It’s a vehicle, not a mental disorder. Some people just want to be able to occasionally tow a boat or haul some furniture without needing to rent a truck.

I think the attitude of “you don’t need a truck unless you’re a blue collar worker” is pretty elitist and ignorant, honestly. As if the decision to buy a truck is somehow invalid because white collar workers don’t see the need for one.

It’s honestly a lot more practical than people seem to think. And if electric trucks hold their value anything like ICE trucks, getting one with a tax credit at about $40k for the base model is probably the best deal in a new vehicle you can find.

> want to be able to occasionally tow a boat or haul some furniture without needing to rent a truck.

The mystery to me is how very occasionally that seems to be, at least anecdotally. Perhaps >95% of pickup trucks I see are not hauling anything bigger than groceries. Yet, they’re hauling around their own ridiculously giant metal frame and emitting huge amounts of fossil fuels in the process. Those occasional boat trips are very net expensive in atmospheric carbon! Thankfully electric pickups will partially mitigate that problem although pickups will be hogging space in commuter parking garages for many decades hence I’m sure.

I’m pretty sure this is the kind of attitude that causes rural folks to be so skeptical of climate change. Some (I’m assuming) city-dweller talking down to them about how they don’t need what they feel to be a useful tool in their daily lives.

I mean, it sounds like your real reservation about trucks is not that they emit carbon, but that they are hogging up space and inconveniencing you, which is not a very persuasive argument.

> I’m pretty sure this is the kind of attitude that causes rural folks to be so skeptical of climate change

I didn't mention rural truck drivers and made no comment that could reasonably be interpreted as such. If you have to deal with corrugated dirt roads and hauling materials etc on a daily basis then it's perfectly understandable you won't exactly be driving a hatchback.

> I mean, it sounds like your real reservation about trucks is not that they emit carbon, but that they are hogging up space and inconveniencing you, which is not a very persuasive argument.

Or, numerous city and urban commuting giant truck drivers is an effective image of the ridiculous excess they represent in the vast majority of their uses whereas carbon is a less visible but extremely negative externality from that excess.

/s But yes, those that point out this are the real problem.

> I think the attitude of “you don’t need a truck unless you’re a blue collar worker” is pretty elitist and ignorant, honestly.

A sedan with the rear seats folded down will likely hold as much as you can get in a Costco run.

Or two bikes you throw in there.

I know because mine does both of these things.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of current truck owners 1) don't own boats 2) rarely, if ever, haul furniture 3) use the space in the rear on a regular basis.

Against this we have the known statistics of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities due to the obstructions to visibility provided by the very high front grille and very high ride height (plus wide A-pillars, etc.)

So it's therefore not only a waste of gas but a public health hazard, and making that claim is not "elitist", it's merely "rational" and "empirical" (and allow me to add, "humane")

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/bigger-vehicles-are-directly-...

"Recent research from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found the share of pedestrian deaths involving trucks, vans, and SUVs has increased from 22 to 44 percent since the mid-1980s. More SUVs and trucks in the fleet = more pedestrian injuries becoming deaths instead."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2411345/suvs-trucks-deadly-cyc...

Hot nonsense.

Most sedans have a max payload < 1000lbs including all passengers.

An F-150 has a payload over 3000lbs and can tow up to 14,000lbs.

Do you need that for your groceries? No, but if you don't live in the heart of the city the F-150 enables you do many many things that a sedan can't do around yard work, home ownership, agriculture, hauling gear, etc..

A sedan is about the worst car design anyway.. you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you had argued for a hatch or a minivan.

I've never owned a truck, but they have their uses.

I'm a big fan of small cars, but I'm also a big fan of having friends that own trucks. just off the top of my head, I've needed to borrow a friend's truck to move a couch (twice), buy a new bedframe, and buy a TV. this is all in the past year. none of those things fit in my hatchback with any combination of seats folded down, and they certainly wouldn't fit in a sedan. if I had to rent one from uhaul or home depot, that would have cost me hundreds of dollars in total. instead, it cost me a couple meals at chipotle.

it's also hard to find anything smaller than a truck with 4WD. if you live outside the city/suburbs, this can be a pretty important feature by itself.

I own an F150 I use primarily for commuting but it also has a comfortable ride, >20 highway mpg, good visibility, utility for when I need to move furniture etc, and it’s relatively affordable and holds its value. Trucks depreciate slower than any other category of vehicle. Literally the only downside is that it’s a pain to park sometimes.

