> "I don't make trucks like that," Farley said. "I make trucks for real people who do real work, and that's a different kind of truck."

"I don't make trucks regular people want... I make trucks for people who want to spend lots of money" – a more accurate statement, I think.

Also amusing coming from the CEO of a brand who's electric truck starts at $60,000 for a "work truck" with vinyl seats, and climbs to nearly $100,000.

Sounds pretty "Silicon Valley" to me, at least as far as price is concerned.

> Also amusing coming from the CEO of a brand who's electric truck starts at $60,000 for a "work truck" with vinyl seats, and climbs to nearly $100,000

Agreed, but if anyone thinks the CyberTruck is coming out at $39K like Elon originally promised, I have a bridge to sell you.

If anyone thinks the CyberTruck is coming out, I'll sell you the land for that bridge.

It's all but guaranteed to come out, I think, probably this year, depending on how you define "come out".

But when it comes out it will sell like ice-cream in Hell, despite how bad or expensive it is.

I'll even throw in the sky above that land for free ;-)

> Sounds pretty "Silicon Valley" to me, at least as far as price is concerned.

So are we going to call all EVs "Silicon Valley" now because they have expensive components? The smallest battery size for a F150 Lightning is 98 kWh. A Google search for EV battery prices shows a ton of volatility in prices due to the pandemic, but it's reasonable to assume a battery of that size is around $15,000 alone.

> at least as far as price is concerned

There is a significant portion of the USA that will take on 84 month loans, make negative-equity trade-ins, or refinance their homes if it means they can get a new truck.

Did you see their decisions on the new Bronco making it a luxury SUV pricing it out of the realm of 98% of the population?

Government subsidy farm valley

> "I don't make trucks regular people want... I make trucks for people who want to spend lots of money" – a more accurate statement, I think.

I don’t think these people want to spend lots of money. It’s just that this is all that’s on the market in North America.

Here in Norway, anything that has an allowed total weight above 3500 kg is classified as a light truck and not a car, is limited to 80 km/h max speed and you need a different license to drive it (C1 instead of B).

The C1 license training is much more extensive and costs a lot more. You also need to renew it every 5 years as it's really a "professional" license.

I see the base F1 weighs 2900 kg without the driver. That leaves about 500 kg for other passengers and cargo, about the same as an ID.4 if you want to register it with a normal B license. But I am looking at their sales brochure here in Norway now and it is sold as a C1 vehicle which means it is also limited to 80 km/h max speed. Max speed is conveniently left out of all marketing material too!

Kind of puts a limit to it.

The ID.Buzz is selling quite well here to people who use them for work instead of shopping, making one of the versions (the cargo) the 7th most sold vehicle so far in 2023 [1].

The cybertruck I don't think will be legal at all here due to the lack of crumple zones to protect pedestrians. It was pulled from pre ordering quite some time ago.

[1] https://elbilstatistikk.no/

> I see the base F1 weighs 2900 kg without the driver

I think your numbers are off. That's quite heavy.

Oh I misunderstood and F1 immediately meant Formula 1 car to me, and that was wrong.

The ID.Buzz weights 3000kg, the base F150 weighs 2100kg. That's the truck that the OP is complaining about everyone in America buys to drive around in. The F150 Lightning isn't really available and is what I believe you're referring to at 2900kg.

Yes, I was referring to the electric version. I forget that fossil vehicles are still sold en masse in other countries!

The point was really that the F1 Lightning is not a vehicle for personal use, and for work the buzz is much better.

before the Obama administrations emissions rules[1] trucks and suv's were quite small, blame the rules put out in that ruling for why trucks and suvs are so gigantic, I too am frustrated with how big they are and I own a new truck!

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-suvs-size...

Trucks were plenty big before Obama. An F150 today is largely similar dimensionally to one from, say, 2005. But it's generally lighter than a comparable version from then.

They are both larger and heavier than in 2005. This also reduces the efficiency requirements.

For a few ones that have absolutely jumped in size, toyota (tundra, tacoma, also the 4runner). 4runners in the 90's were tiny! also a tacoma now feels almost bigger than a early 2000's Tundra which is insane.

The idea that trucks are dangerous and unnecessary is pretty prevalent on HN, and I can follow the physics argument but the same argument can apply to anything (a bicycle is more dangerous than a pedestrian)

Are there stats that show that these trucks cause a social problem worthy of regulation, or do we just not like the archetypical truck guy?

> The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident

https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automot...

What's the rate of such collisions for trucks and sedans?

The linked article just looked at collisions that happened and compared danger by vehicle weight. If I had to guess, I would assume lighter vehicles generally have a shorter stopping distance and hit pedestrians less.

The vehicle stopping distances are generally close enough that the only things that will matter in a practical sense is the reaction time of the driver and the condition of the vehicles. From 60mph to 0 in a Toyota Camry is 122 feet, and an F150 is 129 feet. The age of your tires/brakes blow away that 7 feet of difference.

would you accept that modern trucks have less visibility than an abrams tank as a stat that they are less safe? https://twitter.com/dannyman/status/1661087159082967040

It's pretty easy to find the answers you want with a couple of Google searches. Large trucks are way more dangerous to pedestrians (and especially dangerous and heartwrenching is all the kids who are killed every year when their parents drive over them because they can't see them over the giant height of the front grill). It's also simple physics that larger vehicles will produce more destructive crashes when average vehicle mass increases.

