[HN Gopher] Telo MT1
___________________________________________________________________
Telo MT1
Author : turtleyacht
Score : 599 points
Date : 2025-08-02 16:40 UTC (1 days 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.
| raddan wrote:
| I hear you. I love to go to very remote places. But I
| guess I see it more of a personal challenge.
| 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."
| garciasn wrote:
| 1. I don't commute; I work from home.
|
| 2. I would use a truck as it was intended to be used--as
| a truck.
|
| 3. I have a lake home 150 miles from my primary home and
| I don't want to have to drive 4 kids and 2 adults in two
| separate cars every time.
|
| 4. There is no charging infrastructure near my lake home.
| chipsa wrote:
| Do you have power at the lake house? Then you have
| charging infrastructure. Also, why are you towing the
| boat to and from the lake house?
|
| And again, which new production pickup fits 6 people?
| 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.
| jmspring wrote:
| Many people finance cars well beyond their means...
| 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
| chipsa wrote:
| I don't think slate has a four door option. It's still
| two door, but with a rear seat that you can clamber into
| after pushing the front seat forward.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Oh! Yes that's true! I thought at first glance the ones
| with an enclosed back seat had doors but it looks like
| they don't.
| 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/
| ghushn3 wrote:
| Why did you put airquotes around truck? It's got a 60 inch
| bed and seats 4. What truck quality is it missing?
| 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).
| mlyle wrote:
| I just put down a deposit. I make things from plywood
| sometimes, and even in my wife's R1S it's a pain. When we
| don't take the R1S, all 5 of us have to fit in my car (Honda
| Clarity). I coach robotics teams and sometimes need to haul a
| lot of stuff. Sometimes we do some light offroading in the
| R1S.
|
| Looks like this will do all the things I need OK. I would
| like to drive something small and easy to park, that I could
| offroad a bit, carry my family a bit, haul stuff a bit.
|
| And I've always liked the weird aesthetic of kei trucks and
| things like the Jeep Forward Control.
| 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.
| mlyle wrote:
| Payload's around 1700-2000 pounds, TBD.
|
| Towing is possible but limited-- this is a weak point for
| all electric vehicles-- but good enough to haul a trailer
| to the dump or a boat a small distance.
|
| But the bed is better in some ways than the Tacoma.
|
| Big question is whether they can reach production and
| really deliver for this pricing, etc. They have ~11k
| preorders and could develop a lot more.
| 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.
| fruitworks wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. You need some way of conveying
| the power associated with electric cars, not just efficiency
| 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 :)
| bastawhiz wrote:
| The stereotype is that a big truck implies you're
| compensating. The only people who think an unimpressive
| vehicle means you have small bits are the people who
| think that an impressive vehicle means you have big bits.
| monkeyelite wrote:
| I'm excited to hear your review after purchase.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I'll be eager to post one! After the cybertruck I won't be
| preordering any more vehicles. Right now I'm looking to
| replace our Model 3. I'm waiting for now details on the
| 2026 R1T Quad, and to see if Mazda actually really makes an
| electric MX-5. We have two other EVs (cars) so a truck
| would make sense but we're keeping our options open. An R1T
| would be cool but putting the 50k difference into a home
| battery system would be a smarter play, and an electric
| MX-5 would just be fun as hell.
|
| A friend of mine who works at a tech company doing charging
| tech is urging me to hold out for a year, so I might delay
| a decision another year. We'll see.
| 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.
| chipsa wrote:
| The third row is just planned. They do not have any publicly
| available views of it, and the currently non-removable back
| glass of the prototypes inhibit actually installing and using
| them.
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Causing fatalities to the other drivers and pedestrians.
| This is, unfortunately, a selfish incentive that works
| against the common good.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Agreed. It's gross. Unfortunately we live in an era where
| common good is a quaint concept.
| sneak wrote:
| It isn't an arms race, as being in those bigger vehicles
| only feels more safe; it isn't actually any safer.
| adastra22 wrote:
| It is much safer to be in a big truck hitting an another
| big truck, than in a small sedan hitting a big truck.
| Physics of momentum beats out safety features. Actual
| studies do show this: it is safer _for the occupant of
| the truck_ in a two-vehicle collision.
|
| More trucks on the road make the chance of fatalities
| overall higher. You often find articles saying that
| fatalities go up when you introduce a truck, and that is
| true. But that's because trucks are more likely to kill
| pedestrians or drivers of smaller cars, _NOT_ because of
| risk to the truck driver. [ _]
|
| It would be better if there were fewer trucks on the
| road. But if everyone else is buying a truck, it becomes
| your selfish incentive to do so as well, for the safety
| of _your* family. It is a tragedy of the commons
| situation.
|
| [*] The exception is single-vehicle accidents, e.g.
| rollovers. Those are riskier and more likely for the
| driver of a truck, but also less of a concern in suburban
| driving.
| 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.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Why not import a Kei truck from Japan?
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Can't legally register them in my state for now, would
| need to register it in a neighboring state, which is a
| lot of trouble for a 25+ year old vehicle.
| 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.
| mckn1ght wrote:
| I did this for a while. You're leaving out some ancillary
| details: time driving to and from home depot to pick up
| and drop off the truck, needing a truck and no rentals
| available, picking up a rental truck and there's some
| issue with it, something happens out of your control that
| requires more time with the truck but you can't extend
| the rental... all things i've encountered.
|
| At some point the number of times i needed to use it
| picked up (hah) which multiplied these inconveniences
| enough that it became worth it to just pick up (hah) a
| used truck.
|
| I use it exclusively for hauling work, but that usually
| entails at least one trip without a load, which may lead
| people to incorrectly judging me for driving it
| unnecessarily.
| 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.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| If you tow anything, renting is not an option. Rental
| contracts almost always prohibit towing or restrict it to
| only 1st party trailers.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| This. I learned as much when I was clobbered by a
| distracted teen and my SUV ended up in the shop. I use it
| a lot for moving people, things and towing (like daily).
| Nobody would rent me a SUV and allow me to tow with it,
| only commercial truck rentals at ridiculous rates.
|
| And for the truck driver haters three things:
|
| - Are you speaking from experience or projection?
| Stereotyping doesn't work. After owning a large SUV for
| 25 years I can say with conviction that the price is
| worth the utility to me. No question. - I would LOVE to
| also own a small electric scooter for small trips. The
| cost and poor quality have put me off for years but it's
| inevitable I'll end up with one soon. - Our next sedan
| will be electric as well, and probably weigh more than
| the SUV.
|
| Truck owners aren't idiots or evil.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| Eh perhaps if you rent a recreational vehicle from a
| company that caters these cars 90% to tourists . I've
| rented plenty of cars for towing, even with the trailer,
| from the same company. There are lots of companies that
| specialize in renting out vehicles for moving,
| construction etc. There is a market for everything.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Those companies likely exist, but they don't exist in my
| area.
|
| The only thing that I can rent to tow with is a box
| truck. Needless to say, those aren't really fit your
| whole family in type of vehicles.
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| I'm curious what the population size is of the place you
| live (order of magnitude). I fully appreciate not every
| place in the world has such companies with rental
| offerings.
|
| If you own a boat, jetski or horse trailer etc, and live
| in a small metropolitan area with few rental offerings,
| those I think owning a car makes sense. And if it's a
| large enough boat (so not a jetski, which a regular car
| can tow), a medium/big SUV or truck is the most sensible
| choice.
|
| Meanwhile only about 10% of the US population lives in a
| metropolitan area of less than 100k people. About 65%
| lives in an area with >1m people for example, where I'd
| be quite surprised you can't find regular rentals to tow
| things, my city has plenty and it's <1m people.
|
| And only about 10% of households own boats, and only a
| fraction of those are stored on-land, and a fraction of
| those are larger boats that require a sizeable car
| (SUV/truck).
|
| Meanwhile 80% of cars are either trucks, vans or SUVs.
|
| So statistically the vast majority of people that own
| SUVs/trucks, do not own a boat or something equivalent
| that needs an SUV/truck to tow, or who live in a place
| where there are rentals that allow you to tow whatever
| you want if the car is rated for it.
|
| And even then you get to the point where the question is
| still whether you need to own one, or know someone with
| one.
|
| So I think the point stands: most truck/SUV owners don't
| own because of their use-case, but because of other
| reasons (mostly personal style / branding / feeling). Yes
| of course non-ownership of an SUV/Truck is not an option
| for 100% of SUV/Truck owners given their use-cases. But
| the vast majority of SUV/Truck owners statistically don't
| own something that needs an SUV/Truck to tow, or live in
| a place where you can find rental alternatives.
| 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.
| XorNot wrote:
| People who drive a truck for work aren't going to crash
| it into things all the time, what are you even talking
| about? Do you regularly crash your car into things while
| driving it? Like on a daily basis?
|
| Like..you get that mud and dust just wash off, and the
| reason to wash them off is that once dried they can mess
| up the paint over a long period which then gives you a
| rust problem you really don't want?