> Literally the only downside is that it’s a pain to park sometimes.

I'd argue there is a societal disadvantage regarding the emissions these trucks kick out.

If I drove it a lot yes but I typically only do 4000-6000 miles a year. Even with this vehicle I average less emissions than a typical commuter would. That being said I will probably replace it with an EV as a daily driver when it’s paid off & use it on an as needed basis.

You can't compare yourself to someone that drives more than you do and use it to say anything about how much you pollute. Comparing to a small European sedan (or maybe a VW Golf) driving the same amount of miles would be more telling. Apples to grocery carts.

Well I did make that comparison and the point was that it’s an inconsequential amount regardless

Well of course it is inconsequential when you decide.

if my conversion is right, 25 us mpg is 10 l/100km... that's nearly double the consumption of a family estate.

First off, you can't compare the fuel economy values between countries just by doing a conversion. Europe has different testing procedures that give higher numbers than the American EPA test does (normally around 20-25%), and the only way you'll have an accurate number is if the car is sold in both countries.

The F150 has fuel economy close to that of wagons sold in the US. The F150 is less efficient, but it has way more than half the fuel economy of a wagon. Examples:

A base E-Class Wagon gets 24 mpg (22 city, 28 highway). A 4WD V6 F150 (which I think is the most popular) gets 21 mpg (19 city, 24 highway). The most efficient F150 available (the 2WD Hybrid) gets 25 mpg (25 city, 26 highway).

Wagons aren't super popular in the US so there aren't that many on the market. Here is a comparison of the fuel economies of the F150 vs several wagons available in the US: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=43464&...

That’s a 4wd E450, it’s the most powerful of the standard range! hardly a “base e-class”… which would be an E200

Of course the E450 is going to get atrocious mileage, it’s a V6 turbocharged luxury car

It is the base E Class in the American market. Americans don't drive <150 HP manual cars and would never buy them. Those are the only versions of cars that get substantially better gas mileage then the versions of cars that Americans typically drive.

The fact that Mercedes (a luxury car manufacturer) choose not to import their smaller engines to the US doesn't mean you can't get smaller engines. Subaru outback, kia niro, even a volvo v60 or audi a4 come with efficient 2l engines if you absolutely want luxury

Did you not read the link I posted in my first comment in this chain? Two of the cars in the fuel economy comparison are the Subaru Outback and the Volvo V60. The most efficient Outback has 29 mpg (26/33) and the most efficient F150 has 25 mpg (25/26). Almost identical in city, and in the same ballpark for highway. Numbers are similar for the Audi A4 Allroad (though you'll have the same concern as the E-Class as only the higher worldwide trims are available) and for the V60.

Ah sorry I’m on mobile, didn’t see the horizontal scrolling!

It’s crazy that the choice is so limited in the US. I can understand why the Prius was so popular with you guys, despite handling like a whale on wheels.. there are nearly no options in the big hatchback segment .

Most sedans get somewhere in the 30s on the highway unless they are hybrids, so it’s about a 50% difference. Not insignificant, but not as massive of a difference as you would think. From a purely economic point of view you’d have to drive a lot for the cost of gas to cost you more than you save from having less depreciation.

You're going to be really sad when you do the comparison for people who drive sports cars. Porsche 911's run at 19 mpg for the 2020 models and ~14mpg for the 2000 models, and the 2010 Cayenne (SUV) runs at 11 mpg. 11!

I actually had a Fiesta ST before my truck and because it required premium fuel (it would run on standard fuel but burned it quicker and had less power doing it so it was pointless) the actual $ cost per mile was similar to the truck I have now but with shorter range because of the much smaller fuel tank

Speaking personally, I've never owned a truck but began considering it during Covid. Why?

The cost premium of hiring someone for home improvement jobs vs. DIY seems to have gone up. And the difficulty of finding someone qualified, reputable and with available capacity seems to have become exponentially higher.

"So I guess I need a truck" is what I've recently been thinking.

A van is better in almost every dimension for construction. Effectively the only reason to own a pickup truck (vs some other better utility vehicle) is if you have trailer that needs it.

When you say "construction", are you referring to something like drywall/framing/roofing or electrical/trim work? I ask because fitting a stack of OSB sheets in a van can be anywhere from challenging to impossible (depending on the type of van of course). Certain trim levels of the F150 for example, are designed with the specific requirement of being able to accommodate standard sizes of construction materials, like a 4x8 sheet of OSB.

