You must log in or register to comment.
If it’s an actual work truck, that backseat is filled with tools that you can’t have out on the bed. I do doubt it’s a work truck though.
Hence why most smart labourers and contractors use a cargo van. No pesky seats blocking access and taking up space. Lots of customizeable room in the back for storage and shelves. Tall vans you can even walk inside and use a workbench. Many vans also have a decent towing capacity. Bed height is typically lower on a van, malomg heavier items easier to load. A lot of the same items people typically fit in truck beds can fit in the back of the van with the added benefits of being out of sight of thieves, being protected from weather and dirt, possibly even being heated or cooled if required.
Cargo van: UAZ Loaf
Stop using logic, can’t you see how great muh cyber truk is?!¿‽
A truck bed is way better for transporting potential dangerous vapors, like gasoline or welding gases.
You don’t want that stuff venting off in the interior space of a van.
That could be solved with an adequate partitiion installed (partition seperates the cab from the cargo). Many places require a work van to have a partition to prevent tools from entering the cab area when driving. The partition could be made to be comepletely air tight blocking fumes from the back. A sparkless ventilation system could even be installed if required.
This all may sound like an expensive upfront cost but it sounds worth it to keep expensive welders and such dry from rain and clean from road dirt.
One of them is a tool, another one is driven by a tool.
Erin O’Toole nods in agreement
is driven by a fool.
Easy: the one on the right is compensating for mini pp
I’m gonna need two of those
Double negative, mega pp
Your mom lets you have 2 mini pp’s to compensate for?
Functional design is the only proper design.
The comparison is kinda unfair. The big truck has a wider bed, bigger tires and more power. It also seats more people. So it is able to get more load through more difficult terrain. However we can be quite sure it won’t be used in that way.
Yeah.
Sure, most people with a big truck don’t need one.
That said, the capabilities of the bigger truck far exceed that of the Suzuki.
The majority of trucks i see are driven by a guy in a perfectly clean dress shirt, carries a fancy bag for papers and they work an office job. Their justification is often something along a couple potholes on their rural road just outside of town (so they dont have to pay as much property taxes to fit potholes). They moved a fridge once for their kid 5 years ago so that paid for the truck in their mind.
The majority of these things are ego boosts. Hence why they tailgate, rollcoal, have loud exhausts and can be covered in sexist/racist/religious stickers. Its all about look at me for most of these trucks.
Amazing.
I’m not defending any of these people.
My point is, the two vehicles pictured have dramatically different capabilities.
How did society even function without these big ass trucks. They are so capable and essenti.
I have yet to see a big truck carrying more than a ton of things, and I’m near home depot often. These trucks are capable of 800lb which should be fine for most people. I’d love a vehicle where if I found something I liked I could pick it up while still being a viable economical daily driver.
Do you live in an urban area?
I did say most people don’t need one.
Lol that almost done like a chindogu ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chindōgu )
My brother in law has a truck like the one on the right. That backseat area is huge. You could stop and have a picnic back there during a road trip.
I can’t imagine owing it. It looks dumb to me and it’s far too big for normal use. But he’s a cross country hauler, so it’s not a big truck to him.
And they have three kids, so I doubt he gives af about pp showmanship.
I’ve never seen one with wear and tear and/or dirt that would indicate difficult terrain. Those only leave the city in advertisements.
A lot of people wash them shortly after going off road to avoid rust and corrosion.
unless the owner does a full handwash, clay, compound, and wax every time, there is no way the trucks I’m seeing in my region are washed off road vehicles.
that only happens when actual working people buy it used, maybe a decade down the line, to do actual work.
Are you around forestry, oil drilling, or similar sites? Obv most are fleet stock simple (with decent tires), but the 4 door, white truck with a V8 is ubiquitous when you need 4 grouchy dudes to effectively live out of it for a whole day, plus all their equipment and food. It’s hilarious how much shit these trucks hold and get anywhere with a 2 track
That truck isn’t this truck though. That truck is dirty, dinged and always in use. The part of this truck that gets used the most is the entertainment system.
Well of course not this one with all the candy. But same frame, same class of engine, same door configuration, etc.
The tonneau cover is usually there because A) they do mostly highway mikes and want the improved mileage resulting from reduced drag, and B) they rarely use the bed, as those covers are a PITA unless you only remove it once in a great while.
I live in Central America where its mostly little trucks owned by workers, and they often drive on mud roads and hard terrain. The only people with trucks like the black one in the picture are US expats with …particular political leanings.
Nearly every tonneau cover folds or rolls up. Outright removal is a pain, but using the bed isn’t.
The factory standard cover rolls up in about 30 seconds.
There’s a few in the country around here. The ones with dirt on them are almost exclusively the Toyota Hilux, though
up to but not including 7th gen hilux is more in line with what I would consider a reasonable truck design. I’d give them a pass before 2004 or so. The bulbous round ones, if people actually use them off the streets then it probably won’t offend me to see them on the road but personally I’d just have a small car for day to day and only use the truck for what I bought it for, storage insurance when I don’t need it. I’m still too scared of having my bike stolen to commit to no car it turns out. Some places are just too sketchy.
