this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
1619 points (93.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
9629 readers
554 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree with the sentiment of this post, but to be fair, you can also carry 3 or 4 passengers in the left vehicle, as opposed to only one in the right.
The main problem is the US fuel economy regulations actually encourage manufacturers to build bigger trucks and SUVs so they get classified into a category that has looser fuel economy requirements.
The extended cab version of the right truck would still tick all the boxes.
Off-road and towing capacity are probably the main feature you give up with that sort of design. Whether or not most people need that is a separate story.
They make kei trucks in 4x4, but you do lose ground clearance.
That being said, what kind of "off road" conditions are any of the trucks really contending with?
Muddy fields when parking at church or boy scouts or whatever.
Whats best is the kei 4x4 is probably significantly better in most off road situations due to its lighter weight and shorter wheel base. You can drive/manuever around things easier and when you are on mud or sand, the lighter weight prevents sinking.
Probably all of the conditions, considering how many of those trucks there are, but it would be fun to see an off-road shootout between the two.
Sounds like a job for Donut Media.
You are right. Still the american truck is hugely oversized, even for 5 persons and cargo. But, for the sake of the argument, imagine standing on the highway. Have a gander at the cars around you. How many people per car do you see? Exactly, 90% of the time there is exactly one person in a car. What makes the american truck an extreme waste of space an ressources, beside being a health hazard to everyone outside of the car.
Cars should get smaller, not bigger.
You're mostly right. The main problem is that manufacturers chose to ignore the spirit of the US CAFE fuel economy regulations, and instead build everything bigger and bigger. That's why quarter-ton trucks grew to the size of the F150 in the year 2000 when they were quite a bit smaller before.
It's not the fault of the regulation. It is the fault of the manufacturers and to an equal extent, of consumers for preferring gigantic vehicles.
And let's not let GM off the hook for the 1990s Suburban, which began to, quite literally, dominate the roads. Those fuckers were the original huge grocery getter, and they had truly awful turning radius and blind spots. You just couldn't drive them safely or courteously if you tried. So of course everyone wanted more powerful and bigger vehicles to compete.
I'm actually going to fault regulations on this one. The EPA bases fuel economy requirements on the wheelbase of the vehicle. They used to publish a range of values based every other year or so, but then changed it to a formula. The formula is non-linear, making it neigh impossible to build anything with a small wheelbase anymore. In theory, they could design a small hybrid truck, but would need an obnoxiously long bed to compensate.
I watched a YouTube video on it not terribly long ago, and iirc, a 95 Ford Ranger, if held to the current formula-based regulations, would need 60+ mpg to be produced without major penalties to the company.
The EPA either needs to reevaluate the formula, or start manually publishing the numbers with values that are actually achievable by the industry at scale. Basically, by publishing the formula, manufacturers are able to min-max their designs in all the wrong ways.
EDIT: Updated for clarity and fixed some typos
Yep, I think I saw that video, I was shocked how bad the regulations were. It really makes no financial sense for companies to make smaller trucks.
Really, the fault of the regulations is that the penalties for the number of vehicles in the heavy polluting category weren't nearly stiff enough. That's a big part of why the automakers went the opposite direction and just made bigger and heavier vehicles - they could.
Thanks for pointing our the real incentives which are always some bullshit about more money and less regulations - basically the reason capitalism sucks at innovation - it doesn't care about whats important and in some cases actively hates it
What's important for you specifically is not what is important to the customer base writ large.
You have problems with fellow consumers that you blame on manufacturers.
Capitalism does not follow the desires of consumers, it follows the desire of shareholders.
This is the most braindead comment I've read in a long time.
That doesn't even make sense in the logic you've presented. Shareholders want to maximize value, which means selling more things to consumers, which means selling things consumers want.
If your entire worldview falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, it may be time to re-evaluate said worldview.
When you consider that marketing is intended to manipulate consumers into thinking they want your product, it's more about convincing people that your product has value, and that they need it, rather than selling something that consumers actually need.
