[HN Gopher] A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, ...
___________________________________________________________________
A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, no
screen
Author : kwindla
Score : 827 points
Date : 2025-04-25 15:01 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| Sontho wrote:
| Interesting, the options for customization is endless.
| jjulius wrote:
| A very rare thing with many kinds of hardware these days.
| Refreshing.
| greesil wrote:
| Oh good, an EV technical
| pelagic_sky wrote:
| Ars did a good write up on this as well:
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/amazon-backed-startup-w...
|
| Definitely something I would consider if they can make it happen.
| alephnerd wrote:
| It has a base range of 150 miles [0], which won't resolve range
| anxiety worries as the average American travels 42 miles a day
| [1] and only has 2 seats. I think it will do well for hobbyists
| and EV enthusiasts, but it would be hard to compete with a
| slightly pricier Tacoma. When people buy a pickup truck, they
| often use it as a daily commuter as well.
|
| > Got a road trip planned? These trips are all doable on a single
| charge of our standard battery. If you want to go even farther,
| our extended range battery increases the range to a projected 240
| miles from a projected 150 miles. [0]
|
| [0] - https://www.slate.auto/en/charging
|
| [1] - https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-
| us...
|
| Edit: The average pickup truck purchaser's has a household income
| of around $110,000 and 75% live outside cities [0]. When they are
| purchasing a pickup, it is meant to be both a daily driver and an
| errand vehicle.
|
| Spending $20,000 on a 2 seater bench pickup with 150mi range is
| ludicrous when you can buy a used 5 seater Honda Fit or Toyota
| Tacoma for $0-7k more.
|
| This is most likely targeted at fleet usecases like a factory or
| local deliveries, but this won't make a dent in the primary
| demographic that purchases pickups, and being overly defensive is
| doing no favors in thinking about HOW to build a true killer app
| EV for the American market.
| whycome wrote:
| The thing about range: it's always reducing (as the batteries
| age). And then it also reduces based on factors like
| temperature. The anxiety is solely from the not knowing.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Yep, and it's something that Slate's marketing doesn't
| directly address. Before Tesla's brand perception meltdown
| due to Elon, a major reason why Tesla was much more popular
| than other brands was because of the Supercharger network,
| which helped reduce range anxiety worries in the West Coast.
| Suppafly wrote:
| > a major reason why Tesla was much more popular than other
| brands was because of the Supercharger network, which
| helped reduce range anxiety worries in the West Coast.
|
| Can't basically every other brand use those now? Between
| the compatible Tesla chargers and all the other ones
| through Charge America and charging overnight at home,
| there is no concern from a daily driving, or even
| moderately ranged trip, standpoint. The downside to long
| trips is the 30+ minute wait at each charging stop, not the
| lack of chargers.
| bluGill wrote:
| While there are enough charges to make the trip they are
| not as common as gas stations and often not in visible
| locations. You can't just drive until the light goes on
| and then stop at the next exit like a gas car.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >While there are enough charges to make the trip they are
| not as common as gas stations and often not in visible
| locations.
|
| Sure but everyone with an EV has an app that tells them
| where they are and helps with route planning.
|
| >You can't just drive until the light goes on and then
| stop at the next exit like a gas car.
|
| You nearly can. Most ICE cars turn the light on at 50
| miles. Other than maybe the middle of the desert, there
| is going to be a charger within 50 miles.
| kstrauser wrote:
| All true but totally irrelevant. I wouldn't get this to make a
| cross-country trip, but I would absolutely, 100% get this to
| have an errand vehicle that never leaves the metro area.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > All true but totally irrelevant
|
| Not really. The average pickup truck purchaser's has a
| household income of around $110,000 and 75% live outside
| cities [0]. When they are purchasing a pickup, it is meant to
| be both a daily driver and an errand vehicle.
|
| Not have 4 seats AND having a lower range makes it a niche
| vehicle from a consumer sales perspective.
|
| This is most likely being targeted at fleets, which tend to
| have a local presence and don't have the consumer usecase
| attached.
|
| > I would absolutely, 100% get this to have an errand vehicle
| that never leaves the metro area.
|
| You're a software engineer in the Bay Area. You were never
| the target demographic for pickup truck sales, but you would
| in fact be a target demo for a product like a Slate Truck.
|
| [0] - https://www.americantrucks.com/pickup-truck-owner-
| demographi...
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| >> All true but totally irrelevant
|
| > Not really.
|
| The person you're replying to shares _their_ perspective
| about why they think your complaints are irrelevant to
| them. You can 't "not really" someone's lived experience.
| Well you can, but it sounds smug and out of touch.
| Copernicron wrote:
| > Not have 4 seats AND having a lower range makes it a
| niche vehicle from a consumer sales perspective.
|
| The base model only has two seats. The article explicitly
| states there will be an SUV conversion kit that you can
| purchase and install at home. There will also be an
| extended battery available. It's a very customizable
| vehicle.
| kstrauser wrote:
| > Not have 4 seats AND having a lower range makes it a
| niche vehicle from a consumer sales perspective.
|
| In the Bay Area alone, _that 's huge_. A cheap electric
| 2-seater that can get you into the HOV lanes? Yes please!
| Who cares if it happens to be truck-shaped. Squint and
| pretend it's an Electric Camino.
|
| > You're a software engineer in the Bay Area.
|
| ...who grew up in the Midwest, learned to drive in a 1970
| Chevy Custom with 3-on-the-tree, spent many adult years on
| the Great Plains, and who happens to live in the Bay Area
| now.
|
| I am no stranger to trucks.
|
| There are a million things I could use a pickup for today,
| especially for that price.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Disagree. I would buy this as a secondary vehicle for in-city
| needs, not for road trips. I've been thinking about getting a
| second car to complement our Kia EV6, but don't want to spend a
| ton.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > It has a base range of 150 miles [0], which won't resolve
| range anxiety worries as the average American travels 42 miles
| a day [1]
|
| What am I missing here? Charge at home and you'll easily do
| those 42 miles every day surely?
|
| Especially since your other point said these would be aimed at
| those outside of cities and those people will presumably have
| parking/charging at their home.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| This is obviously not intended to compete with F-150s and
| Tacomas. And Honda doesn't make the Fit anymore. See here for a
| current Fit owner's take:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794437
| kcb wrote:
| New Tacoma's are like $40k for a pretty basic model these days.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >New Tacoma's are like $40k for a pretty basic model these
| days.
|
| I thought so too, but apparently they make an extended cab
| one that is like 31k for the base model.
| bluGill wrote:
| Average need not beethe target. There are large niches that
| don't need as much. Many work trucks never go on road trips.
| Are those niches big enough is a question.
| FeistySkink wrote:
| Looks interesting. Are there any real-life non-marketing photos
| of it?
|
| Reminds me of Bollinger prototypes. Whatever happened to those?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| They pivoted.
| neogodless wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/amazon-backed-startup-w...
|
| Scroll down. The launch event photos _look_ like real
| prototypes. A bit closer than the marketing photos.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Very exciting! Electric vehicles have the ability to be very
| simple, much simpler than an ICE.
|
| Although electric can't be 100% analog, I miss the old days when
| a car has no software updates, no telemetry, no privacy issues,
| no mandatory subscription for features.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Don't want or need analog: Just don't enshittify the digital!
| CAN bus is a great system; don't IoT it or use dark patterns.
| pnw wrote:
| I doubt CAN bus will be around that much longer, I know
| several EV manufacturers are actively phasing it out. Yes, it
| was revolutionary in it's time but it's a 40 year old
| standard that doesn't have enough bandwidth for the
| requirements of modern cars, and it was designed before
| security was even a thought. It's also unnecessarily complex
| wiring that adds weight to the car. Even the updated FD
| standard is only 8 mbps, so it's barely enough for video from
| a backup camera.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| It's a tool that's more than sufficient for most things.
| Video isn't one of those, and it's a 2-wire bus, so I don't
| see what the wiring concern is!
| pnw wrote:
| As I understand it, newer systems like LVCS and Ethernet
| use less wire and smaller connectors. Apparently it can
| save up to 30% of the weight in a wiring harness which
| would be about 100 lbs. There was a thread on it on HN
| not long ago.
|
| Video for a backup camera is mandatory on new cars in the
| US and Europe, so it makes sense to use the same bus.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| God no, CAN is horrible and the horrors people working around
| its limitations have brought into the world are even worse.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| What limitations specifically are you referring to?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The packet size is a major one. The lack of larger
| packets leads to nonsense like the "freshness manager" in
| things like AUTOSAR's SecOC, or the addressing scheme.
| Every subsequent CAN extension has tried to rectify both
| of these in different ways and inevitably failed, which
| leads to the next layer up the networking stack
| reinventing the wheel badly. Eventually you end up with
| UDS.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Yea, that 64-byte frame size. In practice, I've always
| seen it abstracted away into a layer on top, but if
| you're working low-level (e.g. implementing that layer),
| it's a pain. So, a given packet may be represented by
| multiple frames.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| While the processing is practically necessarily digital it is
| possible to build an analog of an analog system - which is to
| say a digital device that acts in very much the same way that
| an analog device would. I think many people are underestimating
| the mini revolution still going on in the quality and price of
| electronic components.
| connicpu wrote:
| I don't mind too much if there's still microcontrollers in the
| car, but I'd really rather they didn't have internet
| connectivity. The only antenna should be for AM/FM radio.
| dylan604 wrote:
| AM is on its way out with EVs though. there's no reason that
| a car that has all of that internet connectivity cannot have
| the same features just without sending the telemetry.
| upgrades do not need to be OTA, and be upgraded through a USB
| or even bluetooth from a device. the only reason for it is
| that there's money to be made from that telemetry.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > The only antenna should be for AM/FM radio.
|
| And TPMS. And key-fob remote lock/unlock. And BTLE for BYO
| music / calls.
|
| > but I'd really rather they didn't have internet
| connectivity.
|
| This is the one big thing that has me leaning towards "used,
| 2015 or older" for my next car. With an EV, you really do
| want a way to specify how much power / when should be used
| for charging though; some "discounted" electric utility plans
| require being able to shed / schedule big loads on demand,
| too.
|
| If this vehicle doesn't have any screen, you need to use a
| phone or similar to configure all this. Yes, schedule data
| can be done over BTLE, but something big like an OTA update
| can not be (at least, practically).
|
| There's also a lot of value (for some people) in being able
| to change/monitor charge capacity from distances further away
| than what BTLE would support.
|
| If the modem could be toggled and there was a USB port for
| software updates, I'd be _thrilled_.
| Eavolution wrote:
| I've a petrol car so I don't really know, but what's
| stopping the power/timing controls from being buttons on
| the charger wall unit? Even a local network app I'd have no
| issue with, but I really don't want my car or charging unit
| on the internet.
| connicpu wrote:
| Yep, this can absolutely be done. Home wall chargers are
| just a fancy switch[1], you just need a way to
| enable/disable it. Could be a feature of the charger, but
| in the worst case you could add your own secondary
| contactor that removes power from the entire charger when
| you don't want the car to be charging.
|
| [1]: They also have control pins to tell the car the
| maximum amperage they're allowed to draw, but that's not
| relevant to the feature of "disable the charger when I
| don't want it charging"
| odo1242 wrote:
| You'd be bringing your own FM radio antenna in this case, the
| car doesn't have a sound system
| patagonia wrote:
| Are they making any 100% analog ICE vehicles currently? This is
| just a consumer products issue. Sadly.
| bri3d wrote:
| What do you mean by "analog?" It's not possible to make an
| "analog" vehicle of any kind due to regulation:
|
| * It would be impossible to pass modern car emissions
| standards without electronic engine control.
|
| * Backup cameras are mandatory, so you need an electronic
| pixel display somewhere.
|
| * Lane keeping is required in Europe as of 2022, so that's a
| suite of sensors and computer-steering as a requirement.
|
| * AEB will be required as of 2029 in the US, so that's a full
| electronic braking system (some form of pressure
| accumulator/source, solenoids/valves) and forward looking
| sensors (radar, lidar, visual, etc.).
| RandallBrown wrote:
| > Backup cameras are mandatory, so you need an electronic
| pixel display somewhere.
|
| I wonder if regulations would allow for a sort of periscope
| system.
|
| (Not that it would be practical.)
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| FMVSS does in the US, but it'd have to be _very_
| steampunk to meet all the requirements.
| ksherlock wrote:
| The specific regulation is here:
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/part-571/section-57
| 1.1...
|
| Nor practical but an analog system could probably meet
| the standard.
|
| ---
|
| Rearview image means a visual image, detected by means of
| a single source, of the area directly behind a vehicle
| that is provided in a single location to the vehicle
| operator and by means of indirect vision.
|
| Rear visibility system means the set of devices or
| components which together perform the function of
| producing the rearview image as required under this
| standard.
|
| ---
|
| 5.5 just says it needs to meet certain testing standards,
| start displaying within 2 seconds of backing up, and stop
| displaying when driving forward.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| A lot of delivery vehicles used to have convex mirror
| behind to give an idea where the bumper is.
| dogline wrote:
| It's a $20k, street-legal, EV modding platform. Sounds like you
| can mount your own infotainment system. Just an electric motor,
| battery, and chassis, and the rest is up to you. Isn't this what
| we've been asking for?
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, it's pretty exciting. I'd like to see how much more they
| could strip out to reduce the price and still have a viable
| commercial product. I guess I'm living firmly in the past, but
| $20K still seems to be a high price for a car. Then again, I
| haven't bought a car new since the 90s, so I'm probably just an
| old fart who hasn't grokked what things cost today. I still
| remember the day when the base-model Corolla started costing
| more than $9999 and I thought the world was coming to an end.
|
| EDIT: Yep, I'm just old. Another commenter linked to a "10
| cheapest new cars" list and there seems to be a price floor of
| around $20K. No major manufacturer seems capable of making one
| cheaper!
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794523
| neural_thing wrote:
| According to this, there is only one new car model of any
| kind selling for under $20K in the US these days
|
| https://www.carfax.com/rankings/cheapest-cars
| ty6853 wrote:
| One would be wiser to based on annual depreciation in real
| $ plus time value of purchase price. I suspect out of new
| trucks a tacoma would be the cheapest since the
| depreciation is low to negative (IIRC recently a Tacoma was
| worth more 1 year old than new).
| conductr wrote:
| All new car brands/models will not have comps for several
| years. Even folks buying Rivians, etc have no idea how
| the resale value will play out so you're always going to
| have to take a gamble
| hbsbsbsndk wrote:
| This article is missing at least the Mitsubishi Mirage -
| the 2024 model year still seems to be available for 17k in
| the base trim?
| connicpu wrote:
| According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics[1], $9999 in
| 1995 is equivalent to $21,275.25 today, so it's a pretty spot
| on price for a barebones car.
|
| [1]: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
| patagonia wrote:
| Except, with advances in computational design and
| engineering, manufacturing automation, and moving to
| plastic for the body I would expect a reduction in price,
| in real terms. Not impressed.
| kube-system wrote:
| > moving to plastic for the body
|
| Some of those $10k cars in the 90s had _more plastic_ in
| the bodies than cars today, e.g. Saturn S-series, where
| all body panels below the belt-line were plastic.
|
| It isn't necessarily the cost savings one might expect
| though, because steel panels can also be load bearing and
| part of the crash structure, which is not really
| practical with plastic panels.
| all2 wrote:
| The Pontiac Fiero has notoriously bad plastic panels.
| dogline wrote:
| With plastic panels, that means they're replaceable.
| Possibly even swappable (custom 3D printing?). This just
| adds to the "modding platform" they could be marketing
| to.
| kube-system wrote:
| Steel panels can also be made to be replaceable. Plastic
| has to be because it can't be welded to the frame.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| In fact, on modern cars many times these panels are
| replaced.
|
| If you get a big enough dent in a door, a good body shop
| will offer to replace the outer skin instead of filling
| with bondo. They cut the weld on the inside of the door
| all the way around, take off the shell, and epoxy a new
| one on. The body shop owner told me that the epoxy is
| actually stronger than the factory weld.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, bodywork is quite a mature discipline. I was
| presuming the parent commenter meant user-replaceable,
| i.e. bolted on.
|
| > The body shop owner told me that the epoxy is actually
| stronger than the factory weld.
|
| Often this is because the special high strength steels
| used in vehicles today depend on proper heat treating to
| attain their strength, and welding can compromise this.
| Many OEMs even specify panel bonding for repairing
| particular crash-critical parts of vehicles now because
| of this.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| It's mostly because the factory welds are the result of
| someone running numbers until they find the bare minimum
| whereas the autobody guy would rather not risk it.
| kube-system wrote:
| The OEMs have proper repair procedures that are the
| correct way to fix the vehicle, and if the autobody shop
| is reputable, they follow them. And the stated reason
| OEMs specify panel bonding instead of welding is:
|
| 1. because UHSS is sensitive to heat, and robots are much
| more accurate in how they heat than Jimmy with a tig
| torch, and they were programmed by a process engineer,
| where as Jimmy welds until 'it looks good'.
|
| 2. welding may compromise anti-corrosive treatments on
| the inside of inaccessible cavities, which can lead to
| corrosion issues
|
| e.g. https://rts.i-car.com/crn-24.html
|
| A crappy shop will certainly just weld panels in without
| any regard for materials engineering, but it results in a
| crappy repair.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Cost savings wasn't the reason for the Saturn plastic
| panels, IIRC -- they were intended to make the car more
| durable; they were hard to dent. Some Saturn salespeople
| would kick the side of the car, hard, to demonstrate
| their resilience.
| kube-system wrote:
| Those cars always looked great on the used car lot
| because they never had any door dings.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Except, with advances in computational design and
| engineering, manufacturing automation, and moving to
| plastic for the body I would expect a reduction in price,
| in real terms.
|
| Except with all the safety equipment, crumple zones,
| airbags, sensors, etc. I would expect an increase in
| price.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Modern cars are almost universally safer and more fuel
| efficient than the older models. And in many cases
| faster.
| kube-system wrote:
| In nearly all cases they're faster. 10+ second 0-60 times
| used to be pretty normal for "regular" cars. Now days,
| people will complain that a car is slow if they can't put
| down 7 second 0-60 times. And "quick" boring cars of
| today are as fast as sports cars of the past.
|
| The 1996 Ferrari F355 Spider and the 2025 Hyundai Elantra
| N both have a 0-60 time of 4.8 seconds.
| jffry wrote:
| Keep in mind $20k in 2025 dollars is the equivalent of ~$10k
| in 1997 dollars, if that helps set your frame of reference
| vaidhy wrote:
| For those price-comparing, it is $20K after the federal
| incentives. So, its real cost is around $27K which makes it
| way more expensive than what the article claims.
| dublinben wrote:
| The average price of new cars sold in the US last year was
| nearly $50k. The manufacturers make more money from expensive
| cars than cheap cars, and people keep buying them, so that's
| what they sell. Before they canceled the Fit, Honda was
| selling almost 10 times as many of the larger CR-V each year.
|
| You can find numerous new cars for sale in Mexico for under
| $15k USD.[0] Even Europe has several new cars under
| EUR20k.[1] These are the same manufacturers we have here, but
| lower cost models that are only sold in lower-income
| countries.
|
| [0] https://compra.autofact.com.mx/blog/comprar-
| carro/mercado/au...
|
| [1] https://techzle.com/the-cheapest-new-cars-of-2024
| mikestew wrote:
| _I guess I 'm living firmly in the past, but $20K still seems
| to be a high price for a car._
|
| You're not even living in the past. Our 20 year old Scion xB
| cost us $20K out the door new (granted, that's with most of
| the paltry list of options added, $15K base). And that was a
| cheap car at the time, Toyota marketing to "the kids".
|
| The last time $20K was "a high price" for a new car was
| probably before most HN folk were born.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > $20K still seems to be a high price for a car
|
| Keep in mind this price is _before_ the USA federal tax
| credit. So we 're potentially talking about a $12,500 car.
| And consider inflation.
| mikestew wrote:
| _After_ federal tax credit, ergo $27K.
|
| (Hat tip to @vaidhy:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43794867)
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| Well dang.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Is it? They show speakers mounted in the front as a "soundbar".
| Will people figure out there is a reason cars with good sound
| systems have them mounted all around the vehicle?
| hugs wrote:
| on long car trips, it seems like everyone in the car (except,
| me, the driver) has headphones on. no one will miss the lack
| of rear speakers.
| euroderf wrote:
| Sounds very twenty-first century. No shared music
| recognition, no sing-alongs.
|
| If passengers want to DJ, you can get one of those little
| FM transmitter thingies that plugs into a phone/table
| headphone port.
| zanecodes wrote:
| What phone still has a 3.5mm headphone jack? Sincere
| question, I'd like to buy one.
| hugs wrote:
| Samsung Galaxy A Series (A15 / A15 5G, A14 / A14 5G, A25)
| all have headphone jacks. These are their "lower-end"
| models, though. The higher-end ones don't. And of course,
| iPhones haven't for a long time, too. Alternatively, for
| other phones with just a USB-C port, you could get a
| USB-C to headphone jack adapter.
|
| edit to add: if Slate is successful, I wouldn't be
| surprised if a decently sized ecosystem pops up around
| easily installed custom sound systems and the tablets
| (possibly with headphone jacks!) to control them.
| avhon1 wrote:
| The 2025 Moto G Stylus has one!
| WorldMaker wrote:
| The interesting modern tools for passengers wanting to DJ
| are shared Spotify playlists and Apple SharePlay.
|
| A lot of Bluetooth speakers today can fill a car with a
| sound wall better rear speakers used to. Apple says you
| just need two of their Bluetooth speakers to fill a room
| in a house with great stereo and reasonably good surround
| sound. The square footage of a car is generally smaller
| than the supported room size.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| So mount speakers all around the vehicle? The idea is:
| customize it yourself.
| dogline wrote:
| I just want some power ports and good mounting points, then I
| can put whatever I want there, and upgrade it. I'd imagine
| that people will come up with a mountable radio kit, like the
| DIN format radios of old, but with less restrictions.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > I'd imagine that people will come up with a mountable
| radio kit, like the DIN format radios of old, but with less
| restrictions.
|
| I am hoping like hell this ends up being the case. Give me
| power, a place to put my own stuff and some details on the
| CAN bus and leave me to it.
|
| I do not want to pay a premium for your slow, locked down,
| buggy / seldom-updated touch screen.
| dmonitor wrote:
| DIN format radios are still around. My recent-ish corolla's
| infotainment display is just a well integrated double-DIN.
| I'm surprised this car doesn't as far as I can tell, have a
| DIN slot for one.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > Will people figure out there is a reason cars with good
| sound systems have them mounted all around the vehicle?
|
| No, because they knew what they were getting into when they
| bought this truck. And I'm sure there will be a dozen DIY
| ways to add a more traditional sound system.
| gaws wrote:
| > It's a $20k, street-legal, EV modding platform.
|
| And it'll always be sold out.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| I'm sure you can get on the waiting list (for a lead time of
| 3-40 years) or buy it from a reseller for $70k. Problem
| solved.
| gaws wrote:
| > buy it from a reseller for $70k.
|
| Now _there 's_ the real price.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > a comprehensive active safety system that includes everything
| from automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection to
| automatic high beams
|
| No stereo, but luckily they still found space for a few DNN
| accelerators that will slam on the brakes randomly when getting
| false detections. Likely still has a 4G uplink and all the
| modern car cancer to make sure they can datamine their clients
| as much as possible and offset the subsidized purchase cost.
|
| Worst of both worlds?
| eightys3v3n wrote:
| Another comment said there is no cellular modem; updates come
| through the app using a phone.
| moffkalast wrote:
| That's exemplary if true, though it's a bit hard to
| believe.
| kachurovskiy wrote:
| That's with federal incentive and likely before they factored
| in the tariffs. Those 500 parts aren't all coming from US. I
| wouldn't expect any usable version of it to be below 30k once
| it's actually available.
| discmonkey wrote:
| I love the look and the idea, but I wonder if it will go the way
| of the small/budget phone?
|
| Will folks revealed preference continue to be big and expensive?
| harimau777 wrote:
| One advantage they might have is that there isn't much on the
| market for low priced pickup trucks in general. I'd probably
| rather have a gas pickup than an electric but I don't want to
| pay the inflated prices that go along with them.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| Agreed. The U.S. market had a very long run of both large
| expensive and small cheap pickup trucks, and people
| consistently have bought the big luxury pickups. It is why all
| the small trucks were axed to begin with. Even back in their
| prime, I saw many more F-150s than Rangers. Its an easy up-sell
| as I'm sure any car salesman will say: well for only a few more
| thousand you get into a full-size, and from there, add some
| options and its over.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Even back in their prime, I saw many more F-150s than
| Rangers.
|
| I think you're misremembering. The streets were flooded with
| Rangers and S10s back in the day. Full sized pickups have
| been the most popular class of vehicle for decades but that
| number is grossly inflated by the amount that are bought as
| fleet vehicles or work vehicles.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| It doesn't matter _why_ the number is inflated. If full
| sized trucks are most popular, then that 's what you'll see
| more of. In any case, there are many people for whom a
| full-size pickup is their daily driver and not used for
| work. HN is constantly complaining about it, just not today
| apparently.
| ac29 wrote:
| Looking at the Ranger, it sold 5.6M units between
| 1985-2005, its highest selling years.
|
| F series Fords definitely outsold it, but is also a larger
| product line.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| The economy (checks 401k) has changed though.
| desert_rue wrote:
| "It is why all the small trucks were axed to begin with."
|
| No, it is because emissions regulations. A small truck can't
| be built on our emissions policies, not that there isn't a
| market for one.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I like it. My wife runs a riding academy and we use a Honda Fit
| the way some people would use a pickup truck: we can fit 10 bales
| of wood shavings in the back. [1] We're dreading when it fails
| because they don't make the fit anymore and compact hatchbacks
| seem to be on the way out. Recent experiences have made me a bit
| of a Buick enthusiast and I can see driving a 2005-ish sedan
| except that I won't get those sawdust bales into the trunk. We
| are also thinking of fitting in EV into the fleet, so far the
| used Nissan Leaf has been the main contender but this is a pickup
| truck I could get into.
|
| [1] We were profitable from day one because we didn't buy a
| $80,000 pickup on day one the way everybody else does.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Would a used Metris cargo work? We have the passenger version
| and it's excellent. True 1000kg load rating, and the cargo
| version can be had extremely cheaply.
|
| We also have our eye on this truck, but with less urgency since
| our van does everything we could want.
|
| The Telo MT1 also has us eyeing it...
