[HN Gopher] Telo MT1
___________________________________________________________________
Telo MT1
Author : turtleyacht
Score : 334 points
Date : 2025-08-02 16:40 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.telotrucks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.telotrucks.com)
| dfee wrote:
| > We're tired of oversized, impractical trucks designed for show
| over substance.
|
| I wonder if Telo is attempting to define a new category.
| Substance in a truck, in my lived opinion, is about utility.
| Towing capacity, ruggedness, ability to go (very) off road. An
| electric power train shows promise, but is limited by infra.
|
| If that's not the target, then maybe it's a different target,
| such as San Francisco residents where space is limited and a
| slight nod to utility is adequate.
|
| Further down the peninsula, and specifically in the Santa Cruz
| mountains, this is less interesting. I can't imagine this for
| outdoor (e.g. mountain biking) or project oriented (e.g.
| landscaping) people.
|
| So back to the top: if they're marketing substance over show,
| maybe they're really marketing to people who desire show over
| substance.
|
| Edit: let me also throw in my drive down to the bottom tip of
| Baja a few months ago. The roads were rough in places, and I
| definitely went off road to reach some interesting places. It
| reminded me of some rough terrain and roads in Wyoming and
| Oklahoma - truck states. Without big wheels and tough suspension
| - I wouldn't take a Telo.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| What would be the limitation that prevents you from mountain
| biking? It seems to have a similar sized bed to a Tacoma?
|
| I'm unsure why people think they need such big vehicles for
| outdoors sports. We drove thousands of miles around Europe with
| 4 kayaks on the roof of a Ford Fiesta. Or you can easily fit
| three mountain bikes on a rear bike rack.
| garciasn wrote:
| I need to tow a 5000lb boat 300 miles without charging and I
| need to fit 6 passengers. It needs to be $30K or less.
|
| I realize Europeans have a much different understanding of
| distance and cargo needs; I do. But, 300 miles and 6
| passengers is a pretty common requirement here in the US.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I'm American and this sounds really off. AFAIK pickups in
| the US typically have space for five passengers, not six.
| And good luck finding new pickups that can tow 5000 lbs
| under 30k; as a category, pickups have experienced quite a
| lot of price inflation, as I understand it.
| garciasn wrote:
| Right. What I'm saying is if you're going to make a
| compact car with a bed, it better cost less than a
| pickup.
| chipsa wrote:
| No pickup will do that. Even crew cab pickups normally max
| out at 5 people (4 passengers), because there is no bench
| seat up front anymore. Even a Ford Maverick is $30k or so,
| and that won't tow a 5000lb boat. Max listed towing is
| 4klb.
| raddan wrote:
| Why without charging? Are there time constraints?
|
| I often find that I want to take a break after a couple
| hours of driving, and even when I drove a gas vehicle,
| those breaks would be 30-40 minutes long unless it was an
| exceptionally long day of driving. With a little planning
| I've found that I can do 90% of the trips in my EV that I
| used to do in my gas car. I probably can't replicate the
| couple 1000-mile-in-one-day trips I did in my previous
| vehicle, but those experiences also made me not want to.
|
| FWIW, in the last two years alone I have driven my EV from
| MA to Nova Scotia and back, MA to Iowa and back, MA to MD
| and back, and all over the eastern seaboard (trips to the
| Adirondacks, WV, etc). Lately I have not even had to plan
| anymore. It was surprising to discover that I could plug my
| car (a Bolt) into a GM charger in Indiana this summer and
| not even need to fiddle with an app. Things have improved
| dramatically for road trips in the last two years, and I
| have probably one of the slowest charging cars out there.
| Really, the only thing stopping me from buying an EV pickup
| is that I don't want to pay that much for a vehicle with
| such an absurdly small bed. My Bolt can pull a small
| trailer just fine.
| garciasn wrote:
| Because I travel to places without charging infra.
| GiorgioG wrote:
| Because he can tow 300 miles easily with a ICE vehicle,
| and he can fill up anywhere in 5 minutes or less. Once
| you can charge cars in 5 minutes or less, I doubt he'd
| have made that a requirement.
| jebarker wrote:
| I started looking at camping trailers recently to tow
| with my Rivian. I quickly went off the idea when I
| realized that each time I'd need to charge en-route I'd
| have to find somewhere to park the camper, unhitch, go
| charge, then do it all in reverse. That's going to add at
| least 20 mins to each charging session. None of this is
| necessary if I were filling with gas. For typical places
| I go camping here in CO that could be two or three times
| per journey direction.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| I was responding to someone worried about the practicality
| of carrying mountain bikes to the Santa Cruz mountains 50
| miles from San Francisco.
|
| I don't think it's possible to buy a new 6 passenger
| vehicle rated for towing 5000lb in the US for under $30K.
|
| Europe allows towing with much smaller vehicles. There you
| can do 4400lb in a Golf and 4850lb in Passat though you
| might still struggle for 6 passengers for $30k new.
| dfee wrote:
| Well, you were responding to me, after I noted my
| excursions through Baja, the mountain west and Oklahoma.
|
| Santa Cruz Mountain roads tend to be well paved. Though,
| large exceptions definitely exist! (E.g. Highland Way)
| wpm wrote:
| OK buy a different fucking vehicle then? Sorry this one
| isn't for you.
| rossjudson wrote:
| "I commute 400 miles each way to work, every day, towing
| my 5000 pound boat, fully equipped outdoor kitchen
| trailer/classroom, my home-schooled family of 6, 6 dogs,
| a portable sawmill, solar-powered game freezer +
| ammunition, and an extra trailer because I might have to
| go to home depot."
| bastawhiz wrote:
| > I need to tow a 5000lb boat 300 miles without charging
|
| That's a 4-5 hour trip and you don't want to stop to charge
| for thirty minutes? One bathroom break or stop for food and
| you've already spent probably half of those 30m stopped
| anyway.
|
| > fit 6 passengers
|
| This truck does? It has a third row.
|
| But I'm curious what truck you think will comfortably fit
| six passengers for under $30k. If the second row fits three
| people and the front row fits two passengers (and frankly,
| having a person ride in the middle of the front row is
| ridiculous), you only seat five passengers. Even if you
| count the driver as a passenger, at best you've got one
| uncomfortable occupant.
|
| - Ram 1500 starts at 40k
|
| - F150 starts at 38k
|
| - Silverado 1500 starts at 37k
|
| - Ford Superduty starts above 40k
|
| - Sierra 1500 starts at 38k
|
| And most of these are just bench seats in the front, not a
| third row.
| k12sosse wrote:
| Do the Ranger
| bastawhiz wrote:
| It's base MSRP is 33k and it only does five passengers
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > I need to tow a 5000lb boat 300 miles without charging
| and I need to fit 6 passengers. It needs to be $30K or
| less.
|
| Then you need a used diesel pickup truck. 6 people is a
| stretch unless at least one of those is an infant or you
| have people on laps.
| dfee wrote:
| I also used to throw my mountain bike on the back of my
| sports car! It was, in retrospect, ridiculous.
|
| I've also seen a motorcyclist having a bike mounted on a
| hitch!
|
| Optimization for tiny isn't a factor in the big outdoors.
| Indeed, I see more people in Sprinter vans than Teslas by
| mountain biking hot spots. So it's not about "could you",
| it's about comfort and practicality of anything / everything
| else you may want to do beyond just lugging a bike to a
| trail. Such as: the optionality to go truly off road - in the
| vehicle not on the bike.
| esseph wrote:
| Depends on what you're in to, but there's a HUGE amount of
| land in the US and a lot of lakes and mountains don't have
| paved roads to them.
|
| (Check out Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, etc.)
| garciasn wrote:
| A $41K ($46K for AWD) "truck" is absurd. This isn't a viable
| option for Americans, at all.
| stingrae wrote:
| $41k is not an absurd starting price for a truck. Look at
| f150 prices, starting at 39k.
| jmspring wrote:
| People are buying Rivians that cost much more.
| garciasn wrote:
| People who can afford $100K+ for a new one and $65K+ for a
| used one are not most people.
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean. The 2025 F150 starts at $39k.
| https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/
| garciasn wrote:
| This isn't a F150; it's a mini with a bed. They're apples
| to oranges.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Slate is targeting mid-twenties and has over 70+ prototypes
| vehicles on the road.
|
| Last I checked Telo has... one prototype?
|
| Telo's doomed, anyways.
| revnode wrote:
| Slate is ugly and not nearly as functional. Predicting
| who is doomed at this point is silly. But there will be a
| small electric truck soon, which is nice.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Slate: $27k, 150 mile range
|
| Telo: $41k 350 mile range
|
| Slate: 2 door with bed, or 4 door no bed.
|
| Telo: 4 door with bed.
|
| I'd hardly say telo isn't a viable option compared to
| slate.
|
| Anyway what really matters is if any of these companies
| can get a vehicle to market, and at what price point. I'm
| not about to buy an imaginary car, and neither are you.
|
| Fwiw if they were for sale i would strongly consider
| buying a telo. It looks perfect for my needs - slate less
| so, but if they're all that's available i'd strongly
| consider it
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Last I checked Telo has... one prototype?
|
| As of OpenSauce last month, they had 3 that were
| roadworthy. I think the company is 15 people big so it
| would be odd if they had a fleet with mfgr/prototype
| plates.
|
| They were cagey on their manufacturing strategy but I got
| the sense that it'll be mostly contract manufacturing. I
| think slate is trying to keep as much in-house as
| possible and that means saying "no" to some design
| decisions that would require a step-up in terms of
| manufacturing capabilities. E.G.: Composite panels are a
| hell of a lot cheaper to make than stamped metal panels
| so slate isn't going to contract the metal stamping out.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| And if you want it to be electric, it starts at $55k:
| https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150-lightning/
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| A tremendous portion of the truck market are people who live in
| urban to suburban areas and need to move things. For that
| audience, the ability to fit a 4x8' plywood sheet easily puts
| this ahead of a surprising number of conventional trucks on
| utility. The 2k lbs payload on the 2WD drive model is more than
| a Tacoma and some configurations of the F150, for example,
| popular models that also don't fit a 4x8 sheet without
| strapping it down over the cab or another awkward technique. It
| also lists a towing cap of 6,600 which is competitive with many
| production pickups.