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| The people I know who drive trucks are doing things where
| constant small bits of damage are inevitable. Think
| kicked up gravel, tree branches scraping against the
| body, unintentionally bumping up against the truck with
| equipment, etc. Damage is frequent enough that it's one
| of the reasons they find buying a new truck difficult to
| justify and would rather buy something that's got some
| visible wear and tear on it already.
| 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.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I'm sitting here smh. _Everyone_ in my (rural)
| neighborhood owns a pickup truck. Except for the one dude
| who towed a skid steer with an Escalade. Those trucks are
| often towing trailers, hauling messy crap, etc. and don
| 't look any different than any other truck on the road.
|
| Hell, I just unhooked a horse trailer less than an hour
| ago and the year-old truck that was hauling it looks like
| it just drove off the showroom floor.
| XorNot wrote:
| It is wild to me how heavily downvoted this comment is.
|
| I bought by Ford Ranger off my in-laws who literally own
| a farm, and it got more damage from being parked under a
| tree with nasty sap for too long then it's 7 years
| handling hauling and field work (the lesson being, I
| really should've been washing it more frequently then I
| was... And then it would really clean and so _obviously_
| isn 't used real work or something).
| stouset wrote:
| Sorry, but I _have_ driven off-road and you inevitably
| get dings, nicks, and scratches from gravel, tree
| branches, and random detritus.
|
| I know people that use their trucks for hauling for work
| and they are never pristine. They don't look destroyed.
| They look _used_.
| 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.
| SkyPuncher 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.
|
| I generally beat the crap out of my truck and the
| exterior looks just fine.
|
| It's really not hard to avoid damaging your exterior. In
| fact, you have to have a total accident or be completely
| negligent to cause actual damage. Stuff goes in the bed
| of the truck. The bed had a bunch of nicks and dings in
| it, but you're not going to be seeing that while casting
| judgement.
|
| Heck, go take a look at the work trucks. Find something
| like a welding truck, an electrician, or a plumber. These
| are all trucks that people literally use every single day
| for work, tossing stuff in and out of the bed. They just
| don't look that beat up. That's because it's just not
| that hard to avoid completely destroying your vehicle.
| 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.
| bix6 wrote:
| Why do you need a truck for that? A cross over can do all
| that.
| 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.
| Marazan wrote:
| Depending on the survey 63-to-75% of truck owners use it
| for towing once a year or less (i.e in reality never). So
| yes, the majority do not use it for towing.
|
| To be fair I'd misremembered the load carrying figure and
| the load figure for 1 time a year or less is 32-35%
|
| https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-
| history?trk=feed-de...
|
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-
| siz...
| 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.
| ggoo wrote:
| Hm, sounds like you don't really need a truck... The
| world is racing to +4C and you're over here defending
| 25mpg gender affirming care mobiles - you're on the wrong
| side of this one buddy.
| wyre wrote:
| If you're not hauling a cubic foot then why need a truck?
| 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, that's super easy due to easy credit, but then
| the clock starts ticking on when the car gets repo'd.
|
| (~100M Americans are sub 700 FICO subprime, 33-40% of
| consumers depending on credit reporting agency providing
| the data)
| 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.
| master-lincoln wrote:
| You make it sound like it would be unreasonable to dunk
| on people wasting our society resources. Why not hit on
| people driving 4 seat cars when they drive alone most of
| the time? If it affects me it should be normal that I
| voice an opinion. Those cars use public space, roads,
| bridges that are affected more the heavier your car is.
| That also drives up the motor power needed which in turn
| increases public air pollution.
| Aurornis wrote:
| You're spamming this same study throughout the thread
| without realizing that is uses a different and much
| stricter definition of "hauling" than the average person.
| masklinn wrote:
| This demonstrating the average person is an idiot who
| never needed a truck because their "hauling" can be done
| with a sedan or even a compact car.
|
| Which is rather the point.
| 15155 wrote:
| Could it be possible that while you _can_ cram something
| in the backseat of a car, a truck bed might result in
| less damage to vehicle interiors and the object being
| moved?
| kristo wrote:
| And more damage to the roads, society, the cities, and
| the neighborhood children you can't see
| masklinn wrote:
| It's a tool not a baby. Are you buying vehicles several
| times the price and encumberance because you can't fold
| down the rear seats and lay down some tarp?
| 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
| troupo wrote:
| > This is a hilarious take for anyone who has spent any
| time living outside of a big city.
|
| People outside of big city need big trucks about as often
| as people in the city.
|
| Source: lived in the middle of nowhere in North Carolina.
|
| Living outside of big city doesn't mean you're
| immediately a farmer who needs to haul tons of forage or
| lumber. The absolute vast majority of people don't.
| 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.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Sure, but large trucks come with a ton of very negative
| externalities.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Right, carbon emissions, excess deaths incurred on
| others, etc.
| monkeyelite wrote:
| The original comment is just about how "irrational" it
| is.
|
| And truck owners pay more - for the vehicle, for tires,
| for registration, for gas, etc which are all taxed by the
| public to reflect their greater usage of public roads.
|
| You would need to argue that trucks have a
| disproportionate impac. For example, if I commute 2 hours
| to work in an Accord, is that a greater negative
| externality than owning a Truck a commuting 15 minutes?
|
| I suspect the answer is no - a truck is some small
| multiple of a smaller vehicle.
|
| What I see in this thread is that the narrow demographic
| here is merely expressing a preference - they don't like
| trucks, and they wish that could be imposed on others.
| Ultimately, you need to convince your fellow men in an
| election.
| amarshall wrote:
| Small multiplier, I think not.
|
| Pickup trucks weigh about 1.5x as much as a sedan
| (comparing Camry to F150). Due to the fourth power law,
| they should be taxed about 5 times higher than a sedan
| simply for road maintainence. I don't have the numbers,
| but I doubt that is so. Toll roads typically charge per
| axle, and as below, gas tax is probably only about 2x.
| Ironically, EVs should pay more tax for maintenance since
| they are usually quite a bit heavier--though the OP truck
| is still ~600 lb lighter than an F150.
|
| Fuel economy is about half in a pickup vs. a sedan, so
| they pollute that much more. Gas tax obviously scales
| here, but do the other taxes? Does gas tax go towards
| remedying the pollution impact at all? I don't know.
|
| Then there's the safety impact on pedestrians and other
| vehicles. I don't have numbers here, sorry.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Also, if you consider the externalities of cars in
| general, there's the additional issue of designing our
| communities around them rather than around the people who
| live there.
|
| This quote is kinda a meme by now but here's SimCity lead
| designer Stone Librande on how the team had to make
| parking lots unrealistically small for the game to be
| enjoyable [1]:
|
| _> When I started measuring out our local grocery store,
| which I don 't think of as being that big, I was blown
| away by how much more space was parking lot rather than
| actual store. That was kind of a problem, because we were
| originally just going to model real cities, but we
| quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in
| the real world and that our game was going to be really
| boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots._
|
| [1] https://archive.ph/z7hZG#selection-753.65-753.506
| wyre wrote:
| If you spend any time looking at parking lots on
| satellite maps you quickly realize parking lots are
| nearly always at least twice as large as the building
| they are for.
| monkeyelite wrote:
| > Due to the fourth power law, they should be taxed about
| 5 times higher than a sedan simply for road maintainence.
|
| In this model wouldn't 18 wheelers dominate and it
| doesn't matter what personal vehicles do?
| 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.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Most race cars aren't electric though? That analogy makes
| no sense.
|
| If you buy a product that comes with a ton of negative
| externalities and then don't use the _single feature_
| that distinguishes it from other products, people will
| rightly judge you.
| modernpacifist wrote:
| > Most race cars aren't electric though? That analogy
| makes no sense.
|
| No, they aren't. I attend a significant amount of track
| events as a driver and I will see maybe 1 electic car
| every few events. Besides the lack of charging
| infrastrucutre at most race tracks, the one positive of
| instant torque/power is significantly outweighed by their
| overall mass and significant heat generation.
|
| The latter tends to result in a Tesla S being unable to
| last more than 20 minutes at Laguna Seca or Sonoma before
| the battery pack overheats and reduces power output
| requiring the car to exit the track.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| > Unbridled ignorance.
|
| Ironically, I don't think ignorance means what you think
| it means. It simply means not knowing something; it's
| not, for example, an attitude in itself.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| I'm shopping for a truck atm _because I need one_. I am
| pretty routinely overloading the towing capacity of my Land
| Cruiser, and a decent flatbed pickup would obviate the need
| to hook up the trailer most of the time. Being able to tow
| /haul 3-4cord of firewood logs in one go would be super
| convenient, I'll use that capability at least once per
| year.
|
| And if you're thinking "why not just rent?" I'll ask when
| was the last time you saw an equipment trailer rental with
| a winch capable of hauling logs up onto it?
|
| Paradoxically, at least in the context of this thread, my
| motivation to own a truck _is safety and efficiency_. A 12
| valve Cummins pulling the GCVWR of a 1994-1998.5 3 /4 ton
| Dodge will get right around 10mpg and do it safely.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I admit there are many of you out there, and have no
| problem with folks who need a truck for truck use cases.
| That's what trucks are for. I take issue with those
| buying them for non rational use cases (status, etc),
| "Pavement Princess" vehicle duty cycles.
| 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.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| They did a good job maximizing wheelbase given the small
| size, which is very important for safe and comfortable
| towing. I look forward to their launch and some real-
| world reviews and drive tests.
| 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.
| stouset wrote:
| I have multiple times driven a Mustang Mach E (a heavy,
| very low ride height EV) out to a friend's property an
| hour off of anything resembling a road, down multiple
| dirt switchbacks into the bottom of the Yuba River
| canyon.
|
| Vehicles these days are shockingly capable.
| 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.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Rule #1 of driving offroad is that tires contact the
| ground, not other parts of the truck. If you see a bump,
| drive over it; don't straddle it.
| 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.
| silisili wrote:
| I agree generally, but blame the makers I guess. One
| important thing to remember is bed length. Trying to haul
| plywood or 2x4s with a 5 ft bed is a joke, and not easy
| with even a 6 ft bed.
|
| The old, small rangers used to have a 7 ft bed option! I
| believe the longest you can get today is 6. So if you want
| a longer bed, you're kinda forced into the full size fold.
|
| I don't know how well they'd actually sell, but it'd be
| neat if they at least offered something maybe a hair bigger
| than maverick sized with a 7 ft bed.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| > Look at trucks in the 1990s and compare the size.
|
| If you actually compare similiar configurations, you'll
| find basically no difference in size.
|
| Compared to a 90's F-150, a modern f-150 is
|
| * 1" wider
|
| * Either 0' longer or 1' longer depending on the exact
| configuration
|
| * 1" taller
|
| * Nearly 1k lbs less heavy (lots of weight optimization in
| the past ~35 years)
| 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.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Getting a cheap minivan with an ugly, worn out interior
| that's been through the rigors of family and ripping the
| seats out seems like it'd be a great cost saving hack for a
| number of businesses that people often buy trucks or small
| commercial vans for.
| 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.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I now own a truck. I'm actually regretting not getting a
| bigger/heavier duty one. The biggest limitation is payload
| capacity. Payload is anything that puts weight on the vehicle
| - occupants, dogs, gear, food, supplies, bed covers/caps,
| etc. You must legally be under payload capacity or you can
| risk fines or liability in an accident. A lot of people are
| willing to push these limits, but cops pay a lot more
| attention to people towing/hauling.
|
| If you want to actually tow with your truck, you need to
| allot a good portion of your payload to trailer weight (and
| hitches) that rests on the truck (tongue weight). This can
| range from 200lbs to 1k+ lbs, but is typically in the 500 to
| 600lb range for something like a boat or travel trailer. It
| can easily go higher if you load the trailer up with stuff.