| hansvm wrote:
| The Honda Fit is great. You can probably squeeze an extra
| decade out if you're willing to swap out the motor or
| transmission (used, 100k miles or so, if you shop around
| $2k-$3k should be doable), and if you're using it heavily then
| you have the advantage that most cara on the market take less
| abuse, so you can maybe grab a decade beyond that by picking up
| somebody else's used Fit when you're done repairing yours.
| rockostrich wrote:
| > used, 100k miles or so, if you shop around $2k-$3k should
| be doable
|
| Where are you finding a 100k mile Honda Fit for $3k? Before I
| bought my current daily driver, Honda Fits were on my list to
| look out for and in the central NJ area I never saw one in
| decent condition around that mileage for less than $5k. Even
| looking now I see people trying to part out theirs for $2k or
| looking for $4k for a 200k mile one. I messaged someone on FB
| Marketplace that had a 2013 with 65k miles on it to try and
| bring down their $11k asking to $8k and just got ignored.
|
| NJ is probably on the higher end of the market but the
| deviation can't be that big.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Japanese cars, particularly cars that have been orphaned,
| keep their value at high mileage.
|
| If I had to get a high mileage car in a hurry in upstate NY
| with some expectation that my acquisition + repair costs
| would be reason I'd go looking for a 2005 Buick. Maybe half
| of that is getting older, the other half is that my son
| drives a '96 Buick which has needed some creative
| maintenance but has been rock solid reliable after a flurry
| of work where we replaced aging parts.
| stasomatic wrote:
| Why a Buick? Which 2005 Buick? You can probably, find a
| simpler or less expensive doppelganger if you look at the
| same car but with a Chevy or an Olds badge. I don't mean
| this as a dig, simply curios.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Buick is gonna be less ragged out than an Impala or Olds
| of same age (you see the same with the Grand Marquis vs
| the Crown Vic). An 05ish one will come with a 3400 or
| 3800v6 which was pretty solid and cheap to own by then.
| The rest of the car is nothing special, just keep oil and
| coolant in it and drive it.
|
| Basically he's picking a very well sorted platform of a
| vehicle and then choosing the brand that most correlates
| with buyers who'll keep it in good order.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| When my son got his first job and needed a car in a hurry
| to commute I helped him get his first car and in the
| search we wound up looking at a lot of Buicks that we
| liked and were at a good price and in good condition,
| particularly circa 2005 though we wound up with a '96
| Park Avenue. It was my first experience owning an
| American car (title in my name for the cheaper insurance)
| and my own experience plus what I read indicates I
| probably would have done well with one of the 2005s.
|
| My take is that at that age you don't pay that much more
| for the upbadged car but you're likely to find it in good
| condition but you get to enjoy the bling (the '96 is
| ahead of its time with traction control) and Buicks of
| that vintage have one of the best engines GM ever made.
| hansvm wrote:
| Sorry I wasn't clear. You can get a motor with 100k miles
| from a totaled car for $3k, including the labor to replace
| it.
|
| To your actual question, I bought mine (2008, manual) in
| 2018 for $5k with 100k miles in The Bay, and it took about
| a month of waiting for a good deal to crop up. I've put
| another 100k on it without issue and plan to drive it a
| long time. Inflation and the chip shortage have roughly
| kept up with depreciation, so I'm currently seeing some
| good options in the $6k range and similarly expect that $5k
| is around the bottom of what you can pay for a nice vehicle
| with 100k miles on it.
|
| Also, deviations can absolutely be that big. It's more
| prevalent at the top of the market, but there are big
| differences in Subarus and Civics, for example, in
| different parts of the country, even in the sub-$5k range.
| It's often worth a flight and driving back to purchase a
| car (if you value your time at $0 or have other things to
| do while you're there).
| rockostrich wrote:
| Damn, that's a great deal. And yea, $5k seems to be about
| the bottom of the barrel in terms of getting a decent
| car.
|
| For my "daily" driver (I drive a few times a week and
| it's rarely more than 20 miles), I ended up buying an
| imported WRX on an auction site. Cost more than a used
| Honda Fit but it's a ton of fun to drive.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _You can probably squeeze an extra decade out if you 're
| willing to swap out the motor or transmission_
|
| In many parts of the country (I'm Canadian, I assume the same
| for the US) the body and undercarriage are going to rot
| before the drivetrain goes.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| This is the issue with mine here in Minnesota. Rust is the
| car killer.
| 83 wrote:
| If you stay on top of fluid filming or wool waxing you
| can largely avoid this. I've got 7 winters of WI slush
| and salt on my truck and just a few nickel sized spots of
| surface rust on the frame so far.
| rozap wrote:
| I also love this design and I'm happy that someone is doing it.
| I think it's unlike anything else on the market.
|
| But, they won't necessarily be competing against other new
| things on the market. My wife also rides horses and we got a
| $5000 20 year old F250 which is very basic but has been
| bulletproof, and it can tow. I imagine old, basic trucks,
| either cheap domestic ones or kei trucks will be what this
| thing competes against.
|
| I hope it does well. This is the kind of design thinking that
| the auto industry needs.
|
| Also I'm increasingly convinced that the Honda fit is what peak
| performance looks like. But when it dies you do have options -
| maybe a Ford Transit Connect or a Metris.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| To be fair, a lot of farms need a big-ass pickup truck
| because they are always towing horses to go to shows or
| trailheads. We have 70 beautiful acres and a network of
| trails my wife built that were inspired by Het Vondelpark in
| Amsterdam. [1] If everything goes right we trailer in a horse
| once and never have to trailer it out although some horses
| don't fit in or have to go to the vet.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vondelpark
|
| The Fit, however, is really genius. It's got the utility of
| an SUV in the body of a compact. I can't believe Honda's
| excuse that it wasn't selling -- in my area it is a running
| gag that if you have a blue Fit somebody will park another
| blue Fit next to you at the supermarket or that it makes a
| great getaway car, if somebody catches you doing donuts in
| their lawn you can say it musta been somebody elese.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Something I also only really appreciated after spending
| more time out plains-west in the US, it's _dangerous_ to
| drive small vehicles because of the average distances and
| abundance of larger wildlife.
|
| When you're regularly driving 2+ hours one way to a town
| and a random pronghorn appears in the middle of the road,
| at night, when you're doing 85 mph... you want to be in
| something that can take the impact.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| If the grocery store parking lot is any indication, farming
| is the number one profession in America. All farmers can
| have their big trucks and still regulate out the other 99%
| of the 22-foot monsters used to commute to offices.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Comments like these are rooted in selection bias (willful
| or otherwise).
|
| You're never gonna see trucks being used at the grocery
| store because people who are in the process of using said
| truck for truck stuff aren't usually stopping at the
| grocery store as they do it, and this is before you
| adjust for what kind of grocery stores HN shops at vs the
| kind that people who use the crap out of their trucks
| shop at. If you live the median "suburb to office and
| back" life you'll never see trucks doing anything. You
| need to be on the road and not in a cube during hours
| when "things" get done to see that. And the people who do
| things with their trucks mostly don't live and cross
| paths with the people who don't.
|
| I could use the exact same faulty logic you're using here
| with slightly different parameters and come up with the
| conclusion that cars don't need a second row of seating.
|
| And before anyone projects anything stupid at me, I own a
| minivan.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > You're never gonna see trucks being used at the grocery
| store because people who are in the process of using said
| truck for truck stuff aren't usually stopping at the
| grocery store as they do it,
|
| I think you missed the point of the GP post. They were
| noting the _presence_ of (a lot of) trucks at the grocery
| store parking lot. Whether they are towing /hauling isn't
| really the point.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| There are trucks and then there are _trucks_. The Ford
| Maverick gets 42mpg in the city, 35mpg on the highway and
| is reasonably priced. If you value economy, ecology,
| efficiency and such that 's right up there with a compact
| car. The F150 is a L size electric truck, an S size truck
| will appeal to people.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If you're towing a horse trailer you really want the
| biggest truck you can get or a GMC Suburban or something
| like that.
|
| On the other hand in the suburbs of some New England
| towns that I'm sure are full of white collar workers you
| see nothing but trucks in the driveway and I laugh when I
| see a Ford F350 with a lift kit and commercial plates
| idling and see, a few minutes later, a few pencilneck
| geeks come out of a frat house and climb into it.
| parpfish wrote:
| depending on the rurality of that part of new england,
| they might have a legitimate claim to need the ground
| clearance and 4wd in the winter.
|
| sometimes backroads aren't plowed well. or they. _are_
| plowed well and you need to scale a giant snowbank to get
| into your driveway.
|
| (although my personal preference would be for the
| industry to make more rally-inspired high-clearance AWD
| sedans/wagons to fit this niche)
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I've found this to be very regional. There are parts of
| the country where there are a lot fewer trucks and most
| appear to actually see a meaningful amount of real-truck
| use. There are other parts where like 40% of the goddamn
| cars on the road are pristine, bloated modern trucks that
| are just used as commuter vehicles.
| kyledrake wrote:
| All micro cargo van providers have stopped building them. The
| Transit Connect, Metris, Promaster City and NV200 are all now
| discontinued. The VW Caddy isn't sent to the states.
|
| There are rumors that they will make a cargo van based on the
| Maverick but they make them in Mexico, and with the tariff
| situation I'm not sure if they will be going through with
| that anymore.
|
| All of the perfect compacts and hatchbacks are slowly
| disappearing, and solid work trucks have been replaced with
| $60k+ fake trucks that will melt their gaskets with crappy
| turbos and can't even fit a piece of 2x4 in the back. There
| is an enormous category of consumers that just want an auto
| that's simple, affordable, safe, fuel efficient and
| reasonably sized. Almost nobody is serving them right now.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| To give credit where credit is due, the ~$25k Ford Maverick
| was a decent step towards "enough" vehicle for many people,
| while minimizing cost.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a64351746/2025-ford-
| mav...
|
| And definitely went the other way from the industry.
| masklinn wrote:
| > All micro cargo van providers have stopped building them.
| The Transit Connect, Metris, Promaster City and NV200 are
| all now discontinued.
|
| This is an entirely american problem, because the small van
| is largely dead in the US. They're doing fine elsewhere.
|
| The Metris is still manufactured (as the Vito, or V260 in
| China), and is not the smallest model which is the Citan
| (based on the Kangoo, with its second gen based on kangoo
| III in 2021).
|
| The Promaster City (Fiat Doblo) still exists, as a rebadged
| Berlingo since 2022.
|
| The NV 200 was replaced by the NV 250 (a rebadged Kangoo
| II) in 2019, which was then replaced by the Townstar (a
| rebadged Kangoo III) in late 2021. There's also the Docker
| / Express below that (which descends from the Logan MCV /
| Van).
|
| And the Transit Connect was replaced by the Caddy
| (rebadged), but Ford dropped its original plans of a US
| release.
|
| > There is an enormous category of consumers that just want
| an auto that's simple, affordable, safe, fuel efficient and
| reasonably sized.
|
| Apparently not sufficiently so (or with a consistent enough
| need) that they can be catered to. Or at least not so that
| you couldn't make more money selling them pavement
| princesses.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Also I'm increasingly convinced that the Honda fit is what
| peak performance looks like
|
| Close. A bit of work on the rear hatch dimensions so that you
| could get 4'x8' sheet goods in there, as was possible on the
| 1980s Honda Civic.
|
| Also, just a teensy-weensy bit more power, please. Ours
| struggles even on moderate hills here on the edge of the
| Sangres de Cristo (southern Rockies).
|
| Otherwise, all hail the Fit/Jazz, car of the future past.
| AlanYx wrote:
| They're both good in different ways. The advantage of the
| Fit is largely in cargo height (with the magic seats
| flipped up), but for some other objects the 80s Civic is
| better.
| x436413 wrote:
| how do you haul hoss though? i would imagine you then outsource
| to professional hauling services? what do you do for vet
| visits, when it's not a farm call?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Just pay somebody. In a rural area there are a lot of farmers
| with a big truck and a trailer and it costs less than the
| monthly payment on a big truck.
| x436413 wrote:
| i'll be honest, if the rest of your profile wasn't at least
| somewhat corraborative, i'd say you're larping, but what
| you're saying is at least irresponsible. most farmers in
| rural area have livestock trailers, not horse trailers,
| hauling for hire (including if you're hauling for students
| at your barn or whatever) requires CDL and a bunch of other
| documentation, which you're not typically going to have as
| a farmer, and more documentation if you're hauling
| interstate (my vet is across a border), but would i even
| trust random joe dirt to haul for me? i've hired
| professionals to transport horses, and i have a handful of
| people who could haul in a bind and unlicensed but i
| wouldn't rely on them to be available in an emergency. last
| year i had to haul an old mare, she was colic, she laid
| down in the field, covered in sweet, and had to be put down
| at the vet, but overall it was less than an hour from load
| to vet. if i had to rely on "farmers", that would prolong
| her agony. now i just train, so i don't usually have freak
| accidents, but at riding barns, with students, on trail,
| something happens from time to time. riding barns i work
| with tell me horror stories all the time. i'll give you a
| benefit of the doubt, maybe your wife knows the details,
| and ithaca being horse country, maybe she's got a friendly
| neighbor on speed dial, but then you're at best outsourcing
| your responsibilities to someone else. what other things
| you can save on to make your operation profitable, at the
| expense of safety and well being of hoss?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Often these "farmers" are horse traders or people I know
| with a CDL who have the right equipment and also do other
| work for me like cut my hay. One of them is "retired" but
| he waved to me driving a dump truck when I was
| photographing a sign for my Uni that had a field of
| daffodils in front of it this morning.
|
| The farmers I associate with care a lot about their
| animals and I expect them to take the same care with
| mine. As a rural person I judge people based on
| relationships and reputation and not on how much
| insurance they have. I'd trust any of these people to
| haul a horse in a big-ass trailer than I would trust
| myself or my wife.
| x436413 wrote:
| you're not a rural person, c'mon, you're a wealthy
| cornell tech with a vanity farm. ithaca is dollar horse
| country, everyone knows that, so yeah i totally buy that
| in your fairly unique circumtances running a horse
| business off a back of a ford focus works. i read you as
| suggesting that the rest of the industry is silly for
| buying trucks, and you've got it figured out, but you
| simply punted on the hauling problem.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| And for a horse that's not used to loading, a livestock
| trailer is often much easier because they're more
| comfortable getting into it than, e.g., a 2-horse slant.
|
| Judging by the number of horses my wife hauls, most horse
| owners don't have their own truck/trailer. Which makes
| sense: for most people, the trailer won't be used very
| often, and hay is usually delivered by the farmer, so
| don't need a truck for that.
|
| How did we get so far OT?
| x436413 wrote:
| you're limited to one horse at a time with livestock
| trailer, and if load is a problem, you can use a straight
| load and i guess remove center divider in a straight
| load. because i train rather than haul, i'd opt for
| taking time with load of course.
|
| personal farms don't need to haul, there's no
| disagreement about that, but op suggested that you can
| run a horse business this way. it took me a while to
| realize that he has a vanity farm that's funded by his
| tech money, so you know he can gradually grow, he doesn't
| need to board, or train, or any of those other things
| people in the business diversify their income sources
| with.
|
| i don't think we're OT at all. in horse business and
| generally farming you have two types of vehicles relevant
| to this conversation, trucks and gators. you absolutely
| need both. your truck can act as a gator, but your gator
| can't act a truck. you can use pretty much anything as a
| gator, i've got an old cherokee, an atv with a hitch and
| an actual gator doing the gator business. op uses a ford
| focus. the electric pickup from original post is probably
| a solid gator. kei trucks can be used as gators. but none
| of this stuff replaces a truck, which you still have to
| pay shit ton of money for.
|
| usually in conversations like this it's horse people who
| come in and say "nah we need a truck to haul", but this
| time op suggested that you can in fact run a horse
| business with a gator, which prompted some questions from
| me
| rpmisms wrote:
| Wat. Horses are easy to haul. This happens all the time.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| My family background on one side was poor-rural and yeah,
| being surprised at this reads like a class difference to
| me.
| x436413 wrote:
| this whole subthread started with some cornell guy saying
| that you can run a horse business off a back of a gator,
| because your neighbors can haul for you, which is pretty
| much as cloud people as it goes. i'll venture that
| there's not a single horse farm in u.s. no matter how
| poor that is not subsidized with tech money that
| outsources its hauling. we're talking about running a
| business here, not hauling daisy to county fairgrounds
| three times a season.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| In my experience, most people who live in rural areas
| already have access to a suitable vehicle - because a
| 30-year-old pickup is the cheapest vehicle to own in
| those circumstances, long-term.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most farmers have a semi and thus a full class A license.
| Though often haul my horse is done as a labor trade -
| I'll haul your horse in the off season for me if you help
| me in my busy season, no money changes hands.
| NewJazz wrote:
| The Chevy Bolt is very similar shape and size to the fit.
| Supposedly there is going to be a 2026 model. People have
| thrown after market tow hitches and towed (small) trailers
| pretty far even. Check out the BoltEV subreddit.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Most small SUVs should be fine though. You switched between
| wood shavings and hay bales, but I reliably fit 7 hay bales in
| a 2005 Saturn Vue (wife always managed to get 9 in there),
| which means that 10 bales of shavings should not be a problem
| since they're much smaller.
|
| TBH, I think a minivan would make it even easier.
| hbsbsbsndk wrote:
| I use a 2018 Subaru Forester to move stuff like this, with
| the seats folded flat the cargo space is decent. You can add
| some cargo boxes on the back trailer hitch as well.
|
| The dream is a Pacifica minivan - they make a hybrid version.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The Pacifica and Sienna (and probably Odyssey as well) are
| absolute garbage for hauling crap. If that is what you are
| looking for, get a used one from the prior generation.
| anannymoose wrote:
| I run a Honda Pilot for this reason. With the seats folded I
| can haul 8' lumber or 10' PVC pipe inside the vehicle, no tie
| down needed. If I need to tow, I have a 5,000LB tow rating so
| most anything around the property is possible with a good
| trailer for a couple thousand extra.
|
| I bought reasonably used, spent about 30k instead of 50k+ for
| a comparable pickup truck which lacks the ability to haul 7-8
| passengers when needed.
|
| Also has the benefit of being one of the most "Made in
| America" vehicles out there, #3 IIRC.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| I'm also a Honda Fit fan. Technically, it is still made, just
| not sold in the North American market. It's had a new
| generation come out since they stopped selling it here,
| matching the new Civics' style.
|
| The closest Honda offerings are probably the Civic Hatchback
| (lower roof, but the seats still fold down) and the HR-V, which
| is basically a Fit on stilts with more weight and slightly less
| room.
|
| I went with a hatchback Civic Sport Touring to replace my Fit
| (which has 210K miles on it and is still reliable, though I'm
| passing it on to someone else) and my girlfriend is about to
| try the HR-V to replace her (newer) Fit that was just lost in
| an accident, since she needs more roof height for dog crates.
| foxyv wrote:
| I am going to drive my Honda Fit until the wheels fall off,
| then I'm going to put new wheels on and drive it some more.
| Best car in the world IMO.
| jjice wrote:
| The Fit is a wonderful car. I'd buy one if I could find one for
| a decent price, but 40k miles 2020 (last year for them in the
| US) still runs around $20k at dealers and Carvana! For five
| grand more, I can get a brand new Corolla Hatchback, which is
| what I'll likely do, but I'd pick up a Fit without thinking if
| I could find a good price.
| vannevar wrote:
| A used Chevy Bolt might make a good replacement. You can find
| them for less than $15K these days.
| gigel82 wrote:
| All those photos look fake / rendered. And they didn't even
| bother rendering an inside shot for a car that's all about the
| inside design choices.
| grandempire wrote:
| Good point. Is this article designed to feel for demand of a
| possible product?
| lattalayta wrote:
| there is an interior rendering in the image slider in the
| article https://platform.theverge.com/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/2/202...
| nottorp wrote:
| There are some photos that look real at the bottom of the Ars
| article.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Oh HELL yes!! This is almost exactly the kind of thing truck
| owners have been clamoring for for years now. The only way this
| could be more exciting is if Ford flipped out and rebooted the
| Econoline on this concept.
| whycome wrote:
| What's the price without incentives though?
| tchock23 wrote:
| It is mentioned in the article - $27,500.
|
| [Edit: Got that number not from the original article, but from
| the Ars article another person posted in this thread.]
| jandrese wrote:
| Of course this assumes the Trump administration doesn't
| shitcan the $7,500 tax credit, which is not something I'd bet
| a new company on.
| classichasclass wrote:
| I _loved_ the Saturn plastic doors. The salesdroids were
| conditioned to call them "polymer panels" and I got corrected
| when I bought my SL2 back in the day, but I was sold when in
| their own showroom he kicked the door in, it visibly dented, and
| then popped itself right back out with no damage to either the
| paint or the pla, uh, polymer.
|
| That SL2 went from California to Maine, down to Georgia and back
| to California. It never had any dings and had only a few
| scratches in the paint. My Civics seem to get dinged if you look
| at them wrong.
|
| I wish I could have said the same about the Saturn's stickshift,
| though. That actually fractured when I was in Gilroy. I mean, the
| shaft literally _snapped_.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Yeah, the problem with Saturn was the general level of QA of GM
| cars of that era. I could make the "check engine" light come on
| by pressing the accelerator with a small amount of force in my
| SL2. And it didn't handle very well.
| aquova wrote:
| My first car was a Saturn, they performed that same trick in
| the salesroom as well. They didn't keep that trend up forever
| though, in the late 2000s my father went to go purchase another
| Saturn, and he was reeling up to give it a kick before the
| salesman had to hurriedly tell him they didn't make them like
| that anymore.
| classichasclass wrote:
| That was probably by the time they had become a glorified
| Opel rebadge shop. I was probably going to buy another Saturn
| and I might have settled for an Ion, but the Astra was, to
| borrow from Dan Neil, "hewn from solid blocks of mediocrity."
| So now I drive Hondas again.
| jonstewart wrote:
| I had an old Nissan XE truck for a few years. I loved it, the
| thing was simplicity itself.
|
| I assume there's still a lot of vaporware here, but if they can
| make it reliable and avoid the teething issues of new cars, I'd
| probably impulse-purchase one. I would also love to see options
| for AWD and a full-length bed.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I feel like this is the perfect first car for a teen or college
| student Gets them from A to B. optimally 5 star crash test
| rating. Cheap.
|
| If they deliver i would absolutely buy one for when my oldest
| starts driving in 3 years.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Where I live, a cheap truck was often a Young person's first
| purchase.
|
| There were a bunch of minimal 2 seaters that were affordable.
|
| And young people move residences a lot. Having a small truck
| that can hold a mattress was ideal.
|
| The modern luxury behemoth truck is an abomination...
| seanalltogether wrote:
| Hand crank windows is a weird choice, are the locks manual as
| well?
| linkregister wrote:
| In a 2-door vehicle, you can just lean over and roll up the
| window and toggle the lock on the other door. If you've ever
| had an old car then you'll know the annoyance of a broken
| electrical motor.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Never mind the additional range anxiety: rolling your windows
| up or down with a motor might shave a mile or so off your
| range.
| superconduct123 wrote:
| I've never had an issue with electric windows, or even know
| anyone who has
|
| Was that more of a problem on older cars?
| yboris wrote:
| Wouldn't it _significantly_ increase the cost (think wiring,
| motor, assembly, etc) to have "power windows"?
| bri3d wrote:
| Power window "regulators" (the unit that holds and
| raises/lowers the window) are usually similar in price and
| weight to cranked manual window assemblies, and can be
| cheaper. A small motor is not at all expensive and is a less
| specialized item than a window crank handle and gear unit.
|
| What could save money is not needing to run any wiring
| whatsoever into the door - if the doors can be made with no
| speakers, lighting, crash sensors, switches, power locks, or
| power windows, then the assembly becomes significantly
| simpler and therefore cheaper since there's no wiring harness
| to fish (usually a manual production step), no holes and
| grommets, etc.
|
| But if power windows are going to be an option, I'm not sure
| how this plays out. Do the power windows come with a wiring
| harness that requires the user disassemble the interior and
| fish the wiring? If it comes pre-wired, then the choice for
| manual windows is actually quite strange and possibly more
| expensive.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| That's why I'm wondering if locks are manual as well. If
| there's no wiring at all going into the doors then presumably
| the doors will be cheap. But if they have power going in for
| locks already, power windows shouldn't be a costly addon.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I think automatic door locks are a US requirement for crash
| safety.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This is a plus, in my book. The fewer crappy electrical gizmos
| the better. I had the same question, hope the locks are manual
| with no keyless entry or hackable key fob.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Why the downvotes on this comment? If you're not sufficiently
| curmudgeonly to sympathize with this sentiment, there's lots
| of other cars for you. I'm sure you can find a subaru outback
| with a built in purple hair dyer or whatever you want.
| ffitch wrote:
| The things like window buttons, remote keyfobs or radio units
| will have higher margin when sold individually, allowing to
| lower the base model price.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Lots of trucks are still for work, but they have gotten so
| expensive more people than ever are considering them as luxury
| purchases.
|
| Electric windows have been a luxury item for generations.
|
| Traditionally, with an F-150, they were just _much_ slower,
| prone to failure and expensive to replace.
|
| Especially if you often go in & out from a gated area where you
| have to roll your window down every time and use your pass or
| talk to the guard :\
|
| Or roll them all down whenever it has been parked in the hot
| sun, to quickly let out the overheated air before the air
| conditioner can become very effective. If you have A/C, or even
| use it at all :)
|
| Window motors may not last much longer than a set of tires
| then, and cost as much to replace, often without warning.
| You're supposed to be able to afford it anyway.
|
| However in the late 1990's the manual knob was moved to a
| stupid place, and it became impossible to lower the window in
| one quick second any more.
|
| I can only imagine that the automotive engineers were
| constantly being bathed in the luxury of their environment and
| never even put enough test vehicles having no options through
| any kind of ergonomic comparison.
|
| For the longest time these kind of things were built to provide
| an extreme amount of comfort for someone having a similar
| stature to Henry Ford. Almost lasted the entire 20th century
| before there was such great discontinuity.
|
| Engineers probably didn't test drive any having manual seat
| adjustment, on long trips either. Otherwise they would have
| done better than to have an adjustment bar blocking the entire
| area under the driver's seat in such a way that about 25% of
| the footroom was lost, which was formerly available as you
| occasionally adjust your posture for endurance.
|
| It was like expensive sportscar people started designing
| trucks. You don't sit upright in a sports car so the space is
| not wasted there. No more twin I-beam front suspension either,
| you didn't really want a truck _that_ tough any more in the
| 21st century did you?
|
| They didn't know any better. At least they once did.
|
| And who doesn't like luxury?
|
| Automatic locks is another one, once very seldom seen except in
| things like Cadillacs. That's why people envied them so much
| for decades, and when they finally came within reach of the
| mainstream they flew off the shelf.
| test1235 wrote:
| I would love to have such a simple car, here in the uk.
|
| Something tells me though, that if such a company got successful,
| it wouldn't be long before the features started creeping back in,
| to justify an increase in price.
| soperj wrote:
| Ars Technica is also running something on this today as well.
| They must be paying their publicist a fair bit.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| If Slate succeeds, it would be the total inversion of Tesla's
| original masterplan strategy of starting with a supercar and then
| slowly working their way down the value chain. And what's really
| astonishing is that, not only is this the cheapest electric car
| in the country, it's one of the cheapest new cars in the country,
| period.
|
| https://www.cars.com/articles/here-are-the-10-cheapest-new-c...