|
| There's a divide in needs between off-roading and moving things
| around, and this seems oriented in the moving things around
| direction. I can easily see it working for a landscaper in a
| suburban environment, for example, where the driving miles per
| day are really not that high and 6,600 is plenty for a typical
| landscaper's trailer.
|
| From everything I've seen, true off-roading applications are a
| pretty small portion of the overall truck market, and one that
| many popular trucks right now are also poorly optimized for
| (popular 2WD configurations, middling clearances, etc).
| darknavi wrote:
| The CEO pretty clearly says it's meant to be a city truck with
| small size but just as much utility (or more) than something
| like a Tacoma.
|
| https://youtu.be/pw250Va1JFo?t=469
| gfs wrote:
| I'm failing to see how this could have as much or more
| utility than a Tacoma. I don't see any mention of towing or
| payload. Not to mention, the clearance will be limiting for
| anyone who wants to venture off road at all.
| numpad0 wrote:
| > I wonder if Telo is attempting to define a new category.
|
| It's a Kei truck. That's not a new thing. Online discourses
| categorizing Telo as one leads to people pointing out Kei are
| equipped with weaker engines for legal reasons, that doesn't
| matter. US finally started making its own Kei truck.
| ColonelPhantom wrote:
| I would say "kei" does pretty specifically refer to vehicles
| adhering to those Japanese regulations. I think "minitruck"
| or "compact truck" would be a better, more general name.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| Very little information about safety other than marketing speak
| "Utilizing the latest in advanced safety technology--sensors to
| predict and classify collisions before they happen, airbags, and
| structural technology--to make our vehicles safer for everyone on
| the road."
|
| Have they never heard of a crumple zone?
| null0ranje wrote:
| I'm pretty skeptical of the safety as well. It's also pretty
| hard to judge where there don't seem to be any actual
| photographs of the vehicle, only computer renderings.
|
| I would love a small truck like this, but I would honestly buy
| an old Tacoma or Ranger before even considering buying this on
| spec.
|
| *edit: digging around I did find some footage on YouTube with
| actual vehicles. I'm definitely skeptical on the safety now.
| k12sosse wrote:
| '22 rangers are in a sweet spot right now.
| chipsa wrote:
| You think a crumple zone isn't required by current FMVSS, which
| they are designing against? That is, in fact, what they
| referred to with " structural technology".
| treetalker wrote:
| The real question is whether it's compatible with standard truck
| nuts: if not, the Florida market will remain inaccessible.
| api wrote:
| I was thinking a while back about how you could roll coal in an
| EV. Maybe a huge Tesla coil throwing lightning everywhere would
| be analogous? Or a giant Jacob's ladder?
| derektank wrote:
| Spark gap ozone generator
| zikduruqe wrote:
| ... proceeds to throw harmonics from DC to daylight
| maxerickson wrote:
| Seems like the Cybertruck is sort of that.
|
| Maybe a few people get some functionality out of the design.
| geuis wrote:
| Who is the target market here?
|
| * Purely subjective opinion: It's ugly as hell. The front of
| vehicles isn't just for engines, it's also for aerodynamics.
|
| * It's crazy expensive.
|
| * The bed looks too short to be practically useful.
|
| * The wheels look comically small.
|
| * The ground clearance doesn't seem to make it useful for more
| than suburban and urban road environments.
| wpm wrote:
| > It's ugly as hell.
|
| So is a Ford Transit van? Who cares. This is a work truck.
|
| > The bed looks too short to be practically useful.
|
| The bed is 5 ft long. From TF website: "Same truck bed length
| as the Toyota Tacoma. Larger than a Rivian R1T."
|
| > The wheels look comically small.
|
| They look fine? How big should they be?
|
| > The ground clearance doesn't seem to make it useful for more
| than suburban and urban road environments.
|
| Oh, so they designed it for the environments it was...designed
| to be used in? And the same environments most macho big boy
| trucks spend 99% of their life in? What's the problem here?
|
| Honestly, what's _your_ problem? Why is your comment so harshly
| negative? You can 't fathom a target market for this because
| you don't seem to be in it?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I'm the target market.
|
| - I think it looks fine
|
| - I don't need a full sized bed for anything I'd be
| transporting
|
| - Tricked out it's a little over half the cost of an R1T Dual
| and $10K less than a comparable F150 Lightning upgraded to the
| long range battery
|
| - The wheels are small because it's a small truck. Big wheels
| would look ridiculous.
|
| - This isn't a truck for off roading or unmaintained dirt
| roads.
|
| What would I use this truck for?
|
| - towing a motorcycle trailer
|
| - Picking up stuff from Costco that won't fit in my trunk
|
| - Buying and transporting dirt, gravel, and stone for my yard
|
| - Going up to my cabin with my partner and two friends and
| having enough room to seat everyone and have room for all the
| luggage
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| Exactly. I love that it's small. I used to have a 4 door full
| length bed GMC and it felt like driving a boat. Seattle was
| particularly awful. My current garage is only 210 inches deep
| (5.334 m) so most trucks will not fit in my current house
| (very first world problems I know). But yes, smaller, lower
| cost, and does everything I need a truck for.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Isn't a ford lightning much bigger and more capable?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| More capable how? It's more capable if it does more things
| that you want it to do, but in my case it doesn't add more
| utility. When you compare it based on range and power, it's
| still more expensive.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| Maybe it's more capable because driving small truck could
| make people think your genitalia is small?
|
| Not my personal opinion... but wonder how much of a
| factor this is :)
| monkeyelite wrote:
| I'm excited to hear your review after purchase.
| toast0 wrote:
| > * The bed looks too short to be practically useful.
|
| Have you looked at the mainstream 'small' truck market lately?
|
| Small in quotes, because actual small trucks disappeared, and
| we're left with mid sized trucks as the smallest. Used to be
| you could get a 6-ft bed standard and an optional longer bed on
| a small truck. Fuel efficiency standards now dictate you can't
| have that without a larger truck and worse fuel efficency.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I'm not willing to preorder an unproven brand, but I am excited
| about this. I'm a Toyota RAV4 owner, and I'd like something
| (much) more fuel efficient, or a fairly affordable EV, but I
| don't want to lose moderate hauling capacity for equipment,
| tools, parts for home, etc. I would seriously consider a very
| small/compact car but I do need to fit a car seat and I do
| occasionally move things.
|
| I hope this makes it to market because if I was buying a car
| today, and this was available today, I'd pick this.
| kart23 wrote:
| why are there no pictures of the backseat? tired of cars with
| four doors and backseats made exclusively for children. and they
| say it can fit 8 people???
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| You can go on YouTuber and find reviews of the car and most
| people seem to say the backseat is fairly roomy (the one 6'5"
| reviewer said he fit). I put a reservation down a few months
| ago and at 6' (1.9 m for the sane people), I'm really banking
| on that one off-hand comment.
| numpad0 wrote:
| > 152 in Length 73 in Width 66 in Height
|
| This is 3860 x 1854 x 1676mm, or 14% x 25% x -16% bigger than
| Japanese Kei car specifications(3400 x 1480 x 2000mm max.)
| Closest match in features among Kei cars would be Daihatsu Hijet
| Deck Van, except that one is 465mm / 18" shorter that this having
| an awkwardly short 880mm / 35" long bed.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| well, one thing you'll learn from their marketing is that Mini
| Coopers are kind of big
| jsight wrote:
| People tend to focus on demand, but just getting vehicles like
| this into production at a profitable cost often turns out to be
| impossible.
|
| It is a 10-15k/year product at best. How does an independent
| maker get that profitable at <$50k, despite all the costs of
| setting up a sales and service network?
| graeber_28927 wrote:
| On one hand I agree. It makes me sad but I'm skeptical they are
| going to make it.
|
| On the other hand, electric cars seem to be relatively "easy"
| to build. Sure, Fisker went bankrupt, but Rivian seems to do
| sort of fine. Xiaomi even managed to build a car, and I
| actually saw one of them by chance charging next to me today.
|
| Seems to me like a lot more newcomers succeed in getting cars
| built, than was and is the case with ICE cars.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| most profit in autos is in personalization and financing, which
| in principle you can do at any scale, with whatever fixed
| costs. I believe these guys are building on top of a Subaru
| with vendor motors.
|
| that said, the problem with these utilitarian vehicles is that
| they appeal to people who buy cars once every 20 years, whereas
| most of the industry is serving the very large, very abundant
| population of Americans buying 2 cars every 2 years
| grokx wrote:
| This made me think about the bagnole, which seems to target the
| same kind of market: https://kilow.com/en/pages/la-bagnole
| speedgoose wrote:
| 6kWh (or 12 in option) is quite a lot less than 106kWh tough.
| devmor wrote:
| 83 mile range vs 250+, max speed of 50MPH vs 100+, 20HP vs up
| to 400HP, only seats 2 and a tiny bed. I don't think this is
| remotely the same market.
| fumar wrote:
| This is a breath of fresh air. Modern pick up trucks post-2017
| are giant vehicles with high danger to pedestrians. They are
| often touted as off road capable with high utility, and I see
| them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a totality of
| one human.
|
| Good overviews of the truck https://youtu.be/aEq-vTLimrQ?si=fS-
| UhjndoWuxwBip
|
| https://youtu.be/1OgN_qctcGs?si=nEysWQHzafRpxfRp
| api wrote:
| Vehicular elephantiasis is largely the result of perverse
| incentives from emission regulation. Make something big enough
| and it fits into different more lax categories. The way we do
| emission and mileage standards might do more harm than good
| unless you're an oil company.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Also the arms race of collision survivablity. I have no
| interest in driving a big truck, but with all the other big
| trucks out there I'm seriously tempted just for my own
| safety...