Your "bicycle is more dangerous than a pedestrian" is a very poor analogy. Bicycles provide a ton more utility than walking. The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past.

// The same can't really be said for a suburban parent driving a couple of kids to soccer practice in a giant truck vs. the station wagons of the past.

Is it possible that these parents are seeing some utility that isn't obvious to you, and then buy the vehicles based on that utility?

As someone who had a compact car in college, then was a car-less New Yorker for 20 years, and now is a dad of two with an SUV, the utility is obvious :)

I'm not sure you need an SUV to take care of a family of four, but a lot of people in America specifically seem to feel that way. Elsewhere I guess the standards for comfort are different.

You definitely don't need anything - you can raise kids in the woods as our ancestors did.

But I don't think large vehicles an American thing, it's a wealth thing.

Eg in Japan, which is rich, pretty much anytime you see a family with kids on the road, they were in a Toyota Alphard (look it up, never heard of it till I saw them) which are huge vs typical car.

Similarly around the world, the size of the typical family car varies with the wealth of the country (richer countries bigger cars) and likewise wealth of the individual families.

So I think the thing about the US is that our wealth and the quality/dimensions of our roads enable us to drive larger cars.

In Europe the trend of trucks replacing cars is poking through in some places but still the most common car for a family is a estate car. Large trunks for carrying whatever might be needed during a family trip while still being a small car, not much heavier than their sedan counterparts.

I really don't understand why a family would choose a truck over a estate car except for the increased safety against other trucks. It's a self-reinforcing effect, if there are more larger cars on the road, some people will purchase one just to feel safer against the others.

People think trucks look cool. They may occasionally use it to tow something. If you own a trailer then it's not much use without the ability to use. They may head down to Home Depot for a few weekends a year, or even more. I can fit a couple 8ft 2x4's in my model y, but nothing longer. I typically need to borrow someones truck a few times a year for building materials or new furniture.

Maybe they like the visibility it offers by sitting up higher. That's probably one of the most common ones I hear. I have heard people say they feel safer in one too.

You also present it as a choice of truck vs something else. Most American families have multiple vehicles, so it's a truck and something else. I'd wager families buying $60k+ trucks almost certainly have a second vehicle.

People in Europe live mostly in tiny houses or apartments even with families. These dwellings have similarly sized appliances and furniture and don't have storage for things like ATVs, boats, snow blowers, lawn mowers etc. Americans with families usually live in big houses, those houses have full sized appliances and furniture that does not come in flat-packed boxes, they sometimes have the above-mentioned vehicles, which are not road-legal in the US and require transportation. They also might do repairs on their houses since they own them. The houses are made mostly from wood, which comes either in form of long pieces of lumber or long and wide pieces of plywood. None of the above will fit into an "estate".

I don't believe that explains it, where I live if you have the need to carry a large load you just go to a nearby gas station and rent out a small box truck to transport it. I did that with all my non flat-packed boxes furniture, my appliances, all the construction material I ever needed. It costs me 80-90€ for a 4-6h rental period, or around 120€ for a full day with the truck.

How many families that own a truck in the USA have the need to transport ATVs, boats, and so on? It really doesn't add up in my head that the vast majority of these beastly trucks I see on highways when I go to the US have this need.

Where I live houses are also made of wood, I really need some data instead of just an opinion on why there are so many trucks in the USA, it really doesn't make sense without hard data.

>where I live if you have the need to carry a large load you just go to a nearby gas station and rent out a small box truck to transport it

Sure, you can rent anything. I responded to somebody who does not understand why would anybody need a truck. Many people post on HN regularly how they don't own a car and rent one if they need it. I don't see how this proves that you cannot possibly need a truck though, why you rent one if you don't need it?

>How many families that own a truck in the USA have the need to transport ATVs, boats, and so on?

All that have ATVs, boats, and so on? It's pretty pointless to have one without means of transportation since you cannot really drive an ATV on the street, much less so a boat.

>Where I live houses are also made of wood, I really need some data instead of just an opinion

I cannot help you with that other than giving you dimensions of common lumber items: plywood and drywall comes in 8'x4' sheets, dimensional lumber can be anywhere from 8' to 20', you can check it out at any supplier.

Its also safer for the same reason

Why not regulate safety instead of size?

Physics dictates that mass has a significant impact on safety. Especially for people outside the big-ass truck.

That's a hard sell when the curb weight of a Tesla Model Y is identical to a Ford F-150 5.0L V8 SuperCab with 6.5-ft bed.

That’s fair. The Tesla is too heavy as well.

[dreams about “fun” cars like my old 2200lb Miata]

"Too heavy" in some sense, but the engineering trade off is a pretty good one!