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Slate's plan is only possible because they have the benefit of
| almost 2 decades of advancements (read incredible price drop)
| in batteries and EV related components.
|
| Exact same car 2 decades ago would have cost a hell of a lot
| more. At which point the lack of bells and whistles would have
| been a huge problem.
| modeless wrote:
| It's a very different market today than when Tesla started.
| Tesla's strategy of starting at the high end was necessary to
| build electric cars from scratch. New competitors can start
| with existing supply chains and a base of engineering
| expertise.
|
| I do think Tesla has lost sight of their original plan, though.
| They should have kept going through one more generation of
| significant cost reduction/increased volume after Model 3/Y.
| They are intentionally leaving this part of the market to
| competitors as they focus on self driving, and I think it's a
| mistake that will cost them in the near term.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I think Tesla looked at what is selling in the U.S. market
| and pivoted to the Cybertruck. Small, cheap sedans and wagons
| just don't sell that well at retail anymore--in part because
| people don't like them, in part because of safety concerns,
| and in part because there is a huge backlog of cheap used
| vehicles.
| modeless wrote:
| I think the Cybertruck is a prestige project, like the
| Roadster. It will never compete with the F-150 in the US in
| its current form, it won't work in the global market
| either, and probably won't ever be material to Tesla's
| financial results unless it gets a complete redesign to
| make it cheaper and less ostentatious.
| martinpw wrote:
| > If Slate succeeds, it would be the total inversion of Tesla's
| original masterplan strategy
|
| Slate is an anagram of Tesla. Coincidence?
| ty6853 wrote:
| I love it.
|
| However I wonder about the overlap between people that need a
| truck and this particular truck. I have only owned trucks when I
| needed to go out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with a payload,
| in places with poor access to electricity. If I need to go in
| bumfuck nowhere without payload then there is no need for the
| truck, and if I need a payload in the city it's just way way
| cheaper to have it delivered when you factor in depreciation of
| even a cheap truck.
|
| Would really love to see something like this with a simple 4
| cylinder motor. Like the old s-10 / ranger. Until then the
| solution I have found is to just tag a trailer on small passenger
| vehicle, since it is now impossible to find a compact gas truck.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| It sounds like the truck is very modular so maybe they'll offer
| a generator option for gasoline-powered charging. Otherwise you
| could throw a normal generator in the bed.
| InitialBP wrote:
| I think that you're looking at extremes exclusively when it
| comes to your assessment. I live in a "city" in WV and need my
| truck all the time to get to rural areas, but that doesn't mean
| that I don't have reasonable access to electricity. Furthermore
| delivery around my city really isn't affordable or available in
| a lot of cases.
|
| That being said, I really wish we had a small ICE truck in the
| USA, or an equivalent to the s-10/ranger. Even the ford
| maverick is exceptionally tall and it doesn't come with a bed
| that is big enough to conveniently move building materials. The
| maverick bed is only 54" or 4.5ft and older model rangers and
| S10s can be had with up to a 6ft bed.
|
| https://www.motor1.com/news/698055/toyota-13000-dollar-hilux...
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| I bought a Maverick and it wasn't noticeably larger than my
| extended bed ranger, I actually feel like it is smaller,
| especially considering modern A pillars and such are very
| thick and rigid compared to the death trap of the old ranger.
|
| I have had no issues moving construction materials with the
| Maverick. I've moved around 12ft boards and stacks of
| drywall. The only real difference I noticed is I can't lazily
| hang things off the tailgate, which tailgate latches aren't
| specced to do anyways.
| InitialBP wrote:
| Not sure which ranger you're talking about - but if you
| mean the 6ft one, 18 inches of bed length is definitely
| noticeable.
|
| It's also definitely possible to haul all those things with
| almost any truck. Hell, you could even buy a rack for a
| maverick that makes full 8ft by 4ft sheets of
| drywall/plywood super easy to carry around, but being able
| to really easily load up stuff and not have to do some
| complicated strapping/securing of the payload is a big win
| with a bigger bed. I personally haul motorcycles a lot, and
| being able to have two motorcycles in the bed with tailgate
| up is a huge plus for me.
|
| edit: misunderstood your first comment. What year Ranger
| are you talking about? The difference between an 80's/90's
| small truck and an early 2000s can be very considerable.
|
| There's a whole different conversation and argument about
| the general size of vehicles in the US that is essentially
| circular and leads to bigger and bigger vehicles in the
| name of "safety".
| fckgw wrote:
| Yeah, with the exception of the bed size, the Maverick is
| only ~4in longer and wider than the 2000s era Ranger. It's
| a pretty close match.
|
| https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/2022-maveri
| c...
| potato3732842 wrote:
| A Maverick is within spitting distance of a single cab
| short bed Ranger. You get a little less bed but an extra
| row to make up for it.
|
| There's plenty of pictures of them parked side by side.
| michpoch wrote:
| > I live in a "city" in WV and need my truck all the time to
| get to rural areas
|
| How rural are these areas? No roads?
| rpcope1 wrote:
| The Maverick is also kind of dumb because of the choice to do
| unibody instead of body on frame. I'm sure there's some
| weight savings or whatever, but at least on a body on frame
| truck, I can opt to change the bed out even on a short bed
| truck and add a flatbed when it makes sense. When someone
| using it like a truck inevitably beer cans the bed, they're
| going to be really sad that it's not a relatively quick and
| simple thing to fix (by just going and getting another bed).
| hansvm wrote:
| I definitely worry about the ability of this thing to drive
| through a couple feet of water safely.
| seplox wrote:
| I mean... the same should be said for pretty much every
| vehicle. The F150 maxes out at the bottom of the hubs.
| hansvm wrote:
| "Safe" is relative, but I've taken older Honda civics
| through water part-way up the doors. When you're in the
| middle of nowhere it's nice to have options. Do you run the
| risk of major electrical faults if you run this through
| water?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Due to it being electric or due to the specific design? EVs
| are generally _much_ easier to design for water crossings. I
| actually drove an electric motorcycle across a river fully
| submerged, which it wasn 't even designed for (had to do a
| thorough check afterwards but it was completely fine). This
| is not even remotely possible with the bike I normally ride
| (Africa Twin).
| hansvm wrote:
| Due to it being electric. That's really interesting. What
| prevents shorts?
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Proper sealing, mostly. The bike I was riding is a
| custom-built enduro, the electric part is fully sealed up
| to the handlebars but the river turned out to be a bit
| deeper, as it often happens. Electric drivetrains are
| much simpler. They aren't running as hot as ICE, don't
| need outside air, have less vibration and fewer moving
| parts... you can make it a proper submarine if you
| desire. In fact, certain 2WD electric mopeds are rated
| for underwater riding.
|
| It's possible to use a normal motorcycle fully submerged
| as well [1], but designing for that is way harder due to
| the exposed engine, you need a ton of things and not just
| a snorkel.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEPzyZTDDTI
| edaemon wrote:
| This Rivian still worked perfectly fine after being
| submerged in and carried away by a flood:
| https://insideevs.com/news/735934/rivian-r1t-flood-
| hurrican-...
| tayo42 wrote:
| I'm living in a suburb but been thinking about a pick up
|
| Some uses are, impulse Craigslist and local furniture
| purchases, outdoor sports equipment, home garden projects.
|
| My sedan is trashed from ocean related stuff I'm always putting
| in it. I was in a rush the other day, accidently left something
| wet in the car all day and have a mildew smell now to deal
| with. Dumb stuff like that seems avoidable.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Keep a desiccant pack in the car, it'll go a long way towards
| avoiding damp-related issues. The reusable silica gel ones
| market for gun safes come in a metal can that's easy to
| handle & recharge in the oven at low temperature. We have
| muddy gear in/out of our cars constantly and this has worked
| for us.
| michpoch wrote:
| > Some uses are, impulse Craigslist and local furniture
| purchases, outdoor sports equipment, home garden projects.
|
| Why would you buy a pickup for any of these activities? It'd
| be quite terrible? A van is a perfect solution.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| A 9x8 trailer is a cheap alternative. Although, living in a
| suburb it might be hard to find a place to put it.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| In my experience "bumfuck nowhere" has better access to
| electricity than the city. Every farmer has a welder plugged
| into a handy accessible high amperage socket.
| ty6853 wrote:
| Definitely depends. Most my neighbors in the country have 100
| amp service and they are sucking that dry already now that
| they have heated water and electric HVAC. Many more run solar
| only since it can cost $30K+ for a half mile extension.
| vid wrote:
| My experience of rural areas is that few are actual farmers.
| After all, farming has largely consolidated and become
| automated. Most country people just don't want a city
| lifestyle. They might have some of the accoutrements of a
| farmer and have added lifestyle (enjoyable/fulfilling)
| overhead and significant attitude (independence & sometimes
| xenophobia) for themselves, but it's a lifestyle choice.
| Therefore most don't have a welder (though they probably know
| someone who has one).
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's rural but not "bumfuck nowhere". Within ~100 miles
| of a city there are a lot of rural non-farmers, but only
| farmers will live 200 miles away from the closest city.
| vid wrote:
| I don't think that's true, but can't quickly find
| evidence. Ultimately it can't be depended on and is
| something an EV buyer would want to verify for their
| region.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Very few people live over 200 miles from a city in the
| lower-48 states of the US.
|
| To give you an idea: It's 413 miles between Colorado
| Springs and Wichita[1], leaving a very narrow area to be
| over 200 miles from either. Grand Island, Nebraska is 402
| miles from Denver.
|
| Pretty much all the land is over 200 miles away from a
| city of at least 50k population is in the great basin. To
| give you an idea, there are 3 cities in North Dakota (a
| 200x200 mile rectangle) that have a population of at
| least 50k, and with Bismarck relatively near the center,
| that rules out much of the state alone.
|
| 1: Dodge City is _technically_ a city, but at much less
| than 50k population I 'll omit it. If you allow anything
| called a city to count you could probably fit the list of
| people on a single piece of paper. Using the 50k cutoff
| you still have 3 cities in North Dakota, a 300x200 mile
| rectangle.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| My definition of bumfuck nowhere is where I grew up.
| almost 200 miles to each of Regina Saskatchewan, Brandon
| Manitoba and Minot North Dakota.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| Yes. I want this truck...but with a 4 cylinder ice engine.
| Nothing fancy. No needed stereo or seat warmers or complicated
| anything. I want a small, simple, and affordable truck with
| good reliability. Before anyone asks, I can't drive the tiny
| Japanese trucks in my state. They are cool, but look too small
| when people are driving what are essentially container ships
| with wheels these days.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Any company that made that would be penalized by CAFE:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43795946
| fckgw wrote:
| The base model Ford Maverick XL exists and is the truck that
| 95% of most people need.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| No thanks. More expensive with garbage infotainment system
| that violates the user's privacy. Also I'd bet the engine
| won't hold up well in the long term
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Kind of sounds like the Toyota IMV, but we'll probably never
| see that truck ever in the US, unfortunately.
| bluGill wrote:
| Rural areas tend to not have gas close. 10 miles or so. I know
| farmers who get gas delivery just because some cars never go to
| town, just field to field. Charge an ev at home and they avoid
| a lot of fuel headaches.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| LOL. I live in a rural area, and I think a gas station 10
| miles away is close.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| These are going to be backlogged for years. The US market is
| absolutely dying for this truck (and even moreso the SUV
| variant), exactly as specified. The big guys have refused to
| provide it, so there is a literal gold mine awaiting anyone that
| can.
| brad0 wrote:
| I put down $50 to reserve one. I grew up with an old car that I
| tinkered with endlessly. Mostly because it was simple enough for
| me to get my head around! This car reminds me of that time.
|
| I'm hoping that they go with a lot of "off-the-shelf" electronics
| and mechanical parts. Standards are a blessing.
|
| It feels like they're going with a different business model to
| traditional car manufacturers. AFAIK most manufacturers make a
| lot of their money via servicing. I'd love to take a look at what
| their long-term business strategy is.
| Tokumei-no-hito wrote:
| how did you find their website? all i get are articles about
| the car but no links
| kwindla wrote:
| https://www.slate.auto/en
|
| The configurator is fun:
|
| https://www.slate.auto/en/personalization
| rawgabbit wrote:
| Thanks for the link. I see they sell portable bluetooth
| speakers we can mount under the dash. I like the idea of
| DIY wrapping both the interior and exterior; I can imagine
| anime fan boys like my son coming up with very wild art for
| these wraps. I had also forgotten cars used to have hand
| cranks to roll up the windows.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| You could buy an old Volkswagen bug (not the new models) for
| cheap. They are dead simple too with tons of parts available.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Depending on where you live you can almost build certain
| older cars from new parts. For the UK I believe you can get
| every single part of an Morris Mini either brand new or at
| least refurbished. For France you can probably built a
| Citroen 2CV for parts, including an EV version.
| lincon127 wrote:
| Yes, it is too much for consumers... Farmers might have no choice
| though if they want a new truck
| taylodl wrote:
| I LOVE it! THIS is the kind of truck I'd be looking at to replace
| my 1998 Ford Ranger.
|
| Here is what could be potential deal-breakers:
|
| - Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I still
| want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any vehicle
| issues.
|
| - Lack of good charge management and battery conditioning. Either
| that, or a cheap and easy to replace battery pack. I'd really
| like both!
|
| - Comparable hauling and towing capacity to the 1998 Ford Ranger.
| Those numbers aren't exactly impressive, but I do use the truck
| as a truck, and I occasionally need the hauling capacity
| (weight).
|
| - Bucket seats. I need a bench seat so I can take my wife and
| dog. Think weekend glamping trips. Picture 8 shows a bucket seat.
| It doesn't look like that would work.
|
| If anyone from Slate is reading this, this is how I'm looking at
| this truck. FYI, I'll be comparing this to the Ford Maverick.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| From the FAQ:
|
| _Beginning in 2026, you'll be able to find charging stations
| using the upcoming Slate App._
|
| https://www.slate.auto/en/faq
|
| it doesn't explicitly answer whether the app will satisfy your
| criteria, but there'll be something.
| fishpen0 wrote:
| Bench seats are almost certainly not coming back in modern low
| cost vehicles due to side impact safety regulations. They
| aren't _illegal_ but its extremely difficult to meet those
| standards with a bench configuration and ironically probably
| why a budget pickup is less likely to have them. Cutting those
| corners by not having a bench at all is an easy way to save
| money in the design.
|
| The hauling and towing is another one. Unfortunately batteries
| are much heavier than a combustion engine and take away from
| the total capacity of the vehicle. It's curb weight is 500lbs
| more than the 1998 Ford Ranger. Same thing, budget vehicle
| means budget suspension, so its weight lowers the capacity
| instead of increasing the cost of the suspension.
| taylodl wrote:
| I had no idea bench seats had such an impact to side impact
| safety regulations. Thanks for that insight!
|
| It also makes sense that the total capacity of the vehicle
| would diminish, but at the same time, and engine isn't
| weightless (though neither is an electric motor). If I had
| 1,500 pounds capacity, then I should be good to go.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| The rear seats of almost all new cars are bench seats though.
| Is side impact safety requirements the same or apply the
| whole side of the car?
|
| I believe airbag requirements prevent this because the middle
| seat would require a console mounted airbag where
| infotainment systems normally live
| hinkley wrote:
| I suspect GP is misremembering why bench seating went away.
| Bench seats for the driver can lead to steering errors
| which can result in crashes.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| There are other reasons too.
|
| 1. Cars that offered manual options needed a center
| console. Japanese imports would always have a manual
| version, even if that version wasn't in the US. Same with
| European.
|
| The only one alternative is a column manual shifter which
| is horrible to use.
|
| You couldn't use a forward floor shifter unless you want
| to shift between the legs of the person in the middle.
|
| There are dash mounted shifters but would probably hit
| the middle person's knees. Not sure since these are rare
| and usually European (fiat multipla) /Japanese
|
| 2. At a point a US safety requirement was all front
| passengers needed either an airbag or a automatic
| shoulder seatbelt, basically it ran along the door with a
| motor when the door closed.
|
| Automatic shoulder belts were cheaper than airbags so
| manf usually picked that option but don't work with
| middle seats since they need a door/column for the rails.
|
| 3. Minor, but, additional side safety rules increased
| door thickness. Both sides pushed in more making it
| uncomfortable. Fine in rear but front, as you mentioned,
| is a danger to steering.
|
| 4. Smaller import cars due to gas crisis in 70s that US
| companies (eventually) copied that combined with reason
| (3) made the middle seat basically useless
| hinkley wrote:
| > You couldn't use a forward floor shifter unless you
| want to shift between the legs of the person in the
| middle.
|
| I've been in one of those. And I may or may not have been
| the child stuck sitting there. Mercifully only a couple
| times, because I was horrified. It felt like a child had
| the power to get us into an accident. 0/10 would not
| recommend.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| You're 100% right, they are used in semi trucks where
| it's not usually an issue.
|
| It's also a horrible shifter experience even for regular
| commuter cars where performance isn't a priority.
| Considering how it's one of the three constantly used
| controls in a car it would likely hurt sales in a sedan.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| > 1. Cars that offered manual options needed a center
| console. Japanese imports would always have a manual
| version, even if that version wasn't in the US. Same with
| European.
|
| Maybe in cars, but even when trucks still had a manual
| option, the S10/Sonoma as well as the full size GMT400
| had a bench seat in the 90s/00s and a floor manual
| shifter, and it all worked pretty well. None of them
| shift like a Porsche, but especially in the full size
| trucks the center of the bench wasn't too bad if you
| weren't a large person, and they're generally pretty
| pleasant to drive.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| > Same thing, budget vehicle means budget suspension, so its
| weight lowers the capacity instead of increasing the cost of
| the suspension.
|
| Leaf sprung solid axle is great for doing things on a budget.
|
| But it's probably impossible to put one in a new vehicle
| because the hiring pool of the automotive industry is too
| indoctrinated against that sort of stuff at this point.
| hinkley wrote:
| The problem with bench seating is not side impact but
| accidental steering wheel input during hard cornering. In the
| typical 10 and 2 hand position having your butt move makes
| your shoulders move, the shoulders make the hands move, and
| now you're understeering. Understeering on a mountain road
| likely means death, and on other roads a ditch or hitting a
| phone pole.
| f001 wrote:
| Steering position has been taught as 9 and 3 for a long
| time now... but still fair point. You can add a bit of
| alcantara to the seat to help you stay in place though. My
| RDX has it for the sporty-ish trim and it helps.
| krupan wrote:
| It's actually more like 8 and 4 or even 7 and 5 to keep
| your hands and arms out of the way of the airbag
| hinkley wrote:
| And then your problem is oversteering which puts you into
| oncoming traffic.
| hinkley wrote:
| It's never 9 and 3 in a turn though is it. It's more like
| 8 and 1. Or just 1.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > a cheap and easy to replace battery pack.
|
| Battery expansion is a user installable option. It might not be
| as easy to replace the main battery, but the expansion battery
| will be, and will make it easier to install newer tech down the
| road, etc.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > - Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I
| still want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any
| vehicle issues.
|
| Noooooooooo! No apps, _please_! Finally a car _not_ tethered to
| and dependent on your phone, and we already have our first
| request to app-ify it!
|
| EDIT: Ughhh, according to the video that another user posted,
| it looks like there's an app, and yes, "updates" go through it
| :(
|
| > - Lack of good charge management and battery conditioning.
| Either that, or a cheap and easy to replace battery pack. I'd
| really like both!
|
| Yes to a simple battery system!
|
| > - Comparable hauling and towing capacity to the 1998 Ford
| Ranger. Those numbers aren't exactly impressive, but I do use
| the truck as a truck, and I occasionally need the hauling
| capacity (weight).
|
| Yes!
|
| > - Bucket seats. I need a bench seat so I can take my wife and
| dog. Think weekend glamping trips. Picture 8 shows a bucket
| seat. It doesn't look like that would work.
|
| Yes, definitely. It being a 2 seater is kind of a deal breaker
| for families. You really want a bench seat to at least stick a
| small child between the driver and passenger. Back in the day,
| we'd stuff 3 kids between two adults, but these days the Safety
| People would have a heart attack just thinking about that.
|
| The article mentions an SUV upgrade kit that will bolt onto the
| back of the truck. Ugh, OK I guess. Sad that that's the way it
| will probably have to go.
|
| 1: https://youtu.be/cq1qEjwSYkw
| taylodl wrote:
| I'd want the mobile app to be an auxiliary, not a requirement
| for operating the truck. Keep the dashboard simple.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I'd be worried that once an app got a foothold into the
| product, the company would be unable to resist the urge to
| spread the app's tentacles across the entire vehicle,
| adding connectivity and telemetry and DRM, integrating it
| into the other car's systems, adding remote-this and
| wireless-that, and then inevitably the product would end up
| just like the turd cars we have today.
| oslem wrote:
| 100% agree. I would be fine if they had an estimated
| time-to-fully-charged displayed on the screen. I don't
| need to know the status of my vehicle, personally. I
| would imagine a third party system could be implemented
| to achieve most of what one would need.
| instaclay wrote:
| I have a iron filter that works via app. All configs can
| be done with button presses on the valve but in a much
| more tedious process/workflow.
|
| It connects via bluetooth and not WiFi. If the company
| goes belly up, I'd just need the APK and an android phone
| to continue using the app to configure the valve and
| see/download water usage data.
|
| Fast forward 20 years when I can't install the APK on
| android v79, I'd need an older phone to run the APK.. but
| that seems to be pulling hairs.
|
| Apps would be great, it's how you handle the backend to
| it that's the gotcha.
|
| I also have a water softener with an app that no longer
| works that had it's backend shut down. It can still be
| configured via the valve head button presses, but none of
| the "smart" usage data is available. As an example of
| good design, this is a perfect dichotomy of one company
| doing it well and one company doing it un-well[sic].
| ryandrake wrote:
| Not only the backend, but what happens 40 years in the
| future, when our phones don't run the app anymore, or
| we're all on phones that are totally unlike the phones of
| today, or if we don't even have phones or apps? I would
| expect the car to still work after that long, and making
| it dependent on a technology that is specific to a
| particular decade risks premature obsolescence.
| instaclay wrote:
| I'll be ecstatic if my iron filter lasts 40 years.
|
| I saw in another post that a person said there's a
| difference between "device dependent" and "device
| augmented" that really resonated with me.
|
| There's diminishing returns on everything, and just
| throwing your hands up on any subject as bad/good might
| be a disservice.
|
| If I live through an era where phones are no longer a
| thing and APKs are a thing of the past.. then I either...
|
| A. Don't use the iron filter like that anymore. (manual
| programing now) B. Get a new iron filter. (ewwwww) C.
| Keep a legacy-device for the purposes of programming the
| iron filter. (doesn't need any internet connection or
| subscriptions)
|
| (C) would be my most liked solution.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Relying on a mobile app is relying mobile operating
| system compatibility over the years and is just asking
| for combinatorial methods of obsolescence via
| OS/app/library breaking changes, plus if your old phone
| breaks, etc. Open sourced mobile app with open sourced
| back end might be somewhat acceptable but otherwise it's
| just asking to be bricked as soon as one of the companies
| involved goes under as we have seen time and again just
| in past couple of years.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| > ...what happens 40 years in the future, when our phones
| don't run the app anymore...
|
| 40 years? How about, like, 3 to 5 years? Remember when
| Apple decided to kill all 32-bit iOS apps for new
| hardware? I have an old iPod and iPhone 4S with
| "landlocked" software I enjoy using but can't anymore
| because Apple.
|
| Phone manufacturers have shown they don't give a damn
| about allowing old software to function. Physical devices
| tied to software is a terrible idea.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Fully agree. We may have to keep a 40 year old phone
| around in order to just use a 40 year old car's companion
| app.
| nine_k wrote:
| Not an app, but an API. And an app on top of that, if
| desired.
|
| Also there are evergreen interfaces, so to say. An RS232
| / RS485 connector that serves 115kbps 8N1 serial
| interface and runs a VT220-based TUI should still be
| serviceable 40 years from now (VT220 was released 42
| years ago). A now-modern web-based GUI also has a great
| chance to be serviceable 40 years from now.
| reginald78 wrote:
| Nice idea in theory. In practice, apps imply ongoing OTA
| connectivity, which means the truck will be updated to show
| ads or at the very least collect and sell all my driving
| information to any dirtbag that can rub two nickels
| together. Connected devices can alter the deal so they
| will, after all I've lost any leverage against them after I
| purchased the vehicle.
| Beijinger wrote:
| You need an app. You could make steering to the left only
| available in a 50 USD per month subscription but steering
| right is free or something like it.
| organsnyder wrote:
| If the vehicle had an open interface (maybe via CAN bus
| over the OBD2 port?), then DIY and aftermarket apps become
| possibilities.
| theamazing0 wrote:
| I think legally they would need to require using an app for
| their back view camera. All new cars in the United States
| after 2018 need one and I don't see how it would work
| without using the phone/tablet as a display.
| hylaride wrote:
| > Yes, definitely. It being a 2 seater is kind of a deal
| breaker for families.
|
| What you need is not a pickup truck. Catering to families
| means expensive bells and whistles, like entertainment
| systems, etc.
|
| > Back in the day, we'd stuff 3 kids between two adults, but
| these days the Safety People would have a heart attack just
| thinking about that.
|
| Rightfully so. Back in the day we did so many things we
| shouldn't have, and survivorship bias makes us default to
| thinking it was ok. As kids, we used to go barrelling down
| dirt roads in the back of pickups or played in the backs of
| station wagons. There's a reason automobile deaths have gone
| down.
| RandomBacon wrote:
| > Catering to families means expensive bells and whistles,
| like entertainment systems, etc.
|
| It absolutely does NOT mean those things.
|
| Cars didn't have entertainment systems for nearly a century
| and families did just fine.
|
| <Get off my lawn>
|
| My entertainment system was the window. Observe the world,
| not just whatever AI-generated garbage some algorithm
| pushes to a small screen 8-10 inches away from your eyes.