|
| A typical light duty truck might have 1500 lbs of payload
| capacity. Four people and their belongings can easily add up
| to 800lbs. Add pets, bikes, travel gear, food, etc and your
| suddenly well over 1k lbs of payload. You literally have no
| capacity to tow anything but the smallest of trailers.
|
| So what do you do, well you get a bigger truck. You don't
| need it all of the time, but it just doesn't make sense to
| own a vehicle that cannot legally handle a family road trip.
|
| Before people say "rent". That comes with its own major set
| of issues. The biggest being little to no ability to tow with
| a rental vehicle. Most rentals flat out prohibit towing (even
| if technically capable and equipped). Those that do allow
| towing, generally limit it to 1st party trailers (U-Haul
| truck can only tow u-haul trailer).
| GiorgioG wrote:
| This. I have had a 2016 F-150 since late 2017 - I'd never
| owned a truck before. I can go get mulch, take an entire bed-
| load of stuff to the dump (couches, mattresses, etc). When we
| go on vacation within driving distance (usually up to 500ish
| miles for us, we can bring more or less anything we want
| without concern for space. We took my wife's SUV 2 weeks ago
| on a 700 mile trip (her mid-sized SUV is much newer) and we
| had to pack very carefully compared to when we take the
| truck. Our son plays ice hockey, his hockey equipment stinks
| (yes it gets aired out...he's still a stinky teenager), but
| it's never an issue because with the truck, it's not in the
| passenger compartment. We live in the south but drove to
| Pittsburgh through 2 snowstorm there and back...lots of SUVs
| stranded on the road...my 4x4 F-150 made it through without
| any trouble. When my father in law passed last year, we moved
| all of his things out of his apartment with my truck. I let
| my neighbors borrow it when they need to move something
| large. The only thing that sucks about it is parking in store
| parking lots. That and buying a newer (not brand new) costs
| 2x what I paid for my 2016 in 2017. I've toyed with getting
| rid of it for something smaller, but it's just too versatile
| for me to give up.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Where I'm from, people often own a car for their commute to
| work, and rent a van when they're moving. Their regular car
| is way less of a hassle for other people than the van is, but
| that's okay, cause the van is just for a few days.
| 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.
| kristo wrote:
| Because they are subsidized by the rest of us. That's all
| we want to stop.
| 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+.
| uxp100 wrote:
| A 2025 non-hybrid gets 47+? I don't think so. That's
| pretty close to the EPA rating for the hybrid model.
| ben_w wrote:
| 15 year old, so c. 2010.
|
| I can easily belive it, though the closest Civic mpg
| report I found was for a 2012-14 model:
| What is the fuel economy, Honda Civic IX Hatchback 2.2
| i-DTEC (150 Hp)? 4.4 l/100 km
| 53.46 US mpg 64.2 UK mpg 22.73
| km/l
|
| - https://www.auto-data.net/en/honda-civic-ix-
| hatchback-2.2-i-...
|
| I had use of a Renault Megane for a bit, it was getting
| something a bit better than that: https://www.auto-
| data.net/en/renault-megane-iii-phase-ii-201...
|
| American cars just aren't at all efficient by anyone
| else's standards.
| dhruvrrp wrote:
| My sports sedan gives 25 mpg, and my parent's Toyota
| hybrid SUV gives 58 mpg.
| esskay wrote:
| No, not even close to good.
|
| I'm having to convert to US gallons to Imperial here
| but...
|
| My old ICE car was getting approx 50mpg (which is approx
| 41mpg for you) and was considered poor for its age. My
| new one (hybrid) is 60mpg (approx 50mpg for you).
|
| For a fairly modern car (e.g under 10 years old) in the
| UK you'd expect at least 40-50 MPG (UK) / 33-42 MPG (US),
| and even that would be considered on the lower end. Most
| modern cars are either electric or hybrid here these days
| so you'd expect 60-100 MPG (UK) / 50-83 MPG (US).
| hedgehog wrote:
| Few modern gas cars will get over 50 US MPG in city
| usage. 35 MPG is probably a better estimate for the
| hybrid fleet which is still much, much better than gas
| cars of a decade ago.
| kristo wrote:
| My 2011 golf gets 40mpg real world mileage. Tiny engine,
| but I don't need to impress anyone with my car
| rayiner wrote:
| My 2019 subaru forester only gets 27 mpg.
| Aurornis wrote:
| The average fuel economy for cars on the road right now is
| around 25mpg.
|
| You can also get a 40-50mpg brand new sedan here if you
| want, but they serve different purposes.
|
| You can also get a hybrid F150 that gets better mileage.
|
| You can also get a fully electric F150 that doesn't use any
| gas at all.
|
| I was trying to make a point to counter the silly
| assumptions throughout this thread, such as the person who
| keeps claiming trucks are "incompetent" at being normal
| vehicles.
| troupo wrote:
| > You can also get a 40-50mpg brand new sedan here if you
| want, but they serve different purposes.
|
| They don't. Your average truck is hauling a person from
| home to work to grocery store to home 10% of the time.
| 80% of the time it's parked. 90% of the remaining 10% is
| also covered be a sedan
| vineyardmike wrote:
| As an American, I think 25 is absolutely abysmal.
|
| It's not good in 2025. The fuel economy of a modern sedan
| (eg. a Toyota Camry) is around 50. It's just this one
| poster who is defending trucks saying it's good.
| FabHK wrote:
| As a non-American, I operate in l/100 km, and have no idea
| what 25 mpg is...
| ben_w wrote:
| Assuming I used the correct gallon (US!=UK), I think it's
| 9.4l/100km
| 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.
| dkh wrote:
| No, prejudice is _bad,_ full stop. By definition it means
| to judge someone for something before you actually know
| for sure that they have /do the thing that bothers you.
| It doesn't matter what the thing is, that's not the
| problem or the point. The point is you can't, or
| shouldn't, view or treat someone as though they have some
| quality you dislike when you don't actually know about
| this individual and only know that a high percentage of
| them do. You can't judge an individual this way! If you
| hate waste (as do I) and you feel trucks contribute to
| that and that a majority of truck owners don't make use
| of their trucks, then great! Speak about it exactly like
| that. But you can't simply take any truck driver and say
| "that individual is wasteful" without knowing.
|
| You can't do that any more than you can assume my friends
| and I are criminals and drug dealers because at some
| point we decided to use Telegram as our primary messaging
| app, or like ICE can assume anyone standing near a pro-
| Mexico protest is an illegal immigrant, you cannot
| attribute a quality to an individual without having
| actual knowledge of it.
| simianparrot wrote:
| You can't know it's waste until you know their actual use
| of it.
|
| Like another comment says, prejudice is bad -- full stop.
| cycomanic wrote:
| I fail to see the prejudice?
|
| The OP said, I quote:
|
| > 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.
|
| That's not a prejudice that's literally how they are
| marketed and used to a large extend.
|
| The second poster said, he is not using it that way, sure
| fine nobody said that _everybody_ is using a pick up
| truck this way, however as the reply to the other post
| said, there is ample research that the majority of pickup
| trucks are never used offroad and hardly ever have
| anything in their bed. Why did the responder feel
| triggered? And let's not ignore the fact that people
| driving pickups on the road does have a cost for everyone
| else, they reduce safety for everyone not in a pick up as
| well as pedastrians and cyclist, they have poorer milage
| so are contributing unnecessarily to climate change...
|
| Now as to the point of all prejudice is bad. That's a
| pretty strong statement. Are you not judging people by
| their actions? If someone walks around with a swastika
| (sorry for godwins law, but you made an absolute
| statement) on his sleeve, is it prejudice to judge him?
| 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:
| Not sure what you mean by "prove this statement" but
| answering questions like this is exactly why
| organizations do consumer research. To wit [1]:
|
| _> According to Edwards' data, 75 percent of truck
| owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less
| (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go
| off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent
| of truck owners use their truck for hauling--putting
| something in the bed, its ostensible raison d'etre--once
| a year or less._
|
| [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-
| full-siz...
| Aurornis wrote:
| The hauling figure is useless without specifying what
| they mean.
|
| Usually these "studies" redefine hauling to mean
| something specific like hauling loose dirt or something
| extremely heavy.
|
| If you can read a quote claiming 2/3 of truck owners
| don't "put something in the bed" more than once a year
| then and not realize that something is wrong with these
| statistics then you're missing something.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| The question is not whether they "put something in the
| bed" -- it's whether they use the bed in such a way that
| the trunk or back seat of a smaller vehicle would be
| unsuitable.
| mlyle wrote:
| The Telo appeals to me. I've resisted getting a truck
| because I like a smaller vehicle and don't want to have
| undue impact and because I've listened to arguments like
| this before.
|
| But I was offroad last weekend. I move sheets of plywood
| a couple of times per year and either need to beg my wife
| to help or sit around waiting at Home Depot for the truck
| to be available. I have stuff to move for robotics comps
| that I'm always barely able to get there by cramming it
| in my car + begging a couple of parents to help out.
| Dealing with the bike rack is hard. Ordering things like
| Ikea furniture for delivery is expensive, latent, and not
| exactly low impact iself.
|
| Yah, 90% of the time I need a car, but 10% of the time I
| need a little more and there's enough friction around
| making it work that I would pull the trigger on something
| like this.
|
| On the other hand I don't think I could say "frequently"
| to any of those questions.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Two thoughts here:
|
| 1. An ideal society would be structured such that you
| wouldn't need to buy a truck you use as a car 90% of the
| time. But that society doesn't exist here, and you
| shouldn't feel guilty about living by incentives you
| didn't create. Maybe you do need a truck!
|
| 2. But we're not talking about people who compromise to
| make 10% of their trips more convenient; we're talking
| about people who _never_ use their truck for truck
| things. A car would be better choice for them _100% of
| the time_ , yet they still drive a truck.
| mlyle wrote:
| One of my points was re: #2:
|
| I am not sure how I would answer on that survey. It
| really depends on fine details of how the questions were
| worded.
|
| For sure towing would be "rarely". But "personal
| hauling"? I am not sure.
| Aurornis wrote:
| There's a quote from some consulting firm that goes
| around claiming 2/3 of truck drivers don't "put something
| in the bed" more than once a year.