| pantalaimon wrote:
| The only logical next step is the mini-tank
| miningape wrote:
| Just wait until 2050 when we all have our own killdozers
| [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
| 20after4 wrote:
| The killdozers will all be self driving with no
| passengers and we will be the target. This will surely
| come to pass long before 2050.
| adastra22 wrote:
| How did I never hear of this? That was an epic read,
| thank you.
| masklinn wrote:
| I've been looking at the GTK Boxer since it was first
| announced. The modularity means you can bring the kids to
| school then swap the rear module for one more suited to
| transporting raw materials, you just need a garage
| equipped with a 15t crane to do the swap at home in just
| a few minutes:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn_WblYc4xk
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The big trucks are not evaluated for safety to the same
| standard as other vehicles. They aren't rigged with
| exploding gas tanks anymore, but the feeling of safety is
| mostly psychological.
| adastra22 wrote:
| That's not the safety risk. The safety risk is not being
| in a big truck and getting hit by one. It's not so much
| to do with the vehicle's safety features as to (1) mass;
| and (2) height of the cabin.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's part of the issue. The safety ratings of a pickup
| truck do not incorporate the risk of the front end
| causing fatalities in collisions.
|
| The feeling of safety is part of that - drivers think
| they have better visibility due to seating position. They
| are also more likely to roll and spin out than other
| vehicles.
| sneak wrote:
| It isn't an arms race, as being in those bigger vehicles
| only feels more safe; it isn't actually any safer.
| iambateman wrote:
| I think that's part of it, but also about 30% of men
| apparently have a nearly-unlimited budget for buying the
| biggest truck.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Maybe, but it's clearly worked it's way into fashions as
| well. The F-150 lightning doesn't have to worry about
| emissions categories, but it's just as elephantine as the
| rest, including a child-killing vision-obstructing front hood
| and grille whose only purpose is to enclose a frunk.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I like that's the lightning is giant. I don't particularly
| like small, low to the ground vehicles.
| masklinn wrote:
| ... and that's why I bought a Marauder MPV to go get
| groceries.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Nothing less than a decommissioned Abrams tank will do
| for taking little Billy to school!
| benregenspan wrote:
| But why is that? Is there any chance it's at least partly
| to protect yourself from everyone else in giant cars?
| renewiltord wrote:
| I have a Subaru Forester. When I drive a sedan everyone
| shines their headlamps into my face. I parked my Forester
| behind a sedan and drove back and forth. My lights were
| not in their cabin.
|
| So other people drive in a way that is not compatible
| with my driving because I don't want headlamps in my
| cabin. Occasionally there's a lifted truck behind me and
| it brightens my cabin.
|
| In those moments I fantasize about placing
| retroreflectors all over my rear seat headrests but then
| I pull over and let them past and the moment passes.
|
| Besides, a HN truism is "Yield to gross tonnage". I liked
| that. It makes sense that HN users who believe that if
| you're big others should get out of the way also get
| large cars.
|
| "The cemeteries are full of people with right of way" so
| smaller vehicles should get out of the way of larger
| vehicles or risk death. It's a good lesson. Can't say
| it's false.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I guess there should be rules about the height of
| headlights. It seems like exactly the sort of safety and
| compatibility problem that standards exist to solve.
| renewiltord wrote:
| US mainstream belief is that standards can be enforced at
| factory but no laws should be enforced on individuals. I
| act in that ecosystem. Not worsening it, but not
| sacrificing myself to it.
| MagnumOpus wrote:
| It is obviously true.
|
| What is also obviously true is that road damage scales
| with the fourth power of vehicle mass, and that therefore
| vehicle taxation should increase at a similar power, so
| that the drivers of the 3-tonne trucknutted Canyoneros
| stop freeloading on the community.
| arijun wrote:
| Your comfort shouldn't outweigh the safety of
| pedestrians. There is a reason those cars do not pass
| regulations in Europe.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I've driven plenty in Europe. Those small cramped roads
| can't handle big vehicles and parking anywhere is non
| existent or highly inconvenient. I bet that's the main
| reason European cars tend to skew smaller.
| kube-system wrote:
| Maybe we'll see that change if the recent CAFE changes stick.
| I think the big bill passed recently set CAFE fines to zero.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| The things you listed are _why_ people buy them. If they wanted
| something smaller, they would go with a Toyota Tacoma or a
| Nissan Titan.
| jama211 wrote:
| People by and large don't really know what they want, they
| purchase based on vibes and manipulation. If people in
| general really wanted these trucks they'd be more popular
| outside of America. The truck has been a boiled frog, slowly
| growing in size and people haven't realised it. Also
| Americans in general have a bit of a cultural issue with ego,
| individualism and all that, which doesn't help.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Even Tacomas are larger than they used to be. One day not too
| long ago when I was running errands I came across an early
| 2000s Tacoma (before they got bumped up to midsize trucks)
| and was almost dumbfounded, because it'd been so long since
| I'd seen a truck that size. It's a great size, but nobody
| makes them like that any more.
|
| I'd like a small truck for DIY house projects in a suburb,
| but even the "small" Ford Maverick is nearly a foot longer
| than a 2000 Tacoma and the 2025 Tacoma is about _two feet_
| longer, both of which would be awkward to park and maneuver
| on the tight streets around here. Their increased height is
| dangeorus with all the kids running around, too. So, well, I
| don't have a truck.
|
| The Telo and maybe Slate are the first two modern trucks that
| I could realistically consider. Hoping for an R3T that's
| sized similarly to Rivian's upcoming R3 (which is comparable
| in size to a VW Golf) but that's probably not going to
| happen.
| neogodless wrote:
| Titan is full-sized. You mean the Nissan Frontier.
|
| Still those have basically caught up with full-sized vehicles
| from ~15 years ago..
| SilverElfin wrote:
| > I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a
| totality of one human.
|
| It's about having one vehicle that can do it all. Maybe you're
| noticing when there's one human but you don't really know how
| else that person is using the vehicle at other times. Trucks
| can haul people, things, do road trips, etc. pretty well.
| bix6 wrote:
| Except that one vehicle is completely incompetent for its
| primary use 99% of the time :)
| culi wrote:
| In a sane society "knowing someone with a truck" is all you
| really need. In a highly individualistic society "having a
| truck just in case" is the dominant precept
| amelius wrote:
| In most places in the 1st world you can rent a truck if
| you need one *
|
| For other times, use a car.
|
| * a truck is just a car that misses a roof over the back
| part of it
| bArray wrote:
| > * a truck is just a car that misses a roof over the
| back part of it
|
| Respectfully, a truck is not just a car missing the back
| part of it. It often has a lot more power, is lifted, has
| off-road springs, larger wheels, low and high speed gear
| box, roll cage for the front cabin, raised air intake -
| the list goes on.
|
| Most people, though, do just need a car with a removable
| back.
| amelius wrote:
| In any case, the "truck" from the article doesn't seem to
| have all that.
| mullingitover wrote:
| I own a truck.*
|
| *It's stored at Home Depot and whenever I need it, I just
| pay them $19 for the hour or so that I use it.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >In a sane society "knowing someone with a truck" is all
| you really need.
|
| Yes, yes, we all know. "You'll own nothing and be happy".
| Fewer and fewer people believe you.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Fully agreed. Although to add, I literally never met
| someone with a truck, and in fact never owned a car
| myself either, but rented a car and also ranted a van
| plenty of times during a move, even with a driver.
|
| Same reason I don't own an airplane, I just rent one with
| a driver if I go on holiday trips.
|
| Big caveat: I've always lived in a (capital) city of my
| country and I have no kids yet.
|
| But by and large I think renting for the 3 day a year
| use-case makes more sense than owning 365 days of the
| year, even if you have no friends to rely on.
| roarcher wrote:
| In a sane society, anyone who has a truck is obligated to
| move shit for everyone they know who doesn't have a
| truck? Sorry, no. I have stuff to do. If not wanting to
| waste half my Saturday moving a couch for you makes me
| "individualistic", then so be it.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| You don't know that. You're making assumptions. But even if
| that were true, so what? Maybe it is important to that
| person's quality of life to have the truck for weekend
| adventures or chores.
| stouset wrote:
| If this were the case, you'd see more trucks with wear
| and tear on them and fewer with five years in and
| pristine paint jobs. Most people buy trucks as a
| lifestyle choice, not as a practical one.
|
| That's not to say there aren't real uses for trucks, or
| people who use them for their designed purpose.
|
| That's also not to say people should be required to
| purchase only vehicles that meet their basic
| transportation requirements. People drive sports cars
| even without ever going out to a track.
|
| Trucks (and full-size SUVs) specifically push some pretty
| crappy externalities onto other road users, so it's not
| exactly crazy to be annoyed with people who buy and drive
| big trucks a personality trait.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Yep. Trucks that actually get used as trucks look like it
| with dings, scratches, and scuffs because they're tools,
| not toys.
|
| Ironically they're also often old small models that
| owners have been keeping running forever because they're
| cheap to fix, practical, and easy to park unlike their
| embiggened modern counterparts.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| > Trucks that actually get used as trucks look like it
| with dings, scratches, and scuffs because they're tools,
| not toys.
|
| Not really. Lots of people use trucks and keep them in
| pristine condition too. Beds have liners now to keep them
| looking new. And you aren't getting random dings on the
| outside unless you drive into things.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| The amount of effort required to keep them pristine
| scales with the quantity and intensity of the work
| performed, no? The most serious truck drivers probably
| aren't going to have time to buff out every little mark
| when it's going to get covered in them again on the job
| tomorrow.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > If this were the case, you'd see more trucks with wear
| and tear on them and fewer with five years in and
| pristine paint jobs.
|
| You can tell how few people in this thread have any idea
| how light off roading or hauling works.