|
| </Get off my lawn>
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| The alphabet game still works if you teach them to read.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| And aside from a window, you know what's better than a
| car infotainment system?
|
| A physical holder for a personal pad device.
|
| The amount of not-invented-here, duplicate functionality
| that car companies execute poorly, when buyers _already
| have devices that do that well_ , is ridiculous.
|
| The biggest benefit of aligning manufacturing costs for
| profit should be jettisoning the "post-sale" revenue
| streams that drive complicated built-in tech for current
| cars.
|
| And also, you-know, 100% A+ on getting back to "customize
| your own car, because it's cheap and supported"!
|
| Owners being afraid of doing what _they_ want with their
| devices /vehicles has to stop.
| looofooo0 wrote:
| Lol, yes we just throw a phone and a Tablet with
| headphones to the kids.
| jajko wrote:
| The staple of any failed parent - if kids still bother
| you, throw more screens at them. Poor little fuckers
| won't know which addictive stuff to watch first
| FredPret wrote:
| > The amount of not-invented-here, duplicate
| functionality that car companies execute poorly, when
| buyers already have devices that do that well, is
| ridiculous.
|
| Like when GM invented their own computer to put into
| their cars instead of just buying one off the shelf
| decades ago
| tekla wrote:
| Kids will return to imagining Sonic running along the car
| ethbr1 wrote:
| _{insert Sonic ring sound in your head}_
| RandomBacon wrote:
| I never heard it quite put that way, but yes, I did
| something very similar.
| parpfish wrote:
| you mean "finger-man running on the side of the road and
| jumping over buildings"?
|
| we would've called it parkour if we had known what
| parkour was back then
| avn2109 wrote:
| Yes! By far the biggest feature here is "no infotainment"
| which leads directly to "hard controls for HVAC," that
| alone is a killer feature! They should double down on
| that concept and make the truck work perfectly with no
| apps at all and no OtA updates too.
| palata wrote:
| No OTA updates would be a killer.
|
| What is the need for OTA updates for an EV, once you
| remove the autopilot and touch screen? Genuinely
| interested, I would guess there is none, right?
| ryandrake wrote:
| Patches and OTA updates just scream "We know ahead of
| time our product is defective." Arguably OK for software
| (but I'd argue not), but not even remotely OK for cars.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _What is the need for OTA updates for an EV, once you
| remove the autopilot and touch screen? Genuinely
| interested, I would guess there is none, right?_
|
| Yes, and no.
|
| I've only started following this recently, but a lot of
| OTA updates aren't just bug fixes, they're additional
| features.
|
| My wife's car recently got a free OTA update which
| upgraded her radio to get HD stations. A previous update
| allowed her car to start recognizing more types of School
| Zone and Night Speed signs.
|
| I've read that every year (February, I think) Tesla
| pushes out a big update that adds features. However, the
| last two Tesla pushes included a bunch of features that
| came standard with my wife's (much cheaper) car years
| ago.
|
| You could certainly argue that her car should have come
| with HD Radio enabled from the start, and ditto for the
| Tesla features. But to suppose that all OTA car updates
| are nothing more than more invasive tracking and bug
| fixes is not strictly correct.
| hylaride wrote:
| > It absolutely does NOT mean those things.
|
| I don't personally disagree with you, but today it pretty
| much does.
|
| Anyways, my point is that this is designed as a
| utilitarian, cheap truck that covers the use case that
| most pickup trucks are actually utilitarian for, like
| local farm or light duty construction work. It's got a
| short range, no entertainment for long drives, etc. The
| article doesn't even say if it has AC (Slate's site seems
| to have images that allude to it having it).
|
| The OP wants something for families, which exists and
| costs more because most families want more. They want
| good, cheap, and available when you can only have two.
| Even with gas/diesel powered trucks, there's a huge
| difference between the utilitarian ones construction
| workers and farmers buy and beat up and the expensive
| "luxury" quad-cabs that families now buy because minivans
| are too uncool.
| taylodl wrote:
| If you consider a fur baby a family! :)
|
| I want something _much more_ utilitarian than what is
| being pitched to today 's families. If you want a Quad
| Cab, Infotainment systems, and yadda, yadda, yadda - the
| market already has options. Lots of them.
|
| If you want a cheap, light duty truck similar to what a
| Chevy S10 or a Ford Ranger _used_ to be, then you 're
| pretty much SOL.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >Cars didn't have entertainment systems for nearly a
| century and families did just fine.
|
| ARE WE THERE YET? ... ARE WE THERE YET? ... ARE WE THERE
| YET?
| hyperhopper wrote:
| That was before smartphone and tablets were common
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _My entertainment system was the window. Observe the
| world..._
|
| The world is pretty freaking boring when it's just
| pavement and the 5,000th time you've passed the same
| strip mall, gas station, and McDonald's. The same dirty
| snowbanks on either side of the same gray asphalt under
| the interminably gray winter sky.
|
| Maybe you lived in a place of wonderful natural beauty,
| or a vibrant urban street culture. A lot of people don't.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _The world is pretty freaking boring when it 's just
| pavement and the 5,000th time you've passed the same
| strip mall, gas station, and McDonald's. The same dirty
| snowbanks on either side of the same gray asphalt under
| the interminably gray winter sky._
|
| And yet, somehow the children survived and thrived.
|
| They learned to make up games, to entertain themselves,
| and to -- perish the thought -- talk to other human
| beings in their own family! /shudder/
| crazygringo wrote:
| Did they?
|
| I hate to tell you, but a lot of them didn't thrive. Some
| of them didn't even survive. Some of them didn't have
| families that particularly want to talk to them. Or when
| they were spoken to, it wasn't exactly healthy.
|
| Just because maybe you had a great childhood, doesn't
| mean everybody did.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I hate to tell you, but a lot of them didn 't thrive.
| Some of them didn't even survive._
|
| Citation needed.
|
| Maybe we shouldn't pretend that a small number of
| exceptions are the norm. Nobody is saying that every
| child had a completely happy childhood. But there's
| absolutely nothing wrong with not being entertained 100%
| of the time. Being bored is a good thing.
|
| _Just because maybe you had a great childhood, doesn 't
| mean everybody did. Let's not look at the past through
| rose-tinted glasses._
|
| I think you're projecting.
| globnomulous wrote:
| Or read books!
| lupusreal wrote:
| Read books, and/or knock yourself out with dramamine.
| kebokyo wrote:
| I respect the "old person yelling at clouds" disclaimer
| lmao.
|
| Honestly, I got bummed when I found out this was an
| electric vehicle, I wish there wasn't a chance for my
| vehicle to get bricked through an over-the-air update,
| and I personally would like to have a basic stereo with
| an aux input just so I can listen to FM stations or
| Spotify while I haul a bunch of DIY materials around
| without having to install my own speakers.
|
| My friend keeps telling me to get a truck for my next
| vehicle, and while this truck doesn't make the cut for
| me, hopefully future trucks made either by Slate Auto or
| other manufacturers inspired by them will add juuuust the
| right amount of creature comforts to win me over.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Could you talk us through the over-the-air update
| concern?
| Beijinger wrote:
| Is written in the article that it can fit more seats. And
| if you click through the pics you will see it.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| > Yes, definitely. It being a 2 seater is kind of a deal
| breaker for families
|
| I believe I saw there are plans for some sort of SUV
| conversion.
|
| > Catering to families means expensive bells and whistles,
| like entertainment systems, etc.
|
| IF it could just get a bluetooth signal from an iDevice or
| some Android thing, that would probably suffice for a basic
| option. If the owner needs more than than, let them install
| (or have installed) some sort of third-party infotainment
| head of some sort.
|
| Back in the old days, cars sometimes had a single speaker
| and that was plenty sufficient for listening to music.
| 7speter wrote:
| Station wagons from the prehistoric era were family cars
| and had bench seats, and only had a Radio...
| kasey_junk wrote:
| You had a radio?
| potato3732842 wrote:
| > - Bucket seats. I need a bench seat so I can take my wife
| and dog. Think weekend glamping trips. Picture 8 shows a
| bucket seat. It doesn't look like that would work.
|
| Take her car on those trips then. You wouldn't complain you
| can't take a Miata camping, why would you complain you can't
| take a 2-seat pickup? camping? The product isn't trying to do
| everything. It's trying to be the minimum viable truck and be
| good at it. And just like the purpose built roadster you give
| up unrelated stuff, like family hauling.
| 83 wrote:
| > You wouldn't complain you can't take a Miata camping, why
| would you complain you can't take a 2-seat pickup? camping?
|
| Because 2-seat pickups used to function this way. It's okay
| to pine for functionality that has been lost, particularly
| when a new product like this comes along and gets your
| hopes up.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Noooooooooo! No apps, please! Finally a car not tethered to
| and dependent on your phone, and we already have our first
| request to app-ify it!
|
| What car is tied to your phone? A mustang mach-e, for
| instance, does not require your phone at all. It has a FOB
| for opening the doors and starting it, you can program the
| charging times from the in-car screen.
|
| The app is optional, exactly as it should be. This car
| DESPERATELY is going to need an app when it comes to charging
| whether you know it or not. With no in-car screen you'll have
| absolutely no way to control charging which WILL come back to
| bite you.
|
| >Yes to a simple battery system!
|
| "simple" in this case will add cost. Nearly every EV has the
| battery as a part of the structural frame of the vehicle for
| a reason (there are some niche exceptions in China). Nothing
| is impossible, but I don't see them making the battery easily
| swappable, while also being structurally sound, and keeping
| the low price point.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| > DESPERATELY is going to need an app when it comes to
| charging whether you know it or not
|
| I don't own an EV. What for? Do you really need more than a
| button or two and some leds?
| tw04 wrote:
| Controlling your charging. You shouldn't be charging more
| than 80% for daily driving unless you want to destroy
| your battery.
|
| You will almost assuredly also want to be able to
| precondition if you live in a cold climate.
| tredre3 wrote:
| Again, why do you consider those things as better done
| via a smartphone and an app, versus using the already
| built-in screen (the one behind the wheel)?
| yreg wrote:
| In addition to the sibling comment, you want to be able
| to check if the vehicle is charging and everything is
| fine remotely. EVs randomly stopping charging for various
| reasons is not rare at all. You want to get a
| notification.
|
| You want to know when the vehicle finishes charging so
| you can vacate the public charger.
|
| You want to be able to reduce the current when the
| charging is tripping breakers wherever you are.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > Yes to a simple battery system!
|
| But you realize this will make cold-weather range suck and
| on-the-road charging suck, right?
|
| Preheating the battery and cabin on "shore power" is
| something EV buyers just expect at this point because that
| can consume 2-3kWh of energy (equivalent to 6-10 miles or
| 10-16 km). That's almost 10% of Slate's range (see below).
|
| Preheating the battery about 10-15 minutes before you arrive
| at a supercharger is another expected feature. It can
| increase charge acceptance rate by over 50% (reduce charge
| time by 1/3).
|
| The 150 mile range is extremely optimistic given the size of
| the battery and shape of the truck. With just 5% top and
| bottom buffers, you'd need to achieve over 3.1 miles/kWh...
| which is the consumption expected of a small aerodynamic
| sedan. I would bet real money that highway range (at 75 mph)
| for the small battery is less than 120 miles from 100% to 0.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| > Noooooooooo! No apps, please!
|
| I wish devices could have web servers and web-based UI rather
| than thick "apps" that end up rotting when device
| manufacturers arbitrarily decide that old software won't work
| anymore (cough, cough-- Apple-- cough, cough).
|
| I know we can't because "security", no end-to-end over the
| Internet anymore, etc. >sigh<
|
| It seems like we've engineered the networking and software
| ecosystem to promote disposable "smart" devices. It's almost
| like somebody profits from it. Hmm...
| nine_k wrote:
| Why, we of course could if we cared. Let the car offer a
| wifi access point. WPA3 is secure enough, but you can of
| course have an extra layer of TLS inside it.
|
| For the extra paranoid, a car could have a USB socket that
| pretends to be a wired network interface, offering DHCP.
|
| Run a web server for car diagnostics and maintenance when
| connected to this interface. Do it from the comfort of your
| laptop, or anywhere anytime using your phone. Zero chance
| of remote exploits, if you set the things correctly on the
| car side. An ESP32-based system with $5 BOM would suffice
| to provide this.
| andrewla wrote:
| Not with off the shelf protocols. Yes WPA3 is plenty
| secure, but any AP advertising the same SSID with the
| same key would allow the device to connect. So how do you
| know that you're connected to your car, and not to the
| black hat AP next to it?
|
| From there, you can have as much TLS as you want, but
| that still won't give you server identity unless the
| server certificate is signed by someone you already
| trust. So a generic web browser would be screwed, because
| you either add SlateTruckCertificateAuthority to the
| globally trusted list, and then you still have to deal
| with revocations and certificate expiry, or you use some
| other CA that is willing to delegate. There's no good
| support for self-signed certificates or pinned
| certificates, and even if there were, the initial
| connection would be tough.
|
| Unfortunately this really isn't a well-solved problem.
| Bluetooth can get you part of the way there, but it only
| offers really good security in theory (in practice it is
| constantly having issues) and it is intrinsically
| limited.
| nine_k wrote:
| First of all, the SSID and password should be unique.
| Then, you can have a QR code printed in the owner's
| manual, and inside the glove compartment, or something.
| There's a standard for QR codes for connecting to wifi,
| so you don't have to type in the long and cryptic
| password.
|
| But I don't see much incentive to produce a fake wifi AP
| for me to connect to with my car diagnostics. I'm not
| going to punch my bank account and password into it
| anyway. If I'm misled to alter the battery charging
| settings for someone else's car, or for a pretend mockup
| of the car controller, I don't see what the perpetrator
| could gain from it.
|
| Then there must be a button on the car dashboard, or
| near, which I should press to activate the AC (it does
| not need to be up all the time), and press again to
| switch it off. This can serve as an easy way to check if
| there's doubt. The interface may have a function like
| headlights on / off as a simple way to check that the
| connection works.
| nine_k wrote:
| > _Yes to a simple battery system!_
|
| Battery balancing and conditioning does not need to be fancy,
| and does not need a fancy screen; a couple of LEDs should
| suffice.
|
| But I'd like my batteries charged competently, recharged
| efficiently while braking, worn uniformly, and kept at
| reasonable temperature. It's not hard to do completely
| automatically and invisibly; a quality electric bike would
| have it.
| Animats wrote:
| > - Lack of good charge management and battery conditioning.
|
| Why should it lack that? That's a tiny piece of software in
| the charge controller, which on this vehicle ought to be some
| tiny microcontroller.
| enslavedrobot wrote:
| In car it requires liquid cooling and from conversations
| I've had with former Tesla engineers, exquisite control
| over power quality.
|
| Just ask a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt owner.
| hedgehog wrote:
| The Maverick apparently has poor build quality but I'm hoping
| Toyota comes up with a pickup using the same small footprint +
| bare bones + hybrid drivetrain formula.
| quantified wrote:
| I read that as comparing it to one of Ford's cheap cars from
| the 70's. Which would be a low bar to meet.
| hedgehog wrote:
| I just mean poor vs trucks from Honda or Toyota. I don't
| know if there's anything from a US brand that has
| comparable build quality and engineering these days.
| sitkack wrote:
| Toyota already has the Toyota Hilux Champ @ 12k USD
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hNYwTVPUkQ
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Holy crap! And it will have a manual option! Love.
| sitkack wrote:
| There will be no way this will be sold in the states. You
| would have to live in some place like Thailand or Costa
| Rica.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The Japanese companies have been making kei trucks for 70
| years. They've never been sold directly in the US and never
| will.
| twiddling wrote:
| They don't want our chicken
|
| https://www.autoblog.com/news/why-the-chicken-tax-still-
| cont...
| CalRobert wrote:
| Huh, lack of an app is a major plus in my book
| adamhowell wrote:
| > Lack of a mobile app...
|
| At the 6 mins and 40 seconds timestamp on this video
| (https://youtu.be/cq1qEjwSYkw?t=400) he shows the car app that
| will tell you current range, etc
| conradev wrote:
| I'd recommend folks watch the video - it's fascinating.
|
| The truck gets OTA updates _through your phone_ and not some
| LTE modem. It doesn 't have one. They moved all car
| management including OBD-like functionality to the phone,
| too, which I think is awesome.
|
| _This_ is how I want the interior design philosophy of
| manual controls to be digitized - with digital control. I 'd
| pay $10k more for physical buttons, though.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Ugh. Yuck. Very disappointing. Was really hoping this thing
| wasn't going to be phone dependent.
| cornstalks wrote:
| There's a difference between phone-dependent and phone-
| augmented. I don't know the details of the truck, but I
| think a happy medium would be for an app to exist to
| augment the truck's abilities and allow at-home updates,
| but to not require the app or phone to just use the truck
| (even for long periods; i.e. you could go forever without
| using the app and the truck will just keep working in its
| current state).
| instaclay wrote:
| Oh sweet. Delicious. Very reassuring. Was really hoping
| this thing was going to be device agnostic.
|
| My 2015 car had 3g "smart" features that no longer work
| since 3g has been sunset in the US. Awesome to see forward
| thinking of a smart feature-set that can be updated with a
| module you'll likley already have an upgrade path for.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Only if the phone app is open source, or at least the api,
| alllll of it, is public so no one needs the default app nor
| is limited by it.
|
| Alternatively, maybe the overall simplicity will mean that
| a 3rd party full computer replacement would be feasible
| even without any official help from the manufacturer.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I'd be good with no updates. Ie make it simple enough that
| there shouldn't need to be updates.
|
| And if there's something major maybe you download it onto a
| thumb drive and plug it in.
|
| I'm tired of my vehicle being changed without my consent.
| dummydummy1234 wrote:
| I mean yes, but also this is a complex new prototype
| vehicle. I can assume that there may be mistakes/ non
| ideal things that they only catch post production.
|
| As long as the fixes are a long the lines as bios updates
| (not required per say, but may fix bugs or edge cases)
| then that seems reasonable.
| toast0 wrote:
| > - Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I
| still want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any
| vehicle issues.
|
| I get that cars have these, but my PHEV (which I don't often
| charge) lost its app when Ford pulled the plug as 3G was
| sunsetting and I don't think I'm missing anything. If there's
| anything wrong with the car, it can show the check engine light
| (or whatever it's called when there's no engine).
|
| > - Lack of good charge management and battery conditioning.
|
| Seems like a little early to declare this on a vaporware
| product? I don't think you need a screen or an app to have
| reasonable battery conditioning?
|
| Anyway, I would love small trucks to return. I had a 2007
| Ranger and I have a 2003 S-10, and there's nothing in the US
| new vehicle market that fits the small truck niche anymore.
| CAFE standards can't be met with a small footprint truck, so we
| only get large footprint trucks. But EV trucks don't have
| efficiency standards, so maybe we'll see the niche again. (I
| think you could maybe hit the CAFE standards with a single cab
| ranger and a hybrid drive train, but I also think automakers
| prefer to sell luxury trucks rather than base model trucks)
| Nux wrote:
| Hopefully it comes with an OBD socket you can connect to as
| with all other cars.
|
| That should provide basic diagnostics/stats. No need for
| "apps".
| exhilaration wrote:
| It's actually not required for EVs - Tesla has started to
| drop it from recent models. I bet these guys would omit it as
| well to save money.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Or use it because using an existing standard makes
| everything that needs to interface with it cheaper/easier.
| Reubachi wrote:
| Your passion is something that market researches for this
| company should salivate over, especiall from a curated forum
| like HN.
|
| Unforuntatley, this company and this project are VC expenditure
| "throw away projects", made to fail.
|
| No motor vehicle satisfying NHTSA can be made in america for
| below 20k cost of materiels, nevermind msrp. This article and
| the company are pitching that this is "realistic" due to
| cutting costs of paint, radios. Which...are pennies on the
| dollar compared to what satifys US road requiremnents for EV;
| safety, suspension, manufacturer support, parts availability,
| reparability. Are they skimping there too? will this 2025
| electric vehicle have LEAF springs?
|
| 20k is the pre-production estimates. When in history has that
| not balloned especially for car platforms made in USA? What
| will a made in USA replacement lead acid accessory battery
| cost? 3k?
|
| Once this goes over 40k (which, is guaranteed. A mazda miata
| which is as bare bones as it gets, old technology, is still 32k
| base, and thats made in a cheaper labor market.), the funding
| will back off, and all the R and D money wasted.
| neogodless wrote:
| Please research these vehicles:
|
| https://www.chevrolet.com/suvs/trax?evar25=Vanity_Trax_20170.
| ..
|
| https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/crossovers-
| suvs/kicks.htm...
| jws wrote:
| _Bucket seats. I need a bench seat so I can take my wife and
| dog._
|
| Ah, there's the problem. You have violated Pauli's "spouse/dog
| size exclusion principle". You need to either have a dog that
| can sleep curled up on the spouse's lap during the trip, or a
| dog big enough that the spouse can sleep curled up on the dog.
|
| Bench seats also aren't a panacea, I still feel the burn of my
| dog's stink eye when then girlfriend was prompted to center of
| bench seat and dog on the side.
| eweise wrote:
| Same. Only thing missing for me is is a gas engine and manual
| stick shifter.
| pglevy wrote:
| Same. Though this looks like the first EV I might actually
| consider.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Same, though the company trying to reuse the International
| Scout name got my attention. Physical controls and an on
| board gas generator.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I grew up with an (already old, and by the time we got
| rid of it years later, hilariously rusted-out and with
| tires containing more fix-a-flat than air) Scout and
| their announcement ad for the electric one hit a bullseye
| with me.
|
| I don't really do _new cars_ (too expensive) but damn...
| if I had enough cash to not give a fuck, they 'd have
| been well on their way to selling me one just with that
| ad. Really well done.
| darknavi wrote:
| > Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I still
| want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any vehicle
| issues.
|
| Would be nice if they had a protocol locally for a 3rd party to
| step in an offer their own offerings here.
| babyent wrote:
| They could offer an API kit or sdk so people could make open
| source apps for it.
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| I think you are way off on the target demographics. The idea is
| to have a car that is minimalist in nature, which does mean:
|
| - no app - no bells - no whistles
|
| Slate.. I will add one more thing. If you will make it spy on
| me like all the other new cars now, its a nogo either. I might
| as well just get an old car from 90s... which amusingly will
| still work for what I need it to do ( move some stuff around ).
| jillyboel wrote:
| > - Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I
| still want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any
| vehicle issues.
|
| Wait, you actually want your car to upload all your data to
| someone else's cloud for them to sell?
| DADADADA12341 wrote:
| > - Lack of a mobile app. Minimalist design is great, but I
| still want an app to manage charging and be alerted to any
| vehicle issues.
|
| God, please, no. Why on Gods green earth would I want that?
| Stop doing this to stuff. It is an abomination. I am sure many
| others echoed this point but holy crap. No. I am all for
| technology. But I do not want some tracker in my car. Apps are
| anathema to my freedom.
| everdrive wrote:
| Please no apps. Please no smart phone garbage.
| qudat wrote:
| I'm kind of excited by their App idea. They don't have an
| infotainment, speakers, etc. You can just use your phone +
| their app + bluetooth speaker.
| m463 wrote:
| This sounds like the feature creep tesla always struggled with.
|
| also, no mobile app? that is a feature.
|
| The appeal of this vehicle is that it IS like your 1998 ranger,
| not: mobile app = data collection = monetized vehicle = mobile
| upgrades = basically all the things that are bad with
| technology.
|
| Honestly, all these "monetized experience" companies forget
| that (like matt ridley's rational optimist says) with trust,
| trade is unlimited.
| wyager wrote:
| > I still want an app to manage charging
|
| Consumers with preferences like yours are the #2 reason (after
| new regulations) that modern cars are terrible
| nwellinghoff wrote:
| I also Love the direction of this truck. It would be nice if
| they installed speakers...two door and a small sub and just
| left a space in the dash for a standard radio of your choice.
| Or at the very least cut out the spaces and run wire so
| installing a proper stereo isn't a nightmare. I don't need
| "infotainment" but I do consider a radio with decent sound to
| enjoy the ride standard equipment.
| CommenterPerson wrote:
| The subheading said Digital Detox. Means no App. For apps, get
| a Muskmobile .. the ones running with high beams on all the
| time.
| guywithahat wrote:
| This truck has 150 miles of range at 100% charge with no
| weight. I like the idea of the truck, but you won't be doing
| "glamping" with it and you probably won't be using the battery
| for anything but driving
| CalChris wrote:
| > Lack of a mobile app.
|
| OVMS was originally developed for the Tesla Roadster and then
| adapted to the Leaf, ...
|
| https://www.openvehicles.com
| Aurornis wrote:
| This is why it's so hard for companies to introduce stripped-
| down or small models of anything: People will tell you how much
| they want it, but as soon as they see it they realize they
| actually miss something from the models that are already out
| there.
|
| It happens with small phones (iPhone mini) to laptops and cars.
| There are comments throughout this thread claiming that
| everyone would be buying small sedans if not for CAFE
| regulations, but we have plenty of small sedans on the market
| that aren't selling well.
|
| It always comes down to market demand. The big companies have
| market demand figured out better than many give them credit
| for, even if it's not exactly the product you want.
| octorian wrote:
| I'm grateful they don't make truly stripped down models of
| cars anymore, because those were always what would end up in
| the rental car inventory. Every time I'd rent a car, it felt
| like I was taking a step back in time.
|
| Now all rental cars actually have some reasonable set of
| features, without you having to pay for any up-sells.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| So the rest of the economy should suffer to subsidize your
| rental.
| tdiff wrote:
| They are targeting 5-stars safety rating, but we don't know if
| they manage to achieve it.
| bionhoward wrote:
| Seems genius, hope this catches on
| iamben wrote:
| Absolutely love this. Love brands taking the SLC (simple,
| lovable, complete: https://longform.asmartbear.com/slc/) approach
| - minimalism is an absolute delight in a world where everything
| is crammed with unnecessary/unused feature bloat.
|
| (That said, I'd love a stereo - even if it was just a built in
| bluetooth speaker/aux-in, which feels like a perfect compromise!)
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Good news, it can be added.
|
| > A Bluetooth speaker holder that fits under the climate knobs
| is available, but there is also a soundbar that can be
| installed in the dashboard storage compartment.
|
| https://americancarsandracing.com/2025/04/25/best-accessorie...
