools and soil and | plants, and the tech person shaking their head from their | window and saying to themselves 'wow he's _clearly_ just | got that truck as a substitute penis... ' | ryneandal wrote: | Yes, those insults are so incredibly nonsensical. | | I bought a truck for two reasons. Hauling the occasional | thing around (having a home makes this happen more than I | had initially thought) and it fits 6 (we just had our | last child in January). | | I WFH so it's lower fuel economy is a non-issue to us. | | It has literally _nothing_ to do with "feeling big" or | any compensation thing. I had no idea how much I'd use | the utility until I bit the bullet and purchased one. | | I'm incredibly excited for the F-150 Lightning because I | am a perfect candidate for it. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I bet that the people criticizing trucks for being high off | the ground has never driven a truck through a jobsite or a | non-paved road. | chrisseaton wrote: | Their thinking is literally 'I don't understand why | anyone needs a truck when the Google employee car park is | so well surfaced and my laptop fits on the front seat'. | CalRobert wrote: | I live on a sheep farm (though the sheep are gone these | days). I recognize how incredibly useful tractors and | high-clearance pickup trucks are. I also think | helicopters are useful too. Neither are safe in the city. | stfp wrote: | I bet the people excited about oversized trucks have | never walked in a city for more than 5 minutes. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I doubt this very much. | hannasanarion wrote: | The problem is not that the truck is off the ground, the | problem is that the top of the hood is higher than a | pedestrian's head. | | Trucks designed for work have low frontends for maximum | visibility. I drove a 1999 Silverado for 10 years, went | offroading often, it had just as much horsepower as last | year's F-150, but with a front-end that was basically | indistinguishable from a sedan's, instead of the new ones | that are so tall they have to put cameras in the cab so | that you can see what's in front of you. | | The frontends of modern trucks are for intimidation, not | work. | mfer wrote: | Trucks very much have a place in society. Farmers, construction | workers, and some other areas definitely need them. | | The trend that they need to be an everyday vehicle for anyone | is something that should be looked at. What is the psychology | and intentional planning that's caused this shift? What subtle | population engineering has lead to this without people | realizing it? | ballenf wrote: | Speaking personally, I've never owned a truck but began | considering it during Covid. Why? | | The cost premium of hiring someone for home improvement jobs | vs. DIY seems to have gone up. And the difficulty of finding | someone qualified, reputable and with available capacity | seems to have become exponentially higher. | | "So I guess I need a truck" is what I've recently been | thinking. | kasey_junk wrote: | A van is better in almost every dimension for construction. | Effectively the only reason to own a pickup truck (vs some | other better utility vehicle) is if you have trailer that | needs it. | igetspam wrote: | Disagree. I can fit lots of oddly shaped things in the | bed of a truck. Vans have walls and doors that create | hard limits. | itsyaboi wrote: | When you say "construction", are you referring to | something like drywall/framing/roofing or electrical/trim | work? I ask because fitting a stack of OSB sheets in a | van can be anywhere from challenging to impossible | (depending on the type of van of course). Certain trim | levels of the F150 for example, are designed with the | specific requirement of being able to accommodate | standard sizes of construction materials, like a 4x8 | sheet of OSB. | kasey_junk wrote: | Transits and sprinters are designed to be able to lay 4x8 | sheets flat on the floor. | m-ee wrote: | In a similar vein covid changed my recreation habits enough | to make me consider a truck/suv. With nowhere to go except | outdoors I spent a lot more time camping/kayaking in Tahoe | and national parks. Bringing an inflatable kayak, paddle | board, and camping supplies for the weekend was doable in | my hatchback but not exactly comfortable and wouldn't work | with more than two people. Something with more storage and | 4WD drive started sounding very appealing. The F-150 is | very competitive with a new 4-runner or Tacoma on cost and | features. Just wish it wasn't so gigantic. | idiotsecant wrote: | There are a certain group of users that need the machines to | be strong for towing, tall for required ground clearance, and | with bed capacity to haul material, tools, and other everyday | cargo. | | There is another group that doesn't need any of things but is | convinced that they might some day. They are aspirational | requirements. Why are those people convinced they need these | things? The same reason anyone is convinced they need | anything in the modern world. Advertising. Truck ads tell you | that the Ford F150 is a tough truck for men who are tough (or | want to be) and don't take nothin' from nobody (once they get | out of this crappy job) and are masters of nature (or surely | would be if they didn't live in the suburbs). | | They buy product placement in all the badass movies, their | commercials look like b-roll from a transformers movie, and | the trucks themselves get more comfortable and less | utilitarian every year. | | Ford is not in the business of selling (light) trucks - they | are in the business of selling an aspirational lifestyle to a | population that thinks they might one day become an action | hero. The F150 is, and has been for a long time, a consumer | toy and not a serious work vehicle. | arwhatever wrote: | You nailed it. | | There are a good number of legitimate uses and legitimate | users for these vehicles (I _know_ a lot of legitimate | users), but the vast majority of the giant vehicles on the | road have only 1 visible occupant and no visible cargo. | | And although I am doubtless projecting, I can't help but | envision a fresh hot latte in their cupholder, which the | driver is on their way back from procuring. | jrsj wrote: | I'm about as "casual" of a user as possible and it's still | much less that I might theoretically need these things | someday and more that I _do_ need them, occasionally. For | myself or for friends + family. | igetspam wrote: | This. Before I left the bay, I daily drove a motorcycle | or a Jeep. Many of my weekends required truck. If you can | only have one, the truck is the better tradeoff. | idiotsecant wrote: | As a thought experiment: for the vast majority of this | sorts of tasks a panel van is a superior choice- more | secure, more protected from the elements, better milage, | much less cool. I'm fact actual trades people are much | more likely to use one than am f150. | | Could you ever see yourself buying a panel van? Why or | why not? | jrsj wrote: | There's a lot of times it's more convenient to just throw | something over the side of the bed so I would miss that | but as a purely utilitarian vehicle vs a work truck | absolutely yes. | | However for my truck in particular I got a somewhat | luxury trim with 50k miles for only $20k, so it was a | good mix of things I would want in a vehicle generally as | well as the utility. Panel vans aren't really offered in | that configuration, and I probably wouldn't get one now | because I plan on just keeping this truck as a secondary | vehicle long after it's paid off and I eventually get a | smaller daily driver. | | All that being said the one thing that could make me | change my mind is an electric van with extensive usage of | solar panels. That has a rather unique value proposition | so if it existed in the future I'd be interested in it at | least. | baq wrote: | Why not rent something occasionally then? | jrsj wrote: | I got a good deal on something very well equipped with | low mileage, and trucks tend to hold their value | exceptionally well. It's also just