|
| Driving your truck down a dirt road or putting something
| in the back of it doesn't destroy the paint job. You can
| have a work truck and keep it nice.
| kortilla wrote:
| >If this were the case, you'd see more trucks with wear
| and tear on them and fewer with five years in and
| pristine paint jobs. Most people buy trucks as a
| lifestyle choice, not as a practical one.
|
| No you wouldn't. Off-roading, hauling things, and towing
| trailers does not require destroying the finish or
| exterior of the truck in any way.
| bix6 wrote:
| I do know that because I see the same trucks driving
| around my neighborhood with Jerry cans and recovery
| boards 7 days of the week!
|
| Best case you're looking at 28.5% weekend utilization
| which isn't that bad, much better than the 1% I joked
| with, but how many people do you know taking an offroad
| adventure every single weekend?
|
| So what? Yeah I don't really care. It's mostly hilarious
| watching them try to park.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Does it have to be an off road adventure specifically? I
| feel like most people will want to get two vehicles in
| their family that can do many things, since that's what
| they have room for, rather than more. A truck could be
| used for off road stuff but it could also be used for
| taking kids and gear to their games, or for a weekend
| camping trip, or just for commuting. It can do whatever
| you need without needing to rent a different vehicle or
| borrow from a friend or whatever. That's peace of mind
| and flexibility. I don't even own one but I do appreciate
| that aspect.
| Marazan wrote:
| The typical number of times an American non work truck is
| used to haul a load each year is zero. Same for using it's
| bed capacity.
| freshtake wrote:
| I don't think this generalization is quite fair. I'm sure
| this is true for some folks and their social circles, but
| for those of us who engineer and know our way around a Home
| Depot, the capacity is a game changer. I used to have to
| rent or borrow trucks for my projects.
|
| Not to mention Christmas trees, moving, helping friends
| out, etc.
| culi wrote:
| Yes this has actually been studied. Though I don't have a
| link on hand I remember the numbers being quite stark
| Aurornis wrote:
| > The typical number of times an American non work truck is
| used to haul a load each year is zero.
|
| If you specifically exclude work trucks and define "haul a
| load" as filling up the bed with loose dirt or gravel or
| something then I could believe this.
|
| I haven't put a cubic yard of anything in my truck bed
| _this year_ but hauling a cubic yard of anything is a rare
| occurrence for someone who isn't doing landscaping.
|
| But you have to really stretch the definitions if you
| believe that people never put anything in the bed to haul.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| _You Don 't Need a Full-Size Pickup Truck, You Need a Cowboy
| Costume_ - https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-
| a-full-siz... - March 15th, 2019
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42638394 - January 2025
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21631704 - November 2019
|
| _Ray Delahanty | CityNerd: Rural Cosplay is, Unfortunately,
| A Thing_ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q_BE5KPp18
|
| (Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay, not
| realized utility and rational TCO, based on the evidence and
| data)
| Ray20 wrote:
| >based on the evidence and data >Evidence and data show
| that cake taste better than bread, why are they starving?
| Let them eat cake
|
| I really wonder what kind of world people live in who write
| such articles and what kind of world people live in who
| seriously read them. It's hard to believe that they live
| among us, there must be some separate island in the ocean
| or something like that where they can write their articles
| in complete isolation from the rest of the world.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Ehh, vehicle affordability rapidly accelerating away as
| the middle class evaporates solves the problem if people
| can't make financially rational choices themselves. As of
| this comment, the average price of a new full-size pickup
| truck is around $64,000, while the average price of a new
| mid-size pickup truck is about $42,690. This is before
| tariff impacts are baked in. Doesn't include operating
| costs (fuel, insurance, maintenance), putting monthly
| payments around $1k/month (at least). Let them drive
| studio apartments around I suppose, if they can get
| financed and not repo'd in the near term.
|
| Would you cry for me if I wanted a Lambo but couldn't
| afford it? You would not. This is different? Everyone is
| entitled to wildly conspicuous consumption? I argue no.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >affordability rapidly accelerating away as the middle
| class evaporates solves the problem
|
| But that complete bs. Vehicle affordability is not in any
| danger, average price of a new pickus trucks depends on
| the amount of money the population has. Even if the
| middle class completely disappears, people will just
| drive cheaper pickups.
|
| >Would you cry for me if I wanted a Lambo but couldn't
| afford it?
|
| But they could. And that the reason why "the average
| price of a new full-size pickup truck is around $64,000"
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > But they could. And that the reason why "the average
| price of a new full-size pickup truck is around $64,000"
|
| _Car Repos Hit Levels Unseen Since 2008 Financial
| Crisis_ - https://www.pymnts.com/transportation/2025/car-
| repos-hit-lev... - March 27th, 2025
|
| _Late Car Payments Hit Highest Rate in More Than 30
| Years_ - https://www.pymnts.com/loans/2025/late-car-
| payments-hit-high... - March 6th, 2025
|
| _St Louis Fed FRED: Average Amount Financed for New Car
| Loans at Finance Companies_ -
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTCTLVENANM
|
| I'll see if I have access to the Cox Automotive pickup
| truck specific repo stats as soon as I'm not mobile.
| Based on the auto loan delinquency and repo rates, the
| evidence is fairly robust that people cannot afford these
| price levels. They get off the lot with the vehicle,
| certainly, but then the clock starts ticking on when the
| car gets repo'd.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay
|
| This is a hilarious take for anyone who has spent any time
| living outside of a big city.
|
| Yes, there are _some_ people who buy trucks because they
| want one but don't actually use the truck features.
|
| Generalizing to "Americans are cosplaying" is just
| trolling.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| _Study Claims That Most Pickup Truck Owners Don't
| Actually Use Them For Truck Stuff_ - September 2023
|
| https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-
| owners-...
|
| https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history
| kortilla wrote:
| From that own study it shows more than half are using it
| at least "occasionally" for "hauling".
|
| I'd like to see the study on what percentage of people
| use all 4 seats in their car so you can dunk on people
| who buy 4 seaters next.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I live in a big city and two children under 10 have been
| killed by large pickup trucks within a half mile of my
| home in the last five years. Two that I know of anyway,
| because I'm acquainted with the families. One had been
| modified with a "bull bar" making it more dangerous to
| pedestrians.
|
| And 80% of americans live in urban areas.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullbar
| monkeyelite wrote:
| > Americans buy trucks out of emotion and cosplay,
|
| You don't need anything besides tent and food!
|
| Every person buys almost everything for emotion.
| kortilla wrote:
| This is one of the dumbest takes I've seen on trucks. It
| attacks a straw man.
|
| If you buy something for one of its features and don't use
| the others, it doesn't have anything to do with cosplay.
|
| This is like saying people who buy electric cars should
| just buy race car driver costumes instead. Unbridled
| ignorance.
| stouset wrote:
| > Trucks can haul people, things, do road trips, etc. pretty
| well.
|
| Yes, as can most vehicles?
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Not to the same ability. Sedans and mid size SUVs have far
| less space, and also less ground height. If you're
| traveling on gravel roads or camping, most sedans and
| smaller SUVs aren't ideal. If you have kids, space fills up
| quickly even for small trips. If you're moving something
| larger (like drywall or a TV) it may not fit at all in a
| smaller vehicle. Even most full size SUVs also have less
| space than a full size truck (even one that isn't one of
| the larger models).
| fumar wrote:
| The argument Telo makes is that you can have high utility
| in a smaller vehicle designed well. I was my own GC for a
| site-built home and sub contracted out many parts of it.
| I did it while owning a 2 door Mini SE. Only twice did I
| need to rent truck from my local Home Depot to haul some
| unwieldy and heavy debris. Most stores will deliver what
| you need (lumber, large pipes, insulation, etc) because
| consumer trucks are rarely large enough. I would not have
| been able to load any significant amount of lumber into
| an F250. That leaves large vehicles for recreation or
| family space. I hope car manufacturers rethink vehicle
| packaging now that EV motors and batteries allow for
| different confirmations like putting the motor in the
| wheel hub.
|
| And, the sub contractors - the ones doing the work
| (immigrants) - they had a wide variety of vehicles. I
| took note that some had Camrys, Prius, old Golfs, small
| picks ups like Rangers, and some older mid size trucks
| that were visually heavily used. Else, they used
| commercial trucks or vans. When did I see the prestigious
| full cab F150s or Silverado RTs? When I originally
| interviewed GCs which is when I noticed they drove their
| clean and new trucks.
| gdudeman wrote:
| The vast majority of dirt roads are fine. I put hundreds
| of miles on my 1996 Honda Civic hatchback in the Cascades
| with no problems many years ago.
|
| If the road existed in the 1990s, it's quite likely
| accessible by a mid-size SUV. Similarly, if families of 4
| could go camping with cars from 1950-2000, you can today
| as well. In fact, you can get more compact tents, etc.
| today.
|
| Trucks and huge SUVs come in handy if you want to bring
| lots of modern toys like gigantic prestige coolers and
| 4x4s.
| amluto wrote:
| A lot of modern "trucks" are pretty crappy for actually
| hauling anything. A few months ago I had the pleasure of
| loading some furniture into an Escalade. The outside is huge,
| but the inside is remarkably small. The height of the
| interior floor is also ridiculous, so it's extra difficult to
| lift anything into the vehicle. I don't think most full size
| pickups are a lot better.
|
| Also, check out the underside of most of these monster
| vehicles. The approach, breakover, and departure angles may
| be awesome, but that's only because the definitions assume
| uniform height transverse to the driving direction. If you
| drive these things over any substantial bump that the wheels
| _don't_ go over, the differential will bottom out. Oops. This
| means that, for many practical purposes, the height of the
| vehicle and the absurd suspensions don't buy nearly as much
| capability as they might appear to.
| matwood wrote:
| I wouldn't consider an Escalade a truck, just a luxury SUV.
| A Hilux/Tacoma, Tundra or F150 are trucks. And they pretty
| capable of doing all the things. My Tundra might be one of
| the best cars I ever owned.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Let's not play this game.