|
| It's a laughable claim for anyone who thinks about it for
| more than a second.
|
| The way they usually get to these numbers is by
| redefining what "hauling a load" means to be something
| extremely heavy or for loose fill materials. So if
| someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes in the
| bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the lumber
| yard it wouldn't count.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| > So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes
| in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the
| lumber yard it wouldn't count.
|
| Even if that's the case, the truck owners doing this
| probably don't need a full size truck. A 90s-era small
| truck or maybe even a kei truck would suffice, and yet
| more often than not the trucks in question are the likes
| of F-150s.
| wyre wrote:
| Agreed, unfortunately small trucks are increasingly
| harder and harder to find. A 90s truck also won't have
| the amenities that a modern truck has.
|
| I think if they are just hauling mountain bikes, they
| could get a small hitch installed and purchase a high-
| quality bike rack. A roof rack can carry 2x4s very well.
| scott_w wrote:
| Or do what I do and drive an MPV, which are bloody
| excellent for getting my TT bike in with its excessively
| angled aero bars!
| ricardobeat wrote:
| The company in question has been doing their survey for
| two decades. It's a private data set, but has been
| reported on by multiple serious news outlets which will
| have their own data scientists looking over the data,
| e.g. Axios: https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-
| history
|
| You can also verify the data is coming from real drivers,
| by searching for "New Vehicle Experience Study" and
| seeing all the posts from users who receive the survey
| and think it's some kind of scam.
| lucumo wrote:
| > So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes
| in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the
| lumber yard it wouldn't count.
|
| I don't know how long a 2x4 is, so I don't know about
| those. But in the summer holiday period (so now) you see
| a lot of these running around: https://commons.m.wikimedi
| a.org/wiki/File:Thule_(11834033554... Even on
| surprisingly small cars.
|
| I dislike the whole "justify why you like X" thing.
| People can always find the flimsiest of reasons why they
| want to prohibit things they don't like and then demand
| others justify why they should get to keep what they
| have. Just simply liking something never seems enough for
| those fighters against joy.
|
| I really don't like pick up trucks. I also think most of
| their practical uses can be achieved with other vehicles.
| But that shouldn't concern me. If the owner of the car
| gets joy out of it, then that should be enough. I don't
| have to like what others like, and they don't have to
| like what I like.
| jakewins wrote:
| Respectfully, if you don't know how long a 2x4 is, I
| think it would be very reasonable to look this up, as it
| will make you much better equipped to make this argument.
|
| I generally agree with what you are saying, and
| frequently haul 2x4s without my truck - but the solution
| to that is a long flatbed trailer, not a Thule hitch
| attachment.
| kgermino wrote:
| it does depend a lot on what you buy it for, but
| obviously 8' is a good benchmark.
|
| But honestly... at 8' I'm not sure why you're bothering
| with anything (unless you're getting a lot of them), i
| usually just threw 8 footers in my Honda Fit and closed
| the hatch.
| foobarian wrote:
| Ironically most pickup truck beds are shorter than 8' and
| most likely a 8' piece of lumber would have to lay
| diagonally sticking out over one of the edges.
|
| Still good for occasional piece of furniture, lots of
| lumber, or plywood.
| jakewins wrote:
| The shortest bed f150 you can buy is 5.5ft, with a 2ft
| tailgate, trivially hauling 8ft with just a few inches
| overhang with the tailgate down, and easily doing 10ft
| lumber.
|
| Again, I think pickup trucks are idiotically oversized
| and dangerous to pedestrians, but arguing against them by
| repeating things that anyone that uses a pickup knows is
| nonsense is not helping win over any detractors.
| Tostino wrote:
| The Thule hitch attachment was responding to GP saying
| they throw their bikes in the bed of their truck.
| wyre wrote:
| >If the owner of the car gets joy out of it, then that
| should be enough.
|
| For most things, yes, absolutely! However, considering
| the dangers of huge trucks it is very valid to have
| concerns about them. An exaggerated analogy: if the owner
| of a gun gets joy out of free firing it into the air that
| should be enough.
| goosejuice wrote:
| > So if someone routinely hauls a couple mountain bikes
| in the bed of their truck or gets a few 2x4s from the
| lumber yard it wouldn't count.
|
| If that's all you're doing, anything more than a Maverick
| is overkill. Bike racks and wood delivery are a thing.
| Shit you can fit a mountain bike in the back of a sedan.
| I see people doing this at trailheads all the time.
|
| Those suburban moms don't need a Yukon to take their two
| kids to soccer practice either.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| That's what hauling means to me, though.
|
| A rack mount on a normal European-sized car is perfectly
| sufficient for a couple bicycles, I have one, and a
| trailer for my enduro motorcycle, or a fridge, or
| anything else I occasionally transport. Anything bigger
| and I'll rent an actual truck.
| scott_w wrote:
| Exactly, because my car can do that. You can put your
| shopping in the flatbed but you wouldn't claim you were
| "using" the flatbed or "hauling" a pint of milk and a
| load of bread...
|
| I meant, you could, but I'd laugh in your face.
| Aurornis 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.
|
| I was pointing out that you don't know what you're talking
| about.
|
| You cannot conclude that a truck never goes off-road by
| observing them on city streets. That was your claim, and I
| explained why it didn't make sense. I also explained why
| trucks are not primarily sold as off-road vehicles anyway.
|
| > It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners
| rarely ever use the truck bed
|
| If you read the "studies" that make these claims they use
| two tricks:
|
| First, they specifically exclude a truck defined as a work
| truck.
|
| Second, they redefine "using the bed" to some arbitrary
| threshold, like hauling a large load of loose dirt or
| hauling something over so many hundred pounds.
|
| If you actually believe that truck owners aren't putting
| _anything_ in the truck bed, you're out of touch.
|
| But why does this one point trigger you so much? If I
| showed you a similar study that the majority of people with
| back seats rarely had more than 2 people in their cars,
| would you become similarly enraged at the people buying
| 5-seat cars instead of a compact 2-seater?
|
| If I showed you a study that the majority of people rarely
| use more than 200 horsepower would you start getting
| triggered by all of the 300, 400, or even 500 horsepower
| cars so wastefully driving around?
|
| There's something about pickup trucks, specifically, that
| makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and triggered.
| It's a funny meme to watch because so many comments in this
| thread are absolutely _sure_ that they understand the
| situation but they don't understand basic facts about how
| you can't tell if someone goes off-road by judging the
| condition of their paint, or that using a truck for work
| purposes doesn't render it visibly damaged in a way that
| they can see. They just see trucks, get triggered, mix it
| with misleading "studies", and come to believe odd
| conclusions like "truck drivers don't use their beds"
| xocnad wrote:
| Why are you triggered by the vocal irrational minority?
| You seem quite defensive for someone who is confident and
| comfortable in the the truck they own and how they use it
| and maintain it.
| nwienert wrote:
| Not them, but I find that people who take out political
| frustration against non-political things quite annoying.
|
| For example, when Tesla was blue-coded, way more comments
| here were highly forgiving, if not outright glazing. They
| became red-coded, and suddenly you'd see tons of highly
| technical reasons they sucked. You can gut yourself into
| coming up with many reasons this isn't true, but it's
| definitely true.
|
| Trucks have gotten this since the beginning.
|
| It's not that it's triggering, it's just more annoying to
| have to waste a lot of time reading things that are
| clearly therapy for the poster more than any sort of
| interesting opinion.
| 01100011 wrote:
| It's getting harder to find good online discussions
| devoid of bias and emotions. With user moderation,
| control goes to those with the most time to waste online,
| meaning the least happy, productive and social.
| asats wrote:
| And it's a self reinforcing downward loop as those
| deteriorating online spaces then completely drive away
| everyone with anything better to do
| master-lincoln wrote:
| There is no discussion involving humans that is devoid of
| biases. It's in our nature. Important is trying to get
| aware of them...
| 01100011 wrote:
| Right. Not quite what I'm saying.
|
| Take away the user moderation and you still have bias but
| you lose the feedback loop. You level the playing field
| between folks who live in their basements and folks with
| more balanced lives.
| rayiner wrote:
| > There's something about pickup trucks, specifically,
| that makes a vocal minority irrationally angry and
| triggered
|
| Because of the cultural coding of pickup trucks, versus
| say sports cars that might get just as bad mpg.
| tapland wrote:
| People using their trucks for truck stuff know most
| others don't. They don't have to make shit up
| hungmung wrote:
| > It is a known fact that the vast majority of truck owners
| rarely ever use the truck bed.
|
| Just want to point out that big pickups are really about
| the hauling capacity, it's not like their beds are much
| bigger than a modern Ford Ranger. An F250 can safely pull
| 10 tons, and a dually F450 can pull 20t. Usually you aren't
| towing...but when you need to haul nontrivial loads you
| need a big truck.
| troupo wrote:
| > Usually you aren't towing...but when you need to haul
| nontrivial loads you need a big truck.
|
| That you can probably rent.
|
| "I may need to haul a non-trivial load once 10 years from
| now" is hardly a justification for buying one
| bluGill wrote:
| you probably cannot re&t such a truck. Home depot and all
| rental cars places have a no towing clause in the
| contract. Uhaul only tows the own trailer by concract.
|
| the few rent for towing places are rare, and charge high
| fees such that it is cheaper to own your own truck.
| troupo wrote:
| Searching "rent a truck to tow":
|
| - Enterprise https://www.enterprisetrucks.com/truckrental
| /en_US/towing.ht...
|
| - U-Haul https://www.uhaul.com/Truck-Rentals/Pickup-
| Truck/
|
| I'm sure there are plenty more + services for towing.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most enterprise locations are no towing. Most uhaul
| trucks are the same despite that webpage. When hou find
| otn that can tow the costs are so high that it is almost
| always cheaper to own a truck you drive empty 95% of the
| time. You have to run your own numbers but everytime I
| run them for me I can't justify a car and renting a truck
| when I need one. (I mostly ride my bike)
| Too wrote:
| What's a reasonable scenario where average citizen need
| to haul 10, let alone 20 tons, on such regular basis that
| they need to own that capability themselves? Just rent or
| hire help. I would imagine that to also require special
| driving license, even if the car technically can handle
| it? We are not talking about professional use here, for
| that, use as big of a truck as you want.
| conductr wrote:
| Let's cut to the chase here and flip this around. You
| tell people how often they need to be using the bed or
| towing things before you would accept their decision to
| buy versus rent as reasonable?