more convenient this | way. | eropple wrote: | YMMV--but, in my experience, a single user multiple vehicles | in the US can be pretty tough (at least, going from 1 to 2; | it seems a lot easier when you go from 2 to 3). I am looking | at a new, single vehicle, and this electric F-150 might be it | --because I need to be able to carry plywood sheets and my | Hyundai subcompact isn't gonna cut it. | | I can't speak to the more general, aspirational subculture to | which you refer, but the aggravation of multiple vehicles is | in some ways the first stop on this tour. | brokencode wrote: | It's a vehicle, not a mental disorder. Some people just want | to be able to occasionally tow a boat or haul some furniture | without needing to rent a truck. | | I think the attitude of "you don't need a truck unless you're | a blue collar worker" is pretty elitist and ignorant, | honestly. As if the decision to buy a truck is somehow | invalid because white collar workers don't see the need for | one. | nyokodo wrote: | > want to be able to occasionally tow a boat or haul some | furniture without needing to rent a truck. | | The mystery to me is how very occasionally that seems to | be, at least anecdotally. Perhaps >95% of pickup trucks I | see are not hauling anything bigger than groceries. Yet, | they're hauling around their own ridiculously giant metal | frame and emitting huge amounts of fossil fuels in the | process. Those occasional boat trips are very net expensive | in atmospheric carbon! Thankfully electric pickups will | partially mitigate that problem although pickups will be | hogging space in commuter parking garages for many decades | hence I'm sure. | brokencode wrote: | I'm pretty sure this is the kind of attitude that causes | rural folks to be so skeptical of climate change. Some | (I'm assuming) city-dweller talking down to them about | how they don't need what they feel to be a useful tool in | their daily lives. | | I mean, it sounds like your real reservation about trucks | is not that they emit carbon, but that they are hogging | up space and inconveniencing you, which is not a very | persuasive argument. | nyokodo wrote: | > I'm pretty sure this is the kind of attitude that | causes rural folks to be so skeptical of climate change | | I didn't mention rural truck drivers and made no comment | that could reasonably be interpreted as such. If you have | to deal with corrugated dirt roads and hauling materials | etc on a daily basis then it's perfectly understandable | you won't exactly be driving a hatchback. | | > I mean, it sounds like your real reservation about | trucks is not that they emit carbon, but that they are | hogging up space and inconveniencing you, which is not a | very persuasive argument. | | Or, numerous city and urban commuting giant truck drivers | is an effective image of the ridiculous excess they | represent in the vast majority of their uses whereas | carbon is a less visible but extremely negative | externality from that excess. | | /s But yes, those that point out this are the real | problem. | jrsj wrote: | It's honestly a lot more practical than people seem to | think. And if electric trucks hold their value anything | like ICE trucks, getting one with a tax credit at about | $40k for the base model is probably the best deal in a new | vehicle you can find. | pmarreck wrote: | > I think the attitude of "you don't need a truck unless | you're a blue collar worker" is pretty elitist and | ignorant, honestly. | | A sedan with the rear seats folded down will likely hold as | much as you can get in a Costco run. | | Or two bikes you throw in there. | | I know because mine does both of these things. | | I'm pretty sure the vast majority of current truck owners | 1) don't own boats 2) rarely, if ever, haul furniture 3) | use the space in the rear on a regular basis. | | Against this we have the known statistics of pedestrian and | cyclist fatalities due to the obstructions to visibility | provided by the very high front grille and very high ride | height (plus wide A-pillars, etc.) | | So it's therefore not only a waste of gas but a public | health hazard, and making that claim is not "elitist", it's | merely "rational" and "empirical" (and allow me to add, | "humane") | | https://smartgrowthamerica.org/bigger-vehicles-are- | directly-... | | "Recent research from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | found the share of pedestrian deaths involving trucks, | vans, and SUVs has increased from 22 to 44 percent since | the mid-1980s. More SUVs and trucks in the fleet = more | pedestrian injuries becoming deaths instead." | | https://www.outsideonline.com/2411345/suvs-trucks-deadly- | cyc... | ben7799 wrote: | Hot nonsense. | | Most sedans have a max payload < 1000lbs including all | passengers. | | An F-150 has a payload over 3000lbs and can tow up to | 14,000lbs. | | Do you need that for your groceries? No, but if you don't | live in the heart of the city the F-150 enables you do | many many things that a sedan can't do around yard work, | home ownership, agriculture, hauling gear, etc.. | | A sedan is about the worst car design anyway.. you'd have | more of a leg to stand on if you had argued for a hatch | or a minivan. | | I've never owned a truck, but they have their uses. | leetcrew wrote: | I'm a big fan of small cars, but I'm also a big fan of | having friends that own trucks. just off the top of my | head, I've needed to borrow a friend's truck to move a | couch (twice), buy a new bedframe, and buy a TV. this is | all in the past year. none of those things fit in my | hatchback with any combination of seats folded down, and | they certainly wouldn't fit in a sedan. if I had to rent | one from uhaul or home depot, that would have cost me | hundreds of dollars in total. instead, it cost me a | couple meals at chipotle. | | it's also hard to find anything smaller than a truck with | 4WD. if you live outside the city/suburbs, this can be a | pretty important feature by itself. | JohnWhigham wrote: | >What is the psychology | | Americans want it because everyone else has one. Down here in | TX, the number of pristine trucks that have never seen a | speck of dirt, never had anything in the bed, and that are | parked on their 1/8 acre lots in the city is staggering. | igetspam wrote: | I love how they're still measured in acres but as a | fraction. I have 2.5ac and our truck is usually filthy. :) | jrsj wrote: | I own an F150 I use primarily for commuting but it also has a | comfortable ride, >20 highway mpg, good visibility, utility | for when I need to move furniture etc, and it's relatively | affordable _and holds its value_. Trucks depreciate slower | than any other category of vehicle. Literally the only | downside is that it's a pain to park sometimes. | namdnay wrote: | if my conversion is right, 25 us mpg is 10 l/100km... | that's nearly double the consumption of a family estate. | jrsj wrote: | Most sedans get somewhere in the 30s on the highway | unless they are hybrids, so it's about a 50% difference. | Not insignificant, but not as massive of a difference as | you would think. From a purely economic point of view | you'd have to drive a lot for the cost of gas to cost you | more than you save from having less depreciation. | true_religion wrote: | You're going to be really sad when you do the comparison | for people who drive sports cars. Porsche 911's run at 19 | mpg for the 2020 models and ~14mpg for the 2000 models, | and the 2010 Cayenne (SUV) runs at 11 mpg. 11! | jrsj wrote: | I actually had a Fiesta ST before my truck and because it | required premium fuel (it would run on standard fuel but | burned it quicker and had less power doing it so it was | pointless) the actual $ cost per mile was similar to the | truck I have now but with shorter range because of the | much smaller fuel tank | quantumwannabe wrote: | First off, you can't compare the fuel economy values | between countries just by doing a conversion. Europe has | different testing procedures that give higher numbers | than the American EPA test does (normally around 20-25%), | and the