|
| The main objection is the buffoonish size. Look at trucks in
| the 1990s and compare the size.
|
| There is absolutely an element of clownish machismo involved.
| stn8188 wrote:
| The other day, I was just remarking how my minivan makes a
| better pickup than most pickups for most tasks. For years
| I've wanted to get another truck (had an old Dakota that I
| had to sell when kid #3 was on the way). Practicality reigns,
| though, and I'm extremely satisfied with the usability of the
| van.
| qingcharles wrote:
| The people I know with pick-ups don't use the bed half the
| time "in case it rains today" and have to tow a covered
| trailer to haul anything that wouldn't like to get wet.
| rco8786 wrote:
| > Maybe you're noticing when there's one human but you don't
| really know how else that person is using the vehicle at
| other times.
|
| 95% of big trucks I see on the road have one person in them
| and beyond my anecdotal experience we know statistically that
| most vehicle trips involve 1 person. It's not super hard to
| extrapolate from there.
|
| I'm not even particularly "anti" truck, though I do think the
| increase in size and weight has gotten totally ridiculous.
| jnwatson wrote:
| You can do all those things with a vehicle half the size.
| Modern F-150s are industrial vehicles. They weight 5000
| pounds. They and their large SUV cousins are a menace to
| pedestrians, normal-sized vehicles, and the road itself.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You only need a Pentium 3 machine to read and write on Hacker
| News.
| daymanstep wrote:
| You can do it with a raspberry pi.
| rambambram wrote:
| Did that for a couple of years. RPi4 as my daily driver
| (including image creation and video editing).
|
| https://www.heyhomepage.com/?module=blog&link=1&post=4
| topato wrote:
| I don't get it, is the joke, 'stating the obvious'?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Why is it wrong to have a powerful vehicle if you don't
| always use it for tasks demanding that power, but it's okay
| to have a surplus of power for low-demanding computing
| tasks?
| scubbo wrote:
| Because accomplishing the same task with a more powerful
| (i.e. larger) vehicle is a) more polluting, and b) more
| dangerous for other road users; two things that are not
| true for a surplus of computing power.
| monkeyelite wrote:
| Are you sure your house is the minimum you need? It's
| looking a little bit nicer and more spacious than others.
| uncletaco wrote:
| Because by and large the apps and programs you are
| running on your computer requires lots of resources just
| to open and allow you to do your low-demanding tasks.
| crote wrote:
| Same reason I don't want to have dinner in a restaurant
| next to someone trying to cut their steak with a
| chainsaw: at best they are being incredibly obnoxious, at
| worst they are going to maim me. Just because it is
| better for your once-a-month weekend lumberjack trip with
| the boys doesn't mean it is an appropriate one-size-fits-
| all cutting tool for day-to-day use.
|
| Contrast that with someone having a needlessly powerful
| computer. How does that impact the rest of the world? Not
| at all, it only impacts the owner's wallet. Someone's
| needlessly-powerful computer has never killed a child, or
| taken up four spots in public. Heck, it'll even downclock
| when idle, so there isn't even any extra power use to be
| worried about!
| sneak wrote:
| Having a CPU sitting idle doesn't cause massive
| externalities.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| I don't think you thought this one through... if anything
| you're making the opposite point you're (I believe) trying to
| make.
|
| I'm writing this on a macbook air that sizes up to <2.5% of
| the weight and volume of a desktop computer you're describing
| (screen, case and peripherals). It's also idling at about 2-3
| watt, which is also <10% of the computer you're describing.
| It also produces much less sound, it's entirely quiet.
|
| So size, weight and power usage and noise are way down.
|
| The idea that I'd use a pentium 3 instead is ridiculous for
| these very reasons (heavier, bigger, noisier, using more
| energy), even in private use, and especially in public use.
|
| It's also the reason why bigger, heavier, noisier and more
| energy-consuming cars, are also ridiculous to many people,
| particularly those not driving them and having to face them
| in the _public_ sphere.
| 65 wrote:
| You could have written this exact comment on the Slate Truck
| announcement post.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I wonder what this is like for driver safety though - not a lot
| of crumple zone in that nose!
| kimixa wrote:
| Not as much crumple zone as you might think in a
| "traditional" truck if most of the space is full of a solid
| metal block
| disqard wrote:
| You're both right!
|
| I noticed the lack of a "crumple zone" the instant I saw
| the image.
|
| ...and a moment later, I also realized it's usually a solid
| engine block that sits there. I shudder to think of what
| actually happens when that zone "crumples".
|
| Back to the Telo MT1, it's great that they redesigned it
| from the ground up, around it being an EV -- it's like the
| Phelps Tractor having reins, and then somebody asking "why
| does it need to have reins if there's no horse?"
| apparent wrote:
| > ...and a moment later, I also realized it's usually a
| solid engine block that sits there. I shudder to think of
| what actually happens when that zone "crumples".
|
| I believe the engine drops down and the rest crumples
| inward, at least in theory.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Don't shudder, learn about it.
|
| The engine is designed to move based on the design of the
| frame rails and mounts -- it is pushed under the
| passenger compartment, absorbing and deflecting more
| energy.
|
| I'm sure the Telo is designed to modern standards and
| would perform similarly. I'd be more worried about
| expensive damage to the vehicle in less personally
| dangerous collisions.
| gdudeman wrote:
| This would be my concern. A fender bender hits the wheels
| on this thing and suddenly you're doing major surgery to
| repair it.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Decades of research, innovation, crash tests and rule
| changes have been put into improving safety in head on
| collisions. It's not like you're the first who wonders
| what will happen with engine block. It's designed to go
| down.
|
| Although I don't know about American trucks. I think they
| are meant to wreak havoc on every single person involved.
| cjblomqvist wrote:
| My neighbour designs the crumble zone on Volvo's heavy
| duty trucks. They at least spend a shit ton of effort
| (continuous, multi-decade) on making anything hit by the
| truck having as little effect as possible (at least).
|
| Quite a challenge with heavy duty trucks shipping tens of
| tons of stuff, but anyway.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I find no problems with them being giant. I drive a F150
| Lightning and since it all electric I love that it's big.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > They are often touted as off road capable with high utility,
| and I see them in pristine condition on city streets
|
| When I was off-roading and traveling a lot of dirt trails with
| my truck I would also wash it, wax it, and keep it in pristine
| condition when I got back home.
|
| What did you expect? That we'd leave the mud on it forever,
| never wash it, and all of the side panels would be bashed in?
| If you'd climb under the truck (as I do for oil changes) you
| could see a lot of scrapes and dings from rocks, but I avoid
| damaging the side and front because that's very expensive to
| repair.
|
| Anyway, most of the trucks sold today aren't sold in the off-
| road trim. They're sold with features like lower clearance air
| dams up front for better fuel economy, on-road tires for better
| road noise and fuel economy, and commonly in 2WD trims. A new
| F150 can get 25mpg on the freeway even without the hybrid
| option.
|
| I work remote so my truck isn't used for commutes. I frequently
| haul things in the bed. I off road with friends.
|
| Yet that doesn't stop some people from making snide remarks
| about driving a truck. Some people love being angry at truck
| drivers and imagining they're all just making irrational
| choices. They won't be happy until we're driving to Home Depot
| or UHaul every other weekend to rent a truck or trailer instead
| of parking one in our driveways.
|
| It doesn't stop them from calling me up and asking for help
| moving furniture when they need it, though. :)
| 01100011 wrote:
| People addicted to online forums love to comment and upvote
| posts which trash talk trucks. People who own and enjoy
| trucks are busy leading fun and productive lives and can't be
| bothered to waste their time with online arguments.
| rco8786 wrote:
| > That we'd leave the mud on it forever, never wash it, and
| all of the side panels would be bashed in?
|
| That's exactly how we always did it growing up.
| esskay wrote:
| > A new F150 can get 25mpg on the freeway even without the
| hybrid option.
|
| As a non-American it's super weird that this is considered a
| good thing. That'd be considered utterly atrocious in most
| parts of the developed world.
|
| I completely get that a truck is absolutely the best tool for
| the job for many people. But it's pretty obvious the OP was
| pointing out the people who own a truck and use it to get
| from home to their desk job.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| 25 isn't good? That's what my tiny sedan used to get and I
| sold it not even 5 years ago.
| _kb wrote:
| A Toyota RAV4 (the best calling ICE car in the world) is
| about half that. They do a hybrid model that's lower
| still.
|
| The Toyota Corolla (second best selling) is then lower
| again.
|
| US cultural perceptions on fuel efficiency are bonkers.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| 25 is terrible highway mileage. When I (USA) had a pickup
| truck as my daily commuter for a few years 5-10 years
| back, I got ~22 mpg on "city" roads, and >30 mpg on
| highways. And that's not considered good.
| nsriv wrote:
| Genuinely terrible, a 15 year old Civic handily gets
| 35mpg highway, a 2025 non-hybrid gets 47+.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| You seem very intent (here, and in the loneliness thread) on
| projecting your own experiences as the baseline on which
| things should be evaluated.
|
| It is a known _fact_ that the vast majority of truck owners
| rarely ever use the truck bed. Millions of school pickups
| happening on massive trucks - and SUVs - are not ceasing to
| happen because you loaded your own with a pile of grass.
| People buy them because they're "safer", comfortable and look
| good. This is coming from research data for years now, and
| not only in the USA.
|
| It can be hard to relate to changes happening at societal
| scale that don't affect your own microcosm, but how else can
| we be aware of it, and act on, if not through data, averages
| and trends?
| dkh wrote:
| You know, for someone who clearly is a bit triggered
| (reasonably) by dealing with whatever stereotypes and
| judgements people make about trucks and truck owners, their
| post is quite positive and respectful. Your reply to it is
| not. It seems like your argument is "the data indicates a
| statistical likelihood that someone judging, assuming, or
| stereotyping will still be accurate." The factual
| inaccuracy of prejudice is not the problem with prejudice,
| the prejudice is
| jychang wrote:
| I fail to see how prejudice against waste is a problem.
