[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)