only way you'll have an accurate number is if the | car is sold in both countries. | | The F150 has fuel economy close to that of wagons sold in | the US. The F150 is less efficient, but it has way more | than half the fuel economy of a wagon. Examples: | | A base E-Class Wagon gets 24 mpg (22 city, 28 highway). A | 4WD V6 F150 (which I think is the most popular) gets 21 | mpg (19 city, 24 highway). The most efficient F150 | available (the 2WD Hybrid) gets 25 mpg (25 city, 26 | highway). | | Wagons aren't super popular in the US so there aren't | that many on the market. Here is a comparison of the fuel | economies of the F150 vs several wagons available in the | US: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id | =43464&... | namdnay wrote: | That's a 4wd E450, it's the most powerful of the standard | range! hardly a "base e-class"... which would be an E200 | | Of course the E450 is going to get atrocious mileage, | it's a V6 turbocharged luxury car | quantumwannabe wrote: | It is the base E Class in the American market. Americans | don't drive <150 HP manual cars and would never buy them. | Those are the only versions of cars that get | substantially better gas mileage then the versions of | cars that Americans typically drive. | namdnay wrote: | The fact that Mercedes (a luxury car manufacturer) choose | not to import their smaller engines to the US doesn't | mean you can't get smaller engines. Subaru outback, kia | niro, even a volvo v60 or audi a4 come with efficient 2l | engines if you absolutely want luxury | quantumwannabe wrote: | Did you not read the link I posted in my first comment in | this chain? Two of the cars in the fuel economy | comparison are the Subaru Outback and the Volvo V60. The | most efficient Outback has 29 mpg (26/33) and the most | efficient F150 has 25 mpg (25/26). Almost identical in | city, and in the same ballpark for highway. Numbers are | similar for the Audi A4 Allroad (though you'll have the | same concern as the E-Class as only the higher worldwide | trims are available) and for the V60. | namdnay wrote: | Ah sorry I'm on mobile, didn't see the horizontal | scrolling! | | It's crazy that the choice is so limited in the US. I can | understand why the Prius was so popular with you guys, | despite handling like a whale on wheels.. there are | nearly no options in the big hatchback segment . | gizmo385 wrote: | > Literally the only downside is that it's a pain to park | sometimes. | | I'd argue there is a societal disadvantage regarding the | emissions these trucks kick out. | jrsj wrote: | If I drove it _a lot_ yes but I typically only do | 4000-6000 miles a year. Even with this vehicle I average | less emissions than a typical commuter would. That being | said I will probably replace it with an EV as a daily | driver when it's paid off & use it on an as needed | basis. | Dah00n wrote: | You can't compare yourself to someone that drives more | than you do and use it to say anything about how much you | pollute. Comparing to a small European sedan (or maybe a | VW Golf) driving the same amount of miles would be more | telling. Apples to grocery carts. | jrsj wrote: | Well I did make that comparison and the point was that | it's an inconsequential amount regardless | dubcanada wrote: | Wait, so you're against cars? I am confused as to what any of | that has to do with the new electric F-150. | tyingq wrote: | It's heavier because of the batteries: | | 2022 Ford Lightning: 6,500 lbs | | 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid: 5,794 lbs | | 2021 Ford F-150 ICE: 5,014 lbs | | (All 4-door models) | jeffbee wrote: | 1999 Chevy S-10: 3241 lbs and it came with a proper 6-foot | bed, not this 5.5-foot garbage. | toomuchtodo wrote: | EVs are heavier by nature (this vehicle's battery pack alone | is ~1800 lbs). Your average driver is not good at driving. | The F150 sells very well. Ergo, more risk of more property | damage and human harm. | | You can't get around physics. More mass with more force | carries more risk. | maxerickson wrote: | In terms of kinetic energy, adding 20% to the mass is like | speeding up from 50 to 55. | | 40% is like speeding up to 60. | | If you are worried about vehicle weight, worry more about | speed. | qchris wrote: | Completely aside from the point you're trying to make: | it's a pet peeve of mine when people try to describe | collisions in terms of kinetic energy. It's the wrong | metric--the important conserved quantity in collisions is | _momentum_ , which is simply linear mass*velocity (not | quadratic velocity). After that, it becomes a matter of | calculating the rate of momentum transfer, or impulse. | | That's why crumple zones are important for vehicle- | vehicle collisions--not because they turn kinetic energy | into a stored form of potential energy in deformation, | but because they drastically decrease the rate at which | momentum changes. | cloverich wrote: | They are heavier and faster (acceleration). | jrsj wrote: | The location of the battery also means lower center of | gravity and probably better control over the vehicle, and | the curb weight is about the same. These will probably be | net safer than ICE F-150s | formerly_proven wrote: | > (this vehicle's battery pack alone is ~1800 lbs) | | The weight of an entire small car! | ddingus wrote: | Yup. For a while I owned a 3 cylinder Sprint. Was 1750 | pounds. | mywittyname wrote: | Yeah, but it's not like the drivetrain of an F150 is | light. A fully dressed Coyote V8, 10R80, driveshaft, | differentials, subframes, exhaust, gas tank (with fuel), | radiator & supports, fuel lines, etc, etc add up. So the | batteries weight 1800 lbs, but your also removing like | 1400lbs of stuff. It's pretty likely that the Lightning | will weight in at barely more than a hybrid F150, and the | lower range F150s, when introduced, will probably weight | the same as the ICE versions. | | A little appreciated fact is that a Model 3 and a Mustang | have the exact same weight ranges: the SR RWD Model 3 | weights about what a ecoboost Mustang does, and a GT500 | Mustang is actually about 200lbs heavier than a Model 3 | AWD LR Performance. | dubcanada wrote: | Ya I get that, but the statement is a society/government | issue and has nothing to do with Ford. | thrdbndndn wrote: | Is there any actual data that shows there is correlation | between the mass of vehicles and number of people killed? | | Obviously heavier cars are more deadly when hitting people | with all the other variables fixed, but not all these | variables are independent. They could also depend on the | weight of the cars. For example, maybe the car becomes | easier to control/steer when it's heavier (totally made up | point), which counters the inherent risk introduced by the | weight. | | Without real-world data I won't be too quick to say heavier | car is more dangerous. | sjg007 wrote: | There are millions of F150s. If you get into an accident | what is the probability it is with an F150? Or an SUV or | something bigger that requires a commercial driving | license. | | We also know that speed kills and people are driving | faster today than ever before. | toomuchtodo wrote: | https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublicati | on/... | thrdbndndn wrote: | Thanks for the link! | | I'll post the conclusion for the light trucks weight | reduction part (fatalities part, there is also non- | serious injuries part in the paper) here as TL;DR for | other people. Reducing the mass of light | trucks would significantly increase the fatality risk of | their occupants in collisions with objects and big | trucks. But downsizing of light trucks would | significantly reduce risk to pedestrians, | motorcyclists and, above all, passenger car occupants. | There would be little effect on rollovers because, | historically, there has been little correlation between | the mass of light trucks and their rollover | stability (width relative to center-of-gravity height). | There would also be little change in collisions | between two light trucks, if both trucks are reduced in | mass. Even though the effect of mass