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Technically you could zip tie or duct tape an Amazon Basics
| Bluetooth speaker to just anything even a lawnmower. This
| looks like just one step above that.
|
| It's a shame they didn't add a DIN head unit slot and throw a
| plastic cover over it, preinstall install speaker wires.
| Anyone could then DIY a real stereo for less than they are
| probably selling the Bluetooth speaker/soundbar.
| eightys3v3n wrote:
| Or even just conduit between all the common places we would
| need to run cables.
| cbdumas wrote:
| I like this comment because it both argues for "SLC" design and
| contains the reason why we don't get it: "Sure this thing looks
| great if only it had <FEATURE>" where <FEATURE> is different
| for every buyer.
| spiritplumber wrote:
| Electric cars make personalization so much easier, glad someone's
| doing this.
|
| And it's a pickup truck that is an actual pickup truck.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> that is an actual pickup truck._
|
| Which is its ultimate downfall, unfortunately. It being an
| actual pickup truck means that for all practical purposes you
| will also need a car, with all the additional headaches of
| owning more wheels to go along with it, and at its price point
| plus the price of a car you may as well buy one car with some
| truck-like features (i.e. the pretend pickup trucks that have
| become so popular).
| patagonia wrote:
| If this can't compete head to head (no tariffs or other import
| restrictions) with BYD and the like, then I don't know why one
| would get excited. Feels like an expensive consolation prize with
| tons of compromises. I want competition.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >"If this can't compete head to head (no tariffs or other
| import restrictions) with BYD and the like, then I don't know
| why one would get excited."
|
| Would you prefer our roads flooded with cheap Chinese EVs that
| are the automotive equivalent of Shein hauls? Protectionism has
| its place in certain areas, and I would say building a thriving
| domestic EV industry that isn't beholden to a single weirdo is
| one of them.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| By most accounts the Chinese EVs are decent quality. What
| makes you think they aren't?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| NHSTA standards
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I can't find any evidence that the NHTSA has ever
| evaluated Chinese EVs negatively. The ones not available
| in the US meet high standards in other places like Europe
| and Australia.
|
| Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| European standards are tighter, and many Chinese vehicles
| are homolgated in Europe.
| popcalc wrote:
| This. US auto safety standards are infamously inane.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Do Chinese Evs break down a lot or aren't repairable?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I drive a Polestar 2, which is a Chinese manufactured EV,
| and it's better quality than most North American vehicles.
|
| The Munroe Live episode on it should disavow people of
| these biases. He ends it with a strong warning about
| people's weird biases about Chinese manufacturing.
| patagonia wrote:
| I'm pretty sure there are more possible outcomes than "this
| one truck or cheap, dangerous Chinese EVs." False choice
| fallacy.
|
| A lack of import restrictions in no way prevents safety
| regulations. You could also subsidize the domestic automobile
| industry without having tariffs, so that we protect our
| domestic industrial base. These things take no imagination.
| xnx wrote:
| > cheap Chinese EVs that are the automotive equivalent of
| Shein hauls?
|
| Your perception of Chinese auto manufacturing is very out of
| date. This makes as much sense as calling Japanese or Korean
| cars cheap and low quality.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Do you think that the rest of the world needs to protect
| itself from Tesla then and slap tariffs on any Tesla cars
| exported?
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| You can't really compete in a any real sense when the labor
| price differential is so massive and the companies and supply
| chains are directly subsidized. The price does not reflect the
| product, but all its inputs.
| patagonia wrote:
| I never said that I'd expect that a US automaker would "win".
| I want the best car at the cheapest price to be made
| available. And for that to be done within a level playing
| field with regards to safety / workforce / environmental /
| labor regulations. My expectation is that US automakers do
| not win, even with subsidies. But I do think keeping an
| industrial base in the US would be worth that compromise.
| hedora wrote:
| Historically, tariffs guarantee the local market will not
| win.
|
| Tariffs (the "chicken tax") are directly responsible for US
| trucks being so expensive. They have no foreign competition
| in the US.
|
| Environmental regulation loopholes cause US trucks to be so
| big, which is a related problem.
|
| It's probably possible for US manufacturing to compete
| directly with foreign manufacturers, but they have no
| incentive to do so now that Trump extended the chicken-tax
| to all imported cars.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| It's not a loophole if you explicitly state: "This is
| what we are going to focus on." The CAFE regulations also
| regulate pickup trucks, just less stringently.
|
| >CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and
| "light trucks" even if the majority of "light trucks" are
| being used as passenger vehicles. The market share of
| "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in
| 2001, remained in 50% numbers up to 2011.[7] More than
| 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the
| 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted
| from CAFE calculations.[10] More recently, coverage of
| medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations
| starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks
| starting in 2014.
| hedora wrote:
| The $20K from the article is after a $7500 subsidy.
| maxglute wrote:
| It's a pickup for US market because it has no plans to remotely
| compete with BYD.
|
| I think most Americans would go for a 15k Toyota Hilux Champ
| with similar design ethos, but chickentax.
| roarkeful wrote:
| I would buy 3 at that price, good grief.
| bko wrote:
| This looks great. But isn't there a long history of new car
| companies over the last few decades that have an impressive car,
| take pre-orders and never deliver? Something about production
| hell?
| codyvoda wrote:
| talk is cheap, show me the vehicle I can purchase that works
| well
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Slate is financially backed by Bezos [1] and Eric Schmidt [2]
| so it's not like they're going to run out of money unless they
| choose to do so. And it's staffed by a bunch of Detroit
| automotive engineers, so it's not like they're going to be
| surprised to learn that building and selling automobiles is
| harder than launching a CRUD app or SAAS.
|
| I do expect a steep price jump when they realize that all this
| customization (especially post-purchase) makes crash testing
| really difficult and expensive, $20k is not going to happen but
| hopefully it will be under $30k MSRP and under $40k with
| typical options, at least targeting a different market than
| Rivian.
|
| [1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/08/inside-the-ev-startup-
| secr...
|
| [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/91322801/bezos-backed-slate-
| auto...
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Why would post-purchase customization be crash-tested at all?
| It's not currently. If I buy an F-150 and jack it up, it's
| not Ford's responsibility to crash-test my work. Even if I
| use genuine Ford parts I buy from Ford.
| bko wrote:
| Being backed by Bezos and the appearance of infinite funding
| isn't necessarily a good thing. You need someone at the helm
| that is driven and in control. Don't know who's running the
| company or if they have the proper mentality to get through
| production issues, but it's certainly not Bezos.
|
| Either way, I'm rooting for their success. The low end car
| market is pretty much non-existent. I've heard people blame
| the cash for clunkers program that got rid of a ton of low
| end supply in 2009, but haven't looked into it too much.
| danesparza wrote:
| "Slate is financially backed by Bezos"
|
| This is too bad. I'm not buying anything from people who
| showed up January 20th. It hasn't been difficult. And luckily
| there is plenty of competition in the electric car space.
|
| If they get somebody else at the helm (not Elon), I'll root
| for them like crazy.
| nimbius wrote:
| what is the point of this?
|
| a used car for 10k does more, costs less, and has a lower carbon
| footprint.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Customization, no previous owner that you have no idea how they
| took care of the vehicle, less chance of complications and
| expensive fixes, warranty, it's a new pickup that doesn't cost
| $50k+, etc.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > and has a lower carbon footprint
|
| No it doesn't. An electric vehicle takes < 18 months to become
| carbon negative. Nobody buys a used car expecting it to last
| than 18 months. If it does, replacing your car every 18 months
| is not carbon friendly.
| hansvm wrote:
| Isn't this sort of thing illegal as a new vehicle in US markets
| because of those backup camera laws?
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| it has a backup camera.
|
| _A mandatory part of today's safety features is a digital
| rear-view camera. Typically, this view pops up on a modern
| car's central infotainment screen, but the Slate doesn't have
| one of those. It makes do with just a small display behind the
| steering wheel as a gauge cluster, which is where that rearview
| camera will feed._
| hansvm wrote:
| I missed that, thank you.
| mikekij wrote:
| Love this. Definitely getting on the list.
| hedora wrote:
| The $20K is after incentives, so it's actually $27,500. That
| still compares favorably to Ford's closest offering, the F-150
| PRO, which is $54,999 (pre incentives):
|
| https://www.fordpro.com/en-us/fleet-vehicles/f150-lightning/
|
| The Ford comes standard with the same range as the upgraded
| Slate, though. The slate can tow 1000lbs, and hold 1,433 lbs, vs
| the Ford's standard 5000 / 2235, respectively (you can upgrade
| the range and towing capacity on the ford):
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64564869/2027-slate-truck...
|
| Not including a bluetooth capable am/fm radio / speakerphone on a
| fleet vehicle seems dumb. This cut what, $100?
|
| I can easily see Ford cutting $10K off the cost of the Pro. It
| looks like it has power windows, and it definitely has an
| infotainment system. Also, the two row cab adds lots of weight +
| cost and makes the bed smaller.
|
| Anyway, competition is good. Hopefully slate will make something
| with an upgraded suspension / power train for $10K more, and
| maybe eventually a larger one with ford-compatible conversion
| mounts (for custom work trucks, etc.)
| Suppafly wrote:
| It's meaningless to compare a small city truck to something
| like a full-sized truck, they are totally different classes of
| vehicle. I get that ford doesn't make a small electric vehicle,
| but that doesn't make the lightning the "closest offering".
| hedora wrote:
| Is there another EV offering that's closer and available in
| the US?
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Is there another EV offering that's closer and available
| in the US?
|
| No, that's the point, it's filling a niche that basically
| nothing else does right now. The closest alternative would
| be a small electric car paired with a small utility
| trailer. Something like a Nissan Leaf and one of those $500
| trailers from harbor freight. Which added up and with
| discounts probably costs fairly similar to this.
| scblock wrote:
| A more reasonable comparison is probably the hybrid Maverick,
| which appears to be popular (at least around here), has 4
| doors and actual features, and starts at around $25k.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >and starts at around $25k
|
| I don't think you can actually buy one for that. They were
| tacking on an extra 10k as soon as they came out and
| eventually just moved the price up by like $5k and they
| still generally sell for higher than that.
| water-data-dude wrote:
| The fact that it's so bare bones (no stereo, etc. unless you put
| one in) makes me really hope that it doesn't phone home with a
| firehose of telemetry like pretty much every other new car. If
| so, they've got my interest
| krunck wrote:
| Excellent question. Isn't that required by law in the US now?
| gotoeleven wrote:
| We've detected that you're not driving towards the bug store
| to collect your bug rations. Correcting route.
| wswope wrote:
| What gave you that impression?
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| I've seen that it doesn't have the ability to phone home on
| it's own but that OTA updates and other connectivity relies on
| you using their optional phone app and your phones internet
| connection.
|
| That's the killer feature for me, if this actually comes out
| the after market mods are going to be amazing, having a test
| bed for creating your own self driving rigs is going to be a
| complete game changer.
|
| It's so hackable (in a good way) that this platform could
| foster a whole knew segment of the population getting into EV
| manufacturing and dramatically increase the talent pool the
| same way the VW beetle and the Lisa Computer did, hobbyist
| hackers are the greatest pool for technical founders.
|
| Not to mention replacing the exterior panels with custom
| displays and other amazing "Art Car" opportunities.
| nkurz wrote:
| It took me a few articles to even find it mentioned, so I'll
| repeat it here in case anyone else was wondering: it's rear wheel
| drive only.
| inahga wrote:
| Darn, with removable doors and top, I thought this could be a
| Jeep killer. But no 4WD makes that a non-starter.
| subpixel wrote:
| With a 1000lb towing capacity and 150m range (let's call that 120
| when you don't charge 100%) this eliminates too many use cases.
|
| It's the anti-cybertruck but aimed at people who actually could
| get by with a nice trailer.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >this eliminates too many use cases
|
| Such as? Seems like it meets a lot of use cases.
| hedora wrote:
| You could get a used non-truck EV, add a tow hitch and you'd
| be able to move more weight in the trunk and in the trailer
| than this thing can.
|
| Of course, it's a truck, so it can move light + bulky stuff,
| like appliances and furniture.
|
| Personally, I'd want to pay another $5-10K and get one that
| can also handle heavy loads. This, but for $30K ($37.5K pre
| incentives) with no truck-related caveats would be amazing.
| I'm guessing it wouldn't cost $10K for them to upgrade the
| suspension + drivetrain.
| Suppafly wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand your point, obviously it's not a
| replacement for a larger ICE vehicle with 4-5x towing
| capacity, but it's not designed or meant to be.
| subpixel wrote:
| But what is it designed for? I understand it's
| appealingly different, but it doesn't do anything that a
| trailer doesn't do. And not much that any SUV can't do.
|
| I have a homemade trailer with greater bed capacity than
| this pick-up that I got for $800 and use it for a myriad
| of things - from hauling lumber to launching small boats.
| I've driven it hundreds of miles to the closest Ikea.
|
| When I'm not using it, it's not attached to my low-end
| SUV. But with the seats down, there isn't a whole lot my
| low-end SUV can't do as well as this toy pick-up, without
| range anxiety.
| neogodless wrote:
| Just about anyone who doesn't mind the slight inconvenience and
| has space for a trailer... would be better off with a trailer
| than a truck.
|
| But this could easily handle a mild commute and nearby errand
| running. Most "truck" stuff is like buying 5 bags of mulch from
| the Home Depot that's 10 minutes away. This will handle that
| perfectly well.
|
| But yes, 20-80% battery usage makes the base model daily range
| 90 miles, unladen.
| rgbrgb wrote:
| Kind of a big light phone [0]. China has had these for a bit, I'd
| guess there's a decent market for them, though hesitant to buy
| the first production model of any car, given how dependent we
| seem to be on warranties and market forces to ensure
| manufacturing quality and the poor survival rates for new car
| companies. Interested in v2 for sure.
|
| [0]: https://www.thelightphone.com/
| flustercan wrote:
| Its a cool car, but forgive me for not getting Lucy-Footballed
| again by an electric car startup claiming to be able to "change
| the game" while never actually getting any cars sold.
| jandrese wrote:
| Yeah, the completely unrealistic timeline, price point, and the
| fact that the company is only now looking to hire engineers
| sets off my "fun looking product that will never be available
| for sale" alarms. I don't think they even have a prototype
| built yet, everything you see is just a render. They have not
| even started planning how to start building the factory.
|
| The price point is assuming the R&D is already paid off, the
| factory is built, the supply lines are optimized, and they're
| building a million of these things every year. History has
| shown that you can't start off with a cheap mass produced car
| as your only product because mass production requires way too
| much startup capital. The success stories started with hand
| built extremely expensive cars that were used to pay down R&D
| costs and keep the company afloat while they built the factory
| for the mass production model.
|
| About the only way I see this happening is if Bezos goes all in
| and dumps an outrageous amount of money into getting the
| production line running knowing that he won't see a return for
| at least a decade or more, and I don't think he's quite that
| generous. Also this assumes that cheap lightweight powerful
| batteries become widely available in the next couple of years.
| floxy wrote:
| >I don't think they even have a prototype built yet
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/757237/slate-ev-spotted-los-
| angel...
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/757649/slate-auto-truck-suv-
| revea...
| perihelions wrote:
| In rebuttal:
|
| - _" This doesn't seem to be a working vehicle. The
| Autopian's David Tracy climbed underneath and didn't see
| any powertrain or proper suspension components, indicating
| this is a non-functional show car."_
| rainingmonkey wrote:
| > The Autopian's David Tracy climbed underneath and didn't
| see any powertrain or proper suspension components,
| indicating this is a non-functional show car.
| danans wrote:
| From the related Ars article[1]:
|
| > Rather than relying on a built-in infotainment system, you'll
| use your phone plugged into a USB outlet or a dedicated tablet
| inside the cabin for your entertainment and navigation needs.
|
| How is a "dedicated tablet" different than an infotainment
| system, other than not having vehicle telematics and controls?
| Also, a regular tablet UX would be dangerous while driving, and
| typically they don't have their own mobile data connections.
|
| 1. https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/amazon-backed-
| startup-w...
| xnx wrote:
| > Also, a regular tablet UX would be dangerous while driving,
| and typically they don't have their own mobile data
| connections.
|
| I think it's still possible to run the Android Auto app (with
| its purpose-built interface) on a regular tablet.
| vel0city wrote:
| Android Auto for Phones has been dead for a few years. That
| would be the app you'd use on an Android tablet.
|
| https://www.autoevolution.com/news/android-auto-for-
| phones-i...
|
| Also, these days AA can connect to the car's systems to do
| range estimations for its route suggestions and suggest
| charging on the routes. I'd hope whatever connectivity they
| do here includes sharing that data with the device in the
| cabin.
| shayway wrote:
| Not being built-in is significant. Infotainment systems tend to
| get outdated, and are also a common point of failure that can
| be expensive to fix, so not having the tablet hardwired in
| allows for people to choose their own setup and is also more
| future-proof.
| danans wrote:
| > Infotainment systems tend to get outdated, and are also a
| common point of failure that can be expensive to fix
|
| Android Auto and CarPlay solve that problem for
| navigation/communication/entertainment. The automakers aren't
| going to provide an open API to the vehicle control systems,
| for both competitive and safety reasons.
|
| What would be nice is the old fashioned DIN interface, where
| you could install an aftermarket AA/CarPlay unit like this:
|
| https://www.bestbuy.com/site/pioneer-10-1-hd-screen-
| luminous...
| kcb wrote:
| > Android Auto and CarPlay solve that problem for
| navigation/communication/entertainment.
|
| I can definitely see a day where Apple or Google decide to
| discontinue support on vehicles older than 201x that lack
| some new hardware specification.
| ldoughty wrote:
| It's exactly what I think a lot of techies want.
|
| Highly technical people tend to come in two varieties when it
| comes to electronics in their personal life:
|
| 1. Absolutely nothing smart that's not under their direct (or
| highly configurable) control.
|
| 2. Sure just take all my data I don't care. I'll pay
| subscriptions fees too.
|
| Modern cars mostly do #2... to the point we potentially faced a
| subscription being required to enable seat warmers [0]. There's
| basically no cars on the market that do #1 anymore.
|
| And with #2, you're bound by what the vehicle manufacturer
| decides. They are ending up like forced cable boxes - minimum
| viable product quality. They can be slow to change pages/views
| and finicky in touch responses... which I think are actually
| more dangerous... but this is our only option if this is the
| car we pick... and almost no one decides on a car for it's
| infotainment, so it's not a feature that gets much love or
| attention.
|
| Additionally, technology moves too fast. My first car had a
| tape deck. The next one had a CD Player.. then I had to get an
| mp3-player-to-radio dongle, then I replaced my infotainment
| system with a bluetooth supporting one... and so on.. Even
| Android Auto (early versions) integrated directly into the
| infotainment system and needed potentially proprietary cables
| (USB-to-proprietary connector), and the systems did not look
| designed to be upgraded/replaced.
|
| This model here allows you to upgrade your infotainment system
| every time you upgrade your phone (or dedicated tablet)... or
| simply by changing apps.
|
| Also, Android Auto has mostly solved that UX issue (It's the
| same UX on a tablet as on an equivalent built-in infotainment
| system).. Though iPads probably (?) don't have a similar
| feature.
|
| So I think the 'bring your own infotainment' idea is awesome.
|
| 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23718101
| danans wrote:
| It's not clear what they mean by "dedicated tablet". If it's
| an integrated add-on provided by the company that just does
| Android-Auto/CarPlay, then that seems OK. If it's just a
| holster for a tablet, not so much.
|
| > It's exactly what I think a lot of techies want.
|
| > Highly technical people tend to come in two varieties when
| it comes to electronics in their personal life:
|
| I get it, I'm one of them. But using a tablet while driving
| is fundamentally dangerous to other people on the road,
| drivers or pedestrians. Android Auto and CarPlay are barely
| constrained enough to allow for distraction free driving.
|
| I've lost hope that we're going back to days of people
| actually paying attention to the task of driving (even I take
| phone calls and play media while driving), but normalizing
| distraction by encouraging use of a tablet or phone seems
| like a public safety mistake, even if it appeals to the
| techie crowd.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Also, a regular tablet UX would be dangerous while driving
|
| A passenger could operate it.
| danans wrote:
| A passenger can do that today with just a tablet in their
| lap. Why attach it to the dashboard?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Oh, I maybe misread it - thought it meant you could plug
| your own tablet into the speaker system.
| danans wrote:
| You can do that in any car today. Nor is there a lack of
| devices available for physically attaching a regular
| tablet to your dashboard.
|
| The question is whether a car maker should be encouraging
| or enabling a generic touch screen tablet to be installed
| on the dashboard versus an infotainment device with
| constrained functionality like AA/CP designed to minimize
| driver distraction.
|
| I would be happy with a built-in screen that did nothing
| but AA/CP while the car was driving, and then reverted to
| a normal tablet interface when the car is parked.
|
| Climate control, etc should be physical knobs and
| buttons. Anything critical to driving should be on or
| near the steering wheel.
| n42 wrote:
| please, god, let this thing make it to production in the US!
| mgaunard wrote:
| With all those missing of basic features why is it still 20k and
| not 10k?
| Suppafly wrote:
| >With all those missing of basic features why is it still 20k
| and not 10k?
|
| Because you can't sell a car for 10k in the US without losing
| money.
| mgaunard wrote:
| I never bought a car for more than 10k. Seems like a huge
| waste of money.
| saalweachter wrote:
| ... are you complaining that the price of a new vehicle is
| higher than the price of a used vehicle?
| Suppafly wrote:
| We're talking about new cars not used ones. Wait a few
| years and you'll be able to get one of these for 10k too.
| It makes no sense to discuss used car prices when talking
| about how much a new one costs.
| meonkeys wrote:
| This'll seem a like an odd question given the obvious bare-bones
| approach, but still: Is or could be instrumented for self-
| driving? I can't imagine us humans driving forever. Otherwise
| this looks like a dream truck to me. Easy DIY repair, electric,
| fewer distractions, meant for work not showing off.
| carlgreene wrote:
| Man this is so awesome. I do really think they need to consider
| the fold down bed sides like the kei trucks have.
|
| The bed being plastic doesn't give me much confidence either. The
| payload may be similar to a mini truck, but a mini truck's metal
| bed will take a significant beating over plastic.
|
| This is very, very close to what I want, but I worry that those
| two things may prevent me from actually pulling the trigger.
| While all of the modular features are cool and neat, I don't
| really consider them very useful for what I would actually use
| this truck for.
|
| The purpose of this seems to be a fleet or Personal utility
| truck, but I still feel like I would be leaning towards a used
| old Ford Ranger or similar.
| rightbyte wrote:
| "Awesome" is understating it.
|
| "Tisha Johnson, head of design at Slate and who formerly spent
| a decade at Volvo."
|
| Ye. This is a Volvo station wagon, that Volvo themself
| discontinued in 2016 becouse it was too popular.
| jayd16 wrote:
| No stereo is a bridge too far.
| emeril wrote:
| yeah I agree, afraid it doesn't have a/c either
|
| should cost like nothing to add simple stereo system with a
| couple speakers
| krunck wrote:
| "...but is this extreme simplification too much for American
| consumers?"
|
| Not this one. It's the premiumization that drove me away from
| every EV product out there.
|
| Plus, load up the back with more batteries and you've got great
| range!
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > The simplification goes simpler still. Slate will make just one
| vehicle, in just one trim, in just one color, with everything
| from bigger battery packs to SUV upgrade kits added on later.
|
| Makes me wonder if, once "normal" features are added, cost and
| reliability will be a problem?
|
| In contrast, I could see this really helping the dealer model
| work because dealers could compete with different customizations.
|
| That being said: At least when it comes to the battery,
| efficiencies come from a single large battery instead of a
| modular battery. I suspect they'll need to offer a larger battery
| at the factory.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Video review:
|
| https://youtu.be/iVeYjxQPdz4?si=RU4gWmJk5WJHiac5
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| > Meet the Slate Truck, a sub-$20,000 (after federal incentives)
| electric vehicle that enters production next year.
|
| Then it isn't < $20000. It is a pitch.
| Rumudiez wrote:
| I love it, now give me a gas engine so I can take it on weeklong
| off-road camping trips
| bluGill wrote:
| I want a generator hookup in the bed. A 5kw generator will get
| me all day and then when I'm done for the day charge the
| battery and provide me other generator benefits.
| xnx wrote:
| It's a shame reasonably sized and reasonably priced imports are
| illegal. We could have much better vehicles for this price now.
| twiddling wrote:
| All about the chicken
|
| https://www.autoblog.com/news/why-the-chicken-tax-still-cont...
| metalman wrote:
| go the next step, and offer box and wheel/tire deleet, lots of
| people will have or can get wheels/tires that will fit, if they
| use one of the popular size combos, and many would opt for a flat
| deck, or custom purpose box see if it can be squeezed down to
| 20k, taxes in delivered with no box, they can be stacked, piggy
| back, just the way commercial heavy trucks are stacked for
| delivery.....more per load, less trips
| incanus77 wrote:
| I love this. We have a Fiat 500 EV that we got for $8k used
| that's a fantastic city / small hauling car, and this beats it in
| many qualities in a way that's still minimalist, reasonably
| affordable, and low maintenance (if as promised). We also have a
| 1986 4WD VW camper van which gets the big jobs done but is still
| manageable in the city. This truck is like the DIY marriage of
| the two.
| soared wrote:
| Does this strategy even make sense? You can charge $20k for a
| car. Why wouldn't you add options that cost you nearly nothing
| but some amount of buyers will opt in for a meaningful revenue
| increase.
|
| Charge $1k for paint. Even if 95% of people don't do that, 5% of
| orders just increased their revenue by 5%. Paint doesn't take
| engineering time.. just spend $500 and let some other company do
| it. This is why trims exist, having a single low price point
| means people who want to spend more either produce lower revenue
| than possible, or are disappointed.
|
| IMO this one trim, one price is almost certainly a prelaunch
| marketing gimmick as from a business perspective there is
| literally no benefit.
| disgruntled1901 wrote:
| > Paint doesn't take engineering time.. just spend $500 and let
| some other company do it.
|
| Are you sure you read the article? The is explicitly addressed.
| soared wrote:
| DIY wrap kit I guess is a form of options, but again seems
| like a missed revenue opportunity. Some of your market wants
| DIY customization, but realistically some anmount of (or
| almost every) consumer would rather pay +$1000 for a nice
| colored than $400 for a wrap kit.
| tetris11 wrote:
| I think it better if they just give options for easy modding.
| You take it to a garage for a mechanic to spray it, or to
| hollow out radio nook, or add a phone charger outlet.
| joezydeco wrote:
| The moment you say "just", you've lost the argument.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| In the YT video (linked in another comment), it claims they
| save $350M by not building painting facilities.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| This sounds great. There are not any pictures of the interior but
| I hope it is also very simple and not full of difficult to reach
| nooks and crannies that are impossible to clean.
| Nelkins wrote:
| Seems a bit like a spiritual successor to the Jeep Cherokee XJ,
| which also has a very strong DIY community around it.
| Rover222 wrote:
| 150 miles of range is pretty terrible, especially when it's
| winter and you have a load in the back. Suddenly that's 70 miles
| of range.
|
| I get that it's a bargain price, so that's the tradeoff. But a
| pretty bad one.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I expect an extra battery option will be a thing.
| morsch wrote:
| From the ars article:
|
| The truck will come with a choice of two battery packs: a
| 57.2 kWh battery pack with rear-wheel drive and a target
| range of 150 miles and an 84.3 kWh battery pack with a target
| of 240 miles (386 km).
| alistairSH wrote:
| ~$30k for a manual-window, slow-charging truck? Will anybody in
| the US actually want one?
|
| It's a cool concept... looks good to my eye, small trucks are
| neat, etc. But, I'd want push-button windows, up-to-date charge
| controller/battery tech, and the normal EV integrated app. Maybe
| if it was really a $20k truck (they're advertising the price
| after incentives, many of which are either going away or vanish
| for higher income earners).
| tverbeure wrote:
| Why slow-charging? I didn't see anything about that in the
| article?
| alistairSH wrote:
| 120kW charging system, so ~30 minute 20-80% (on a relatively
| small battery), was what I saw. It's not "wall plug" slow,
| but it's nowhere near state-of-the-art. The small battery and
| slow(-ish) charging means it's mostly a run-about and less
| (relatively) suitable for roadtrips. The American market
| loves to buy on the most intense use, not the average or
| minimal - giant pickup trucks because somebody might go to
| Home Depot once a season or tow a small boat at the
| beginning/end of lake season. Etc.
| ac29 wrote:
| 120kW charging isnt slow by any reasonable standard,
| especially for a vehicle with a <60kWh battery.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >I'd want push-button windows, up-to-date charge
| controller/battery tech, and the normal EV integrated app.
|
| Don't they already have Cybertrucks for that ;)
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _It 's a cool concept... looks good to my eye, small trucks
| are neat_
|
| And it's barely a truck, 1000-lb towing capacity. A VW Golf can
| tow twice as much.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Makes you wonder if they picked that form factor to appeal to
| a certain market segment that's current underserved?
|
| I love the concept, but at $20.000USD it's to much. My guess
| is that they'd need to hit 15.000USD for the extend range
| version. Two minor thing I would chance, as others pointed
| out: Bench seat, and the second: Just make the holes/mounting
| options for an after market stereo.
|
| Hopefully this is successful and will push other
| manufacturers to create similar options. I saw an old Morris
| parked outside the gym the other day, it took up maybe 2/3 of
| a parking space, it was perfectly size for my grandparents,
| it perfectly sized for my needs. I get that the car grows a
| bit in size, once all the modern safety features are added,
| but I don't see why that would amount to much more than the
| size of say an Opel Kadett D or E, or a Volvo for the 1980s.
| floxy wrote:
| >at $20.000USD it's to much.
|
| Tell me you haven't purchased a vehicle in the current
| millennium, without telling me?
|
| >15.000USD for the extend range version
|
| Buy a used one in 2035 with 80k miles?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Thing is, it's not even really a $20k truck. It's a ~$30k
| truck, with some federal rebates available to some
| buyers.
|
| If it was a legit $20k truck/SUV, it would make a fine
| replacement for my wife's current car (at least by usage
| requirements, but not even close by style/luxury
| demands).