|
| I go through periods where I tow weekly for months. Then
| I also have periods where I may tow nothing for 6-12
| months. I rented for a bit and it was a huge pain in the
| ass for many reasons not to mention fairly expensive, can
| be so expensive to make paying the high price on a truck
| worth it.
|
| If, as I suspect, you have never had the need to tow. Or
| do not live a lifestyle by trade/hobby that occasionally
| necessitates it, just say you can't relate to the
| problems and inconveniences that renting poses and quit
| pretending nobody has thought of this before.
| bluGill wrote:
| You cannot rent a truck with a bed. Try it - nearly all
| rental 'trucks' have storng use restrictions such that
| you can't use them as a truck. even home depot trucks are
| for taking your purchases home and can't be used for
| other truck work. Even if you can use it, they often
| check the condition so if what you haul will scratch the
| bed you are out of luck.
|
| if you manage to navigate that and find a truck that will
| work - the cost is so high that you are money ahead
| owning your own truck after rediculasly few rentals.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| And towing anything is also forbidden. Yes there are
| commercial rentals but they are priced substantially more
| than the trucks at Home Depot or other consumer rental
| places.
| conductr wrote:
| When I was renting more often, I found Enterprise had
| pick-up trucks and you can tell them you will be towing
| during the RSVP (I think it may be a small extra fee, but
| mostly they want to make sure they get you a truck with a
| towing hitch). I still use this option if I need more
| than my half ton can handle (thankfully not very often).
| I wouldn't use the bed for anything as they are always
| nice new trucks and any wear would be extremely obvious
| and I'm not sure if they will charge me. I will rent a
| trailer from Uhaul instead, another layer to the
| inconvenience.
| convolvatron wrote:
| I regularly rent a Mitsubishi 20' flatbed with 1T lift
| gate for around $75 a day incl fuel. they don't bother
| doing the walk around since its 80% dents anyways.
| bluGill wrote:
| I wish I could find a place like that. I don't need a
| nice truck but that is all I've found.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Your case sounds more justifiable, but there is
| definitely a threshold of use below which buying extra
| utility doesn't make a lot of sense, and I believe that a
| large number of Americans in particular sit under this
| threshold.
|
| I feel that even with my current vehicle, which is an AWD
| electric compact SUV -- it's a great, highly capable car
| but in practice I've found that I'm practically never
| coming close to approaching the ceiling of its
| capabilities, which makes it feel wasted on me. I could
| get by just fine with something like a Bolt or e-Golf or
| a fossil fuel counterpart like a Fit and so once my lease
| is up I'll probably be "downgrading".
| thelastgallon wrote:
| They need it to take their 20 tons of artisanal tomatoes
| and sourdough bread to farmers market. For backhoe and
| other heavy equipment that they rent on a daily basis.
| They help their friends and family move, with the 6 x 12
| utility trailer add on, which can be daisy chained. They
| have large families with boats, jetskis and canoes that
| need to be towed for fun activities. Haul lumber and tons
| of stuff from homedepot for the DIY remodeling projects,
| once again helping friends and families. Volunteering on
| nextdoor to helpout Ukrainian and palestinian refugees,
| helping charities with food, clothes, tires, furniture
| donations and donations of upto 20 tons of gold bars.
| Helping friends and family buy/sell and resell antique
| furniture, audio equipment and plasma TVs, lots of trips
| to and from self storage. A big pickup truck also helps
| build a big house with a massive garage with its own DIY
| repair shop. Also, lots of friends with other pickup
| trucks that get stalled need towing help. Beer, lots of
| beer for weekend sports watching. Hunt hogs and bring
| meat home. Most importantly, it helps get away from wife
| to help a friend/family, which is the killer app.
| toast0 wrote:
| Let's be honest. I only rarely use most of the features of
| my vehicles.
|
| What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat?
|
| I have a truck, because I find it more convenient to have a
| truck bed anytime I need it, than to have to arrange to
| borrow or rent one. The bed doesn't get used often, but
| it's also a reasonable vehicle for driving solo or with one
| passenger; two in a pinch. Much better visibility than any
| other vehicle I have, too. Unfortunately, the single cab,
| 6-ft bed small truck market disappeared, and I got this one
| used with too big of an engine, so the mileage is poor...
| when I had a 4-cylinder small truck, mileage was better,
| but I don't drive _that_ much anymore anyway.
|
| But, I have lots of space, so I can keep a car for
| transporting a car pool in comfort, a PHEV with good
| mileage for longer trips that don't need anything special,
| a small truck for doing small truck things, and an old van
| with removed back seats that's fun to work on and can carry
| things that shouldn't get wet when it's raining. The van
| visibility towards the front is even better than the truck,
| because it's cabover, but visibility to the back isn't as
| good... None of those modern pillars that make it hard to
| see out the sides though.
| messe wrote:
| > A not in use bed, or a not in use back seat?
|
| A not in use back seat takes up far less space in a sane
| car than a pick-up truck with a bed.
|
| > Much better visibility than any other vehicle I have,
| too.
|
| At the expense of others. And good luck seeing a small
| child in front of it if you're driving in a moderately
| pedestrianized area.
| toast0 wrote:
| My s-10 is 190 inches long by wikipedia. A same year
| Honda Accord is 189.5-191.1 in long. The accord is
| marginally wider.
|
| Driving alone in my s-10 takes the same space as driving
| alone in an Accord if I had one. And it's easier to see
| around or through the S-10, so everyone gets more
| visibility.
|
| The S-10 hood height and length is more than an Accord,
| so there may be some additional risk there, sure.
|
| Either way, a cabover design like the linked vehicle
| should appeal. Better visibility to the front, and less
| wasted space.
| rtpg wrote:
| > What's worse? A not in use bed, or a not in use back
| seat?
|
| It's more "what's worse? A huge truck with worse
| visibility, alone, or a car that has better visibility,
| safety features, and less likely to kill someone in an
| accident, driven alone".
|
| Obviously if the bed or the back set were the only swap,
| none of it matters.
|
| And like... yeah there's the calculus of how often you
| use it etc.
| scott_w wrote:
| In the UK there was also a loophole that allowed them to be
| treated as a business expense when bought by sole traders.
| Many a hairdresser bought a pickup over the years.
|
| That was changed so adding rear seats meant you could no
| longer class it as a company vehicle (the setup that was
| most common).
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is a deeply emotional response to someone making the
| completely obvious point that the vast majority of trucks are
| grocery haulers. That's not opinion - it's statistics.
| scott_w wrote:
| In the U.K. I see many pickups owned by hairdressers (judging
| by the livery) in suburban areas. Something tells me they're
| not transporting generators around with them...
| madaxe_again wrote:
| My truck is used purely and solely for truck shit - getting
| in and out from where we live, which is absolutely impassible
| with anything other than a high 4x4 with mudder tyres, and
| hauling everything from trees to gravel to water to batteries
| - there's almost always something substantial in the bed.
|
| It gets washed maybe twice a year, as it ends up filthy
| within 20 minutes anyway - and the panels all have scratches
| and dents from forging through brush.
|
| For car shit, I have an (electric) car which I park on the
| main road.
|
| The idea of waxing my truck is up there with the idea of
| waxing my legs.
| kristo wrote:
| Nobody wants to tell you you can't buy a truck, but the rest
| of us shouldn't bear the negative externalities of every
| person who wants to buy a truck - especially when the facts
| show most of those people would be served (practically if not
| emotionally) just as well by a smaller vehicle.
|
| Why should we subsidize truck (and SUV) ownership? They ruin
| roads, are vastly more dangerous, require wider lanes, have
| worse visibility of pedestrians, pollute more, are louder,
| and take up more space than other options. Yet we don't make
| SUV owners pay for any of that. We subsidize their gas, their
| road repairs and expansions, their car insurance, their
| storage space, their car payments, not to mention ignore the
| injuries, deaths and discomforts they cause.
|
| My 2011 VW Golf gets 40mpg... so I'm not very impressed by an
| F150 that 99.9% of the time performs the same job (carrying
| one person and no cargo) getting 25. (Even if this isn't your
| experience, the facts show that for most people it is)
|
| You should be free to make your own decisions! I support you
| in that. I can believe that your lifestyle justifies owning a
| truck, even though that doesn't generalize to most SUV
| owners. I just don't want to pay for other people's lifestyle
| decisions. It's like we have socialism for truck owners, but
| market capitalism for people who need healthcare
| adw wrote:
| 25mpg is still insanely, obscenely profligate when a
| reasonable vehicle (say a Renault Clio) gets somewhere
| between 50 and 70. That will make some people angry and it's
| hard to see that as entirely irrational.
| raddan wrote:
| I completely agree and I personally consider it ethically
| wrong to buy an ICE at this point in time. There's still a
| premium to pay for an EV, but the excuses are rapidly
| evaporating. What this tells me is that for all the lip
| service people give about the environment, fundamentally
| most people don't really give a shit.
| 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.
| fragmede wrote:
| Those effectively don't exist anymore. The fine multiplier
| was reduced to zero, so there's no penalty for violating
| the standards, retroactive back to 2022.
| 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.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| > This is a breath of fresh air.
|
| But for $41,000? To me that's an automatic nope... I can import
| a used Kei truck that works just fine from Japan for less than
| $10,000.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| It fully misses the main reason people buy trucks in the US --
| to signal where they stand on the political spectrum.
| KevinGlass wrote:
| The primary purpose of a pickup truck is gender affirming care
| for men in an increasing confusing world.
| hereme888 wrote:
| Yea, it's not like men have a natural preference for tools,
| liking to repair things, cool toys to carry on the back, or
| think "why get a mini-cooper when I can get an F-150 to carry
| my hunting gear, tow the boat". It obviously all culture-
| imposed gender preferences.
| viraptor wrote:
| > it's not like men have a natural preference for tools
|
| A proven preference they're born with and unrelated to the
| culture they grow up in? Please do link to that study!
| hereme888 wrote:
| You don't need to study if grass is green or water is
| wet, but you're welcome to study why.
| viraptor wrote:
| If you don't question the basics, you will miss they
| grass is not always green, depending on environment
| https://www.australianplantsonline.com.au/imperata-rubra-
| jap... https://www.oztrees.com.au/product/austrostipa-
| scabra/ So yes, sometimes you need to study that before
| assuming that what you usually see is natural rather than
| shaped.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| There's a nice Jay Leno video on this truck with the founders
| as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw250Va1JFo
| 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.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| Welcome to 2025.
| 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).