|
| Prejudice is a bad thing- for things that people can't
| change, like their race or age. Prejudice against people
| making bad or wasteful decisions is a good thing.
| jpk wrote:
| The point is you can't reliably tell if someone's choice
| of vehicle is wasteful unless you get to know them a bit.
| Snap-judging someone's entire lifestyle in the second it
| takes to recognize a make and model isn't constructive.
| kubectl_h wrote:
| > It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners
| rarely ever use the truck bed.
|
| I'm not here to defend brodozers, but you cannot possibly
| prove this statement. That a _pickup truck_ isn't hauling
| the majority of the time it is on the road is not some new
| thing. But of course there are more pickup trucks on the
| road than ever, so if you argument is aggregate time of all
| pickup trucks not doing truck things is the highest its
| ever been is certainly true, but you'd probably have to go
| back to before the 80s for that number to actually be
| meaningfully different per truck.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| [delayed]
| sneak wrote:
| This is the originally unintended side effect of regulation
| that applies to cars.
|
| Americans generally don't want tiny vehicles. The option that
| leaves them is trucks and, increasingly, SUVs.
| ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote:
| I want a tiny car. The problem is that road design is unsafe
| so people buy bigger cars so they are safer when they get
| into an accident. I've seen the aftermath of a Chrysler Fiat
| getting into a collision with an SUV and lets just say the
| Fiat driver had much worse day than the SUV driver.
| monkeyelite wrote:
| those are the trucks that people who buy trucks like. This
| truck is designed to appeal to people who don't buy trucks.
| rcpt wrote:
| It's also because of CAFE standards.
| kortilla wrote:
| >They are often touted as off road capable with high utility,
| and I see them in pristine condition on city streets hauling a
| totality of one human.
|
| If you off-road with a truck and keep it clean afterwards, this
| is exactly what it looks like on the street.
| nodesocket wrote:
| The risk to pedestrians is pretty much a non-factor in this.
| It's going to come down to business / agriculture adoption
| where I see the largest market opportunity. Think service
| technicians such as HVAC, plumbers, construction. If these can
| make financial sense in terms of ROI and cost of ownership then
| Telo can make it. Currently the base price of $41,500 is a bit
| on the higher end, though of course will save dramatically on
| fuel and maintenance over industry standard vans and light
| trucks.
| andrepd wrote:
| It's a failure of law and regulation that those things are even
| allowed. Their existence is a direct attack on the freedom of
| third parties.
| lazycouchpotato wrote:
| There's a video walkthrough of all its "quirks and features", of
| which there are plenty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYe-
| QNRkdz8
| layer8 wrote:
| Too few physical controls on the dashboard.
| tills13 wrote:
| Can't wait to see what mental gymnastics are done to make this
| illegal or heavily taxed in some US States.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| That will only happen if the right-wing propagandists manage to
| turn these into a wedge issue. But ultimately more EV cars and
| trucks (as opposed to e-bikes) won't threaten the car-dependent
| culture that enables the population-density-driven fear or
| urban culture driving their narratives to begin with.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| The extreme regulation of automobiles in the US is entirely
| from the left, specifically from people who dislike cars and
| want everyone on public transit (except for the few special
| people of course).
| jimmoores wrote:
| Wow, that is one ugly vehicle. It looks like it's been in an
| accident.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| I love the fantastic designs and form factors popping up in mini-
| EV truck/SUV space. My worry is for the business feasibility for
| these. Why isn't Tesla making these? They have the supply chain
| and expertise to easily pull it off and they'd be such a big hit.
| People switching to them for light cargo would be a REAL
| contribution in cutting use of carbon.
|
| I can think of one possibility. At Tesla's scale, production
| becomes feasible only if they can produce X million units. This
| is because setting up production tooling, supply chain channels,
| and other associated costs is prohibitively expensive.
| Additionally, the demand for these vehicles will be relatively
| low until influential YouTubers in the construction, farming, and
| rural sectors become advocates and start promoting them.
|
| In my opinion, electric vehicles (EVs) are perfectly suited for
| this task. They are ideal for transporting heavy items between
| nearby destinations, such as moving Home Depot supplies to a
| construction site or Costco products to a restaurant or store. A
| range of even 200 miles is practical for this use-case and keeps
| the cost low (MT1 is a beast by my standard).
|
| For clarification, I am all for more competition. But I am also
| selfish and I really want this segment to become wildly
| successful . In any case, I really and truly hope they can make
| the business case work and be profitable/sustainable.
| Dig1t wrote:
| They have to solve a real problem for people hauling cargo,
| they don't really do that as they currently exist. They get
| significantly worse range when hauling than a normal gas or
| diesel truck, their only benefit is making feel better about
| their carbon footprint.
|
| I was legit considering getting an F150 lighting for a little
| while but when I saw how much your range decreases when towing
| something it became obvious that it's not really practical.
| It's just objectively worse at hauling than a gas car.
|
| Hopefully we see more battery tech breakthroughs that make
| electric trucks viable work vehicles.
| disentanglement wrote:
| They are cheaper to run almost everywhere (depending on the
| cost of electricity versus gas of course). No breakthrough in
| battery technology needed for that.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| It is worse at hauling. I can get between 150 to 200 miles
| while towing my 4000 lb RV with my lightning. What's nice
| though is I can get a full charge at my campsite for the
| night so I never really pay for transportation. Turns out 200
| miles per day is good enough for cross country RVing.
|
| For everyday driving, I pay about $8.50 for a "full tank" of
| charge that gets me around 300 miles. That's about $100 worth
| of gas in an equivalent gas truck.
|
| That's being said I think the ideal truck would have about
| 2x-3x the current battery capacity of the extended range
| lightning.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| The new huge GM EV & SUV trucks do have way more battery -
| and weight. The GM Silverado EV Work Truck is EPA 492
| miles, tested at 530 by edmonds. So take the common rule of
| thumb, divide range by half or maybe a little more and you
| get about 250 miles of towing range. https://news.gm.com/ho
| me.detail.html/Pages/topic/us/en/2025/....
|
| In a couple of recent youtube videos, "Aging Wheels"
| thoroughly tested a variety of trailers towed behind a
| variety of vehicles and then also added weight to the
| trailer to see the efficiency impact of towing a trailer
| with a lot more weight. They found a 4.3% efficiency drop
| by adding weight to max out the towing, compared to towing
| without the extra weight. Weight isn't what matters on
| towing impact, it's the wind resistance of the trailer that
| matters much more.
|
| They did a long series of comparison drives (in the about
| 30 mins video) with different trailers and then loaded them
| with extra weight to see the impact. It was smaller than
| you expect. The video with all the tests is
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmKf8smvGsA.
|
| I heard about this on the batteries included podcast where
| they interview the author of the video above, and kind of
| give high level summary with some details,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJv-xAqcTI.
| masklinn wrote:
| It's pretty complicated. The issue with hauling is that it
| craters your aerodynamics and explodes your rolling
| resistance, so you need massive battery capacity. Or to slow
| down, but most people don't want to do that.
|
| Aging wheels has a recent video on the subject:
| https://youtu.be/UmKf8smvGsA
| rsync wrote:
| "I love the fantastic designs and form factors popping up in
| mini-EV truck/SUV space ..."
|
| _Exterior_ designs.
|
| The interior has no design - design and UI were given over to a
| touchscreen. Go look at the interior renderings to see for
| yourself ...
| Jach wrote:
| > Additionally, the demand for these vehicles will be
| relatively low until influential YouTubers in the construction,
| farming, and rural sectors become advocates and start promoting
| them.
|
| This is a surprising claim to me. Can you point to any other
| vehicles (even something from John Deere or a competitor) whose
| demand significantly rose in a way directly attributable to
| influential youtubers in those niches, and which influencers in
| particular you think would be particularly influential?
| Maken wrote:
| But Tesla already did one of these. It's called Cybertruck.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| The CT is a truck and it is electric, but it has some
| limitations, one being the range is not that great. And it
| has some weaknesses.
| notatoad wrote:
| >My worry is for the business feasibility for these
|
| hopefully the success of the ford maverick can allay some of
| this concern - i don't think anybody was really expecting it to
| be as successful as it has been, but it seems like there's
| actually pretty decent demand for a smaller truck.
| benzible wrote:
| I don't think Tesla's judgment should be the litmus test. They
| have capacity to produce 250K Cybertrucks / year, currently on
| pace to sell < 20K and it's only going down from here.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I kind of think it's cool that reality is configured such
| that Cybertruck exists, but only in a very meta way. Lazy-
| think me: It feels dumb and is probably just bad focus from a
| company focus standpoint.
| delabay wrote:
| Sadly, trucks like these are like the automotive "small
| smartphone". At first it appears there is a large vocal market,
| especially if you read the comment section. Alas, nobody will
| buy it, just like nobody actually buys small smartphones.
| girvo wrote:
| Sadly true: and I'm one of those who walks their talk wrt.
| small phones. I don't need a ute, though, so I drive a cupra
| born instead
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 40k with 300hp and 350 mile range? This sounds pretty awesome
| imo.
| timeon wrote:
| > Why isn't Tesla making these?
|
| Like with most cars they have made it is because Tesla has no
| taste.
| siva7 wrote:
| It's aesthetically not pleasing in my eyes. They even have a
| comparison with ford trucks on their page and all i'm thinking is
| yeah i'd take that ford instantly over that thing.
| jonahx wrote:
| It looks like a pug:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/omF3Abn.jpeg
| SilverElfin wrote:
| What's the range when loaded with things or people? That's what
| matters. I find that most EVs have too many impracticalities to
| be convenient. For a fixed commute, sure. But for versatility,
| absolutely not.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| This guy did tests in a different EV truck
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmKf8smvGsA
|
| The results were:
|
| 1. Adding weight to the bed, if it doesn't affect aerodynamics,
| doesn't affect highway range much. For stop-and-go traffic I
| assume the range would get worse, but he didn't test it.