reductions is | statistically significant in four of the six types of | crashes, the net effect for all types of crashes combined | is small, because some of the individual effects | are positive and others are negative. The benefits of | truck downsizing for pedestrians and car occupants | could more than offset the fatality increase for light | truck occupants. It is estimated that a 100-pound | reduction could result in a modest net savings of 40 | lives, (0.26 percent of baseline fatalities). | However, this estimate is not statistically significant, | the 2-sigma confidence bounds range from a savings | of 100 to an increase of 20 fatalities; the 3-sigma | bounds range from a savings of 130 to an increase | of 50 fatalities. It is concluded that a reduction in the | weight of light trucks would have a negligible | overall effect, but if there is an effect, it is most | likely a modest reduction of fatalities | [deleted] | defaultname wrote: | The curb weight of the Lightning seems to be approximately | the same as the ICE F150s. 4600-5000lbs. Batteries are | heavy, but so are engines and transmissions. | | The battery being low should dramatically improve the | safety of the vehicle by improving stability. | | It's still a huge vehicle, though. It would be nice if we | trended smaller, and left vehicles like this to people who | actually need it. | drcoopster wrote: | The new Lightning comes in around 6500 lbs. Maybe you saw | a number for the old Lightning from the 90s, which was | around 4600 lbs. | defaultname wrote: | My mistake then. I read a response post to the new | vehicle that claimed it would come in at 5000lbs. Can't | find anything authoritative, but everyone seems to be | speculating more around 6500 as you said. | jtdev wrote: | Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or | pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a | 7500 lb vehicle...? | | Constantly telling people that existing on earth as a human | is bad for x, y, z is a good strategy if you want people to | tune out and stop paying attention to what you're saying. | drcoopster wrote: | > Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or | pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a | 7500 lb vehicle...? | | Depends how fast it's going. | [deleted] | benlivengood wrote: | Comparing actual stopping distances for passenger cars and | light pickups: https://special- | reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual... | https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst- | br... | | Basically light duty trucks take an extra 10-30 feet | stopping from 60 MPH. This is dwarfed by distance travelled | during reaction time. In the 1960's sedans were in the ~150 | ft range for 60-0, about what modern pickups achieve. | | Heavier vehicles have more kinetic energy at the same speed | but the braking force for all vehicles is proportional to | mass and friction with the road surface which depends on | tire quality and road material, and since acceleration is | proportional to mass from a given force the deceleration | from braking is basically the same at any mass with | equivalent tires and road surface. | thanatos519 wrote: | Don't forget that electric vehicles are almost silent. | bluesquared wrote: | Even with the noisemaker my Chevy Bolt has still been quiet | enough to surprise unaware pedestrians in parking lots. | throwawayboise wrote: | What is this noisemaker? Is it sort of an electronic whine? | I thought that was just the motors. Otherwise I've never | heard any kind of artificial noise from a slow-moving EV. | surrealize wrote: | https://youtu.be/E5tc1LVYiyA?t=66 | oftenwrong wrote: | I work with a window facing the street, and I can hear | electric cars coming well before they pass. Electric cars are | near-silent only when they're moving very slowly. The noise | from tyres-on-tarmac is still fairly loud when they are | moving at typical city-driving speed. | jakob223 wrote: | Not when moving at any significant speed - most of the sound | of a vehicle going faster than 10mph ish is tires. | sjg007 wrote: | Tires are an issue but diesels engine trucks and semis are | audible. Also some times regular gas customers have | modified exhausts. Tire noise is higher frequency though. | prennert wrote: | Have you ever lived next to a road in a city? I can tell | you that the most noise comes from revving engines. | | There is a also a massive difference between noise a | normally driven ICE vehicle makes compared to an electric | one at city speeds. The electric ones are very silent and | barely audible if they don't make that humming sound. Even | at 20-30mph. | AmVess wrote: | I can't hear a single engine, but I can hear the hum of | tires a long way away. Sure, I can sometimes hear a loud | exhaust but those come and go in seconds. Tire noise is a | 24x7 sound until winter (snow attenuates sound really | well). | | Source: typing this in a city with lots of roads and | traffic. | dv_dt wrote: | The interesting thing is, as more cars become electric, | the noise floor lowers and you will likely be able to | pick out oncoming cars just as easily. | rriepe wrote: | Most car noise comes from the wheels, at speed, on highways. | vladvasiliu wrote: | Are most pedestrian and cyclist deaths on the highways? | | I would have though it would be in the city, if only for | the fact that I practically never see pedestrians on | country roads where I live. There can be cyclists, though. | | In the city, though, most car noise is clearly the engine. | Source: traffic outside my window. I clearly hear the | engine noise or the exhaust if it's a scooter or | motorcycle. | rriepe wrote: | Honestly I regret replying to this obtuse argument | [deleted] | ForHackernews wrote: | Don't know about in the USA, but in the EU electric cars are | required to emit some noise when going slowly. Most make an | eerie electric hum, but Fiat has chosen to make their new | Fiat 500 play a jaunty Italian tune: | https://www.motortrend.com/news/new-fiat-500-pedestrian- | aler... | frankfrankfrank wrote: | "... they will be like the ringtone of your phone, | downloadable interchangeable, customizable ..." ... O_O ... | Oh, dear God, please no. | keanebean86 wrote: | I think they're supposed to generate some kind of sound at | low speeds. Or at least the government wants them to. | | https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28. | .. | coder543 wrote: | Nope. | | All electric vehicles sold in the US since September 2020 | must have a Pedestrian Warning System that emits noise at | speeds less than 18mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri | c_vehicle_warning_sound... | | Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the | tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have | these days anyways. | | This electric F-150 will not be "almost silent" in any way | that matters to a pedestrian. It will certainly be less | obnoxious to everyone than those grating diesel engine | trucks, and I hope _no one_ complains about the loss of that | noise pollution. | svnpenn wrote: | > Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the | tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have | these days anyways. | | Are you mental? I live on a residential street, not even | too busy, and _every single day_ , I hear these idiot | gunning their motors to be cool. With electric its a non | issue. | [deleted] | mywittyname wrote: | Yeah, EVs emit a really annoying sound. You don't really | notice as a driver rolling around with the windows up, but | when you pull one into a garage with the windows down, you | hear that "WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOOWEEEEEEERRRRR" | echoing all over. | woeirua wrote: | Yes, it will be heavier, and yes it will have more | acceleration... | | But newer vehicles also have AEB with pedestrian detection. If | these vehicles displace older existing vehicles without those | safety systems we will see fewer fatalities overall. Most kids | and pedestrians are hit at low speed, not at 60+ mph due to the | driver not paying