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Why do you think cars are so hated? Just curious if you
| could steel-man what you believe their arguments against
| cars to be, so I know we're on the same page of
| understanding.
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| They don't run everywhere though. They run until the fuel
| runs out. At least with liquid fuels that just needs a
| short stop to refuel, and stations are everywhere. a
| recharge takes longer and places to do it are not as
| common. If you are towing there are places you can't get.
| 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.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| That first video was very well done, answers so many
| questions all at once. I'm going to put effort into
| making my setup much more aerodynamic. That's a potential
| 30-50 miles more per charge there!
| 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?
| nine_k wrote:
| A John Deere is not a fashion statement. A car, or a daily
| commute truck, very much is, for many. (Sneakers, jeans, or
| t-shirts could be completely pragmatic, brand-oblivious
| items, too.)
| ghushn3 wrote:
| A John Deere is _absolutely_ a fashion statement, lol. You
| gotta meet more farmers, because the fights I see break out
| over Case IH, John Deere, New Holland, and Cat are
| _unreal_.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Oh, you would be so surprised.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv8agst9o_0
| 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.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| It also looks like shit and carries huge social baggage. ;)
| beAbU wrote:
| And its fucking expensive
| eric_cc wrote:
| > huge social baggage. ;)
|
| Or a great social filter. Consider the type of people
| that would judge you over a cybertruck.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| > Consider the type of people that would judge you over a
| cybertruck.
|
| I think we call those "most people".
| fruitworks wrote:
| I don't think most people care unless you're in a super
| liberal area.
| 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.
| margalabargala wrote:
| To be fair, the main reason for this is that the CEO of Tesla
| looked at "people who buy electric vehicles", and spent the
| last four years turning himself into a caricature of a
| villain to those people.
|
| At the best maybe it was some sort of misguided attempt to
| encourage the American right to buy EVs?
|
| If so it royally backfired and just decimated his own
| customer base right at the time real competition was entering
| the market. The Equinox EV roundly beats the Model Y head to
| head on range, price, AWD, etc. The Ioniq 5 is more expensive
| but is lovely.
| beAbU wrote:
| You are responding to a message about the cybertruck
| specifically, so I assume you are implying musk's behaviour
| is to blame for the poor sales of the CT?
|
| The cybertruck fell flat long before Musk's true identity
| was revealed (maga/nazi affiliations).
|
| Even if tesla was headed up by the most beloved CEO ever, I
| reckon the CT would still have sold poorly. It's just
| objectively a very bad, poorly designed and even worse
| built vehicle. And surprisingly, I feel like it's design
| aged very very quickly. It does not look next-gen or
| futuristic to me at all anymore.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > Elon Musk ... nazi affiliations
|
| Do you have a source for this?
| mavamaarten wrote:
| The fact that he did a full-on Hitler salute and openly
| supports far-right parties across the world may be what
| he's hinting towards.
| eric_cc wrote:
| So no, you don't have a source.
|
| Supporting parties on the right does not make you a nazi.
|
| Raising your hand does not make you a Nazi.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > Supporting parties on the right does not make you a
| nazi.
|
| > Raising your hand does not make you a Nazi.
|
| Fine, sure. Certainly there's a philosophical
| conversation to be had about what it means for one to be
| made a nazi by one's actions alone, in 2025.
|
| But that doesn't matter. All that's needed for Elon
| Musk's behavior to cause problems is for him to do things
| that make other people _think_ he is a nazi, which is a
| much lower bar, and one that _is_ met by supporting far
| right parties and making gestures indistinguishable from
| nazi salutes.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Like the other commenter said, doing something that looks
| like a nazi salute doesn't make you a nazi, and
| supporting far right parties does not make you a nazi.
|
| Both those things do however make other people think you
| may be a nazi, which is all that really matters here.
|
| Whether Elon Musk _is_ a nazi is irrelevant, what matter
| is that people think he is.
| Tallain wrote:
| He may look like a duck, and he may quack like a duck,
| but don't let that fool you...
| margalabargala wrote:
| There's a lot of reasons the cybertruck is a failure, but
| I think a lot of it _does_ come down to Musk; not just
| the cancelled orders because of his politics, but because
| purportedly he inserted himself into the engineering and
| development at a far stronger level for this vehicle than
| the other Tesla vehicles, and a lot of the issues stem
| from fulfilling his design demands.
|
| At the time the CT was announced there were no other EV
| pickups remotely close to buyable. If he had stepped
| back, and let the people who designed the X, Y, and 3 do
| their thing, it would have been released in 2020, and
| even with its unique shape would have sold great, and
| probably would not have developed the reputation for poor
| quality that the current one has.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > Equinox EV roundly beats the Model Y head to head
|
| The Y is the best vehicle I've ever owned. To me, it took
| over what the Prius used to be - the best overall vehicle
| for most people.
|
| You don't even mention FSD here, I assume strategically.
| That, to me, is the most important feature. Does Equinox or
| Ioniq even have FSD?
| dexterdog wrote:
| The Y does not have FSD either.
| eric_cc wrote:
| My car drives me around town unassisted. Whatever you
| want to call that - does the equinox or ioniq do that?
| margalabargala wrote:
| I can't reply to the other person because their comment
| got dead'd, but the Y and the Equinox have similar levels
| of self-driving available anyway. GM's Super Cruise is
| comparable to what Tesla calls FSD.
|
| I don't think the Ioniq has anything comparable.
| margalabargala wrote:
| The Y and the Equinox have similar levels of self-driving
| available. GM's Super Cruise is comparable to what Tesla
| calls FSD.
|
| I don't think the Ioniq has anything comparable.
| rconti wrote:
| The CT sales are <10% of their capacity, per your wording.
| Do you think Model Y sales are down 90%?
|
| No doubt Elon is destroying the profitability of his
| company by being a public asshole, but the Cybertruck is a
| fundamentally flawed vehicle (almost) nobody asked for,
| which is why it's a flop. By comparison, (refreshed) 3 and
| Y sales are not off by nearly as much, and some of that is
| just because they're just refreshes of existing vehicles
| people have been buying for many years, and there's a lot
| more competition in the EV market, and overall EV sales are
| slowing.
| 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.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| 40k will not get you a 350 mile range. There is no way they
| get to market at that price for that capability.
| CarVac wrote:
| 40k gets 240 mile range.
| dexterdog wrote:
| The pricepoints are still vaporware.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Insane price. We need something closer to a $15k S10 or
| Ranger compact pickup. Simple and utilitarian.
| conception wrote:
| Kei trucks and the maverick seem to disagree.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| the maverick is a few inches shorter than the ranger. it's
| huge.
| beAbU wrote:
| Kei truck and the Maverick aren't even in the same universe
| of size comparison.
|
| A kei truck will give a VW Golf a run for it's money size
| wise!
| vachina wrote:
| These cars are not mainstream and are typically used to
| circumvent vehicle classification regulations.
| Qwertious wrote:
| "Used to circumvent" translation: the laws are stupidly
| restrictive so they're normally (pointlessly) illegal.
| And the reason they're not mainstream is _because_ they
| 're illegal.
| tomrod wrote:
| Certainly not at $41k
| SoftTalker wrote:
| A truck needs to have an 8 foot bed so you can haul plywood
| and lumber. I see this one does allow it by a "mid gate" and
| folding the rear seats but that's still a bit cumbersome. And
| I prefer to have a metal wall between me and the 2x4s in case
| of an accident.
| timeon wrote:
| > Why isn't Tesla making these?
|
| Like with most cars they have made it is because Tesla has no
| taste.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > 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 get your point but I also think you are being dismissive of
| their ongoing contributions to cutting carbon use.
| beAbU wrote:
| Here in Ireland al lot of local "last mile" services (postman,
| deliveries, council services, repair crews etc) are switching
| to electric vans. It's such a no-brainer and a great
| application of evs.
|
| I'm actually wondering why pickups are so popular elsewhere. A
| van makes so much more sense for a travelling tradie IMO - we
| need more electric vans!
| gtirloni wrote:
| Outside of farmers and heavy machinery workers, trucks are
| only a status/culture symbol these days. In my town, 1 out of
| 10 vehicles is a truck... a very clean and shiny truck that
| has never carried anything.
| 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.
| cduzz wrote:
| I wonder if there's some business model like a mixture of send-
| cut-send and TSMC where a "FAB" agrees to stamp out 3000
| fenders/doors/roofs and ship them to the customer (who then
| puts together the cars and paints them and such).
|
| This is similar to what lotus did to help bootstrap tesla...
|
| And hey, maybe tesla's going to have some spare capacity lying
| around so they could be that FAB... ?
|
| I personally really want this truck to succeed. I'd happily
| trade in my 10 year old model S for this; it'd make dump runs
| and trips to the garden / home centers a lot easier than in the
| S...
|
| I do wish they'd go full eccentric and use a citroen inspired
| oil suspension...
