How many people need to live in a house with more than 1,200 square feet?

How many people need to set the A/C below 80F or the heat above 60F?

How many people need to fly to Hawaii for a vacation? Drive to the beach.

How many people need to drive to the beach? Stay at home and knit.

How many people need to have kids? Each kid has a huge carbon footprint.

How many people need to drive to the mountains to go skiing?

Most things that make life easier, more pleasant, or more fun, are not needs.

A 3-ton truck, for the vast majority of its buyers, makes their lives harder and less pleasant but they do it anyway because of desires manufactured by marketing and vanity.

I kind of agree with all those points? We have to change our behaviour fast, because those with real needs (the poor family trying to eke out a subsistence living in rural india) are going to feel the full brunt of the Co2 we and our neighbours have been spewing out our whole lives. And instead we're congratulating ourselves on building electric status symbols

> And instead we're congratulating ourselves on building electric status symbols

Isn't this how you drive change? You have to give people the desire to change before they can actually change...unless you think authoritarianism is a solution (not saying you do, but I'm not sure what other options there are other than 1) give people the opportunity and desire to change, or 2) force them to change).

The speed at which we are changing aside...we ARE changing as a society, and that should be celebrated.

Is it our obligation to ensure adequate quality of life for every human on the entire planet?

Why stop at improving their lives by reducing our CO2 emissions? Why not institute a 10% income tax on all Americans and send that money and resources to subsistence farmers in rural India? That would surely improve their lives and help their "real needs" even more.

How much of your income do you donate to subsistence farmers in rural India? For many people, the answer is "none".

Why is there an expectation that we are obligated to improve the lives of subsistence farmers in rural India by reducing our carbon footprint, but not an expectation that we should donate money?

There’s a clear ethical distinction between not actively helping someone and actively harming them. I don’t have to lend my neighbor my lawnmower, but I definitely shouldn’t shit on his grass

I'd actually go one step further and say that these ARE needs, if the goal is to live a fulfilling life that is worth bringing children into...and what are we if not tools for propagating the human race?

Correct. And this is why, at the population levels of the world, the future is bleak in terms of the environment. Our way of life at the current population levels is not sustainable.

To take it further, you're mostly listing luxury items. No one needs an iPhone, internet or TV either.

I don't think it's a fair comparison with most of those things; a smaller house is actually smaller, a warmer/colder house is actually a different temperature. A lighter vehicle doesn't have to make any material difference to the driver.

Trucks are popular in the US. Not sure where you're from but the F-150 is the most popular truck in the US. Therefore, making it available in an electric model makes a lot of sense.

Most people don't need an F-150 with a combustion engine, but that doesn't stop them from getting it. In much the same way that they won't need a 3 ton electric truck, it won't stop them from getting it.

It’s not entirely organic though. “Light trucks” get a tax deduction for business owners and slip through a lot of regulatory cracks regarding fuel economy standards. From there, marketing actually has a bigger hand in shaping consumer demand than people give it credit for. They sell these cars to sell a certain lifestyle aesthetic of manliness.

If the production incentives were different, there’s no reason we can’t imagine they’d have tried to code rugged manliness as a rugged 4x4 like was popular in the 90s or an absurd muscle car like was popular in the 70s instead.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not questioning the business model, I know trucks are popular and I'm sure they'll sell hundreds of thousands. What I mean is that for me this type of news is a silver lining around a massive dark cloud of people driving full speed into the climate catastrophe. Yey, an electric vehicle... that's a 3 ton truck that 99% of buyers don't actually need.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The alternative then is to build the same truck, but keep it as a combustion engine. You're not going to stop people from buying a truck. Which truck do you want them to buy?

Which is worse?

Ford could make a smaller truck with the same size bed, or longer, with a shorter height and narrower width, and shave 1000 lbs or more off the gross vehicle weight. These new trucks are enormous compared to what was standard 20-30 years ago, for really no good reason.