You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation.
Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview
I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want.
Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique.
Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products.
Throw out the brain rot my dude.
I didn't say they had no freewill, i said.
And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation.
There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value
Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class
Look up manufactured scarcity. Great way to make money for shareholders without providing more to consumers. You charge them more for less. Notice any of that recently? Notice any record breaking profits in any industries? Notice any shortages of important things like IDK ... housing?!?!
I'll also give you another example of capitalists not giving a fuck about what consumers want: electric cars back in the 1990s. The auto manufacturers realized they would lose their parts and repair businesses, as electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, the oil companies got pissed, so they put some power together and used the federal government to overturn californias electric car act that consumers voted for. The also forcefully recalled electric cars from consumers and crushed them. They did not care if there was demand if they could make more money in the short term by staying the same.
Hell, the very existence of exxon mobile disproves your ideas that companies will innovate in response to demand because they spent their money lying to the public about climate change so they could avoid any innovation at all for as long as possible. So WTF do you mean they care about demand?
Your logic that capitalists only do what consumers want is whats basic and flawed. If thats true, WTF is advertising? You think it's just a fun hobby that doesn't work? If advertising doesn't create false demand, why do it? We have evidence advertising creates demand, therefore advertising works, therefore you need to adjust your worldview to allow for the fact that some amount of the shit that consumers buy is nothing more than light brainwashing. Including you dear.
The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want
I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation
Given the usage patterns, most people in the US do not need large trucks. They have been convinced that need them because the auto manufacturers make a lot of money selling trucks.
That's why the compact trucks are selling like hot cakes. People want trucks, but they don't necessarily want these behemoths. I love my Santa Cruz.
Even compact trucks are not nearly as small as light trucks from a couple decades ago before regulations encouraged manufacturers to go bigger to avoid penalties.
Basically if you have two trucks with the same engine, but on a smaller wheelbase, the smaller one might be penalized for not being fuel efficient enough while the larger one isn't. Might as well go big to avoid the cost.
I thought it was very disingenuous of OP to not mention crew capacity between the two trucks at all. I'd assume the bigger truck also has a better towing capacity which may be required. What isn't required is buying one of these trucks to get groceries and replace your tv every 3 years while commuting to your desk job 1 hour away.
But what about cargo capacity? The beds look pretty much the same size, although I’m sure allowed weight is drastically different
The main post claims the beds are the same size. Technically speaking in terms of volume the kei truck wins due to lower bed height (if we are using max height to pass bridges as our standard). As for weight I'm pretty sure the left truck wins out on total capacity. That said the kei truck is still a remarkably useful minitruck and i wish they had a bigger market in the west.
Thats why we always had larger and smaller versions of trucks.
99% of trucks don't NEED 3-4 passengers. Same with SUVs. Most are just used to commute back and forth to work.
Half ton trucks should have remained small, while the 1 ton ones should be closer to what the half-ton are sized today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series#/media/File:1953_F100_Diagram.jpg
Look at the original F-100 for a good example. The old Rangers are also what most trucks should look like. Only the people that really use them should be driving these massive trucks around. I honestly hope gas prices spike massively because it's going to hit idiots that drive this shit the worst.
The name crew can exist for reason, that how pack all your labourers in to job site, now 80% of tradesman don’t have a whole crew of labourers so the point is still there.
I would bet the standard seating for the left truck is five, but you could easily cram six in. Unless the front row is connected, then it would be even more.
There name crew can exist for reason, that how pack all your labourers in to job site
Can't tow a boat an RV or trailer with the Japanese vehicle. All things Americans do for fun. For work? The Japanese vehicle can't haul 6,000 lbs of lumbar or steel, nor can it pull another vehicle out of a ditch.
The left one looks a little too expensive to actually haul with. If you needed to move that much wouldn't something like an Isuzu Grafter make more sense?
If you tow things wouldn't a van or any 4x4/high powered car be a better choice?