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what the automotive component suppliers
| (Magna, Bosch, Denso, Aisin, etc) do?
| cenamus wrote:
| I mean, isn't that literally just a supplier?
| cduzz wrote:
| Car companies tend to make the engines and the sheet
| metal body parts themselves; the tool and die setup to
| stamp out the sheet metal is enormously capital intensive
| and there aren't services to stamp up a bunch of sheet
| metal for you.
| jdietrich wrote:
| Press tools for car body panels are extraordinarily
| expensive, which is why low-volume manufacturers generally
| avoid using pressings wherever possible. It's just inherently
| very expensive to carve two huge blocks of steel into a
| smooth curved shape, so you need to sell an awful lot of
| units to amortise that cost. Tesla's deal with Lotus only
| worked because they used a fibreglass body - expensive per-
| unit, but very low tooling costs.
|
| Desktop Metal are developing a sheet forming solution that
| requires no bespoke tooling, but it's a slow process with
| fairly poor surface finish.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oqeVLILGHY
| cduzz wrote:
| Right -- this is why I use the analogy of TSMC -- chip fabs
| are also extremely expensive, for similar reasons.
|
| What are the relative costs of the making die set, the
| press, and setting up and doing a run of stampings, and the
| facility and employees to actually house the whole kit?
|
| As of right now, if you need to make a car and you don't
| have a NUMI or similar retired automotive plant sitting
| around, it's going to be expensive.
|
| What about the hydroforming process?
|
| I guess smaller car makers from the 60s that did make low
| volume sheet metal cars didn't need to pass crash tests.
|
| Probably The Telo people should just team up with ineos....
| convolvatron wrote:
| except the fab pays the tooling cost once per process and
| the tool and die company charges once per design.
|
| I've actually worked a little on hydroforming, but unless
| you're thinking of a different kind, it was labor
| intensive, and prone to crinkling in bad spots. we
| basically concluded that we used less time and got a
| better result with an English. which would probably run
| at least $10k for a car body, if you could find someone
| willing to work for that low an hourly rate.
| cduzz wrote:
| Again, I'm confident that this is not a viable business,
| and certainly in no position to make it a viable business
| even if it was...
|
| But places that make windshields keep forms around and
| make runs of windshields even for low volume cars;
| obviously there's less recurring need for fenders or
| floor pans... But there may be some way to financially
| engineer a "do a run we pay X per unit; hopefully that
| results in doing another run and paying X, and if we can
| get to 100X the per unit costs go down to some other
| target.
|
| But I was thinking, and perhaps they should just make
| these cars out of ground up trabants or saturns. Tesla
| has demonstrated that some customers don't actually care
| about perfect finishes or gaps or whatnot; I certainly
| would be fine with a car made out of trabant, especially
| if it meant I didn't have to worry about dents...
| 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.
| CarVac wrote:
| The crumple zone is 20", same as a normal car. What there isn't
| is anything _else_ aside from the crumple zone, enabling it to
| be so short.
| 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
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I find it amusing that people are discussing the masculine
| design language and how men driving trucks are
| overcompensating (OK, not so much in this particular thread),
| but for as long as I can remember, it's been _women_ that
| have always told me that they prefer bigger vehicles.
| 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
| seemaze wrote:
| I daily a 2002 TRD 6spd with carplay. Currently 125k, I'm
| taking it with me to the grave..
| 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.
| zoul wrote:
| That would get us back to the "bigger is better" hole
| though.
| atoav wrote:
| Not trying to offend anyone as this is a matter of taste, but
| I can't help finding the American "masculine truck" ugly and
| cringeworthy.
|
| Maybe it is me being the from European Alps and having close
| contact with people who _actually_ have to drive vehicles in
| challenging terain (for forest work and hunting). And those
| cars are typically the polar opposite of the pseudo-masculine
| big truck: You want them small, because where you go there
| are trees and rocks that won 't move out of the way just
| because your car looks masculine. You want them light because
| you are moving across badly maintained forest roads, etc. You
| want them ugly because you will be scraping more things than
| you like. And unless you have need for moving bulk loads like
| water containers for alpine cows regularly a closed back is
| much more practical, at least in this climate (if you need to
| move such a thing, get a trailer).
|
| Over here these trucks are relatively rare, and likely
| smaller than their American variants, and mostly driven by a
| certain type of man as what appears to be a fashion choice.
|
| Maybe it is a cultural or generational thing, but to me a car
| is a tool and I don't connect a lot of my identity to it.
| That doesn't mean I don't like a specific car or don't like
| to be able to mainrain one myself etc. It is just that I like
| functional efficient machines and a big tank weighing many
| tons that you drive in mostly alone is the opposite of that.
| Fade_Dance wrote:
| Of course they are a cultural status symbol.
|
| That said, mountainous forest work is obviously a more
| prominent use case in the alps than it is in the US.
|
| US trucks that are owned by individuals are not primarily
| seen as tools. 70% of US truck owners have only one
| vehicle, so their primary purpose is to be used as a luxury
| barge and family hauler. Not much different than the huge
| cars that Americans preferred to drive in the 1950s and
| 1970s. There has always been a thread of huge cruiser style
| vehicles in American auto culture and this continues today.
|
| When it comes to work, towing capacity and generic American
| suburbia workloads tend to dominate (large houses with big
| projects, longer drives, etc).
|
| Not saying that these tanks are a "practical choice", but
| they are perhaps better viewed through the lens of luxury
| barges.
|
| Hunting is a good point, but from what I've gleaned it's a
| subculture that sort of stands alone and has a huge "gear"
| component. I think that it's somewhat common to have small
| specialized vehicles for that use case, like ATV style
| vehicles of various sorts. Ex: last time I was in North
| Carolina I saw someone with this dune buggy thing suited
| for that... and it was being hauled around behind a massive
| truck, naturally. Off-roading and hunting culture also
| overlaps a bit, and there is a legitimate off-road culture
| that is quite separate from the Big Truck culture. These
| people will often have two vehicles, so the Big Truck would
| be used for the aforementioned luxury cruising and status,
| while as you said, a more suitable vehicle is used for the
| actual rough terrain.
|
| They do have a fairly unique status power in much of the
| US. If a small business owner drives up in a sports car,
| they may get jokes, but for some reason driving up in a new
| GMC 2500HD is sort of seen as a mark of a "working man's
| success" instead of being flashy and showing off. It's
| something you can drive up and meet clients without about
| how you are going to look. That said, I'm speaking from
| experience in southern and midwest culture, but that's
| where the majority of the US population lives. When I was
| in New York you would see these monster trucks much less
| often, and as you said the driver was often much more
| ostentatious I'm trying to flagrantly stand out rather than
| subtly rise above without getting called out as one does in
| the midwest.
| atoav wrote:
| Thanks for shining a light on this for me, helps me
| follow the line of thought, especially your part about
| how it is seen as a sign of success to own a specific new
| car etc.
|
| Most urbanite Gen Z students I teach don't have (need)
| driving license and don't plan to get one. Owning a car
| is somewhat a useless luxury in most European bigger
| cities, since you're much faster and more comfortable
| with bicycles and public transport anyways. The
| occasional family trip or bigger transport can be done
| with a rental or car sharing, if public transport doesn't
| cut it. This results in the car being seen much less as a
| status symbol, except for certain migrantic or
| economically strained subcultures. But you won't be able
| to impress your say average Berlin Techno-girl with a
| flashy car, in fact it would likely achieve the opposite
| effect.
|
| Where I live hunting isn't really that much of a sport,
| more a mix between a regular job, a hobby and tradition.
| So while there is expensive gear (hand-engraved
| traditional guns that sell for the price of a luxury
| car), most people just use whatever. From what I have
| seen in the US hunting (like literally everytbing else)
| is much more gear-focused over there.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| I think it looks great? It evokes a Kei truck to me, but with
| more modern styling.
| stevage wrote:
| I'll take "looks like a toy" over "looks like a death machine",
| thanks.
| beAbU wrote:
| What's wrong with toys? Toys are fun!
| asoneth wrote:
| I suppose there's no accounting for taste.
|
| Personally I find the increasingly large bulbous noses tacked
| on to the front of US trucks ridiculous. The fact that these
| "codpieces" are empty on EVs is such a wild metaphor that it
| seems like an intentional parody.
|
| I'll grant that the Telo may have gone a little too far in the
| other direction given that they have issues with the
| aerodynamic drag of the front wheelwells, but it still looks
| slightly more sensible than a normal truck.
| 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 ...
| matcha-video wrote:
| Also what's up with the knit dashboard?
| softgrow wrote:
| At least it has a steering wheel. Wait until that disappears to
| be replaced by a joystick or worse still a USB port, bring your
| own mouse.
| NoWayJoWei wrote:
| They partnered with Yves Behar for the exterior and interior
| design, so the current version leans more on the design over
| function side of things. The interior is getting a whole revamp
| for the actual units that'll go to customers. One of the things
| I confirmed is they're going with physical buttons below the
| screen. The door cards will be slimmed down, and they won't use
| cork like it currently does.
| saint-loup wrote:
| It's interesting to note that Behar has founder credit for
| Telo Trucks, he's not a one-shot contractor. I guess his
| designs studio is involved with the new version as well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telo_Trucks
| 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.
| chipsa wrote:
| The vast majority of tractor trailers in Europe are cab
| over designs. There's definitely less room between the
| bumper and the driver's legs in those than in any standard
| pickup truck.
| 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.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Without a doubt one of the best American pickups of all time. I
| cannot fathom how a company fumbled what was essentially a
| perfect product.
| singron wrote:
| I believe small trucks were unintentionally killed by CAFE.
| The regulation gives companies fuel efficiency targets. Prior
| to 2011, there were separate targets for categories like
| "passenger" and "light truck", but since 2011 it's been based
| on a formula of wheel footprint. Manufacturers realized that
| instead of trying to make current models more fuel efficient
| they could make bigger trucks instead. It was definitely one
| of the greatest failures of regulation and unfortunate that
| Congress never fixed it in 14 years. CAFE was essentially
| gutted in the recent budget bill.
| fruitworks wrote:
| Unintended consequences. Perhaps it have been better to tax
| fuel directly?