|
| 2. Adding a big air pusher to an otherwise empty trailer
| murders the range
|
| 3. Adding an aerodynamic car or truck on a trailer is better
| for your range than the air pusher
|
| I do wish it was a hybrid. Maybe small companies don't have the
| knowledge built up to make a good hybrid drivetrain but hell,
| Edison is going for it. They're planning to build logging
| trucks with a diesel generator under the hood as prime mover
| for a series plug-in hybrid drivetrain. It looks very practical
| and their initial tests show it tows great. (Since that's their
| entire selling point, they'd have to fold if it couldn't haul
| logs)
| levocardia wrote:
| I am glad to see EV companies doing something different,
| aesthetically. In this particular case I do not like it -- at all
| -- but I much prefer a high-variance aesthetic distribution to
| the genetic every-car-looks-the-same world we have now, sans a
| tiny few exceptions.
|
| The side compartment under the bed / in front of the rear wheel
| is pretty cool too.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| I spoke to them a lot at OpenSauce.
|
| - The body panels were composite but they want to go to stamped
| metal for production. - It's based off of the subaru ascent; at
| least most of the frame and suspension is. - NMC chemistry,
| didn't get an OEM name for the actual cell/pouch though. - Mostly
| off the shelf Bosch power-train components. Will be interesting
| to see a tear-down once they're for sale. - No commitment on how
| "open" the vehicle will be to modifications. They have designed
| in attachment points for upgrades but it didn't seem to be
| anywhere as extensive as what Slate is doing. This makes some
| sense; they have a more "finished" vision where Slate is
| intentionally taking the "our vision is for you to buy the canvas
| from us and then make it your own" approach.
|
| On that last point, I don't think Slate has released anything
| substantial either w/r/t the CAN bus either. As far as I know,
| their plan is still a BYOD approach for the head-unit so here's
| hoping that it'll be relatively straight forward to interrogate
| the busses from an android or linux device. The Telo had a head-
| unit integrated so who knows how much control you'll have over
| the vehicle.
| macinjosh wrote:
| way too expensive for its size and capability
| lend000 wrote:
| As much as I like the novelty of the design, there isn't much of
| a crumple zone for a head on collision. I could see the wheel
| placement making this a fun off-road vehicle, though.
| markbao wrote:
| This is cool I guess but I don't get why some of these electric
| car companies have to design cars that look like toys. Rivian and
| this. It looks like a golf cart with a flatbed. I think an
| electric kei truck would have a huge market in the US but the
| design needs some work to be taken seriously.
|
| There's something to be said for being distinctive, but you can
| do that while not looking silly (Lucid is a good example). And
| simply being a small electric truck is enough differentiation
| anyway
| turnsout wrote:
| To 99% of consumers in the US, kei trucks look like toys, so
| I'm not sure that's the best example.
|
| Honestly, if you look at the truck market, it's dominated by
| masculine designs like the F-150. Arguably this has created a
| gap in the market for designs that are more compact and
| approachable. It may never be the majority, but TELO looks
| perfectly suited to address that niche.
| markbao wrote:
| Kei trucks are small but they look like a workhorse in a
| similar way to a classic Hilux giving them a respectability
| that I think this design lacks.
|
| I agree there should be more approachable designs, just seems
| like this went way too far in the direction of toy-like
| 01100011 wrote:
| I just want my 2000 Toyota Tacoma but with a small EV(0-60 in
| 10s is fine, 150hp is fine, 200mi range is fine).
| rco8786 wrote:
| Oh man I would scoop that up in a heartbeat.
| maxwellg wrote:
| I dream of a low-milage early 2000s Taco with aftermarket
| Carplay
| cushychicken wrote:
| Late 90s/early aughts Tacomas are GOAT vehicles.
|
| I had a stick shift one in high school. Absolutely loved it.
| beoberha wrote:
| The Slate truck is probably pretty close to what you're
| looking for?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| This looks like a kei truck, who by definition looks like a
| toy.
|
| Seriously though, it has the same shape and look of any kei
| I've seen. Like others, I wish for a 90s era Ford Ranger or
| Tacoma, but between safety requirements and capability demand
| from people that's probably not practical.
| rco8786 wrote:
| The kei truck itself has a ridiculous toy-like design also
| though.
| 762236 wrote:
| They had a ton of design constraints, and looking like a toy
| wasn't one of them. This is what their solution to those
| constraints (such as more range via a low coefficient of drag)
| looks like. Very few people are capable of evaluating a vehicle
| without their biases influencing them, such as what a masculine
| truck needs to look like.
| echoangle wrote:
| > Very few people are capable of evaluating a vehicle without
| their biases influencing them, such as what a masculine truck
| needs to look like.
|
| Right, thats why looks would have been a good additional
| constraint.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| Looks like a Kei truck
| rsync wrote:
| I immediately searched the site for interior pictures and had my
| pessimism confirmed ... it's a design-free interior with no
| physical controls.
|
| At least they kept the stalks on the steering column ...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Is there some reason they have to make these have 300 or 500hp?
| Or is there nothing to be gained in terms of cost and weight from
| having, say, 90hp (like my completely functional Mighty Max had).
| neogodless wrote:
| For the most part there is a floor with EVs where if you go
| small in battery, weight, and motor... You have a golf cart,
| not nearly enough range.
|
| As you increase each of those, a larger motor will probably be
| more efficient for propelling a heavier load with a larger
| battery.
|
| Because of the instant torque plus high speeds of an EV motor,
| it's not hard at all to have high HP figures.
| barbegal wrote:
| The reason why we don't generally have vehicles this small any
| more is because they don't pass crash tests so I'm wondering how
| this fares in a crash test. I can't see any way this could be
| sold in Europe unless there's some very clever engineering to
| make the front end more resilient in a crash.
| ColonelPhantom wrote:
| I guess modern crash safety does require decent crumple zones,
| but I'm not sure in how far Europe is different than North
| America in this.
|
| If anything, small vehicles aren't a thing in NA, but extremely
| popular still in Europe, even though SUVification is also
| happening here.
|
| There's plenty of small cars left, like the Toyota Aygo X.
| Renault is also working on a new electric Twingo, and the new 5
| isn't huge either.
| masklinn wrote:
| > I can't see any way this could be sold in Europe
|
| It's 3860 x 1854mm, there are vehicles smaller than that being
| sold in europe right now (in the A segment, not quadricycles):
| the fiat 500e is 3632x1683, the suzuki ignis is 3700x1660. The
| citroen c1 (discontinued 2022) used to be just 3470x1620.
|
| Hell there are B segment cars which aren't much bigger, the R5
| e-tech is 3920x1770, the yaris is 3940x1745.
| barbegal wrote:
| There are smaller vehicles being sold but the distance from
| the front bumper to the driver's legs is much longer because
| they don't have a bed taking up space at the back.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Probably also the open wheels would be an immediate issue in
| Europe, especially for pedestrians.
|
| I love the look of the front wheels though!
| crote wrote:
| The Smart ForTwo and Smart ForFour sold pretty well in Europe,
| and they are _minuscule_ : the ForTwo was only 270cm (106in)
| long and 150cm (61in) wide!
| barbegal wrote:
| The ForTwo has two seats and no truck bed so it can have
| enough space for a crash structure in front of the driver. On
| top of that its NCAP rating expired in 2021 and it is no
| longer being sold. The next generation of the ForTwo is
| likely to be longer in order to improve safety (if it ever
| makes it into production)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Light and medium duty commercial vehicles in Europe seem to be
| almost entirely cab-forwards designs; how do they pass crash
| tests?
| wstrange wrote:
| This is what Tesla should have built instead of the Cybertruck.
|
| With their distribution and service centers, this would sell like
| hot cakes.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Too small, this won't sell.
| Jach wrote:
| Still as ugly as last time it appeared on HN, it has none of the
| charm of a Kei truck. I wish any company would just take the old
| Ford Ranger designs (2011 and earlier) and make a truck on that.
| Or better yet, Ford themselves could redo the electric version of
| the Ranger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV) from 25
| years ago with modern tech but the same look.
| torginus wrote:
| I really like the idea of taking advantage of there not being an
| engine bay in the front, and moving the driver position forward,
| and eliminating the unused length of the engine bay - but this
| looks very unsafe for the driver in a crash, with no crumple zone
| to speak of - not to mention it turns a simple fender bender into
| a front axle replacement (though with modern cars and their
| sensors, there's no such thing as a cheap crash anyway)
| roschdal wrote:
| Telo MT1 - "your knees are the crumble zone"
| throw123xz wrote:
| Is it much worse than having an engine there?