Your average Tesla is about:

- 1.9x as heavy as the Miata

- 4.3x as energy efficient as the Miata

- 1.7x faster acceleration vs Miata

- 0.2x the emissions of the Miata on a typical power mix (0x on solar)

> Physics dictates that mass has a significant impact on safety

I suspect that once you have enough mass though then it is velocity that determines the impact on safety. Getting hit at 50 mph by a Ford F-150 that has a total mass (truck plus cargo) of 9000 pounds is not going to be much more harmful to a pedestrian than getting hit by a similar shaped truck at the same speed that has half that mass.

Similarly on the other end if velocity is low enough mass won't matter. Consider for example getting hit by a freight train at 1 mph. Unless the collision knocks you over and you fall under the train it probably won't be fatal (and likely won't even injure you). Even though that freight train would have 300 times the momentum and 6 times the kinetic energy of the 50 mph 9000 pound truck it would be fine.

True. Rivians scare me, as a pedestrian and cyclist. Not only heavy, but blazingly fast. In 5 years when they get handed down to teenagers, well, shit.

If biking or walking I'd worry less about a heavy new car than an old car that doesn't have automatic emergency braking.

I suspect that total energy increases proportionally to mass, all other things (like velocity) equal, meaning an N*2 kg vehicle traveling at 100 kph has twice as much energy as an N kg vehicle traveling at 100 kph

and since that energy factors strongly into the outcome for the other vehicle, I suspect that this means weight is what determines the impact on safety just as much, if not moreso (particularly since speeds are regulated already)

Because it's less about facts and more about moralizing.

Honestly why not both? The length of these things only can be an issue when it comes to parking lots.

Dimensions are easier to quantify than safety.

The two are roughly the same.

A big truck is more deadly to smaller vehicles and we shouldn't make it unsafe to drive a regular sized car instead of one of these monstrously large trucks.

You could regulate things like requiring stop gates on trucks like semi trucks have though, which would at least help.

I just really want to see a detailed study or article that really focuses on the details of pickup safety versus other cars, with empirical data about the different factors, how and why they differ, and ways of mitigating them. Seems like an important input for regulators. There's a lot of anti-car handwaving in discussions like this that would be good to cut through (for everybody involved).

This would leave the main problems of lower visibility and the higher mass creating a higher more dangerous impact for other cars and pedestrians.

A solution is to tax vehicles based on the ratio of number of seats to weight, with a massive tax premium for massively heavy vehicles.

Obviously at the moment (certainly here in the UK) there are loop holes when trucks and vans are "commercial vehicles" with different tax levels, many it used for commercial purposes. They need to be closed off, maybe include cargo volume in the equation so an oversized heavy pickup with little carrying capacity is penalised over a commercial van.

We are also overdue ending significant tax breaks for electric vehicles. We have reached the point where we are over the hump needed to shift the market to EVs.

It sounds like the UK hasn't had its Chicken Tax[1] moment in history yet.

A Chevy Suburban seats up to 9 and has a curb weight of ~6,000 lbs on the upper end.

A Tesla Model 3 seats up to 5 and has a curb weight of ~3,800 lbs on the lower end.

Take a wild guess which vehicle your proposition taxes favorably...something about unintended market consequences comes to mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

>You also make trucks that regular people don't need but buy anyway, and make our streets less safe.

This is a race to the bottom effect. Those old simpsons jokes revealed a sad truth of our american car based society - If you want a bigger chance of surviving an accident, you want you and your loved ones in a bigger car.

Here in Europe you rarely get to speeds where you can even get a bruise in an accident, but in the unused stretches of the autobahn, it can be pretty terrifying. Not as terrifying as driving 70mph in Florida as teenagers pass at 120 and a granny is driving 40 though.

In the cities in Europe maybe theres mo major speed. There are plenty of fatal accidents due to speeding or drunk driving on smaller roads though.

> and make our streets less safe

Agreed, but also, the Cybertruck seems like it is going to have very similar problems for safety. The blind spots are massive, for one.

I'd assume they´d ue some of that "cyber" technology to eradicate things like "blind spots" from a vehicle carrying the "cyber" moniker. Cameras on the outside provide imagery of whatever goes on in the "blind" areas which is then displayed on flexible screens attached to pillars and other "blind spot" generating infrastructure. Alternatively and cheaper, some type of projector is used to project the outside world on the interior.

> We need some regulation to only allow vehicles over a certain size to be commercial only.

Just treat them exactly the same, emission standards and all, as cars, and the problem will quickly solve itself

The sad degradation of utes/trucks from vehicles designed for work, to vehicles designed to appeal to townies (in my country, large utes/trucks/suvs in the cities are derisively referred to as "<X> tractors" where X is a wealthy suburb like Merivale or Remuera), affects every vehicle manufacturer.

It's consumer driven, I think - big utes/trucks/SUVs offer various psychological benefits to buyers... intimidation, intimations of a perceived masculinity, and a main driver, perceived safety. Even if your larger vehicle is far less safe for people you hit, and more likely to roll over in hard cornering.

E.g., compare the 1980s Toyota Hilux in this classic advert[0] to the 2022 Hilux[1]. The front is notably bigger, the cabin higher, yet the ground clearance somehow lower.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqwnr2sza_o

[1]: https://images.drive.com.au/driveau/image/upload/c_fill,f_au...