Kei trucks feel like they’d be a perfect alternative to a gator. They appear to be cheaper too even considering importation.
Gators are probably way better off-road, but otherwise you’re totally correct
I see your Gator and I raise you a Kei truck with tank tracks.
That is amazing and I need one. Unfortunately I don’t think threads are great for paved roads, so I doubt the government will let me drive one to the DIY store.
The bed on the left probably gets used more.
The worst part with all these big trucks is the bed is significantly higher requiring much more effort to actually put anything in.
You’re not only looking like a dumbass you actually are one.
Honestly this. I had one of these that replaced my old Dodge van at work, and I hated it because all my equipment was much more of a pain in the ass to get in and out.
Maybe they are more manly than you give them credit for?
If it’s hard for you to throw something in the bed of a truck you should hit the gym.
Really big and heavy item enters the chat
@SqueakyBeaver @ji17br Funny how such items enter chats a lot more frequently than they enter the bed of the typical suburban driver’s pickup truck.
That’s something i often wonder–how do they manage to load stuff in/out? I’ll always remember a woodshop class i took and someone asked me to help lift a chicken coop they built into their truck. It was heavy af to begin with but the extra height to put it into his big/tall truck made it a much more difficult task. It’s just stupid, really–no benefit i can see and further drawbacks seem inevitable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Forklift on one end, idiocy on another
The small truck will have very little towing capacity due to its low weight. While many owners of these size trucks don’t tow anything with them, they do serve a necessary purpose beyond bed size. Boats, horses, trailers full of gravel, etc require much heavier vehicles when towing for safety.
You absolutely don’t need anything this big to tow most of that stuff, most farmers I know do fine with a ute half as tall. The only case I can think of where one of these gigantic US-sized SUVs could be necessary is with an equally gigantic caravan.
My brother’s Ford Ranger got pancaked because he was pulling his new boat that was too big for the truck and couldn’t stop in time at a traffic light before ramming the car in front of him.
That’s just irresponsible. Trailer brakes are absolutely necessary. The electric brakes on my previous boat trailer could stop the whole rig, if I hit the button on the controller.
Yes, a tiny 15 HP tractor from the 1950’s can tow a big trailer around a farm no problem. What it can’t do is tow it at much more than 2 mph. Owners of these trucks can tow a 20 foot boat down the freeway at 80 mph. Now whether or not they use them for loads like that (they rarely do) is another issue.
They aren’t talking about tractors. Ute is what Australians and New Zealanders call pickups.
So smaller pickups can do much of the same as the large.
Yep, that’s exactly it.
So smaller pickups can do much of the same as the large.
LOL. Have you ever tried to haul 6000 lb of manure in a 4 cylinder Toyota tacoma?
The pp size is inversely proportional to the truck size.
that’s why I ride a bike.
I could get away with a unicycle if it weren’t for my MASSIVE SCHLONG requiring support and it’s easier that way than getting two unis.
I suppose you are using a lady bike then so there’s more space for the schlong?
No I have a sheat for the schlong on the horizontal bar of the frame
This guy bikes.
Ironically with a woman’s bike IRL
What is lady bike?
Traditionally bikes for women had the horizontal stabilizing bar much lower probably to account for dresses and the like, but the differences has been slightly washed out over the years.
The top bike is referred to as the “lady bike”, as you’ve said, but for any external viewers, the top bike is probably a better choice for city bike in general. There’s the point about not having to swing your leg around when mounting and dismounting the bike, true, but the bike also promotes an upright seating position as opposed to a totally horizontal, leaned down, motorcycle like position, which will be more comfortable for long ride periods for most riders, at the cost of aerodynamics. The bottom bike is extreme overkill for most uses, but it’s also the bike you’re going to probably see most often in the US outside of mountain bikes, since nobody tends to commute on bike here.
I’m picturing the two unicycle method illustrated in the style of Dr Seuss
I prefer walking, and use a bicycle when it’s possible. So sadly doesn’t check out.
Bicycle size isn’t zero, you you pp size isn’t infinity. It does check out.
But only one of them won’t have you seated in direct eyeline of all the super-high beams that everyone else is driving.
I love the little guy, but your legs are also the crumple zone.
You can always install your own super-high beams on the small one and then you don’t have to drive around in a car that shouts tiny pp.
just install a military grade laser
But the one on the left wouldn’t pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
That’s the reason the Ranger etc were discontinued for a while, and when they returned were bigger than the old F-150s.
It’s so the reason the small cargo vans (Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect, and Ram Promaster City) were all discontinued in the last 2 years. CAFE standards increase over time, and it’s easier to just make bigger cars.
Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it’s true goals should be. The marketong trends show that bigger vehicles (which have more leneient standards and can guzzle more fuel) have been sold more and more since these standards, all to the benefit of oil companoes selling gas to fill the bigger tanks and the benefit of auto makers enjoying higher price margins on bigger vehicles. Once again the hand of capitalism and the “free market” prioritizing profits over everything.
Its also in my opinion, a complete failure of the EPA and a disconnect from what it’s true goals should be. … Once again the hand of capitalism and the “free market” prioritizing profits over everything.
I see a contradiction here.
Somebody designed a regulation without using their brain (or using to wrong ends), but apparently capitalism is to blame.
Would you prefer we blame you, comrade?
I’ve tried to immerse myself into commie stuff at some point, didn’t work.
Everyone blames EPA while forgetting two things.
The manufacturers chose to do this; no regulations prevent them from making a vehicle like the one one the left that meets the new standards. They’re just evading the standards.
Politicians of all walks allow regulatory capture, so almost all regulations are influenced by the people that should be regulated, making them useless or easy to evade.
It was a misguided reaction to the last round of CAFE fuckery.
The manufacturers started putting hatchback options as the standard kit on a bunch of models so they could classify them as lite trucks. So instead of basing standards on vehicle classification, the EPA changed it to vehicle footprint.
What that resulted was the subcompact trucks and cargo vans being held to the same efficiency standards as small cars, which really isn’t fair.
Yeah, Ford now sells a small truck with a hybrid engine and a 4-ft bed, but it has a towing capacity of 2,000 pounds as opposed to the old Ranger’s 6,000.
Yeah, it does 40 instead of 27 mpg, but the smallest truck that can actually haul plywood or tow a trailer big enough to be useful now has 23mpg. It’s a net loss in fuel economy because small vehicles are required to be designed around hauling passengers, not cargo.
But you can still legally buy older Kei trucks in the U.S.
And they’re affordable.
https://boekiusa.com/inventory/new-jersey/paterson/all-vehicles/available
Not too many dealers specialize though.
But the one on the left wouldn’t pass US fuel economy standards, which are based on vehicle footprint since 2012.
Bigger cars consume more fuel.
Yes, but the regulation is a “amount of fuel per weight of vehicle”. In absolute terms it’s more.
It’s like when you’re buying produce. $10 for 10 strawberries ($1.00 per berry) and $15 for 20 strawberries ($0.75 per berry). The $15 option is “only” $0.75 per berry, but it’s also just more money in total.
It’s moronic to define fuel economy per pound of vehicle.
Agreed.
Unintended consequences, the plague on governments through history.
When a consequence is so blatantly predictable can it be unintended?
Can it truly be considered intended when Congress just signs the bills ALEC pays them to sign? I guess ALEC intends it.
If the purpose is to sell more expensive trucks and SUVs then the bill has been wildly successful.
But one of these is actually using their truck bed.
fuck both of them anyway
I mean I’m all for hating cars, but why the small one? That one seems reasonable at least.
Like it or not, some kind of truck or work vehicle will have to exist for landacapers and such. Id much rather see the smaller truck everywhere than the larger. The streets would be safer for anyone not in a metal box.
Yes exactly.
One of them tows 12000 and can get on the highway and not die. The other has a payload capacity of 1500lbs.
What a dumb comparison. I own a Kei.
Except the people who own the monster trucks never carry more than 1500 lbs and rarely take it on the highway.
You might be shocked to know that fitting a family of four plus vacation gear quickly approaches 1.5k.
Payload capacity includes how much people weigh. It’s not just how much you can throw in the bed.
That’s either a very heavy family or a lot of vacation gear! You would need all 4 people to be around 300lbs to start getting close.
It’s america, so it’s not impossible
👌👍
Except the people who own the monster trucks never carry more than 1500 lbs and rarely take it on the highway.
All of them? Like every single one?
Clearly there was some sort of global survey we aren’t privy to.
A little off the topic, but sometimes I wonder if driving a rally car with a cage, 5 point seatbelts and a helmet will be more safe on a highway. Like it seems to me that it is safer, but will it actually be?
It’d be safer, but it wouldn’t be very comfortable. Rally cars have very barebones interiors to cut down on weight. You’d also need different tires and tuning.
It would be better able to handle a severe crash, but pretty inconvenient and pointless.
You can put a full and spec cage, bucket seats, and a 5 point harness in any car. You don’t need to go full racecar and take the interior out. You would need to wear a helmet, Hans device, and the full 5-point every time you drive the car because an otherwise survivable accident could kill you. You would also probably want a fire suppression system because a fire in a damaged car may not be escapable after you get hit without help.
You would be giving up airbags and visibility. Airbags can save you as much as a cage could. Visibility could prevent the accident in the first place. The cage and whatnot wouldn’t save you from a catastrophic wreck, but a serious accident would be more survivable.
You might as well just not drive on the highway or don’t get in a car at all if you are so concerned about your safety. Don’t want a baby, use protection. Terrified about having a baby and don’t think that protection is adequate, get sterilized or don’t fuck.