They have a smaller electric truck, the Maverick. However, some people want something larger. I imagine we’ll see an all-electric Ranger in the next year or two.

Would you ask them to do that even if it meant less sales?

Trucks are classified into groups based up how much payload they can carry. The F-150 is Ford's 1/2 ton light duty truck. F-250 their 1 ton truck and the F-350 their 2 ton truck. If you want a 3 ton truck you are getting into commercial vehicles.

If you are discussing trucks and want to talk about gross vehicle weight you should probably clarify that is what you are referring to.

OP, and therefore myself, were talking about the weight of the vehicle, not the payload capacity.

The F-150 Lightning weighs just over 4 tons.

Also, you got it wrong. F-150 is a half ton, correct. The F-250 (and 2500 from RAM/GM) are 3/4 ton. While the F-350 (and 3500) are 1 ton trucks.

It's about not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, this thing is way too big and heavy for what almost all of its buyers need, but it's still a hell of a lot better than the gas version. A gas F-150 will use over 50 tones of gas. The electric version will use 30 kg of lithium, for sure, but they are both mined, and one is even recyclable.

I totally agree with your point (which is why I think electric cars are a good idea in general, as opposed to some who would argue that theyre a distraction from the real imperative of public transport and "short distance living"). But there's a pretty big gap between perfect and an electric truck. A towbar on a standard electric car would cover everything that these people actually need

The F150 can tow 10,000 lbs trailer. Something that I tow once in a while. While an electric car might be able to move that much, it won't be safe, something not designed for the load you tow will roll over.

I think the point you are missing is it's a bit arrogant for you to tell people what they need. An electric truck with additional features to entice drivers to buy is how change is going to happen. Don't try to remove or restrict people. It won't work. Electric truck is one step in a correct direction of compromise.

I need one about 1% of the time. However when I need a truck it is for things I can't rent a truck to do. Most rental trucks don't have the right brake controller for a large trailer (rental trailers have surge brakes - I'm never going back to them), and often they don't have the right hitch (permanent 2 inch ball - 2-5/8 balls are common, as a 5th wheel or gooseneck). I keep getting people telling me to rent a truck, while it would save a ton of money, in practice it isn't possible.

Most consumer vehicles in the USA are already right around 2 tons unloaded. Even small pickup trucks have GVWR of 3 tons (my Chevrolet Colorado which is a mid-sized truck has a 6000 lb GVWR). A 3 ton vehicle is not THAT big, here.

If you actually use a pickup truck to do pickup truck things more than a few times per month, it's not cost effective to own a different vehicle.

I really wonder why cargo trailers aren’t more popular. You can put a tow hitch on a friggin Miata and still haul as much stuff out of Home Depot as you want.

For me, a cargo trailer is something else I have to buy, register, fix, and store. A truck isn't really any more expensive than any other vehicle which can carry 5 people comfortably. A Ford Maverick is comparable in cost to a small car, a Ford Ranger is comparable in cost to a mid-sized car, and a Ford F150 has more passenger room than pretty much anything that looks like a "car".

They’re not comparable in running costs though.

A Subaru Outback can tow 3,500 pounds. Enough for a small fishing boat, pop-up camper or utility trailer and gets 30 mpg when not towing and rides better.

A Ranger or F-150 can’t match that economy, but they beat it in towing for sure.

To get 3500 lb towing in an Outback you have to get the turbo engine which is only available a few trim levels up from the base and the EPA says you'll average 26MPG combined. A Ford Ranger 4x4 gets an EPA combined estimate of 22MPG.

A turbo Outback starts at $35k as you have to go a few trim levels up to get the turbo engine. A base 4x4 crew cab Ford Ranger starts at around $32k.

An F150 hybrid, although definitely higher in purchase price, gets an EPA combined rating of 23MPG, but can tow and haul a significantly larger amount than even a Ranger.