attention or not being able to see the | pedestrian. While AEB can't save all pedestrians that would | otherwise be hit, we know that these systems lead to big | reductions in preventable accidents [1]. | | [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/ | Rooster61 wrote: | Folks I know that have owned Ford vehicles in the past few years | have done nothing but complain about issues with electrical | subsystem and accessory breakdown. I'd be very wary of buying a | Ford period, much less one that relies entirely on electricity to | move. | | Not FUD, as I have no dog in the fight and personally don't care | if anyone else buys one, but its a make of automobile I avoid. | tra3 wrote: | American vehicles had a history of poor quality control and | reliability but it's improved in the last 20 years. F150 is the | #1 selling truck in USA in Canada. | | Our 2011 F150 has been very reliable, mechanically, but the | audio wiring is broken in interesting ways. My buddy's older | F150 has exactly the same issue. Otherwise it's been trouble | free. | Rooster61 wrote: | I've noticed that in that era of Ford vehicles, including my | own. I have a 2006 Mustang that mechanically has been a tank, | but electrically has had multiple issues (it's on its 4th | alternator). The audio deck has been similarly flakey. They | may very well be better nowadays. | ethbr0 wrote: | For any vehicle I generally ask myself two questions. | | #1 - How long has this engine design been used? | | #2 - How long has this transmission design been used? | | Accessory / electrical problems are annoying, but fixable. | Powertrain problems are... the vehicle itself. | rhodozelia wrote: | A friend had to have "the wiring harness" on his 2019 f350 | replaced, it was 10k took 5 weeks and would have been at | his cost if he didn't have the extended warranty | ethbr0 wrote: | 10k to replace a wiring harness on a 350 seems... | unreasonable. Even for dealership prices. | | That's rip-out-every-wire-in-the-truck labor totals. | | What were the symptoms? | rhodozelia wrote: | Yeah it was more than 'a' wiring harness. I think it was | going in to limp mode or something | _coveredInBees wrote: | I know you are heavily downvoted, and my experience is | anecdotal, but I proudly bought a Ford Fusion sedan in 2010 (my | first "new" car) and I have had nothing but trouble with its | electrical systems. It burns out lights every year or other | year. It even managed to melt the receptacle for one of the | front headlights at one point in time. It eats through car | batteries (I'm on battery number 5 in 11 years of ownership) | and has had a ton more maintenance costs compared to my 2008 | Toyota Sienna that I bought used and has literally had no | unplanned maintenance issues. | | I'm really happy to see Ford step up in the EV field. The | Mach-E looks fantastic, as does the F-150. I have no ill-will | towards them and I want them to succeed. But there just isn't | anyway I can get over the sour taste in my mouth from owning my | Ford Fusion and it is hard to take a leap of faith with them | when they are new at the EV game. | dubcanada wrote: | Why even say this? Every single car company has a bunch of | users who hate them. | | This has nothing to do with your random friends hating Ford lol | 1123581321 wrote: | Mate, this is textbook FUD. :) It's anecdotal and there is no | connection between the reliability of a vehicle's electric | motor system and the electrical systems that may have troubled | your acquaintances. | Rooster61 wrote: | Take it as what you perceive, that's fine. That said, saying | that there is no connection is speculation. The design, | implementation, and supply chain of both aspects of the | vehicle deal with electronic components. I don't know if they | will make the same mistakes with the drivetrain electronics | that they do with other aspects of the vehicle's | construction. | keyboardCowBoy wrote: | I have a mid size GM truck and it sufficiently handles all my | needs. It's not overly large and drives fine in the city and | tight spots. It has good performance gets easily 25MPG on the | highway. Trucks standup more to abuse, and are usually more | reliable. I haven't had any real major issues with it. I take | mine down some unkept dirt roads, something I would not want to | take a unibody low group clearance car down. When I go camping I | just throw everything in the bed with some bungee cords and I'm | ready to go. I have a bike and when I transport it I just use a | bike pad and don't have to mess with taking the bike wheels off | and trying to stuff it in a car. Also the biggest selling point | is trucks hold their value quite well. | yumraj wrote: | Now when can we expect a real SUV built on this platform. A Ford | Explorer or Expedition, whichever shares the platform with F-150 | aazaa wrote: | I think it's interesting to look at this through the lens of | Christensen's disruptive innovation idea. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma | | The move by Ford offers strong evidence that electric vehicles at | this point have become a sustaining, not disruptive innovation. | Incumbents like Ford can now compete using existing business | models and possibly manufacturing practices/equipment. | | EV companies like Tesla are now positioned very poorly. They've | burned capital chasing the top end of the market during the | disruptive phase. Rather than servicing unserved low-end markets | that companies like Ford couldn't touch for business reasons, | Tesla went after the very top end of the market. Piles of | evidence say that this approach will fail, not necessarily for | technical reasons but for business reasons. | | Successful marketplace disruptors attack the market from the | bottom by offering objectively inferior technologies with steeply | improving performance. That tech trajectory eventually allows the | disruptor to gobble the market from the bottom up, with | incumbents only too happy to leave low-end, low-margin customers | behind. Think microcomputers vs. minicomputers. | | Rather than running this playbook, Tesla chose the alternative: | attack the very top end of the market. It never went through the | phase where its products were mistaken for toys. | | Now that EV production costs and technologies allow easier | transitions, Tesla's business model is upside-down. If Tesla | couldn't consistently turn profits during the phase it held the | advantage, it is going to become almost impossible now that the | playing field has leveled and the incumbents can just run the | playbook. | rootusrootus wrote: | At this point I think Tesla's future in the automotive market | depends on just two factors. Their DC fast charging network, | and their supply of batteries. | | I'm confident they currently hold the upper hand on both fronts | right now and for the next couple of years most likely. I am | not at all confident that they can hold onto either advantage | much longer than that. | defaultname wrote: | The aspect I'm most curious about is towing range. I have a | 5000lb travel trailer that I tow about 200km away a few times a | year. I'm pretty sure I'd be out of luck with a vehicle like | this. | | It has the ability to pull the trailer with ease, but most | preliminary estimates are that range would be two digits with | that sort of load. In my current vehicle I do stop for gas | midway, but it would be an entirely different situation hoping | for a charger spot (with connected trailer) and then the time to | charge. | | Still a great truck, though. For a huge range of uses, including | more local towing situations (the vast majority of commercial | uses), it could be brilliant. | | And eventually they can market a super-range battery you can tow. | I kid...or do I? | megaman821 wrote: | Cut the advertised range in half. That is about the max you can | expect for towing range. So the extended range version may let | you tow the distance you want to. | rm445 wrote: | The occasional heavy-duty trip is a reasonable use case for a | range extender (as in, an IC engine gen-set) either towed or on | the