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I bought a new car (EV) 3 years ago. $20K is too much for
| a 150m range truck, though I probably still wouldn't buy
| a 150m truck for $15K.
| floxy wrote:
| Nissan is still selling 2,300 LEAFs per quarter, with a
| much worse charging story.
|
| https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/nissan-group-
| repor...
| neogodless wrote:
| Anyone? Sure. If this was available 2 months ago, I may have
| bought one instead of a used Polestar. The Polestar is wildly
| faster, more luxurious, better range, but I'd have liked a
| truck, and if I got the $7500 tax credit, I'd have paid about
| $9k less for this. (Used, 20k miles, $29k.)
|
| Lots of people? Much harder to say. Has to be either "first
| car" kind of thing for someone young, or "second car" in a
| family where it's OK to have a 2-seater with limited range be
| used for commuting/errands. (Or "third car" for people with
| money to spare.)
| alistairSH wrote:
| There's a 5-seat SUV version, so that expands the market a
| bit. I'm still not convinced it'll sell without beefing up
| the specs a bit while maintaining the price.
|
| _" third car" for people with money to spare._
|
| Yeah, but the same ~$20k - $30k buys you a heck of a lot more
| ICE. A new Maverick XLT starts in that range. Or a Lariat
| trim at $34k. And if this is just a toy, that same money gets
| you in a new base or very high-spec used Miata.
| floxy wrote:
| >(Or "third car" for people with money to spare.)
|
| ...or have a spouse and many driving age children. I'm
| currently in the market for car for the fifth driver in the
| family.
| quantadev wrote:
| This Truck is gonna be a big Hit with consumers!
|
| But once it starts selling like hotcakes they'll jack up the
| price to "Whatever the Market will Bear" relative to how many
| they're able to produce.
|
| With most people struggling to get by nowadays (economically)
| we'll love the "less gadgetry" option because all that advanced
| technology stuff (and I do mean even power windows!) is, as my
| father always said, "Just something else that's going to
| eventually break, and was designed so it must be replaced not
| repaired."
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| I hope they succeed, this is a great idea. I'd love something
| like this.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| > Instead of steel or aluminum, the Slate Truck's body panels are
| molded of plastic.
|
| Deal breaker. Plastic gets brittle with age.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Replace it then?
| jcgrillo wrote:
| That's really expensive, I'm actually in the process of
| replacing the plastic front and rear bumpers on my 1999 W210
| Benz and just the plastic parts add up to over $1k before
| paint. Having a shop do the whole thing would probably cost
| $5k or more. I'd rather pay up front whatever it costs to
| have steel body panels than deal with plastic.
| bluGill wrote:
| depends on the plastic. Some do much better than others.
| mcoliver wrote:
| This is amazing. More car manufacturers should get out of the
| infotainment business. tablet tethered to a cellphone for
| reception, and a connection to OBD2 for car data is all you need
| and allows for easy upgrades/replacements when things fail.
|
| I do think they should keep in mind that people will want to do
| this and at least design the dash to easily accept a tablet mount
| (vesa standard), amp mount (plug and play Pyle 120v?), speaker
| wire, and speakers (6x9 or 6.5"). That's an easy hour install if
| everything is standardized, accessible, and doesn't require
| drilling.
|
| Would also love seating for 5.
| neogodless wrote:
| https://www.slate.auto/en
|
| Not sure if the article covers it (I read Ars Technica's, not
| Verge) but the Slate site shows that they do have support for
| tablets, bluetooth speaker mounts, 3-seat back row, etc.)
|
| While speaker wiring might be nice... I sense that's less
| likely to be readily supported. Mounts + wireless + USB port
| for charging is probably the limit there.
|
| Of course, used truck buyers tend to be happy to run some
| wiring for things like CB, radar, extra lighting, etc. Doesn't
| matter if the wiring is _showing_!
| sparrish wrote:
| In Colorado, I need 4x4 sometimes. Slate is just RWD. I'd love to
| see a minimalistic 4x4 model like this.
| imoreno wrote:
| RWD on an electric truck, lol. What a joke.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > RWD on an electric truck, lol. What a joke.
|
| My ignorance is going to shine through here, but isn't the
| rear axle the one you'd want driven if you had to choose?
|
| Sure, both is "better" but if I need cheap, rear is the
| better choice?
| bluGill wrote:
| Depends. rear wheel drives can get stuck on pavement if it
| is raining and they are trying to go uphill. Snow and ice
| make it worse. But put some load on and you get enough
| weight over the axel to be fine. Of course betteries may be
| under the bed thus providing good weight distribution.
| scrapey wrote:
| I like the idea, but I think a hybrid version would be the better
| first product. A 150 mile range is going to limit the people who
| will purchase this truck.
| flkiwi wrote:
| Me, showing this to my wife: Oh, they made a car for you!
|
| She's not wrong, though I'm not at a point where I want THIS much
| minimalism (or lack of range). What a great product though.
|
| Now, the Ineos Grenadier? That thing speaks right to my soul.
| popcalc wrote:
| https://www.autoscout24.com/offers/isuzu-npr-npr-77-35q-li-d...
|
| 1/3 of the price including tax credit. Too maximalist?
| scblock wrote:
| Looks like a concept that will never actually reach the market.
|
| And if it does and I'm completely wrong, this concept is probably
| doomed anyways, as it is swinging far too far to the other side
| away from fancy tech and right into uselessly bare. I'm sure a
| few people are excited by this, but realistically it will have a
| tiny real market. Nearly no one wants manual windows and leaving
| them out isn't saving huge amount of money.
|
| Make it comparable to a decent conventional vehicle, but
| electric, and you may do well. This though is more useless and
| non-functional than my old Jeep, which has a trip computer and
| bluetooth as the biggest "tech features".
| imoreno wrote:
| It seems performative. They remove a bunch of stuff nobody ever
| complained about, like paint or radio. Meanwhile it still has
| an app and it's still electric with pitiful range. The goal
| isn't to actually fix the car market, but provide a sort of
| self-flagellation experience so people can feel good about
| suffering with no radio, no ac, no auto windows... And I doubt
| they will reach that goal, sounds more like some kind of
| investor scam. With all these controversial design decisions
| they can brag to investors it's "making waves on popular
| platforms like hn".
| ein0p wrote:
| As far as I can tell, it's "$20K" the same way Cybertruck was
| "$39K". It's not available for purchase yet, and when it is,
| it'll be twice as much, because Bezos also likes money.
| sleepyguy wrote:
| I hope they separate the BMS from the battery, unlike Tesla and
| others, which force you to replace the entire battery if the BMS
| fails. What a concept, allowing people to personalize and repair
| their own vehicles.
| asdsadasdasd123 wrote:
| I like it but minimalism always fails for complex products
| because everyone wants a different 80% of the features cut. You
| can already see it in the comments haha.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Do youngs know how to use manual windows? LOL
| bluGill wrote:
| They show off that fancy feature to their friends. the first
| kids I saw doing this are now getting their phd.
| JackC wrote:
| > It only seats two yet has a bed big enough to hold a sheet of
| plywood.
|
| Not really the point of the article, but, does it? This[0] says
| the bed is 60 inches long and 43 wide, and plywood is 96x48
| inches. Is it like, any vehicle fits plywood if you cut it to the
| size of the truck or stack it on top?
|
| [0] https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-slate-truck-is-two-feet-
| sh...
| goodness wrote:
| That appears to be the bed width between the wheel wells. I
| assume it would fit width wise on top of the wheels, which is
| still in the bed. As to the length, not even most full size
| trucks are long enough to fit the whole sheet. I guess the main
| point is that you wouldn't have any trouble getting the sheet
| of plywood home.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| 8 foot beds do exist. They're very rare nowadays with nearly
| every truck being a super-extra-mega cab 4 door.
| jandrese wrote:
| You generally have to find someone willing to sell you a
| fleet vehicle if you want a full 8 foot bed. Modern trucks
| are more like minivans with a vestigial bed sticking out of
| the back.
| jes5199 wrote:
| I have on old fleet truck: four full doors and an eight-
| foot bed. I love it, it's getting quite old, and I have
| no idea how I'm ever going to replace it
| jandrese wrote:
| In my old Ranger there were a couple of spots in the bed
| where you could put a couple of 2x8 beams across it and have
| a place to stack 4x8 sheets. You did have to lower the
| tailgate, but they didn't stick out past the end of the
| lowered tailgate so there was no special requirements (flags
| etc...) for hauling them. It was very convenient. I would
| hope this truck has a similar feature, since it's almost free
| to add and increases the utility greatly.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Tailgate down, plywood lying with one edge on the bed and the
| other on the side?
|
| But I agree, I would expect it to be able to fully contain a
| standard sheet of plywood if it made that claim.
| edaemon wrote:
| Yeah, it's interesting that their FAQ [1] just says it can fit
| "full size sheets of plywood" and their specs page [2] also
| does not list the actual dimensions, only the volume. A 60"x43"
| bed would technically fit a 96"x48" sheet, but you would have
| to lean one edge against the side of the bed.
|
| That said, the article you linked appears to list the bed width
| at the wheel wells. They say the Maverick's bed is 42.6" wide
| but above the wheel wells it 53" wide or so. You can find
| plenty of pictures of people hauling plywood with one. I
| suspect the Slate is similar.
|
| [1]: https://www.slate.auto/en/faq
|
| [2]: https://www.slate.auto/en/specs
| os2warpman wrote:
| People say they, and many other Americans, want a cheap and
| simple truck. They're lying.
|
| I know you don't believe me but it's true.
|
| Automotive sales numbers are public information. Every single
| time a VIN is stamped into some metal, that record is public. The
| gradual decline in the sale of small, simple, cheap trucks is
| well documented.
|
| People want full-sized trucks.
|
| People say they love manual transmissions, too. They walk right
| past the manual Tacomas and Jeeps and buy an automatic.
|
| People say they love station wagons. Then they go to the Volvo
| dealership and walk right past the V60 and buy an XC60.
|
| People say they want a cheap car. Then they walk right past the
| base model Corolla and throw down $50k on a Rav4 Limited.
|
| Only enthusiasts and weirdos like me will buy one of these.
|
| A company whose audience is enthusiasts and weirdos must charge a
| shit-ton to stay in business. $20k isn't a shit-ton and if their
| strategy is to make up the difference on upgrades, they're not
| selling cheap trucks anymore.
|
| I know what Americans, in aggregate, want. They want a big-ass
| SUV with heated and cooled seats with a screen that stretches
| across the entire god damned dash, 360 degree cameras, RGB mood
| lighting, 47 speakers, and second-row captain's chairs that make
| getting to the third row easy.
|
| I own 3 cars, a Fiat 124 (MANUAL) Spider, a Volvo V70, and an
| Alfa Romeo Giulia.
|
| But I am a weirdo, and because of this those companies are about
| to go extinct (in the US, at least).
|
| I'm the guy that ran OS/2 and BeOS until the bitter end. I prefer
| writing software in Ada. I had a Saab.
|
| I am literally and actually a subject matter expert on this shit.
|
| I know what normal people want, and this ain't it. I know this
| because I want it.
| mthulhu wrote:
| When is the last time a car this cheap looked this good?
| Irresistible to weirdos like us.
| mrWiz wrote:
| > if their strategy is to make up the difference on upgrades,
| they're not selling cheap trucks anymore.
|
| They are very explicit about not offering upgrades, and the
| benefit that has on simplifying manufacturing.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| are you sure that people want "trucks" the size of tanks or is
| it that the US is now in an arms race focused on vehicle size?
| Could it be that reasonably sized vehicles are just not
| available?
|
| The auto companies' argument about what consumers "want" is
| mostly nonsense.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| I see this and I don't see it as an every day, driving-on-my-
| commute style vehicle. As someone who (previously) drove a 2014
| honda civic, cheaper cars leave _a lot_ of comfort for longer
| drives. I can 't imagine this barebones vehicle being fun to
| drive for any extended period of time, or any extended distance,
| unless you'd spent considerable time customizing it to those
| needs (at which point, you've probably spent more than buying
| something off the shelf).
|
| I do see this being great for short utility trips (think running
| errands, picking something up, etc), and as a utility vehicle
| (would be nice to be able to have an 8ft bed).
|
| It would be really interesting to me to see a fleet of vehicles
| like this that are ultra-rentable; think a Bird/Lime scooter, but
| a utility truck.
| rockostrich wrote:
| > I do see this being great for short utility trips (think
| running errands, picking something up, etc), and as a utility
| vehicle (would be nice to be able to have an 8ft bed).
|
| Japan and the rest of the world figured this out decades ago.
| They're called kei trucks. You can buy pre-2000 imported ones
| in the US from like $5-15k depending on the
| miles/condition/year/transmission. I have a 1990 Suzuki Carry
| that is solely used for trips to Home Depot and picking up
| random furniture from FB Marketplace that I got for $6k.
| hbsbsbsndk wrote:
| Aren't there issues with states randomly revoking
| registration for imported kei vehicles because of
| emissions/safety/whatever?
| nrmitchi wrote:
| Not going to say it's _right_ , but for a vehicle that is
| occassionally used to drive between your home and the
| hardware store, I'm sure that a ton of these types of
| vehicles are just not registered. Even if you get caught
| without registration, the inconvenience is relatively minor
| (when compared to a daily-driver not being registered)
| rockostrich wrote:
| I'm in NJ so as long as it's 30 years or older there's no
| emissions required. If you're in a state that doesn't allow
| registration of kei trucks then there are companies that
| make it pretty straightforward to get them titled and
| registered in states that have very lax laws like Montana.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| > Japan and the rest of the world figured this out decades
| ago.
|
| And it's great that the US is (seemingly, somewhat) catching
| up.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| If the timing weren't so off (I _just_ bought a compact
| electric car), then this would have been a real possibility for
| me: 150 miles is about 1 weeks worth of driving for me, it 's
| usually just me (or occasionally +1), and we have my wife's car
| for driving the whole family long distances. Of course I'm
| skeptical that it will come in under $27,500 (implied by the
| "Under $20k after federal incentives), and if it's much more
| than that it will start to get squeezed by other options.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| Completely agree. It has to end up cheap enough to be a
| "tool", rather than a "vehicle". If there isn't a clear
| price-based market segmentation between the two, this will
| get crushed.
| maxglute wrote:
| How much before incentives?
|
| TFW just want cheap Hilux Champ.
| Peanuts99 wrote:
| This is like a car version of the Framework laptop. Love it.
| pnw wrote:
| I'm really intrigued to see how this does. Kudos to Slate for
| trying something new and building it in Detroit at a great price
| point.
|
| I see a ton of discussion on social media from people who want to
| buy simpler vehicles with less features at a better price point
| (e.g. the Japanese Kei trucks). I'm not convinced Americans will
| actually buy such a vehicle because we are used to our modern
| conveniences in new vehicles. You can even see that trend in this
| thread where people are asking for more features, or things that
| were phased out decades ago due to safety (e.g. bench seats).
| Perhaps Slate has figured that out with their options packaging?
| I'm rooting for them regardless.
| sema4hacker wrote:
| > I'm not convinced Americans will actually buy such a vehicle
| because we are used to our modern conveniences
|
| My town is FULL of workers doing hauling, painting, gardening,
| construction, etc., and they're all driving old worn rusting
| pickups that barely seem held together. There's definitely a
| market for minimal trucks designed to just get the job done
| without the "modern conveniences".
| twiddling wrote:
| I also see this truck appealing to city/college/corp. campus
| fleets.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered
| pickup with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-
| sized pickup for being too fuel inefficient, despite likely
| getting much better mileage than an F-150 because, since 2011,
| bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1].
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better
| than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| That's overly reductive.
|
| 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you
| solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon
| emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive.
|
| 2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for
| manufacturers to make more efficient cars should lead any
| carbon tax
|
| 3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel
| economy without regard to vehicle size, then it would be
| rather bad for US car companies (who employ unionized
| workers) that historically make larger cars than Asian and
| European companies.
|
| 4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard
| for passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in
| minivans and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the
| light-truck rating
|
| 5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have
| today, but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small
| vehicles. Given that the formula was forward looking, it was
| almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but
| it hasn't been updated.
| bflesch wrote:
| Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not
| taxed at all, even in the EU.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Which is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should
| be taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on
| private jet fuel would be reasonable.
|
| The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side
| of the country to the next (For some, multiple times per
| day) is insane. You should need to be a billionaire just
| to afford flying private jets and it should still eat a
| significant portion of your income if that's what you
| choose to do.
|
| And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does
| anyone need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to
| California in a day?
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people
| like say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and
| high speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might
| like if you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be
| at lands end in half an hour. You might like getting on a
| high speed rail and being in LA in 4 hours.
|
| These guy will never ride a subway or take a train
| anywhere.
| gonzoflip wrote:
| I'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not
| liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try
| to build a subterranean high speed rail?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far
| no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely
| possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to
| stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in
| California[1].
|
| The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically
| a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity.
|
| > In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at
| 1,355 passengers per hour.
|
| As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000
| passengers per hour[3] per direction or more.
|
| [1] https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-
| to-stop-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Ce
| nter_Lo...
|
| [3] https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-
| station-rid...
| gonzoflip wrote:
| Did I say it was a good idea? I was merely pointing out
| that there's evidence that he is not the best example for
| people that hate high-speed rails and subways.
|
| >Stop the development of high speed rail in California
|
| I thought that got funded, what happened?
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| You'll note to two things that ties the hyper loop and
| the Las Vegas Loop together is private cars.
|
| Don't discount that these guys find ordinary people to be
| scary and disgusting.
| rasz wrote:
| >didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
|
| _for cars_
| lenkite wrote:
| Many politicians campaigning for green energy (aka AOC)
| also fly on private jets everywhere so that they can
| fight the oligarchy - this behavior isn't restricted to
| wealthy businessmen alone.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Depressingly, I think that's why a law to stop this
| behavior won't pass in the US. Wealthy and powerful
| people love their private flights.
|
| Doesn't mean that anyone engaging in this behavior should
| get a pass nor that we shouldn't keep advocating for such
| a tax.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| Ffs
| michpoch wrote:
| What makes a jet private? Should Trump's Boegin 757 count
| as one? What if an airline is flying a jet with no
| passengers? Cargo jets?
| foobarchu wrote:
| The same thing that differentiate a private car from
| public transportation or freight, I would think. This
| distinction isn't a particularly novel problem.
| michpoch wrote:
| We don't differentiate these in any significant way. Do
| buses in your country pay different rate for fuel?
|
| There are vans carrying 6 people on international routes
| in Europe, is this public transport? Private? Anyone can
| book it.
| almostnormal wrote:
| > Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains)
| not taxed at all, even in the EU.
|
| Not correct. Fuel for private aviation is taxed,
| including jet fuel and avgas. However, there are very few
| "private" jets, most are operated by some company, and
| therefore not private. Jet-A1 for a truely privately
| operated C172 with a diesel engine is taxed.
| sokoloff wrote:
| This is a common trope, but is incorrect, at least for
| the US.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_
| Sta...
| breakyerself wrote:
| Carbon taxes become progressive with the simple step of
| returning the revenue to taxpayers as a dividend payment
| using the existing social security payment infrastructure.
| Richer people have such outsized carbon footprints that
| most people would get back more in dividends than they lost
| in higher costs.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| All carbon tax is inherently regressive but that's also
| trivially fixable. Make it revenue neutral and give every
| citizen a flat portion of the total collected revenue. Bam,
| it is now _progressive_ , since on average richer people
| will spend more on fuel (and therefore the tax) even though
| it is likely a much smaller _percentage_ of their spending.
|
| Every single one of your ideas has problems that are solved
| by a carbon tax. Taxes are simple, they accomplish what you
| want, and they don't have loopholes. A carbon tax will
| _never_ have the unintended consequence of making emissions
| worse. Many of our current regulations, including the one I
| was responding to _do exactly that_ because they actually
| cause people to buy larger trucks than they otherwise would
| with worse fuel efficiency.
|
| A carbon tax might not on it's own be enough to solve the
| problem (especially if you set it to low), but no matter
| what level you set it, it will _help_. Thanks to unintended
| consequences, many of our current regulations are actively
| counter productive, while _also_ having negative economic
| and other costs.
| abakker wrote:
| All costs are regressive to people with less ability to
| bear them. By making them not regressive we don't change
| behavior! It doesn't matter if they're regressive if the
| objective is to get people to not drive or to burn less
| gas. Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change
| behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. There's a
| lot more low-income emitters than high income ones.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior
| and it doesn't reduce actual carbon.
|
| Shifting cost to the emitters is a better way to put it.
| If a factory can make 10m in upgrades over time to reduce
| their carbon tax burden by 15m over time, they are
| definitely going to do it. So I disagree: I say it _does_
| change behavior and it _does_ reduce actual carbon.
|
| > There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income
| ones
|
| Whether that's true or not it does not mean a carbon tax
| would not 'reduce actual carbon'.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| A revenue-neutral tax (like GP proposed) could, in
| theory, change behavior. I don't know enough about human
| behavior to say how it would work in practice.
|
| Let's say that instead of taxing carbon, we pay people a
| bonus for emitting a below-average amount of carbon
| (proportional to the amount that they are below average
| by). If the amount is in a certain range, it will be too
| small an amount for wealthy people to care about, but
| large enough for poorer people to do things within their
| means (e.g. carpooling) to try to get it.
|
| The results would hit certain geographic areas much worse
| than others, and (if priced enough to change behavior)
| would also probably depress car sales, which are two
| reasons why the federal fuel tax has been flat for over
| 30 years.
| californical wrote:
| Think about how much easier that is to game though.
|
| The original suggestion could be collected at point-of-
| sale for carbon emitting products. Gasoline, airplane
| tickets (based on average for the flights), even
| electricity are easy to measure and charge at the point
| of sale.
|
| In your example, the person has to prove how much they
| didn't emit, which is way harder in practice, to get the
| credit.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I was making an analogy to a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
| That is tax all of those things, but cut every taxpayer a
| refund for an equal share of the revenue. This is
| ultimately identical to paying people for having below-
| average use.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > Let's say that instead of taxing carbon, we pay people
| a bonus for emitting a below-average amount of carbon
| (proportional to the amount that they are below average
| by). If the amount is in a certain range, it will be too
| small an amount for wealthy people to care about, but
| large enough for poorer people to do things within their
| means (e.g. carpooling) to try to get it.
|
| So you're saying that the government should incentivize
| poorer people to sell one of the last bits of their
| functional autonomy for what would be trivial amounts?
| "We'll just hang onto to this for a bit until you decide
| to stop going anywhere or make friends at work".