It all depends on what you want to do as to what vehicle you should purchase. The benefit of modern pickup trucks is that they CAN do all the things a normal car can do, plus they can do lots of towing and hauling chores, and the fuel economy penalty really isn't that significant.

In my experience actual fuel economy can vary quite significantly from EPA ratings. The F150 hybrid gets great fuel economy for what it is, but on the highway it’s still not that great and it costs quite a bit more. Something comparable to a $35k Outback would be over $50k.

Not just that, but I can imagine in an EV future having trailers that work as a reserve battery/range extender as well. There would need to be some major redesign to make them handle better than a cargo trailer, and probably redesign the charging ports on the cars as well as 100 other things. But it would be a great way to blunt some of the compromises with owning a teeny roadster.

> But how many people actually need a 3 ton vehicle?

Much of this is marketing from the Big 3 over the last 25 years. They've been driving consumers to larger truck platforms with marketing for decades. The truck platforms are cheaper and easier to produce than alternatives. It allows them to share parts across more of their portfolio.

A lot of the marketing over the last 30 years has been targeting fragile egos. I thought maybe we jumped the shark when they started selling baby wipes in black packaging as Man/Dude wipes but apparently not.

I have no doubt that in the near future Huggies and Luvs will convince men that it's tough to wear black diapers and crap their pants while doing many things.

Few of the buyers actually need them, but they were going to buy the ICE version otherwise.

Do you have any factual data to back up your statement that few buyers of a F-150 need a F-150?

I own a F-150 and know many people that also own one. Most of the people I know with them regularly haul or tow payloads which require it. I use my F-150 at least once a week to haul a multiple horse trailer. In the summer I also use it regularly to access my beach house which is only accessible with a 4 wheel drive vehicle. A few times each summer I also use it to help haul those who think AWD is the same thing off the nearby beach.

I live in a suburban condo development. Most of my neighbors have no idea what I use my F-150 for and I'm sure think it serves no useful purpose.

> I use my F-150 at least once a week to haul a multiple horse trailer. In the summer I also use it regularly to access my beach house which is only accessible with a 4 wheel drive vehicle.

Good for you, but hopefully you realize that this is not a typical lifestyle.

I know plenty of people that have and need their trucks, but most of them would be fine without one. I have a good friend that justifies his truck by towing a jet-ski that any car could tow and most truck owners I know fall into this camp. They have an occasional need for something that can tow or haul and usually a minivan or crossover would be fine or better.

I’ve owned three trucks and still have an old one. I fall into the don’t really need one but like one category as I suspect most do. Didn’t say anything was wrong with it.

I consider myself better off than average, and I don't have enough money to buy the toys that necessitate an F150 or larger truck. Just the nature of things that heavy, those toys are usually pretty expensive. You get raked over the coals for an F150 or larger to begin with. You BETTER need it. Or have inherited some money, because the money I work for ain't going towards it.

I'm looking at Ford Mavericks. I really just need the bed, at most. I've owned trucks and SUVs before, and prefer compact pickups over everything else. I could easily use a 5x8" flatbed trailer and gain extra space with a crossover SUV, which is the smart move for people that have the space for a trailer.

I'm lucky to even be buying a house, let alone a full frame pickup and a heavy trailer like a horse trailer. I'd rather pay off a mortgage. Without affordable compact pickups coming back, I wouldn't ever have one again. I was leaning towards small crossover SUVs and hatchbacks with a trailer.

I'm not sure what a typical lifestyle is but I know it probably varies greatly from place to place. You certainly have some definition of it in mind. It is a fairly typical lifestyle among the people I know. The point really was that there are a lot of lifestyles that people with trucks are living that you are unaware of.

Beyond that if you look at the states where the highest percentage of vehicles are pickup trucks you will notice a trend. Most of them are largely rural, have harsh weather and agriculture is a significant industry.

You left out the extra grid power needed to move these things. Which negates some of the gaz guzzling benefit, if more people move up to heavier vehicles. Which they are, apparently half of the pre-orders have come from people who never owned a truck before.