truck bed. | dahfizz wrote: | The idea of having a gas-powered generator in the bed of an | electric truck is both genius and hilarious to me. | rswail wrote: | If you could fit it into the "frunk" (godawful name) then | um, it would be just like the ICE version. | nabla9 wrote: | Removable hybrid option. | greenonions wrote: | I doubt it would be a very viable choice for recreational | towing, but then, that market is probably significantly smaller | than the standard truck use-cases. | defaultname wrote: | Ford includes several pictures of towing recreational | trailers (travel trailer, boat) in seemingly remote locations | among their promotional images for this truck: It certainly | isn't the bulk of the market, but it is a very important | market. | | They're appealing to people who tow stuff currently and | aspirationally (e.g. people who don't currently tow trailers, | but like to imagine that one day they will. "What if" | scenarios). | | Eventually the charging infrastructure will be there, | including for towing vehicles, and it would be a case of | scheduling a lunch around a charge. | cschneid wrote: | I just bought a little teardrop camping trailer, and it was | amazing how much it impacted my gas mileage. I tow with a | Subaru outback, and I went from low 20s (23/24 on highway) to | mid teens. Almost ran out of gas on our first trip since it | went so much faster than I expected! | | I can't imagine that the F150 would be good for long haul | trailers... just so much energy involved moving weight around. | toss1 wrote: | I've found towing mileage change was very dependent on the | vehicle. | | For example, I had a Dodge Durango which got pretty much | 16mpg no matter what, whether driving empty or towing a car | on a flatbed trailer at highway speeds, still 16mpg. Next | vehicle was a used manual transmission BMW X5, got 22-24mpg | empty on the highway, but just towing an empty flat trailer | would drop that to 17mpg, and a car on it would be 16, and | the same towing a small U-Hual box trailer, just instantly | drop to 16. So, one was highly stable and the other highly | variable with different weight/aero loads. | criddell wrote: | If you only need to do it a few times a year, why not rent a | truck? | rootusrootus wrote: | It will be interesting to see what the real-world experience is | like, but I don't expect any good news. People towing tiny | travel trailers behind Model X's get brutal reductions in | range. | | The problem is that an EV is so inherently efficient to begin | with that towing a big hollow brick behind you makes a | tremendous difference in how much fuel it takes to pull it. | Contrast that with a pickup that is already getting mid-teens | fuel economy, the change in efficiency is much less pronounced. | And with the easy filling ability of the ICE pickup, it's going | to be the go-to choice for a number of years until batteries | get significantly more capacity, denser, and cheaper. | | A very typical pickup/travel trailer combo will get 10mpg. | Maybe a couple more for a diesel. You can find outliers, but | I've been towing RVs for a while and the topic comes up for | discussion periodically, 10mpg is by far the most common | experience. Trying to cram enough capacity into a battery for | this kind of terrible efficiency is going to be tough for a | while. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Wow, the best selling vehicle coming in electric? If that doesn't | encourage a huge surge in charging stations I don't know what | will. | boulos wrote: | So, I'm sort of curious to see what this price point does to the | home battery market. | | The new LG Chem RESU 16h (16 kWh) is available for preorder at | $8,400 [1]. | | The base model truck has a 110 kWh suite of batteries and | seemingly will start at $40k (unclear if that's before or after | the $7500 expected federal rebate). | | Naively multiplying it out, the base model F-150 Lightning is a | free vehicle attached to the equivalent of 6 of the 16 kWh | batteries. | | There are likely: | | - integration issues (you can't hook it up to 48V or 400V solar) | | - battery life? (Though it's a vehicle. You expect daily usage | for years) | | - something else? | | tl;dr: if this is really 110 kWh of storage that can power your | home, shouldn't there be a secondary market of "just the | batteries" for half that? | | [1] https://sunwatts.com/16-kwh-lg-chem-lithium-ion-home- | battery... | bryanlarsen wrote: | If I understand correctly, only the $90K model has the ability | to power your home. Even so your comment still applies. 155 kWh | / $90K is still cheaper than 16 kWh / $8400 | ajb92 wrote: | > The base model truck has a 110 kWh suite of batteries and | seemingly will start at $40k (unclear if that's before or after | the $7500 expected federal rebate). | | During the live presentation, I believe it was indicated the | sub $40k price tag is _before_ the rebate. | kingsuper20 wrote: | Pretty cool. I'd buy one if they made a regular cab, short bed, | base model version. Not gonna happen. Probably never will since | it isn't a matter of simply producing a shorter frame and | altering the body shell. Not enough call for it. | | In my case (not that anyone cares), lower end trucks are fairly | optimal. Low repair costs, don't care about gas mileage (not | enough miles/year), good visibility, don't ever need a back seat, | ease of repair and accessibility, need space for transporting big | and tall stuff often enough. Kind of a no-brainer. | | The emergency house power angle is the killer app for me. Plus | never going to a gas station, changing oil, etc. | | You do have to wonder how much longer any EV subsidy can last. It | highly favors wealthier people (due to the tie to income tax in | many cases) and won't hold up to widespread adoption of EVs | Ninjinka wrote: | I just can't get over the lack of range compared to the | Cybertruck. But Ford will do fine since it actually looks like a | truck. | auiya wrote: | Why? A pickup truck isn't a touring vehicle. | luxuryballs wrote: | To me electric cars are still far overpriced if you account for | the astronomical number of routes and places you could never even | think about going. Also have they solved the electric gas can | problem? Maybe they can equip them with a small removable battery | so you can go get a "5 gallon" charge and then go fetch your | vehicle if the battery dies, otherwise a simple hike to a gas | station becomes a tow job! | goodcanadian wrote: | The solution may not be as far off as you think. These guys are | targetting a different market, but a possible solution exists: | https://chargefairy.com/ | TheBigSalad wrote: | But otoh, you have a gas station at your house. | francoisp wrote: | I tried putting in a reservation in Canada yesteday. I think they | got slashdoted. Spinning.... Victim of their success. Maybe they | will understand why Tesla does not need paid for marketing? | haroldl wrote: | There is no picture of the entry level model; it says "coming | soon". Since the Ford F-150 usually costs a lot to upgrade to 4 | full-size doors and a navigation computer, I'm wondering if that | will be the case here too. Near the bottom of the page it looks | like you have to upgrade two levels to the "Lariat" configuration | to get that 15.5 inch touchscreen. | csharptwdec19 wrote: | The claims I saw in all of the regurgitated Press Releases | seemed to indicate they are going to do 4 doors as standard on | the Lightning, at least for now. | | I'm not sure how much of that is streamlining production versus | design (i.e. fitting all the batteries in place may more or | less necessitate that specific body style) | PostThisTooFast wrote: | At least the Lightning name makes sense for an electric vehicle, | even though it does not have much to do with the original | Lightning. | | Mach-E is a perfectly good name, but calling that design a | Mustang is bogus. | taytus wrote: | Tesla is fucked. | valine wrote: | With a max range of 300 miles on the f150 I doubt it. | taytus wrote: | I didn't meant for this vehicle in particular. | | I meant it for all these car manufacturers pushing new EVs. | | Tesla deserves a lot of credit for pushing the industry | forward, but they are going to have a lot of competition in | the next 5 years. | jefft255 wrote: | And that's without towing anything | djrogers wrote: | This is a really well thought out vehicle. 