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Next level ugly. One of the worst designs I've ever seen.
| nacholar wrote:
| Apparently nobody speaks spanish in the team. Telo MT1 can be
| read as "te lo mete uno" which translates to sombedy puts it into
| you.
| fallingmeat wrote:
| still better than "doesn't go"
| aynyc wrote:
| This is what Ford e-transit could've been. Another missed
| opportunity by Ford.
| iambateman wrote:
| I'd love to drive something like this. Looking forward to these
| hitting the market!
| sgt wrote:
| I recommend watching the CTO's story:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-XlCf87hQ
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| I saw this on JerryRigEverything and was thinking that this is
| the perfect city pickup. Compact, yet with a reasonable payload
| size. It has a good range (which, in my case, is not as
| important) and the horsepower is good. The dash takes a bit of
| getting used to, but OK.
|
| It's the second electric vehicle I actually like (Rivian being
| the first - but it's a full-size).
| photios wrote:
| Man, this car is ugly. I'm getting strong Fiat Multipla vibes:
|
| https://www.motorbiscuit.com/remembering-fiat-multipla-quite...
| dvh wrote:
| Fiat multipla - car so ugly that Michael Schumacher had to do a
| commercial for it.
| zubiaur wrote:
| They have a very strange presence. They are quite wide. All the
| proportions are odd. It catches one's eye. I uggly-puppy like
| it.
| crote wrote:
| At least the Fiat Multipla was a _great_ car. It is filled to
| the brim with small features which improve the driving
| experience, and it is a miracle that it can fit six(!) people.
| It has a massive amount of storage space and great visibility,
| what 's not to like?
|
| Besides the way it looks, of course. But if you're inside a
| Multipla, at least you don't have to look at its exterior?
| jama211 wrote:
| This isn't a mini truck, it's a truck. It's just that the others
| are giant trucks.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| What's the tow capacity and range when towing? No 4WD either.
| It's not a truck it's a UTV.
| lysace wrote:
| When your legs are an integral part of the crumple zone.
| largbae wrote:
| Telo vs Slate.... Fight!
| hackama wrote:
| This seems dangerous. Where's the crumple zone?
| __0x01 wrote:
| Is this cheaper to run than the gas equivalent?
| antisthenes wrote:
| The information you're looking for is $41,520
| holoduke wrote:
| Sorry. But to me it looks like a truck i can order on
| alieexpress. Does not show any robustness, strength and is not
| sexy at all. Nice for your local laundry delivery service at your
| beach resort. But thats it.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| 41k ?!
|
| The entire point of the Slate truck is to try to come in under
| 20K or around it, and without the EV subsidies that's probably
| not going to happen.
| apparent wrote:
| When I scrolled quickly through the landing page looking for
| the price, I noticed it wasn't there and figured it would be
| expensive. I didn't think it would be this much though...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| There's a reason limited production vehicles are almost always
| sports cars. Huge economies of scale are needed to target the
| budget market that you're not going to get as an unknown brand.
| world2vec wrote:
| Doug DeMuro did a review a couple months ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYe-QNRkdz8
| andy_ppp wrote:
| It looks like a pug. I'm not saying that is bad :-)
| wg0 wrote:
| EVs are scam of the century. They have diverted so much economic
| resources into an end product that isn't even reliable let alone
| having a long life.
|
| Yet to talk about the amount of mining, its carbon footprint and
| pretty much irreversible or really high cost
| extraction/restoration of batteries apart.
|
| Longevity and carbon footprint - If that's not your yardstick
| than other than that the EVs are great. Have more power than any
| combustion engine can ever have, have more torque, more
| acceleration and pretty much zero maintenance as far as the
| "engine" is concerned. No noise, no emissions, no vibrations
| either.
| throw123xz wrote:
| > an end product that isn't even reliable let alone having a
| long life
|
| What's unreliable on a modern EV? And what do you mean by "long
| life", because you now have 10-15 year old EVs that are fine.
|
| Obviously some cars aged poorly, like some Tesla which had poor
| build quality (not an EV problem, but a company problem) or
| cars like the Nissan Leaf that didn't have battery cooling for
| years, but what's exactly unreliable on a modern Polestar or a
| Hyundai?
| wg0 wrote:
| You don't need to ask me, check what happened with car rental
| companies and EVs.
|
| It's all pretty evident.
| throw123xz wrote:
| If you're referring to what happen to companies like Hertz,
| then according to them the problem wasn't reliability.
|
| The cars had more accidents, probably because some were not
| used to the speed or would get an EV just to test the
| speed. Why buy Tesla in that case then, when their repairs
| are known to be super expensive and slow? Then you had
| people who are not used to EVs and charging trying to use
| EVs and the companies themselves didn't build the charging
| infrastructure so customers left with a full battery, but
| that has nothing to do with reliability. Vehicle
| depreciation? Again, a Tesla problem because they sold them
| the cars at a high price before dropping prices (the covid
| years were very weird).
|
| So again, what makes EVs unreliable? It's a simple
| question.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Car rental companies hated EVs because of the large
| depreciation. That's a sign that the technology is
| progressing quickly.
| slater wrote:
| > Yet to talk about the amount of mining, its carbon footprint
| and pretty much irreversible or really high cost
| extraction/restoration of batteries apart.
|
| Do you also have similar thoughts on all the infrastructure
| needed for oil, or is that not to be discussed?
|
| I always wonder with the "all the mineral-mining!!!" crowd, do
| they think the oil infrastructure just arrived overnight? And
| there was no cost (money _and_ long-term ecological) to it all?
| WorldPeas wrote:
| Let's hope now that CAFE is dead or at least disarmed, more cars
| like this will come from the woodwork. I was always jealous that
| the japanese had so many cool small kei cars like the Subaru
| Sambar or Suzuki Cappuccino
| programmertote wrote:
| Looks good and a step in the right direction (speaking as someone
| who thinks the modern day trucks are getting too big for the
| danger of those driving alongside them on the roads).
|
| I wonder though if the interior trim can be ordered without this
| felt-like material. I can easily see that being stained or dirty
| in a short period of time. I am sure there is.
| bikamonki wrote:
| Super ugly and super pricey.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| This can fun a fun and practical vehicle, and it has a lot nifty
| solutions, and should serve sub(urban) life well.
|
| but if you really need a pickup truck, this cannot compare to a
| Tacoma
|
| That said I dont think anyone buying a Tacoma will be tempted by
| this vehicle, and I dont think the buyers of the MT1 will be
| comparison checking the Tacoma either.
|
| Separate markets the way I see it, as do they
|
| ""EV pickup for urban living and weekend adventuring""
|
| So why the comparison?
| devmor wrote:
| > but if you really need a pickup truck, this cannot compare to
| a Tacoma
|
| Can you elaborate? This has the same bed size, same crew
| capacity and greater horsepower than a tacoma.
| kgoettler wrote:
| In my experience (US), the Tacoma is often the first vehicle
| that comes to people's minds when they think of a small pickup
| truck.
| amacbride wrote:
| Part of the problem, of course, is that the Tacoma is no
| longer even remotely small.
|
| I really want a modern version of a mid-90s Tacoma.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| One thing I have learned. If you own a pick up like vehicle You
| will be helping even people you barely know to move. and your
| extended friends and family whenever they buy something too big
| to fit in their car
| nelsonic wrote:
| Really hope enough people buy these _new_ so that in a few years
| time I can get a second hand one. ;-)
| devmor wrote:
| If it had full physical controls in the interior, this would be
| my dream vehicle. I'd reserve one today.
|
| The second I saw that touchscreen garbage dashboard I closed the
| window. I'll never buy a vehicle with that nonsense.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Just make a gas-powered one that's repairable. This is not
| complicated. I love my Tesla, but my other vehicle is a Hardbody
| for a reason. EVs SUCK as trucks.
| flankstaek wrote:
| >EVs SUCK as trucks.
|
| What makes you say that?
| sneak wrote:
| Battery energy density and the huge amounts of energy
| required to tow or haul heavy, un-aerodynamic loads.
| 01100011 wrote:
| I'd love an EV truck but not the weird little thing highlighted
| in this post. I watched an overview video someone linked but
| turned it off as soon as I saw the guy trying to fit inside the
| tiny cab.
|
| Also, why is this goofy little truck so powerful and so
| expensive? Can I please just get a modestly powered EV work
| truck with capacity for sheet goods, a few tools, and a single
| passenger other than the driver? Can it not cost $50k?
| plantwallshoe wrote:
| It doesn't matter how capable, efficient, affordable, powerful,
| etc. the truck is. That's not the point.
|
| The point of a truck for 90% of American pickup truck drivers is
| that it signals to the world around them what team they're on.
| This truck is a signal for the wrong team.
| nine_k wrote:
| This is a good illustration of what's wrong with American not
| politics, but, I'd say, psyche. Every little (an not so little,
| like a truck) thing is used to signal allegiance to one of the
| two irreconcilable warring factions. No union, no values, no
| common cause, just us vs them, doubtless virtue vs doubtless
| vice.
|
| It's really, really disheartening to see; not in the parent
| comment, but generally in life.
|
| I wish an electric truck could alleviate even a small bit of
| that.
| sockboy wrote:
| Interesting to see how much the perception of trucks varies
| globally. For many, it's about versatility and utility beyond
| just daily commuting. The off-road and hauling capabilities often
| get overlooked in city-centric debates.
| smcleod wrote:
| This is incredibly sensible design (if they pull it off), it's a
| reasonable size (unlike a lot of 'Murcian utility vehicles), has
| some good options (like the dual solar roof) and a useful carry
| layout.
| Kephael wrote:
| This is a bad marketing idea to compare a golf cart like this to
| a Toyota Tacoma. There is practically zero ground clearance and a
| unibody frame, this will high center in places where I regularly
| drive my Tacoma. Tacoma wins on ruggedness, lower total cost of
| ownership thanks to a significantly lower price and having
| limited depreciation.
|
| Unless these are priced at under $30,000 for the AWD, these will
| flop commercially.
|
| If the CAFE standards could be fixed, we could get ICE and hybrid
| trucks that are smaller and more affordable, the EV route is too
| expensive and the products are strange.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I know the CAFE standards are bad, but isn't it just a tax if
| you miss the target? Anyone know how much would it cost a car
| company per vehicle if they made a modern version of the '80s
| Ranger or Hilux?
| 1024core wrote:
| Bottom of the page:
|
| > Copyright (c) 2024 TELO Trucks. All rights reserved.
| ionwake wrote:
| Sorry am I being an idiot or is there no rough price for this?
|
| EDIT> Price is $50k 350m range . Nearly London -> Edinburgh
| irq-1 wrote:
| Pre-Order pricing:
|
| > $41,520 | 260 mi | 300 hp
| andreygrehov wrote:
| Why is the design so... awkward?
| almost_usual wrote:
| Nice, how much do I need to cut to get 33s on it?
| iandanforth wrote:
| My wife caught a glimpse of this over my shoulder, "What an ugly
| truck." she said immediately. Pretty much sums it up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-02 23:00 UTC)