It's interesting to note that these more "environmental" EVs are resuscitating Hummer, which was already killed off for being a gas guzzler

I do. And the carbon footprint of building the thing is deep in the noise compared to the CF of the use phase of an ICE truck. In other words switching from ICE to an electric truck makes a dramatic positive difference for the planet if you account for both trucks' entire lifecycle.

I live in a rural area and I need a truck for hauling and for towing four different kinds of trailer. I drive my diesel truck sparingly these days because its CF bothers me. I'd trade it for an F-150 Lightning tomorrow if the F-150 was actually available.

You might be interested in the Federal push for hydrogen fuel cell evs as the carbon foot print is smaller compared to the overhyped current electric vehicles: -green way to generate hydrogen and fertilizer already found -hydrogen fuel cells have weight advantages over current evs -hydrogen fuel cells are cost economically advantaged to replace traditional diesel transportation in trucking, trains, boats, etc.

Green hydrogen uses about 3x as much electricity per mile than just using the electricity directly in an EV. I'm not sure how that can have a smaller carbon foot print.

A Toyota Mirai weighs more than a Tesla Model 3, so there's no weight advantage.

Good point.

It barely weighs more though. I wonder if the weight increases much with capacity as it does with batteries?

You could ask the same questions about virtually every vehicle on the road. A model x weighs in at slightly over 2.5 tons. A model y is about 2.25 tons.

Yeah, an electric Maverick or Ranger would be pretty great. Just like Tesla started with the higher end Model S, and eventually got to the higher volume Model 3, I'm assuming Ford is starting with the higher end (and presumably margin) Lightning, and will get to lower price points eventually.

Prior to COVID, Ford was selling 900k F-150s per year (their highest volume vehicle line). Continuing on their path those will all be Lightning models - a large number of very heavy, energy intensive vehicles driving around.

I'm not torn, this is a disaster. In my town people who want to signal how "green" they are, but who are too lazy to ride a bicycle, buy a Tesla (used to be a Prius, and before that it was a diesel VW, Volvo, or Mercedes). At least until quite recently, this has prevented monster trucks from being in style. But now, you can have a monster truck and greenwash at the same time. It's going to ruin the roads and kill a bunch of pedestrians. There's already half a dozen Rivian R1Ts, despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

> despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

That's a reference to carrying capacity, not the actual GVW. A Honda Accord weights over 3 tons GVW.

A Honda Accord with a 6000 lb. GVWR seems odd given its curb weight is < 3400 lbs and it only holds 5 people.

Yeah, not sure what I was thinking.

Incorrect.

14.56.070 A. It is unlawful for any person to operate any commercial vehicle exceeding three tons gross vehicle weight on the following portions of streets, hereafter referred to as "restricted streets"

> There's already half a dozen Rivian R1Ts, despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

> 14.56.070 A. It is unlawful for any person to operate any commercial vehicle exceeding three tons gross vehicle weight on the following portions of streets, hereafter referred to as "restricted streets"

I think you probably meant 14.56.050, which restricts vehicles over 5 tons from traveling on 5 streets. The law you cited is for commercial vehicles only and has a litany of exceptions but would permit the Rivian for personal use.

In California, every pickup truck is registered commercial, by law.

I really wish people who aren't from my city or state would stop arguing from their ignorant suppositions.

I live in California and I've never heard of this but I've only been here a couple years and don't own a truck so I'm still learning the laws.

Reading further, 14.56.080 defines 1 ton as 2000 lbs so 3 tons is 6000 lbs. The Rivian is 5800 lbs so it's legal. What am I missing?

life is filled with things we don't need. We don't need 5G. We don't need internet. Datacenters are pretty big carbon footprints. Are you going to be a general home contractor with a Mini Cooper? Are you getting into the forest for camping in your Mini Cooper? How about camping with a family of 4 or 5?