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| I wish our country was functionally governed again.
| 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"
| stusmall wrote:
| I recently learned that being a issue for them was a myth.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-
| spanis...
| 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.
| giobox wrote:
| The width is why the design was so clever from an interior
| perspective - seated six comfortably with three abreast
| front/rear in a car shorter than a three door Ford Fiesta!
| 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.
| stusmall wrote:
| It has 4WD
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Ah yeah with a 1700 pound payload and no tow capacity. Many
| UTVs are 4WD too.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| 6,600lb tow capacity. You can dislike a thing, but like,
| you should probably at least get the facts straight.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Let's see the production model pull 6600 pounds on an 80%
| charge. Which by the way I see no stats on this on the
| site. But I'd much rather see production demos before I
| trusted those even. Even Cybertruck struggles to tow full
| weight at full charge further than 90 miles.
|
| How much you want to bet you'd be calling a real truck to
| tow your ass out of that situation? There's a reason
| electric trucks haven't taken off for real work use
| cases.
| ghushn3 wrote:
| > Even Cybertruck struggles to
|
| The cybertruck is built pretty poorly. I think we can use
| truck stats from reputable automakers.
|
| > There's a reason electric trucks haven't taken off for
| real work use cases.
|
| When were electric trucks realistically available on the
| market for a reasonable price?
|
| I use a truck regularly (forestry industry), there's huge
| desire for them, they just haven't been around until very
| recently. You can't buy a secondhand ol beatup electric
| truck yet, so I don't expect them to be taking off yet.
| kgermino wrote:
| 6600 lb towing capacity
|
| Towing range is an issue with all EVs and the battery on this
| one isn't that big, but if you're regularly doing long
| distance towing I'm not sure why you'd start with a city
| truck
| 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.
| CarVac wrote:
| It's twice the capabilities of the Slate though.
| styfle wrote:
| Slate is going to start closer to 28K now that the tax credit
| is gone (remember it's not going into production until next
| year).
|
| That said, $41K is still a big jump in comparison and it makes
| the Telo much closer to the price of a Model Y starting around
| $45K.
| bilsbie wrote:
| There. It's be something really expensive about EV's. I keep
| hearing about batteries getting cheaper but these prices are
| insane.
| 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.
| wg0 wrote:
| You can't charge them within five minutes like you would
| load up a traditional car.
|
| Battery starts to lose range. Even more so in extreme
| temperatures.
|
| Battery replacement is super expensive. In that amount
| you can get your engine rebuilt multiple times over.
| throw123xz wrote:
| You're mixing different problems and clearly have no
| experience driving or owning EVs.
|
| > You can't charge them within five minutes like you
| would load up a traditional car.
|
| Nothing to do with reliability.
|
| > Battery starts to lose range. Even more so in extreme
| temperatures.
|
| Yes, you lose ~20% of range if it's snowing or very cold.
| Is this a reliability issue?
|
| > Battery replacement is super expensive. In that amount
| you can get your engine rebuilt multiple times over.
|
| It is very expensive, but batteries are not failing.
| Again, we now have 10-15 year old cars on the road
| without battery problems.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Car rental companies hated EVs because of the large
| depreciation. That's a sign that the technology is
| progressing quickly.
| wg0 wrote:
| Nah - renters didn't want them. Nobody wants a care for
| 48 hours on rent out of which at least 12 hours it has to
| worry about charging it.
|
| Superchargers aren't always available or in working
| condition even if are nearby.
|
| And EVs don't deprecate faster because technology is
| advancing by leap and bounds. It has other factors.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I rented EVs multiple times. You
| don't worry about charging as often as 12 out of 48
| hours. If there happens to be a convenient L2 charger you
| plug in. Otherwise you visit a fast charger.
|
| Superchargers have excellent availability and uptime.
|
| EVs depreciate quickly entirely because of technology
| advances. In the span of a few years we have seen 800V
| architectures, LFP batteries becoming commonplace. And
| semi-solid-state batteries are on the horizon.
| fruitworks wrote:
| I think a problem with EVs is that we don't have a
| depreciation model for the batteries in the same way that
| we do for the car itself (based on mileage).
|
| In an ideal world you could instantly get your battery
| replaced with a full one at a recharging station and settle
| the difference in depreciation.
|
| The EV ownership model only works right now if you charge
| it yourself and use it to drive around your own town
| 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?
| fruitworks wrote:
| EVs are simpler than ICE cars. No transmission, more efficient
| regenerative braking.
|
| The only thing the batteries need is lithium, which isn't the
| most uncommon element. And there will be other battery
| chemistries in the future.
| 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.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| It wouldn't cost much less than the big Tacoma, so it would
| simply not sell (like this won't sell).
| achenatx wrote:
| Slate is coming in at around 175 inches..
| 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.
| rpmisms wrote:
| I want power density and off-grid capability in my truck. I
| want to be able to go camping and not plan for charging. I
| also want to be able to repair it without dealing with
| software. I also want to be able to tow without stopping to
| charge every 100 miles.
| 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?
| fragmede wrote:
| They got "fixed". He penalty was set to zero.
| CarVac wrote:
| It has ten inches of ground clearance.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEcI967gXUg
| 1024core wrote:
| Bottom of the page:
|
| > Copyright (c) 2024 TELO Trucks. All rights reserved.
| bagels wrote:
| Can you explain the relevance of this?
| 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.
| qwertox wrote:
| What a great form factor.
| silcoon wrote:
| In Australia, BYD Shark 6 is currently conquering the market for
| the EV utes.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Another Canoo bankrupt future and lose my 150 bucks?
| stefap2 wrote:
| I thought electric cars are simpler and should be cheaper. You
| can tariff out competition only for so long...
| bagels wrote:
| $42k. If you're making a tiny truck, it should have a tiny price.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Most of the cost of building a truck is the same whether it's
| big or small. Hence why we only get big trucks - that reaction.
| CarVac wrote:
| You'd pay for a useless hood?
| deadbabe wrote:
| how are you supposed to put some big tires on this thing
| bastian wrote:
| This will be a giant success.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| One thing I'm really happy about with the rise of EVs is that
| they seem to be unlocking a fresh wave of innovation. This is in
| part because at a fundamental level, they are much simpler and
| easier to manufacture and more flexible in terms of design, so
| they are far more accessible for the startup ecosystem to break
| into. I'm really looking forward to what else we see emerging in
| the next few years once all the basic EV technology is
| commoditised.
| cpursley wrote:
| Love the footprint, hate the cloth interior. I want to be able to
| spay it out after my mountain biking trips.
| yello_downunder wrote:
| I'm stuck with a cloth interior. I bring a beach towel to drape
| on the seat after my rides. Mud falls onto the towel which
| makes it easy to clean out of the vehicle.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| I like that it's small and potentially even more functional than
| whatever idiotic American small-dick-compensating nonsense people
| buy these days but why does it need to be so ugly?
|
| If you want more people to buy sensible vehicles, make them look
| nice i.e. not like something NASA would send to Mars.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| Man, I'd love something like this. I was happy with my small,
| early 2000s pickup, but everything in the used market when it
| died were obnoxious show-off vehicles that quite literally don't
| even fit in most of the parking spaces in my city. This has that
| cute kei truck look... well... Maybe an inbred kei truck. But it
| seems just the right size for utility (and my much-missed
| tailgate naps).
|
| But $42k is just _so much_ money to me. I 've never spent more
| than ~$15k (financed) on a vehicle and I feel like I'm fairly
| well off...
| koinedad wrote:
| I like the mini idea. I want a small car thing and this might be
| just the type of thing that is practical for me
| keyle wrote:
| Exciting to see new development, especially in this terminal
| economy.
|
| What sort of ANCAP rating do they get with such a short front
| hood?
| ghushn3 wrote:
| This rules. I hope it succeeds. More smaller vehicles designed
| for urban spaces please!
| CarVac wrote:
| This is a truck that appeals to car buyers because it's not
| sacrificing a compact body or efficiency, while providing immense
| utility and off-roading.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEcI967gXUg
| mNovak wrote:
| A fabric interior? That's one I didn't see coming. Seems like
| it'd be harder to clean.
| ChipopLeMoral wrote:
| I really like the solar roof and bed cover add-ons. They don't
| have specs but should be roughly 4 square meters combined or so?
| so about 800w at peak power. Not enough to let you rely on it
| even if you live in a sunny place, but it could add up to a nice
| reduction in cost per mile if you use it to commute and park it
| in the sun.
| nixgeek wrote:
| Did anyone reserve? If yes what's your preorder position number?
| dluan wrote:
| For $41k, I can buy 20 chang li explorer trucks off alibaba and
| have $1000 leftover.
|
| I just fail to see how anyone sane would try and enter this
| market right now.
| xrd wrote:
| Are you in the US? How do you get those into the country? These
| aren't street legal, right? I would love to know I'm out of
| date on this belief.
| emsign wrote:
| I can't customize that ugly front into a cooler design
| unfortunately.
| throwmeaway222 wrote:
| Neat, but I imagined what an accident with a semi head on would
| do to me...
| andai wrote:
| Why'd they make it look like that? It looks like one of those dog
| breeds that can't breathe normally.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| It looks horrible. Why do all these new electric cars look like
| they've been through a 'you don't want to buy this' session?
| sMarsIntruder wrote:
| When EU?
| sciencesama wrote:
| for this size i would want it to be less than 20k !
| sschueller wrote:
| Is an open front wheel like this street legal? Seems to be it
| would be a safety issue for pedestrians. Legally weels also are
| not allowed to stick out past the fender when straight.
| darknavi wrote:
| The wheels are behind the front bumper by a few inches.
| Thorrez wrote:
| >Our standard five-seat crew cab features a 5-foot bed capacity
| with a configurable mid-partition that either increases the bed
| size to accommodate 4-by-8-foot plywood sheets with the tailgate
| up or to allow for additional seating for up to eight passengers.
|
| Eight passengers while driving? Where? I don't see any pictures
| of that.
| asoneth wrote:
| They have renders of what a passenger van variant would look
| like but my understanding is that this is just aspirational and
| will not be produced unless the 5-seat truck variant is
| successful.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Telo are too small to succeed and too interesting to fail. I
| expect them to be bought after they fully launch the vehicle and
| it shows promise.
| thecrumb wrote:
| Why do these 'new' trucks feel they need to reinvent the wheel? I
| don't want something I need to 'reconfigure' to either carry
| people or a 4x8. I don't need seating for 4. I need a _small_
| utility truck. Like... a Toyota. A late 70 's, early 80's Toyota.
| No electric windows. No fancy interior. Seating for 2 (my and my
| dog). No information screen...
| sphars wrote:
| That's what Slate is doing: https://www.slate.auto/en
| tgtweak wrote:
| How many kWh? Charging specs? Solar panel specs?
|
| Honestly feels so far from an actual product I wouldn't expect to
| see it for another 3 years, in which time there will certainly be
| better options for $50,000.
| pokechamp wrote:
| > With Toyota Tacoma capability, Tesla-like range and efficiency,
| in the footprint of a MINI Cooper, the TELO MT1 is the most
| compact, practical and technically advanced truck.
|
| I'm cautious anytime a brand compares themselves.
| tasqyn wrote:
| why it is so ugly?
| rsktaker wrote:
| (Not sure if this is just me, but) I find this truck so
| aesthetically displeasing?
|
| Somehow, most EVs have curves and "bounciness" (and why such odd
| headlights??) in all the right places to make it look childish. I
| find the Tesla sedan extremely aesthetic though, that might be
| the one exception. The bigger Teslas (especially in color white)
| remind me of pandas for some reason.
| fruitworks wrote:
| A lot of commenters are in the same boat
| tunapizza wrote:
| Also read:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42638394
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-03 23:02 UTC)