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| It would change behaviour more, not less.
|
| If you set the carbon tax at about $1/gallon of gasoline,
| the corresponding carbon rebate would be about $1000 per
| family per year.
|
| That wouldn't affect rich people much; neither the
| $1/gallon nor the $1000 extra income is significant. But
| many rich people get rich by being penny-wise, so many
| would change behaviour, by buying an EV or similar.
|
| But for poor people both $1/gallon and $1000 per year is
| significant. If gas was $1/gallon more expensive, poor
| people definitely would drive less.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Are you sure? Gas consumption is notoriously inelastic.
| West coast gasoline is already a dollar or more than it
| costs on the east coast. Do poor people drive less in
| California than in Florida?
| SR2Z wrote:
| Gas consumption is inelastic in the short term, but
| everything is elastic in the long term.
|
| If you want proof of this, just look at what happens to
| sales of large vs small cars when the price of gas
| changes.
| greeneggs wrote:
| I think everyone drives less in California than in
| Florida. (Google says ~14,500 miles annually per licensed
| driver in Florida, versus ~12,500 miles in California.)
| Gas prices are a factor in this.
| Loudergood wrote:
| The real hardship for the poor here is they cannot float
| that $1/gallon for a year before getting the $1000
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The rebate can be paid out more frequently than annually.
| kjreact wrote:
| Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to
| combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is
| political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011 and
| was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also
| implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this year
| prior to their election. People like to say that they
| want to help the environment, but when it comes time to
| vote they vote against such policies.
| Teever wrote:
| Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it was
| used as a political cudgel against the Liberal party that
| enacted it by the Conservative opposition in a sustained
| fashion for several years.
|
| Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a
| conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the first
| political entities to suggest the implementation of them
| in Canada were Conservative.
|
| At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of the
| population, and many in positions of power who just
| outright deny environmental concerns and climate change
| as an existential threat.
|
| They aren't going to approach this problem in good faith
| and it isn't obvious what the solution to their nefarious
| influence on policy should be.
| cma wrote:
| You can give the rebate based on prior year or estimated
| usage at the start of the year, and then repay at the end
| of the year if it was too much, like with healthcare
| subsidies.
| robocat wrote:
| The same thing happened with electric car purchase
| incentives in New Zealand. The poor cannot afford to buy
| a new car - so only the well off received the efficient
| car discount incentives.
|
| The trickle down as those cars depreciated in value was
| years away.
| TylerE wrote:
| That doesn't really sound like the worst thing?
|
| Someone has to buy them for full price before they show
| up on the used market 5-10 years later.
| elgenie wrote:
| The fuel/carbon tax would still be behavior-shifting for
| low-income emitters because it would still apply to low-
| income emitters per marginal unit, and that part is
| likely overall regressive because fuel is a larger
| expenditures for low-incomes.
|
| However, the part where the resulting revenue is pooled
| and payed out in an equal amount back per capita is
| progressive, since that payment is a greater fraction of
| a low income. Desirably, it also means that low-income
| people emitting less than the average would _make money
| overall_ : consider a household consisting of a single
| mom and two kids that take public transit to work/school.
| Thrymr wrote:
| It's hard to see any of this as "trivially fixable."
| Taxes are inherently political, politics are complicated,
| changing incentives on this scale are pretty much
| impossible in our political system.
|
| "Taxes are simple... and they don't have loopholes" is
| not at all how taxes work in the US. Perhaps your
| imagined perfect carbon tax is simple, but a simple tax
| with no loopholes is not likely to happen. Everyone wants
| a break or exception, and many of the interested parties
| are powerful.
| mediaman wrote:
| This is mixing two questions: whether a system can be
| elegantly designed and do the job without major market
| distortion, versus the question of whether various actors
| will stand in the way to prevent it.
|
| You could say the same thing about zoning. Higher density
| is better for affordability, but faces opposition from
| landowning existing residents. Does that make it wrong,
| or not worth pursuing? No, and that particular movement
| seems to be getting traction despite the political
| opposition.
|
| I read "trivially fixable" as "there is an elegant
| solution to this," not that "it is easy to get it
| politically passed."
| gopher_space wrote:
| As we learned in the 90s with email, an elegant solution
| that doesn't take human nature into account isn't worth
| pursuing. There used to be a joke checklist we'd send to
| each other about this.
|
| > I read "trivially fixable" as "there is an elegant
| solution to this," not that "it is easy to get it
| politically passed."
|
| The huge problem with this line of thinking is that it's
| easy to identify a half-dozen key players standing in the
| way of your elegant solution and it would be easier to
| remove them from the situation than change their minds.
| It's an attractive idea that can become a fixed idea.
| somat wrote:
| We already have a carbon tax, you pay it when you buy the
| carbon. 3 cents per liter federally and an additional 18
| cents per liter in California specifically.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Some European countries have total taxes to the tune of
| 90+ cents per liter (50-60% tax) with current gas prices,
| for reference. (~65ct/l for the energy/carbon tax,
| specifically)
|
| I don't think that level is sufficient to cover the
| externalities.
| SR2Z wrote:
| This tax is only assessed on road transportation. It
| ignores aviation, industry, or any one of the other
| sources of carbon.
| Mister_Snuggles wrote:
| I see the carbon tax as a 'stick' (to penalize undesired
| behaviour, in this case emitting carbon), but it needs to
| be coupled with a 'carrot' to encourage the desired
| behaviours.
|
| I'd like to see a carbon tax coupled with massive
| investments to make public transit legitimately good.
| There are too many places where there is no viable
| alternative to driving, a carbon tax will unnecessarily
| punish those people without giving them a reasonable
| alternative.
| Retric wrote:
| The carrot is doing the things you want to do like
| getting from A to B or building a home.
|
| Government 'carrots' are almost universally a terrible
| idea because they codify specific solutions. Instead you
| can get the same effect more efficiently with a carbon
| tax large enough for people to notice.
| adverbly wrote:
| You are correct that most consumption taxes are
| intrinsically regressive, but you can turn pretty much
| any consumption tax into a progressive one by simply
| taking the money and redistributing it at a flat amount
| per person.
|
| I believe this would be more fair to children who are the
| ones who will be most impacted by climate change in the
| end.
|
| I believe there are even some governments that use this
| approach, but many of them don't make it feel as
| significant as it should. You should get a big fat cheque
| in the mail every month as if you won the lottery.
| michpoch wrote:
| > since on average richer people will spend more on fuel
|
| Why would you think so? People driving older cars, not
| being able to afford to fly - will certainly spend more
| money on fuel for their car.
| Loudergood wrote:
| Do you think flying evades the carbon tax?
| michpoch wrote:
| Yes, if you apply the carbon tax only for the fuel at
| petrol stations. I am talking about realistic-to-
| implement solutions.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Aviation fuel is dispensed at a limited number of places;
| it would be easier (or just as easy) to implement a
| higher aviation fuel tax than a higher auto fuel tax.
| michpoch wrote:
| It's trivial to implement auto fuel tax - it's already in
| place in most of developed countries.
| leoedin wrote:
| Rich people use more energy. That's been shown by loads
| of studies.
|
| Maybe they drive a more efficient car, but they own much
| larger houses which are heated or cooled consistently,
| they travel a lot more, and they buy things with embodied
| carbon emissions.
| michpoch wrote:
| Right, but now you're talking about adding the tax to the
| whole economy, not just car fuel?
|
| That's close to impossible to implement. You'd need to
| track production and usage of everything in an extreme
| detail. Plus tracking all purchases (items + services) to
| a given person. So complete state surveillance of
| citizens. Globally.
| edoceo wrote:
| Tax all fuel. So those energy consumption of wealthy cost
| more?
| michpoch wrote:
| Ok, let's assume you do. Let's tax all fuels 300% in the
| US. Now all manufacturing stops as your production costs
| are all over the roof. Everything is imported from
| countries that do not have these taxes.
|
| What problem was solved here? None.
| xnx wrote:
| > That's close to impossible to implement.
|
| For a carbon tax, I think you only need to track imports,
| and domestic extraction of coal, petroleum, and natural
| gas.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ^ In addition, I find it notable that the political party
| that is in favor of more regressive taxes is also against
| a carbon tax.
|
| In an ideal world, I'd like the tax to be made more
| progressive, but I'll take _anything!_
| danans wrote:
| > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you
| solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon
| emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term)
| regressive.
|
| You give it back to poor as a income-phased out refundable
| tax credit. Crucially, base it not on how much they drive
| or consume, but on their income.
|
| Name it something like the "Worker's Energy Credit". In the
| worst case, it cancels out the carbon tax spent by them
| commensurate with their lower income.
|
| In the best case poor people who don't drive much actually
| come out ahead, and it's just a very progressive sales tax.
|
| The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which
| is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes
| have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards
| instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions
| by those who can afford it.
| dgfitz wrote:
| > The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution",
| which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what
| taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute
| downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower
| carbon emissions by those who can afford it.
|
| Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
|
| I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and
| loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is
| the opposite of the intent.
|
| I would be interested in reading a study where all the
| tax laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt,
| with no loopholes or exceptions. Also, eliminate
| borrowing against a stock portfolio. That is downright
| evil.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and
| loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is
| the opposite of the intent.
|
| It depends what the exception is.
|
| If the exceptions are "we treat a form of income received
| disproportionately by the rich a 'not income' and tax it
| at a lower rate, and _on top of that_ we add an extra tax
| on top of income tax on labor income, and cap the larger
| part of that extra tax, too, to avoid burdening high
| earners ", that helps the rich, sure. But there are
| plenty of exceptions possible that don't do that.
| danans wrote:
| > Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
|
| The tax would be on consumption, the credit would be
| based on income, so Larry still pays when he buys gas (if
| not for his cars, then for his planes).
|
| > I would be interested in reading a study where all the
| tax laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt
|
| That would burn down the country. Tax policy and the
| economy are a ship that has to be gradually turned in the
| optimal direction, just like how for the last 40 years
| tax policy has been gradually redistributing
| growth/wealth upwards. Sudden changes (like we are seeing
| now with indiscriminate tariff policy) are what results
| in the most harm to the poor.
|
| > Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock portfolio.
| That is downright evil.
|
| Agreed, or just heavily tax borrowing against a portfolio
| above, say, $2M/year. That way you don't penalize working
| people borrowing against 401ks or taking home equity
| loans for home improvements.
| sightbroke wrote:
| > Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
|
| Salary might be $1 but what is his effective income when
| he files his taxes? That is what he is taxed on, which
| includes things like dividends and selling of stocks.
| aianus wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with borrowing against stock, the
| evil part is the step-up in cost basis when the
| billionaire dies that prevents them from paying any tax
| at all.
|
| It would be a good deal for the country to let the
| billionaire use their skills to grow wealth without
| interrupting it and tax them all at death.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Giving it back based on being alive on Dec 31 seems the
| best solution to me. (It's very difficult to game and if
| you give 900 billionaires under a million bucks in total,
| it's just not that big a deal...)
| danans wrote:
| We manage to phase out ACA subsidies at 400% of the
| federal poverty level, so I don't see why we couldn't use
| a similar mechanism for an energy tax credit.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Are you saying used car sales would have a carbon tax? I've
| never heard anyone suggest anything like that. It's just a
| tax on new items.
| xvokcarts wrote:
| Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to
| touch the poor, there will be little change.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| Going to let us burn because not doing so would be
| regressive.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| If you want to reduce carbon emissions, if the tax is
| regressive or not does not matter as long as you tax
| emissions. If you want to mix too many things, you will not
| get a good solution for any.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| This.
| nullc wrote:
| > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you
| solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon
| emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term)
| regressive.
|
| The idea that policy makers care about this in any
| meaningful sense is absurd given the EV mandates, as EV's
| radically change the lifecycle costs of cars in a way that
| is absolutely destructive to people who aren't wealthy.
|
| EV's lower the 'fueling' cost but shift part of it into
| large cashflow crushing battery replacement costs.
|
| Automobiles have been a significant engine in elevating
| less wealthy americans because you can buy a old junky car
| for very little and keep it limping along with use-
| proportional fuel costs and minor maintenance. Even if it's
| an inefficient car, you use it to go to work, so you're
| making money to pay for the fuel. Less work, less work fuel
| required.
|
| EV's significantly break the model and will push many more
| less wealthy people onto predatory financing which they'll
| never escape. Yet policy makers refuse to even discuss the
| life-cycle cashflow difference of EVs, and continue to more
| forward with policies to eventually mandate their use.
|
| > it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the
| other, but it hasn't been updated.
|
| It's been broken all along. We've had decades to fix it.
| timewizard wrote:
| Fuel is already taxed. What would a "carbon tax" add here?
| rcpt wrote:
| The purpose of the CAFE regulations is very explicitly to
| favor American automakers who make big trucks.
| tlb wrote:
| It wasn't the intended purpose. It turned out that way
| because the Detroit lobbyists were smarter and more
| motivated than the government policy people, and they
| bamboozled them.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| The congress critters knew what they were doing and
| didn't do it for free.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| That was one of several purposes.
| bgnn wrote:
| why can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least,
| what I'm used to in Europe.
| brianwawok wrote:
| We do. But it's a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor
| people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
| bgnn wrote:
| that's a different problem. US cities used to have good
| publhc transport, but the urvanization policies since 50s
| is car-centric. plus, because of the American cars having
| huge engines they have bad MPG. The current situation US
| is in is nothing to do with the tax regime.
| ponector wrote:
| I think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse
| mpg result in more tax.
|
| Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.
| michpoch wrote:
| This is already done, in Europe most of the fuel costs are
| taxes.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch
| to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel
| consumption (if such a thing exists)
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| You don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the
| fuel, so burning the same quantity of fuel will result in
| the same quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine
| works. Therefore a tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Incomplete combustion is a big component of emissions,
| and it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
| cma wrote:
| Those eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming
| from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with
| methane.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Yes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated
| with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's
| not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO
| emissions vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen
| rich will burn of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due
| to higher temperatures if I remember correctly).
| FrojoS wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mixture
| s#E...
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Ethanol blends get worse MPG, and entail additional
| carbon emissions in creation. They do not reduce carbon
| emissions.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| What is the point of the link?
|
| Unless you play in the nuclear physics, Carbon in is
| Carbon out. Carbon in fuel is Carbon out of the engine.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| By definition, more carbon is less efficiency. Efficiency
| is about how much of the hydrocarbon you turn into heat.
| Diesels often burn a little dirty. That's partly because
| diesel engines don't burn all the fuel
| DrillShopper wrote:
| We already do in the US (but the money mostly goes to road
| maintenance)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Isn't that what a carbon tax is? Adding a tax to the fossil
| fuel based on carbon content.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Thereby penalising existing vehicle owners who can't switch
| to a more efficient vehicle overnight.
|
| We have to come up with a rigorous alternative that doesn't
| disproportionately affect lower income folk, because people
| tend not to be overly concerned about nebulous concepts
| like the climate impacts on unborn future generations,
| especially when my carbon impact at the margin is
| negligible when taken in context of global population.
| guywithahat wrote:
| I don't think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax
| that's simple
| patmcc wrote:
| Tax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does
| propane, as does coal, whatever.
|
| What is the difficulty with that?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| It's extremely regressive. You'd need to also give a
| rebate based on income level.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell
| a vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for
| giant Midwest farms.
|
| The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already
| screwed. Random surburban dude should be paying through
| the nose for his F-250. Create demand for fuel
| efficiency, and you'll have cars like my dad's 1993
| Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.
| conductr wrote:
| This has been a known problem and could be changed if the
| political will to make common sense policy changes and
| corrections when needed was anywhere near existing.
| Unfortunately, we live in a [political] dystopia
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| This is largely why all the vehicles around us have become
| supersized. It's completely idiotic.
| ethagnawl wrote:
| It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to
| exist. The vast majority of new vehicles are crossovers or
| _light trucks_, which aren't held to the same
| emission/efficiency standards.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased
| to exist.
|
| Consumer demand is still an important factor.
|
| Sedans and compact cars are still out there, sitting on
| dealer lots with reasonable prices.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Yeah but the only way to protect myself if hit by a
| freight train is to also drive a freight train.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Consumer demand is driven by marketing.
| Yhippa wrote:
| Anybody know how it got to this point? It can't be because of
| regulatory capture, right? I don't think small cars are
| getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something
| like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's
| build.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I don't think small cars are getting made for the US
| because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG
| requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build.
|
| The famous 67MPG requirement was for a hypothetical 2026
| model year car
|
| But Honda discontinued the Fit in the United States in
| 2020, long before the hypothetical 2026 target.
|
| The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them.
| There are thousands of lightly used Honda Fits on the used
| market for reasonable prices, but they're not moving.
|
| Yes, the regulations are flawed, but that doesn't change
| the lack of consumer demand.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying
| them.
|
| I think this over-simplifies things. Strict milage
| standards force a set of compromises on ICE car design
| that make them both shittier _and_ more expensive[1]. Why
| would anyone buy such a product when they can get an SUV
| instead?
|
| [1] Some examples: turbochargers, CVTs, start/stop
| systems. All of these increase both the cost and
| complexity of building as well as repairing the car. And
| with higher complexity comes higher chances for something
| to fail as well so reliability suffers.
| MegaButts wrote:
| > both shittier and more expensive
|
| > Some examples: turbochargers
|
| I disagree that turbochargers are shittier. For most
| people, hell even for a large subset of people that only
| want to race their cars on a track, turbochargers provide
| huge benefits. Yes, they add complexity and cost; they
| also vastly improve fuel efficiency, create the best
| torque curve possible on an ICE vehicle, and
| substantially improve power output. Sometimes you
| actually need more complexity to build a better system. I
| think turbochargers are a marvel of modern engineering.
|
| And while it's subjective and admittedly more enthusiasts
| prefer naturally aspirated to turbocharged, I personally
| prefer the character of a turbocharged engine. I'd rather
| hear turbo whistles than a whining V10.
| lupusreal wrote:
| If what you want is a reliable commuter, because knowing
| you can get yourself to work is more important than even
| fuel efficiency, then turbochargers are a clear net
| negative. I think most people view their car as a tool
| first and foremost, and don't have the luxury to view it
| as a toy.
|
| > V10
|
| Lmao what
| MegaButts wrote:
| Turbocharged cars have been reliable for a while now.
| There was a time when people said the same thing about
| fuel injection - because it is objectively more
| complicated than carbureted engines. But as time went on
| and they became more reliable and cheaper the only people
| that cared about carburetors are enthusiasts because they
| have so many drawbacks. It's the same thing with turbo
| engines today, except they're already reliable and better
| to drive (assuming you ever want to merge onto a
| highway). If you consider the higher RPM typical for NA
| vehicles they're arguably less reliable over time. If you
| include rising fuel costs turbocharged is arguably
| cheaper over the lifespan of the vehicle.
|
| Buy whatever you want. But most people's perceptions of
| 'reliable' for cars is based entirely on rumors and
| hearsay and has nothing to do with data. Most awards for
| reliability are marketing gimmicks and aren't based on
| useful data.
| rjsw wrote:
| I am happy with my 1.6L EcoBoost Ford Mondeo. It gets
| good fuel efficiency and has plenty of power to climb
| hills.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Why would anyone buy such a product when they can get
| an SUV instead?
|
| Isn't this just a circular way of admitting that people
| actually wanted SUVs?
|
| This doesn't explain why the _used car market_ is full of
| very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a
| new SUV.
|
| > [1] Some examples: turbochargers,
|
| Have to disagree. These are a great way to downsize the
| engine and maintain the same torque output. Yes it's more
| parts, but modern OEM turbochargers are very reliable. If
| you can reduce the number of cylinders from 6 to 4 or 3,
| that's a net win in moving parts, consumables, and repair
| costs.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The Honda Fit had none of these. It was just a tiny car
| with a tiny engine.
|
| It's just that Americans do not buy tiny cars or tiny
| engines.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston
| Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole
| purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within their
| fleet.
|
| Later they made a one off version for Goodwood that has a V8
| stuffed under the hood.
| mmooss wrote:
| > My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the
| Aston Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose
| sole purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within
| their fleet.
|
| Maybe that's a good thing. It compelled Aston Martin to
| provide their customers with a fuel-efficient option.
| masklinn wrote:
| Nobody looking for a fuel efficient car would look at
| Aston, and nobody looking at Aston would go for a fuel
| efficient car.
|
| Which was borne by its sales: sold for nearly 3 times the
| price you'd have paid Toyota for an iQ, it sold all of 600
| units in two years before being cancelled, Aston's second
| shortest production run. The shortest was the Virage which
| sold more than 1000 units in a year.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Rebadging doesn't add any meaningful consumer choice.
| mtillman wrote:
| Fine print: The truck in the link is only $20K after government
| subsidies/rebates. So if the government gives my tax dollars to
| buyers of this truck, then it will cost $20K.
| standardUser wrote:
| As opposed to other prices that are not the product of a
| political economy?
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Yes, and you will benefit, because the role of the state is
| to advance the collective and common good.
|
| That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT.
| Brybry wrote:
| Electric vehicle tax credits are non-refundable tax credits
| meaning you can't get a credit for more than you owe. [1][2]
|
| Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy
| vehicles (though there may be some infrastructure or
| manufacturing grants for companies).
|
| [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600
|
| [2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-
| wha...
| anannymoose wrote:
| So, should I wish to purchase a vehicle this tax year, I
| tell my HR to adjust my income withholding such that I owe
| 7,500$ come tax time and then reap the rewards?
|
| Or is there more to the incentive structure?
| palmtree3000 wrote:
| Withholding isn't relevant here. Non refundable means it
| can't cause the government to net pay you money: that is
| to say, it can't make your refund larger than your
| withholding.
| anannymoose wrote:
| Adjust my withholding to generate a debt to Th enticement
| that I claim the rebate on? I think you're thinking the
| other direction.
| Brybry wrote:
| The government still gives you back your money in a
| refund if you overpay them.
|
| Though, of course, you don't earn interest on it while
| the government is holding it.
| floxy wrote:
| What you have withheld is not part of the equation. It is
| your tax liability that matters.
| anannymoose wrote:
| I'm confused here, wouldn't me underpaying on my income
| generate a liability that I can then claim this rebate
| on?
| floxy wrote:
| Let's make up an example. Let's say you earn $75,000/year
| and the tax rate is 10%. So you owe $7,500 in taxes. That
| is your tax liability. It doesn't matter if you have your
| employer deducting $144 from your weekly paycheck or $0
| from your weekly paycheck.
|
| https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/hows.
| jsp
| nullc wrote:
| You can still get a refund with this tax credit, but it
| has to be a refund of taxes you paid through things like
| your payroll tax.
|
| Non-refundable means that if the rebate drives your owed
| taxes below zero you don't get the negative tax debt
| back.
|
| If you don't earn much money most of your paid taxes go
| to SS and medicare rather than income tax, so the rebate
| may not do anything for you. But if you make at least
| median income you should be able to fully use this
| rebate.
|
| If you're retired and buy one of these trucks you'd be
| wise to realize $100k in investment gains in that year in
| order to fully exploit the tax credit.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| >Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy
| vehicles
|
| Then who is making up the difference between the tax that
| would have been paid, and the credit reduction?
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's not really true.
|
| If the taxes someone would otherwise pay are going to their
| electric vehicle instead, somebody _else_ has to make up
| the difference.
|
| So yes, other people _are_ getting my tax dollars to buy
| electric vehicles. It just takes two steps rather than one,
| if you want to look at it that way.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Congress doesn't retroactively raise tax rates to make up
| the difference. If the government budget ends up in a
| deficit, which obviously it does, not just because of
| this but for many reasons, that is financed via debt.
| This isn't passed to the population as higher taxes, but
| as inflation, which affects everyone equally, including
| whoever got the tax credits in the first place.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| Goverment debt is reduced by increased taxes and/or
| reduction in services just as much as it is by
| "inflation". Further, inflation doesn't affect the person
| who got a $7,500 individual tax reduction as much as
| someone who didn't.
| crazygringo wrote:
| First of all, you're wrong about how debt is financed.
| It's not via inflation, it's by taxes. Interest payments
| accounted for 13% of the federal budget last year. That's
| enormous. (Yes inflation reduces the value of debt over
| time, but debt carries interest which generally outweighs
| expected inflation.)
|
| Second, Congress absolutely adjusts tax rates as well.
| Not precisely one-to-one to match spending each year, but
| over the long term it's all got to add up. Every dollar
| the government spends today is paid with people's taxes
| either today or their taxes tomorrow.
|
| Third, the person who received the tax credits isn't
| being affected "equally". If 1% of people get the credit,
| but 100% of people pay for it, then the people who
| receive the credit end up hugely ahead in the end, while
| the other 99% lose out. So yes, for the 1% of people
| getting an electric vehicle tax credit, it _is_ almost
| entirely paid for by the other 99% of people.
| floxy wrote:
| Even finer print: the $7,500 federal incentive is a tax
| rebate. If you don't have a $7,500 tax liability, you won't
| get the full amount. (this also applies if you transfer the
| credit to the dealer at point of sale). I mean, money is
| fungible and all, but your particular tax dollars aren't
| going to people who buy EVs, they are just paying less in
| taxes.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| >this also applies if you transfer the credit to the dealer
| at point of sale
|
| No, it does not. See Q4 at the following link:
|
| https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-h-frequently-asked-
| questi...
| floxy wrote:
| My understanding is that the dealer has to have the tax
| liability. IANATL, YMMV.
| nullc wrote:
| It's ~28k without them, particularly when considering recent
| inflation it's an attractive price... inflation corrected
| it's in the vague ballpark of other small IC trucks when they
| were still available.
|
| E.g. a early 2000's Nissan frontier base model was $23k in
| today's money. It was a somewhat better speced (e.g. more
| hauling capacity) and much better range, but this new car
| likely has significantly lower operating costs that would
| easily justify a 5k uplift.
|
| So I think it ought to be perfectly viable without the
| subsidy, especially so long as the absurd CAFE standards
| continue to exist giving EV's a monopoly on this truck size.
| api wrote:
| > since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by
| CAFE[1].
|
| ... and _this_ is why American cars got so huge, if anyone was
| curious.
| nullc wrote:
| I have a small(*) twenty year old i4 pickup and I regularly get
| cash offers for it while out and about. There is a lot of
| demand for the small inexpensive and relatively fuel efficient
| utility vehicles that the government currently prohibits
| manufacturing.
|
| (*Ironically, though small it has a considerably longer bed
| than many currently produced larger and less fuel efficient
| trucks... I'm mystified by trucks that can't even contain a
| bike without removing a wheel or hanging one over a gate. Looks
| like the bed on this EV is a bit short too, but a short bed on
| a small truck is more excusable than a short bed on a huge
| truck)
| zx10rse wrote:
| Automotive industry is one of the biggest scams on planet
| earth. One of my favorite cases recently is how Suzuki Jimny is
| banned in Europe and US because of emission standards
| allegedly, so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow
| there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km
| oh and surprise surprise Mercedes are going to release a
| smaller more affordable G-Class [1].
|
| [1] - https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-
| g-wa...
| darth_avocado wrote:
| And what you're describing is exactly the reason Kei trucks
| aren't a thing despite most farmers actually liking them for
| their utility.
|
| You can't import them unless they are old because we want to
| protect the automotive industry. But we can't build them new
| either because they don't meet the safety standards (FMVSS) and
| are penalized more for being fuel efficient because the
| standards are stricter for smaller vehicles.
| greyjoyduck wrote:
| No electronics in an EV, nahhhh
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| Looks like the biggest thing isn't even mentioned: no telematics
| control unit to track your behavior.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/personal-informa...