9.6kw of AC power (120 | and 240) available for tools etc on work sites, 2 way power | (truck can provide backup power to home), and it has a frunk | (front trunk)! | | As a truck owner, and a California resident, every one of these | features calls out to me. I use my power tools all over the place | where power isn't readily available, PG&E shuts off my power when | it's 'too windy', and a drunk seems like a good place to lock up | my laptop and nice tools when I'm in a restaurant in San Jose or | Santana Clara (sheesh, laptop thieves suck). | | Well done Ford - I think you've got a customer here. | perardi wrote: | I have no idea if this'll be lightning or a lead balloon, because | a significant amount of pickup truck buyers do it for the | machismo. | | Which sounds like some city-slicker talking down to the cheap | seats, except, I grew up in a town named Farmington. _(Go | Farmers.)_ I know pickups. I know the people who drive pickups. | My dad sneers at fancy new pickups because he used to shove a | good 700 pounds of mink pelts in a pickup, and he thinks all that | leather would get stained by the blood nowadays. And pickup truck | buyers love their macho trucks. They like the burble of the | engines and the swagger and that it's not some little penalty box | of a green car. | | An electric pickup? Sure, sounds rational, especially with that | torque. But does it trigger the libs enough? | | - | | Something that might help, though: that price. | | _"but rather its price because the 2022 F-150 Lightning will | start at just $39,974 before any government rebates."_ | | Given the just _eye-watering_ prices of pickups these days: | that's cheap, relatively. | bryanlarsen wrote: | To some people machismo means strength, to others machismo | means self-reliance. The 11 power outlets and the ability to | power your house will really appeal to them. | | If the world turns Mad Max, someone with an electric truck and | a few solar panels won't have to worry about the gasoline | gangs. | buescher wrote: | If the world turns Mad Max, The Humungus will be driving | around in the electric truck he took from some sap who | expected to ride out the apocalypse with his solar panels and | electric vehicle. | jeffbee wrote: | 99% of truck-driving Americans will starve to death in the | first month of a societal collapse, and there's nothing their | truck can do about it. If you need a truck with a 120 kW-h | battery pack it's either going to take a week to charge it | from the excess capacity of a domestic solar array, or you | need to quadruple the size of said solar array. Either way, | between the truck and the solar panels you'd probably have | been better off spending that money on land and seeds. | kingsuper20 wrote: | I expect that after the first month the truck-driving | Americans will turn cannibal and eat the Subaru-driving | Americans. | | I give them six months of survival. | bryanlarsen wrote: | A water supply, land, seeds, tools, enough food to get to | harvest and having neighbors you can trust. Trucks and guns | are way less important. | | In the case of societal collapse you're probably not going | far with your truck so taking a week to charge is probably | OK. | | But of course it's not about what you really need, it's all | about perception. In that race, trucks and guns are the | most important. | outside1234 wrote: | Also, this pickup is going to be way faster than the IC one. | | That helps with the overcompensation buyer. | bamboozled wrote: | Macho man and their egos like the fastest, toughest trucks with | the most torque / power. This is it. It wins. | csharptwdec19 wrote: | It depends. | | There's a couple classes of 'Truck guys'. The Truck guys that | just want power, yeah they'll probably go for this. | | The Truck guys that like throwing turbodiesels in to get | HP/Torque numbers like what we see in the lightning, I would | say it depends on whether Ford makes it 'Moddable' or not. | rootusrootus wrote: | > significant amount of pickup truck buyers do it for the | machismo | | Those are weasel words unless you can back them up with data. | Ford sells over a million pickups a year, and they're just a | third of that market. There's no way to get an audience this | large by going for machismo, pickups sell because they have | broad appeal. | cloverich wrote: | It is a bit insulting but I suspect many people have enough | experience with this that its a bit of a gut reaction. I know | a lot of big ego people, they all drive trucks. I've been | flipped off by drivers of all vehicles, but only run off the | road by trucks, usually for very trivial things. because you | know, getting into someone elses lane is effectively a | challenge to their manhood, and they better make a point | about it less they lose their social standing. That's not the | actual thoughts in their heads, but it is their reaction. | Trucks are _also_ comfortable, convenient, and all those | other things, which is _also_ crucial. But I just can't | imagine any of these big ego people driving a small car (and | yes, more than a few have explicitly said as much). | | At any rate, what exactly would objective supporting data | look like here? | rootusrootus wrote: | > At any rate, what exactly would objective supporting data | look like here? | | I don't know, which is why I wouldn't stereotype such a | large group of the population. To a reasonable | approximation, everyone in America is a truck customer. | It's way too broad to have a common defining | characteristic. | | I agree that there is a subgroup (think of them perhaps as | the 'brodozer' crowd, I guess) that seem to be who you're | thinking of. They mostly don't drive F150s, they're more | likely to go for a diesel HD pickup. And even then they are | just a niche of that market. I know lots of superduty | owners that want nothing to do with those folks. | GiorgioG wrote: | It isn't fair to characterize everyone this way. I've owned my | fair share of small cars (by US standards) but I bought a used | F150 (my first truck) a few years ago and I love it. I don't | care about how loud the engine is, nor do I think it makes me | any more macho (I don't buy things for what others think of | me.) It carts my family around comfortably and I can haul lots | of things with it without caring if it's dirty/wet/etc. My | second favorite vehicle is my wife's minivan - it's too bad | they have a bad stigma. | | My concern with the Lightning (and EVs in general) is range | anxiety. I can fill up my F150 in what 3-4 minutes. How long | before I can go 400 miles on a charge? What happens during an | extended power outage, can I carry 100 miles worth of range in | a portable container that's as easy to handle as 5 gallons of | gas? | | None of these concerns have anything to do with this vehicle | making me feel more manly ;) | discordance wrote: | It will take some change in behavior, but it's worked out ok | for me. I charge over night (and frequently using solar in | the day when at home). That leaves me with 400km of range | everyday. | | For those infrequent long trips I stop every 3 hours/350km | and charge for 30 mins. Watch some Netflix, use laptop, or | have a short nap and move on. Works out ok. | mavhc wrote: | That's the price of the one you can't buy though, commercial | version | helm33 wrote: | This truck will do very, very well in a fleet context. The | price point here will mean that commercial and government | buyers who pencil out TCO(total cost of ownership) will have a | compelling cost savings in maintenance and fuel. | speby wrote: | It's funny, I view buying a truck _for the machismo_ as one of | the primary emotions /feelings/identity actually means buying | it for whatever the _opposite_ of machismo is. | Someone1234 wrote: | As a contrasting anecdote: I work with IT people, about 20% of | the parking lot is pickup trucks. | | So while there might be pushback from the "salt of the | earth"-type, I suspect a lot of urban truck owners are very far | removed from that. The gas/long bed/bench seat base model may | continue to sell for the rest of my life to farmers and | construction crews, but most people buying a truck likely don't | _need_ a truck: It is just a utilitarian general vehicle that | may haul gardening supplies, camping gear, and dump runs every | so often. | | So you likely are correct, it just may not matter for the more | common demography for trucks in 2021+. | neither_color wrote: | After reading your comment I went and CTRL-Fd the page for | green, environment, carbon and sustainable. These words either | don't appear or aren't selling points. | | Ford's marketing department knows what they're doing, they're | marketing this truck as tough and powerful. I like it. | GongOfFour wrote: | They said the same about twin turbos in their trucks, but they | got used to it. | perardi wrote: | Yeahhhh, that's a fair point, they sell every one they can | make of those EcoBoosts. | ctdonath wrote: | "Machismo" might be why Tesla went with the dystopian styling | for Cybertruck. | SavantIdiot wrote: | Its battery can POWER YOUR HOUSE for up to a week. The Atlantic | has a great article about it. | | https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/05/f-150... | throwawaypage05 wrote: | It's perplexing to me to see these one-off messages explaining a | basic UI control month after month. Why not simply include a | numbered page widget (i.e. "More comments: 1, 2, 3..5") at the | top and bottom of the page and be done with it? If performance | improvements later obviate the need for it, it can then simply be | removed. | dang wrote: | I don't want to make a numbered widget or put it at the top of | the page. That doesn't feel right somehow. Yes, I know it's | taking a long time; we're just that slow over here. | | (I've detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27239842 so there isn't | extra offtopicness up there.) | grzm wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23851745 (and elsewhere) | | > _" We're working on performance improvements that will | hopefully allow us to go back to HN's original style of one big | page per thread (not infinite scroll, don't worry). In the | meantime please look for those 'More' links when the total | number of comments is over 250 or so."_ | throwawaypage05 wrote: | Right, that particular example was posted 10 months ago. | Instead of providing manual documentation every time there is | a multi-page discussion, why not let a simple UI affordance | do that for you? Seems easier than repeatedly promising | performance improvements for the better part of a year. | underbluewaters wrote: | This is what this transition should be all about. It's not just a | more environmentally responsible truck, it's better truck in | nearly every way. Contractors are going to love the secure | storage and built-in power for use on the job site or a farm. It | has more torque and will be better at towing. They could have | charged a lot more for these but instead it will be _cheaper_ | than the existing fossil fuel versions if you consider the tax | rebates. | | Ford knows their market and are going to absolutely destroy the | competition with this. | jycr753 wrote: | We need this in Europe! | speedgoose wrote: | I disagree. This too big, heavy, and deadly for other people | like cyclists, pedestrians, or even city car drivers. | rdiddly wrote: | It's great. Lose the oversize "frunk" and poor visibility, most | of the cockpit distractions, all the electronic surveillance | crap, 80% of these features, and cut the price in half, and I | might consider it! | | Because of the rental vehicle shortage I was free-upgraded to an | F-150 recently. You can haul stuff in it just fine, but in the | front it's too tall, ridiculously tall. It's a bloated and stupid | vehicle. The feature bloat you read about here, well obviously | that's just more bloat of a different kind. | | The problem isn't that it's electric; that part is great. The | problem is that it's an F-150. | keyboardCowBoy wrote: | People buy F150 because they need a truck. They sold almost | 800K last year. | [deleted] | andys627 wrote: | This will not save the planet. We need to consume less, and | walk/bike/take transit more. Fine, this may not be for you, but | at least don't insist on a the rest of subsidizing you (untaxed | climate externality). | tigerBL00D wrote: | Electric seems like a great idea for a truck in general. You need | high torque and with electric drive you don't need to have an | overpowered and inefficient engine to handle peak load. For long | distance use better aerodynamics will be important in the long | term and Ford isn't breaking any new ground here. | VBprogrammer wrote: | I notice they make a huge deal about the towing capacity but | realistically what is the range of this going to be hooked up to | a 10,000lb / 5000kg trailer? Maybe if it's lucky a little over | 100 miles? Maybe useful for some utility use cases but | practically useless for the recreational vehicle market. | skynet-9000 wrote: | Perfect for taking the boat to the lake on the weekend. | | ... well, unless you actually back it into the lake on the boat | ramp! Hmm.. | VectorLock wrote: | Being able to use the Lightning as a home backup and job site | generator is a great innovation. Even having 240 is pretty cool. | shireboy wrote: | I'm a potential customer on this. I'm in the market for a | vehicle, need a pickup and towing (no really). My hesitance still | is charge time on trips. If I'm taking my kids camping or | something, I really don't want to add one or more hours to the | trip. IMO for this sort of thing to really gain acceptance | mainstream, we need 5 minute charge times and battery lifetimes | on par with ICE engine lifetimes (300-500k miles). | | I feel like the industry is getting really close, and this is a | solid effort that puts Tesla on notice, but not _quite_ there in | terms of mass acceptance. | johnatwork wrote: | I have an EV, and yeah it takes more planning for longer trips, | but that hasn't been too hard. | | We can always charge _and_ take bathroom/lunch breaks (~1 | hour). By the time we get back the car's back up to 80~90%. | mywittyname wrote: | I really hope Ford accounted for the possibility of a gas- | powered range extender. Gas powered generators are extremely | common on work trucks. And a moderately sized one could | probably produce enough power to maintain this truck at | highways speeds, or at least produce enough power to | drastically improve range. | bryanlarsen wrote: | If you've got kids, you need bathroom breaks. On our cross- | country trip in our Model Y we calculated that we spent a whole | 15 minutes waiting for the charger, every other time we charged | while we were toileting, eating or sleeping. | | That being said, the F-150 will be a lot worse than the Y. It | only supports 150kWh charging instead of Tesla's 250kWh, it | uses a lot more watts per mile, and it doesn't have access to | Tesla's Supercharger network. | shireboy wrote: | That's interesting to hear. I have several friends with | Teslas and keep up with some of the reviews, etc. But I | haven't heard much perspective from people with kids. I have | a few friends with Teslas that also keep an ICE for trips. I | think some would vary on location. I've gone so far as to do | tesla's route planner for trips we commonly take, and I'm | pretty sure between having to drive to charging station, and | charge time, it would add a couple hours to our trips. Then | again, I tend to not want to stop much. | mataug wrote: | I'm a city apartment dweller, and I'm not the usual demographic | for this truck, but given the price point, and value this | provides, ford has my attention, and I would definitely consider | buying this if I can get a charger installed in my apartment | complex. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-21 23:01 UTC)