Transits and sprinters are designed to be able to lay 4x8 sheets flat on the floor.

Disagree. I can fit lots of oddly shaped things in the bed of a truck. Vans have walls and doors that create hard limits.

> A van is better in almost every dimension for construction.

Vans are nice and in the used market often cheaper. I used to rent/borrow a friends full size van before having a truck. Still, the roof creates limitations. Can't transport a fridge or water heater upright, for example.

And for towing as mentioned, a van is limited to a bumper pull trailer whereas a pickup can pull a fifth wheel or gooseneck.

In a similar vein covid changed my recreation habits enough to make me consider a truck/suv. With nowhere to go except outdoors I spent a lot more time camping/kayaking in Tahoe and national parks. Bringing an inflatable kayak, paddle board, and camping supplies for the weekend was doable in my hatchback but not exactly comfortable and wouldn’t work with more than two people. Something with more storage and 4WD drive started sounding very appealing. The F-150 is very competitive with a new 4-runner or Tacoma on cost and features. Just wish it wasn’t so gigantic.

There are a certain group of users that need the machines to be strong for towing, tall for required ground clearance, and with bed capacity to haul material, tools, and other everyday cargo.

There is another group that doesn't need any of things but is convinced that they might some day. They are aspirational requirements. Why are those people convinced they need these things? The same reason anyone is convinced they need anything in the modern world. Advertising. Truck ads tell you that the Ford F150 is a tough truck for men who are tough (or want to be) and don't take nothin' from nobody (once they get out of this crappy job) and are masters of nature (or surely would be if they didn't live in the suburbs).

They buy product placement in all the badass movies, their commercials look like b-roll from a transformers movie, and the trucks themselves get more comfortable and less utilitarian every year.

Ford is not in the business of selling (light) trucks - they are in the business of selling an aspirational lifestyle to a population that thinks they might one day become an action hero. The F150 is, and has been for a long time, a consumer toy and not a serious work vehicle.

I’m about as “casual” of a user as possible and it’s still much less that I might theoretically need these things someday and more that I do need them, occasionally. For myself or for friends + family.

This. Before I left the bay, I daily drove a motorcycle or a Jeep. Many of my weekends required truck. If you can only have one, the truck is the better tradeoff.

As a thought experiment: for the vast majority of this sorts of tasks a panel van is a superior choice- more secure, more protected from the elements, better milage, much less cool. I'm fact actual trades people are much more likely to use one than am f150.

Could you ever see yourself buying a panel van? Why or why not?

There’s a lot of times it’s more convenient to just throw something over the side of the bed so I would miss that but as a purely utilitarian vehicle vs a work truck absolutely yes.

However for my truck in particular I got a somewhat luxury trim with 50k miles for only $20k, so it was a good mix of things I would want in a vehicle generally as well as the utility. Panel vans aren’t really offered in that configuration, and I probably wouldn’t get one now because I plan on just keeping this truck as a secondary vehicle long after it’s paid off and I eventually get a smaller daily driver.

All that being said the one thing that could make me change my mind is an electric van with extensive usage of solar panels. That has a rather unique value proposition so if it existed in the future I’d be interested in it at least.

Why not rent something occasionally then?

I got a good deal on something very well equipped with low mileage, and trucks tend to hold their value exceptionally well. It’s also just more convenient this way.

You nailed it.

There are a good number of legitimate uses and legitimate users for these vehicles (I know a lot of legitimate users), but the vast majority of the giant vehicles on the road have only 1 visible occupant and no visible cargo.

And although I am doubtless projecting, I can't help but envision a fresh hot latte in their cupholder, which the driver is on their way back from procuring.

YMMV--but, in my experience, a single user multiple vehicles in the US can be pretty tough (at least, going from 1 to 2; it seems a lot easier when you go from 2 to 3). I am looking at a new, single vehicle, and this electric F-150 might be it--because I need to be able to carry plywood sheets and my Hyundai subcompact isn't gonna cut it.

I can't speak to the more general, aspirational subculture to which you refer, but the aggravation of multiple vehicles is in some ways the first stop on this tour.

>What is the psychology

Americans want it because everyone else has one. Down here in TX, the number of pristine trucks that have never seen a speck of dirt, never had anything in the bed, and that are parked on their 1/8 acre lots in the city is staggering.

I love how they're still measured in acres but as a fraction. I have 2.5ac and our truck is usually filthy. :)