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Looks like the biggest thing isn't even mentioned: no
| telematics control unit to track your behavior.
|
| Is that confirmed? I would buy one *today* if this was known to
| be true... but I am 80% sure that they don't have any in
| production; all I see are renders.
|
| There will almost certainly be a WiFi radio (for at home OTA
| updates) but there will likely be a modem, too, for people that
| like to remotely manage charge. The modem may be an optional
| extra and the WiFi traffic is something I can block/inspect as
| needed.
| ac29 wrote:
| > There will almost certainly be a WiFi radio (for at home
| OTA updates) but there will likely be a modem, too, for
| people that like to remotely manage charge.
|
| My 2024 EV doesnt have WiFi or Cellular radios.
| rpmisms wrote:
| I want exactly this, but with a hybrid engine, RWD, and a manual
| transmission. I would buy it new for $28k, no frills.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| 1. $50 for a reservation
|
| 2. No guarantee of delivery date
|
| 3. No right to purchase
|
| 4. No guarantee of purchase price
|
| 5. No assignment of purchase to other parties
|
| I've got some lunar real estate to sell you if you think this
| product will ever exist
| thecrumb wrote:
| Love this! Would like to see a (manual) split rear window- super
| helpful for hauling longer things in a smaller truck. I put 10'
| conduit in my Ridgeline all the time.
| ge96 wrote:
| this seems so funny to me like "hey you want to buy something
| worse"
|
| I'm talking specifically about the no stereo/screen
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| This is amazing. I hope it succeeds. If I had any use for a truck
| I'd be lining up to buy one. They make one in a compact sedan or
| hatchback form factor and I am in. Heck, even better a
| subcompact.
| thederf wrote:
| I compared the dimensions of the Slate with my '06 Pontiac Vibe
| hatchback, and it's only a few inches longer. I suspect the
| Slate + Fastback kit will be pretty close to a hatchback in
| size and function.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| "but is this extreme simplification too much for American
| consumers?"
|
| No, it's not. This American consumer says bring on the
| simplicity. Also like that this is not some monster sized thing.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I think many consumers want a simpler "dumb" car, just look at
| sales of the 5th generation 4Runner. That car came out
| originally in 2010 and they sold it through 2023 with barely
| any upgrades and their best sales years were all in the 2020's.
|
| Lots of people say it's because offroading got popular but I
| think it's also because that car was "dumb" compared to more
| recent offerings. And personally as an owner of a 4th
| generation 4Runner, one of the things I like most about is that
| it's "dumb".
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| 150 mile range makes it close to useless. As soon as you take it
| on a highway, the range will likely drop by half. Which means you
| can only do a round trip of 37 miles before you have to charge.
|
| Even a very aerodynamic Model 3 loses half of range at highway
| speeds.
|
| https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vkz0SOnR45Gved9B-q9n...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| If I'm reading the chart properly it looks like the M3LR gets a
| smidge better than the advertised range at 65mph?
| ac29 wrote:
| EVs dont lose 50% of their range at highway speeds. Even if
| they did, I'm not sure why you think you could only go 37 miles
| between charges (I think you meant 75 mi?).
| hsshhshshjk wrote:
| Round trip, you can go somewhere up to ~37 miles away and
| drive home to recharge on a single charge. You're both saying
| the same thing:)
| spicybbq wrote:
| It really depends on how they define their mileage rating. If
| it is an inflated number like some EV manufacturers, then yeah.
| If it is a conservative rating, then it's a useful amount of
| range for an "in town" vehicle.
| porphyra wrote:
| It's not about "inflating" it. It's more that the energy
| needed to move your car a certain distance is quadratically
| related to the speed, due to aerodynamic drag.
|
| Efficient vehicles spend less energy on other stuff besides
| moving the car (e.g. by having heat pumps, induction motors
| that can be turned off without any drag, etc), so tests
| conducted at a lower speed will appear to have a better range
| than tests at a higher speed. Meanwhile, less efficient
| vehicles that waste energy at low speeds will appear to have
| more similar range at both low and high speeds.
| chubs wrote:
| The article does talk of it being a relatively simple
| proposition to embiggen the range with an bigger battery kit if
| that helps. But yeah, it's not a ton of range.
| randmeerkat wrote:
| This is cool, but you can buy a 3 year old used model 3 right now
| for close to $25k that has 300+ mile range. The model 3 also has,
| wait for it, a/c and speakers...
| neogodless wrote:
| How long is the bed of that pickup?
|
| You mean this?
|
| https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-first-pickup-truck-is-a-diy-...
| fads_go wrote:
| wonder who is going to service that mod 3 if T. folds?
| rawgabbit wrote:
| I don't want to drive Fuhrer wagon.
| coolspot wrote:
| Remember when cybertruck was supposed to be cheap minimalistic
| truck? No paint, spartan interior, simple materials and straight
| shapes. $39k price tag. Yeah...
| mthulhu wrote:
| This makes a lot of sense for a run around town and short commute
| car. It specializes for that use case perfectly. I can see a
| world where families have one decent gas/hybrid car and one cheap
| EV. That set up could save a lot of gas money over time while
| meeting the needs of the household.
|
| Also, when is the last time an economy car/truck looked this
| good? The slate is beautiful.
|
| I think it has a real shot if it arrives as promised, but we know
| how these things go.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| I'd buy this immediately and just paint it myself. This care
| looks perfect for modding.
| tintor wrote:
| What are downsides of "no paint"?
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I want one.
| scosman wrote:
| This is just beautiful. A small, functional, electric truck. Not
| a luxury SUV with a tiny truck bed for cowboy cosplayers, or a
| cyberpunk glue heap.
|
| I hope they sell millions.
| malwrar wrote:
| I love this concept and will probably buy one for that reason
| alone. 150 miles is too low though, I already struggle with the
| 180 I get out of my current electric car. Really cool to see more
| ideas in this space, congrats to the founders getting this far!
| moate wrote:
| Seems like they're offering a battery upgrade package, the 150
| is the "MVP" battery
| benguild wrote:
| this is cool but does it meet strong safety standards?
| bob1029 wrote:
| "strong safety standards" are what got us to the point of
| 5000lb pickup trucks and A-pillars that are so wide they
| arguably kill more people (predominantly pedestrians &
| cyclists) than their constituent airbags save.
|
| It is cartoon villain tier to compromise the visual range of
| the driver at the safety expense of everyone _outside_ the
| vehicle, who is _not_ shielded by 2 tons of mass.
|
| Much of what is wrong with automobiles is a severe inability to
| think in higher order terms.
| wojciii wrote:
| > "and the only way to listen to music while driving is if you
| bring along your phone and a Bluetooth speaker"
|
| Why not make a physical connection (power/network) and define a
| form factor for entertainment system with or without screen and
| speakers and let other companies design something to fit the
| space available. I don't understand why no one does this instead
| of selling cars full of crappy software that can't be upgraded.
| mattlondon wrote:
| That's what cars always used to have. Made them easily
| stealable though.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Double DIN already exists with fairly standard plugs in the
| back
| duncancarroll wrote:
| All the images look like renderings. Is the car actually in
| production?
| neogodless wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/amazon-backed-startup-w...
|
| This has launch event photos that claim to be of prototypes.
| porphyra wrote:
| At $20k it is actually comparable in cost to a GEM el Xd pickup
| [1] which can only go up to 35 mph, has 78 mile range, and costs
| $18k [2]. Totally different class of vehicle, of course.
|
| [1] https://www.gemcar.com/gem-el-xd/
|
| [2] https://electriccarsalesandservice.com/products/2024-gem-
| el-...
| neogodless wrote:
| I do wish we'd all just call this a $27.5K USD truck. If it
| ends up allowing some people to get a tax credit, awesome. But
| that's not the _price_ they are targeting for selling this
| truck. And that tax credit is far from a guarantee come late
| 2026 / early 2027.
|
| (That's before any "later adjustments" to the price, not to
| mention the effects of uncertain tariff policy.)
| jmward01 wrote:
| The big thing I would want from this is no call-home/telemetry. I
| want privacy so I want a vehicle that gets me from a to b.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I'm not sure why I read this as a $20k guitar pickup...
| Animats wrote:
| Price seems to be creeping up. Car and Driver says $28K.[1] That
| may be related to "incentives".
|
| This could be very popular with companies that need small fleets
| of pickup trucks. The ones that have company logos on the side.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVeYjxQPdz4
| odo1242 wrote:
| Yea, incentives are currently about 7-8k depending on state so
| that sounds about right.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| If they make a sedan I would buy it in a heartbeat at those
| prices. A pickup or suv doesn't work for me.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| I'm looking for a vehicle which doesn't track my location, and
| doesn't have complex software controlling vehicle functions which
| could kill me. Maybe this is for me.
| michpoch wrote:
| The question is... how many farmers / ranchers need these
| pickups? There seems to be like an absolutely crazy competition
| for vehicles for a very narrow group of people.
|
| Who will be buying all of these pickup trucks?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| I'm wondering why the hood is so big, given that it doesn't need
| to contain an engine? Is that where the batteries are located? Or
| is it just mostly empty space in the form of a frunk serving as a
| crumple zone to meet crash testing standards? I hope it's not
| just a strictly aesthetic thing, because you could reduce that
| distance and end up with an even more practical truck.
| mrWiz wrote:
| It has a 7 cubic foot frunk in there.
| moralestapia wrote:
| This is not real.
|
| This will be real when you can go to some place, pay $20k and
| drive out with such thing.
|
| If you're into car CGI, this is a much more enjoyable resource
| [1]!
|
| 1: https://www.behance.net/search/projects/Car%20Render
| thederf wrote:
| I'm quite excited about this. Ticks all my boxes for "low" tech,
| simple, moddable, useful, and cheap. I'm hoping my aging Pontiac
| Vibe holds out long enough to upgrade to one of these, if they
| succeed. I put in a preregistration!
| data_ders wrote:
| Hell yeah Pontiac Vibe! My 2008 is at 308k! I'll drive into the
| ground
| stantaylor wrote:
| My 30-year-old daughter is still driving the Toyota version,
| the Matrix, also 2008, that we bought in about 2013. She
| loves the thing. If she didn't have it, I'm sure I would
| still be driving it.
|
| I find it hilarious that it's a limited-edition M Theory
| model. It has a badge glued to the dash that says "1926 of
| 5000." For a Toyota econobox.
| thederf wrote:
| Niice, giving me hope! My '06 is showing its age, but I hope
| it's got another 100k in her!
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| The problem is, the kind of person who cares about those
| things, as valid as they are, buys 0-1 cars per 20 years, and
| the market is driven (ha ha) by people who buy 2-3 cars every 2
| years.
| stantaylor wrote:
| Very true. This truck appeals to me very much. My wife and I
| have a 2010 Accord and a 2014 CR-V. We could afford newer
| and/or fancier cars, but we just don't care about those
| things.
|
| We're thinking of buying a newer car at some point, but
| between interest rates and, now, tariffs, we're not in any
| hurry.
| thederf wrote:
| Hah. Fair point. I'm around 210k miles and aiming to squeeze
| as many more out of it as I can.
| aaronschroeder wrote:
| Vibe solidarity! I have a 2009 with manual everything - even
| the old crank windows and manual door locks. This truck seems
| right up my alley.
| pavlov wrote:
| For comparison, this is a $16k car in China:
|
| https://carnewschina.com/2025/03/25/byd-sealion-05-ev-launhe...
|
| It's like if you could buy an old Nokia for $200, or a new
| Android smartphone for $160. The old Nokia certainly has
| nostalgic qualities and some concrete practical benefits like
| all-week battery life, but overall it's not a great deal.
|
| And this is why you have >100% tariffs on Chinese cars --
| American manufacturers know they can't compete.
| rchaud wrote:
| Those cars are priced for the budgets of domestic Chinese
| consumers. BYD exports to Europe are priced similarly to car
| models sold there. For the same reason, this Slate truck is
| very unlikely to cost just $20k when it reaches the mass
| production stage.
| pavlov wrote:
| There's a 27% tariff on BYD cars in Europe, designed to bring
| the price more in line with European manufacturers.
| trgn wrote:
| i hate trucks because they're big and trash up my neighborhood
| with their noise and size, just don't belong in the city. but
| since some neighbors have started driving electric (rivian,
| cybertruck), I tolerate them so so so much more. it's amazing how
| just making them electric has changed (and I hope, continues to
| change) the gestalt of my block.
| billconan wrote:
| While I like this concept, for my next car, I need the safety
| features like 360 view, blind spot warning, lidar etc.
|
| Also, though I think using tablets and detachable speakers is
| cost effective, it may promote car break-ins?
| nashashmi wrote:
| Good trend. Other companies should follow suit. Simplify the car
| enough. And make it cheap. Sometimes I feel like Chevys are just
| like this. Real cheap machines. Or those white ford vans made for
| industrial use.
| anticorporate wrote:
| I wish those Ford Transit vans were made at a cheaper price
| point. There's not one in stock in my metro area for less than
| $50,000.
| leoapagano wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore this truck. But I feel the
| same way about this truck that I do about the Framework Laptop
| (having owned one)--cool idea, cool product, but will Slate be
| around in 5 years to keep making parts and offering support for
| it?
| sixdimensional wrote:
| This is a fair concern, I imagine. If it is highly user
| serviceable, maybe that isn't a concern.
|
| That said, I think you raise a bigger issue - I'd like to see
| MORE things like Framework, Fairphone or Slate - user
| serviceable, customizable - maybe low initial cost.
|
| To me, this feels futuristic, exciting, optimistic and
| positive.. we need more like this, so how can we make these
| kinds of businesses more likely to succeed, resilient, etc?
| doright wrote:
| From the Wikipedia page:
|
| > Unlike most vehicles sold in the United States, the Slate Truck
| is not expected to have any Internet connectivity
|
| Well that's certainly a sentence. It wasn't true just 20 years
| ago. It makes me wonder about the world we've grown into with
| deeply intertwined apps becoming not only the norm but expected.
|
| The idea is there but I'm wondering about the execution. Here's
| hoping it takes off.
| Maxamillion96 wrote:
| if the truck becomes popular enough post-market modifications
| will probably be sold as an extra.
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| If this thing really comes out in a couple years by the time
| it's ready for mass production to hit consumer hands there
| will probably be 2 or 3 self driving kits designed for it.
| The mods for this thing would be amazing.
|
| A buddy of mine who creates shaped interactive art panels
| with oleds for disney and other groups interactive events
| texted me about this, installing video panels on this is
| going to be a breeze.
|
| I'm more excited about this as a platform than even as a car,
| this is going to be like browser JS, the Lisa and VW Bug for
| creating an EV tech skill pipeline.
| acyou wrote:
| Okay, but is (was) this assuming on putting in Chinese batteries?
| If not, where are you going to get the cells and pack for that
| money?
| mring33621 wrote:
| too many comments here to read them all
|
| but, MMW, i think they will sell every single unit made
|
| basic truck + freedom of customization will be very popular in
| the USA
| guywithahat wrote:
| The issue with this is they claim the cost savings came from not
| having a screen and other silly features, but that's not where
| money is spent.
|
| The real cost savings came a tiny, 150 mile battery. It could
| easily be <100 miles loaded up after a few years of use, which
| means there are very few use cases for this truck, and it
| certainly doesn't make sense without the tax credit. Cool idea,
| but there's no getting around the price of batteries
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There are _plenty_ of use cases for a ~100 mile truck.
| aksss wrote:
| There are plenty of use cases in the narrow band that it can
| operate, but it is a pretty narrow band. Around town commuter
| in climate that doesn't need AWD/4WD, like great for
| shopping, commuting, or for small contractors doing jobs. Two
| people in the vehicle plus luggage, it will be interesting to
| see what happens to range. Love the concept.
| eightys3v3n wrote:
| I would buy a 160km truck to drive to and from work.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Right, but it needs to be competitive with ICE cars that
| travel several hundred miles per tank and fill up in minutes.
| Literally 0 of my friends have been willing to transition to
| electric due primarily to range anxiety, and that's for
| vehicles that achieve over 200 miles per charge. I drive an
| EV and even I would simply never, ever consider this vehicle
| based on the range.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I'd want one of these for in-town stuff, which is 90% of my
| driving.
| brundolf wrote:
| The plastic frame probably helps by making it super light. And
| that + the lack of paint definitely helps cut manufacturing
| costs
| turnsout wrote:
| Let me introduce you to a concept we call "the city"
| blt wrote:
| As a car audio enthusiast, the biggest obstacle to putting a
| system into a new high-tech car is bypassing the deeply-embedded
| infotainment system while retaining decent aesthetics and
| steering wheel controls. The idea of getting an electric
| drivetrain and new-car safety with a 90's-style blank canvas for
| audio is amazing.
|
| I hope that the noise isolation and intended speaker mounting
| locations are good!
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| feature, not a bug, they want you to buy their $4000 BOSE
| upgrade which is actually $500 of equipment.
| skort wrote:
| Do you have any proof or even a hint of a reason that this
| will be the case? Or is this just nonsense?
|
| Their FAQs even state: > Built-in infotainment systems raise
| a car's price, and they become outdated quickly and have high
| failure rates.
|
| It seems unlikely that a company saying this will throw in a
| $4,000 infotainment system in a $20,000 vehicle.
| manacit wrote:
| I read this as the parent complaining about other car
| manufacturers selling you crappy default stereos so that
| you'll upgrade, not that Slate is excluding a stereo on
| this truck to upsell you.
|
| In fact, I would be rather surprised if you could buy
| $4,000 worth of stereo equipment for this car, given their
| promo materials seem to include a $100 bluetooth speaker
| below an iPhone.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| The rest makes sense, but no stereo? Why not?
| 383toast wrote:
| Anybody know the safety of these vs typical trucks?
| Animats wrote:
| This is really useful. It's an upgraded kei truck. All the modern
| safety features - airbags, ABS, rear view camera, anti-collision
| braking. None of the frills - infotainment, connectivity, etc.
|
| Does it have air conditioning?
| tboyd47 wrote:
| > a sub-$20,000 (after federal incentives) electric vehicle
|
| Buried the lede, didn't we?
| sandebert wrote:
| Really interesting stuff. Reminds me of Ox
| (https://www.oxdelivers.com/).
| thekevan wrote:
| >The rather extreme omission of any kind of media system in the
| car is jarring, but it, too, has secondary benefits.
|
| >"Seventy percent of repeat warranty claims are based on
| infotainment currently because there's so much tech in the car
| that it's created a very unstable environment in the vehicle,"
| Snyder says.
|
| I'm totally cool with them not having an infotainment screen or
| even a stereo itself. But speaker management might be a pain.
|
| I really hope they decide to either include speakers to which you
| connect to your own infotainment system or at the very least,
| have the space or brackets where you can bring your own speakers
| and install them without cutting.
|
| Having a bluetooth speaker take care of all the sound is just too
| bulky and cumbersome for those of us who need to live with
| constant music in the car. Plus, I don't want to leave a $150
| bluetooth speaker in my car all the time and encourage break-ins.
| cma wrote:
| I'd rather have my Bluetooth speaker stolen than an installed
| stereo stolen where they just gut parts of the car and rip
| things up. But it will be a bigger target since it's easier to
| resell.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| > But it will be a bigger target since it's easier to resell.
|
| Indeed: https://www.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/1bt8ck8/love
| d_dropp...
| spookie wrote:
| just place 4 bluetooth speakers connected to eachother in a
| mesh or something
| aksss wrote:
| I like the idea of this as a Framework-style vehicle. If they
| really leaned into the mod community and were making deliberate
| decisions to support this, it could offer a lot of traction.
| Shame there's no AWD version of this. That, the larger battery
| option, in truck mode with a rack and tonneau cover would be
| great for contractors as an around-town job vehicle.
| rmason wrote:
| I think one of the most amazing things about this new company is
| that its run by women who held prominent roles in the Big 3. Its
| an intriguing vehicle but a Ford Maverick pickup offers far more
| value for the same price.
|
| Sad to say but if the thing was made in Mexico and was priced at
| $15,000 it would be a huge hit. By the time you accounted for the
| $7500 federal tax credit it would be priced at around a quarter
| the price of a gas 4 cylinder powered pickup. An entire industry
| of add-ons and wraps would spring up around it.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Not following why it's women run has any real bearing. Let's
| judge people by their accomplishments not their sex and race.
| ChadMoran wrote:
| Do you think women have had equal opportunities leading to
| this moment?
| paddw wrote:
| I don't read it as saying run by *women*, I think it's just
| saying "run by women" in the same mode as "run by guys from".
| conductr wrote:
| Looks up my alley. I already went backwards and got a low mileage
| 2013 specifically to shed all the technology crap. I'd much
| rather have something newer and nicer
| drunner wrote:
| Can we do this for combustion cars too please!
| iZSJERil wrote:
| I could imagine this being popular for company and fleet trucks,
| but I can't imagine it being popular for personal vehicles with
| the general public. The people I know who drive personal pickup
| trucks want the absolute biggest one they can find and have zero
| interest in actually doing any truck activities with it. They
| drive their Raptors and 2500s to work and to burger king and
| that's it. If they do any customization, they might take it to a
| shop and pay them to put a louder muffler on it.
| klysm wrote:
| Will believe it when I see it unfortunately looks like very early
| stages
| resters wrote:
| This is extremely refreshing. I think that it would be possible
| to make something like this in the US for under $15K even. Cars
| and trucks are so over-engineered and come with tons of low value
| options intended to drive up the price.
|
| For a case in point, consider that headlights that turn on and
| off automatically in response to darkness (or rain) are not a
| standard feature on many cars, yet they include a manual switch
| that costs more than a photosensor only because of the trim-level
| upgrades.
|
| Cars could include a slot for a tablet but instead come with
| overpriced car stereos and infotainment systems that are always
| light years worse than the most amateurish apps on any mobile app
| store.
|
| As should be very clear by now after the 2008 US auto industry
| bailouts and the 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs, the US auto
| industry is heavily protected and faces virtually no competition,
| which is why a common sense vehicle like the one in the article
| sounds revolutionary, though I imagine BYD could deliver
| something a lot more impressive for $10K if allowed to compete in
| the US without tariffs.
| tw04 wrote:
| >heavily protected and faces virtually no competition
|
| Huh? Out of the top 25 vehicles sold in the US in 2024, 16 of
| them are non-US automakers. Just because the US is actively
| blocking China from dumping heavily subsidized vehicles into
| the north american market, doesn't mean they "face no
| competition". Kia and Hyundai alone show that it's VERY
| possible to break into the US market if you have even a little
| bit of interest playing fair.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g60385784/bestselling-cars...
| decimalenough wrote:
| The only real way to break into the US market is to have
| factories in the US. Trucks in particular are protected by
| the notorious 25% "chicken tax", which has been in place
| since the 1960s.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
| tw04 wrote:
| >Trucks in particular are protected by the notorious 25%
| "chicken tax", which has been in place since the 1960s.
|
| And yet, that applies to everyone, including US automakers,
| which is why Ford had to do unnatural things to import the
| transit from Europe.
|
| They aren't protecting US automakers, they're trying to
| retain some semblance of manufacturing in the US, which I'm
| fully in support of.
|
| Both because those are well-paying jobs and because it's a
| matter of national security.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| BYD could totally avoid the tariffs by making in the USA (well,
| they were planning a factory in Mexico, and tariffs on car
| parts will kill that if something doesn't change). They already
| set up a bus factory in SoCal. My guess is that Chinese
| automakers are still hesitant about introducing their brands to
| Americans given politics (Volvo and Polestar are Chinese owned
| but I think the design is still mainly done in Sweden?).
|
| Japanese, Korean, and European brands already make a lot of
| vehicles to get around tariffs, although it makes sense for
| some sedans to be made abroad given American lack of interest
| in them (so economy of scales doesn't work out), and sedans
| typically not being tariffed as harshly as trucks.
| worik wrote:
| > BYD could totally avoid the tariffs by making in the USA
|
| Or concentrate on the 80% of the worldmarket that is not the
| USA
| smcleod wrote:
| To be honest most of those accessories are actually incredibly
| cheap at manufacturing time and several have a direct impact on
| safety (e.g. ensuring people don't drive around with lights
| off). The cost usually comes as companies use them for pricing
| tiers where they market them as suggested extras to ratchet up
| profits.
| Loughla wrote:
| That's what I want. That's almost exactly what I want.
|
| If it were 4x4 it would be literally exactly what I want.
| chubs wrote:
| I'm very positive, however note that when they mention "injection
| molded polypropylene composite material" - this (i think) is the
| same material used for Seadoo Spark jetskis. I owned one and had
| a minor crash, and because this material cannot be repaired, the
| entire hull needed replacing, it was an insurance write-off. I
| hope they've thought about how to make this car repairable and
| not 'disposable' after the first inevitable minor crash. Of
| course this may not be a fair comparison because jetski hulls are
| exposed, whereas car chassis' have panels and bumpers.
| throw7 wrote:
| I want this with an ice engine.
| Animats wrote:
| There's a configurator now.[1] Lots of factory options. The
| trouble is that it turns into a $30,000 and up vehicle.
|
| [1] https://www.slate.auto/en/personalization
| ranger_danger wrote:
| I can't imagine the DIY minimalist crowd is terribly popular, or
| profitable... I wonder how long they will actually be able to
| stay in business.
| vroomvrooom wrote:
| get old pickup, retrofit it with whatever motor with some dudes
| around the corner, fuck this company.
| Jach wrote:
| What a gross looking vehicle, and at that price? I just want the
| old ranger design. I've been using a 2006 ranger for quite a
| while and it's served me well, I'd like to upgrade it to a ranger
| XL for that little extra cab room for crap, along with 4WD and
| power windows and AC, but people rightfully guard them and when
| they do show up at dealerships they're typically pretty expensive
| too.
|
| I've thought about importing a Kei, but I don't think it's for
| me. When I think "American kei truck" I at least think something
| in the ballpark range cost of a Kei, which is quite a bit less,
| at least half as expensive for the best options like 4WD, even
| less if you can compromise. It also has charm unlike this. The
| range is just ridiculous, too. My little ranger isn't exactly
| great, I don't push it much more than 300 miles on a tank, but
| having half that (new! let alone after a few years) is such a
| deal breaker. Last time I took my truck camping it was around 60
| miles each way, and that was a nearby spot.
| burlesona wrote:
| I _LOVE_ this idea. I've specifically been looking to buy a tiny
| truck or van, "can hold sheets of plywood" being a major
| criteria. I love the idea of that being a simple electric I can
| charge at home. Beautiful!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-25 23:00 UTC)