289
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
289 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
9624 readers
851 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
A real truck would, and it would have better carrying capacity.
What?
I think they mean professional hauling trucks, like an F650. Vehicles used for commercial transport/utilities (i.e. US DOT, Uhaul, construction firms) are typically equipped with high-torque engines specifically engineered for towing.
This is where the issue arises: for one reason or another, some people want what they call the "best of both worlds". They want a smaller-sized truck with the same amount of power. To them, this sounds reasonable.
However to anyone into engineering, this is clearly creating a product for profit rather than practicality. It's a jack of all trades, master of none situation. A car is a tool, and a tool is created with a specific use in mind.
Sometimes I get desperate while working on my carpentry: I have to hammer one more nail in to finish my bookcase, but I don't have a hammer. I have a wrench, which will do terrible work but it'll get the job done. Yet my neighbor next door has a good hammer, I could borrow it from them for a bit. Now, what if I had to build a house? I'm not wanting a wrench then, I want my own really good hammer.
Same analogy could be made for Trucks and SUVs. I don't tow often, but when I do I can rent a capable vehicle. I don't need to own anything more than a Subaru Legacy at that point. Hell, maybe all I need is an electric bike if my workplace is close enough.
TL;DR there is no net-positive use-case for the average consumer to need a vehicle with over 400lb•ft of torque. It's just excessive.
(F 350s are far better at towing than an F650. F650s are specifically designed, sprung and geared to haul, not tow, and usually have a weaker motor than the f350s)
What? You can get a 1/4, 1/2, and full ton and they'll cover 99% of all non professional towing and be 5 mpg down on a car for the 1/4 tons.
What is being towed so often in your scenario?
I'm not talking about professionals, or people who take their boat out four times a week. That is a specific need for a specific tool, or vehicle. I'm talking about people who daily drive these things to the grocery store and work. So, the average consumer.
Ahh right, truck drivers don't use them correctly of often enough. I don't know a single driver of a truck that doesn't use it at least a few times a year. And everyone time I ask for the numbers, they cite a decade old 2013 survey or the more recent Axios survey which is about as scientific as a truth social post.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
"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’être—once a year or less."
You mean this one? Why do you call everything that disproves your point "unscientific"? Do you just discard it if it says something you don't like?
Edit: Actually I recognized your username and looked at your recent comments and wow, you are clinically insane. Nobody can take you seriously, and I suddenly can't either. Weirdo fakey-""libertarian""/discount conservative trolls have become all too common here recently
Ahh another survey with no methodology or explanation. Classic.
It literally states the methodology, but regardless, I don't see you giving a source with "methodology or explanation".
< Methodology Our scales represent how people really think and make decisions. Our survey design allows for the most meaningful, actionable data available.
How insightful. If only all our papers could have such rigor. Right up there when the JD power awards.
You literally went to Google it whenever search you use and found the first result without looking at a damn thing just like everyone else parroting this shit.
And I didn't list a source because the data isn't out there, but then again I'm not making up baseless accusations and trying to impose restrictions on people.