6 ms·

As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot of mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a typical single family homeowner would want that yo

by jrsj 5y ago

As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot of mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a typical single family homeowner would want that you absolutely wouldn’t want to transport in an SUV or minivan (which is all that is really worth talking about because pretty much no individual owns the type of delivery vehicle you’re talking about, which are meant for transporting packages anyways). People would have me load this stuff for them into SUVs of course, and we would do our best to line them with plastic first, but it still made an awful mess everywhere. And that’s not even getting into towing, there are common things having a truck bed is just better for. As for the tallness, you can partly blame EPA regulations for that as it’s more cost effective for manufacturers to make trucks taller and wider than more fuel efficient. That’s the #1 reason why the small truck market declined and why smaller trucks got bigger

pkulak 5y ago
I'm not at all saying that trucks aren't useful, or that they aren't the best vehicle for a lot of people and/or tasks. I'm saying that the trend right now is for trucks that are way taller than they need to be purely because the buyer prefers that look. I had zero issues with pickup trucks 10 years ago, before they turned into a political/biological/emotional statement piece, instead of a tool.
- jrsj 5y ago
  I don’t think this is really the primary reason for this at all. There’s an element of that of course, but there’s other factors as well. This is a decent short article about it. But the tl;dr is popularity of crew cabs + a gap in recent regulations that encouraged trucks to become larger https://www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup-trucks-keep-getting-bigger https://www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup-truck...
  - dougmany 5y ago
    This is what I got from that article: >In other words, the regulations put in place to get better mileage out of vehicles also led to an increase in truck size. “There was kind of an incentive to maybe stretch the wheelbase a couple of inches and set the tires maybe an inch [farther] apart, because you get a bigger platform and slightly smaller target,” said Edmunds. “Now, the bigger vehicle would be heavier and might use more fuel, so it’s not as easy as just doing that. But certainly there was a feeling that if they did need to make it bigger to accommodate more passengers, the fuel economy target wouldn’t be onerous. They could do it.” That statement is not very convincing that the regulations lead to bigger trucks.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  The trend for growing truck is mostly due to EPA fleet fuel efficiency regulations. If you make a small truck, it gets classified as a car, so it counts for car fleet efficiency. That’s also why you see decline in sedans and rise in relatively small crossovers SUVs: these also count as light trucks, not cars, for fuel efficiency purposes.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    This is why problems should be tackled directly. There was no reason to force vehicle manufacturers to meet arbitrary efficiency standards. If the goal was to reduce fossil fuel consumption, then fossil fuels should have been slapped with a huge tax. Immediately the automakers would have been incentivized to produce more efficient vehicles. Of course, it’s politically impossible to do the right thing due to the general public wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      It's more that people prioritize incentives for objective "A" and are totally surprised when it comes at some cost to "lesser" objective "B." In this case, being "environmentally friendly" vs being "safe." I think a lot of "environmentally conscious" people don't realize that more and more of these types of environmental regulations will come at some direct cost in terms human-safety. And also that a surprising number of politicians/activists/people are so committed to the dogma that they don't have any problem with that.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Higher, larger pickup trucks did not come about as a result of safety requirements, they came about from fuel efficiency requirements (or needing to get around them). So net result of indirect regulations to decrease fuel consumption is increased fuel consumption, and more dangerous vehicles for everyone to contend with who is not inside as large of a vehicle. Simply making people pay more for fuel would have incentivized them to prioritize what kind of vehicle to buy, and make it possible for smaller pickups to still exist and/or a rental market for pickups to flourish.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Believe me, the market would prefer the older, smaller, steel framed trucks than the newer aluminum ones. But they're no longer an option, new. EPA regulation and govt overreach/ unintended consequences are what led to these design changes, not market demand. The blue-book price for my 12 year old steel-framed truck has gone up every year since I bought it used. >before they turned into a political/biological/emotional statement piece The anti-truck crowd, which supported all the regulations that led to the current state of vehicle design, are the ones that made this a political/emotional issue, whether they realize it or not.
  - CincinnatiMan 5y ago
    I'm new to trucks and Ford always acts like their aluminum frame is superior to a steel one. Can you share details on the differences?
    - symfoniq 5y ago
      Ford trucks still have steel frames. Only the body is aluminum.
ben7799 5y ago
Good point. It's also super easy in these situations at a nursery, etc.. that the car or SUV owner has to make multiple trips and waste tons of gas because the vehicle can't hold much. People who don't own homes too easily forget it's really really common to have jobs around your house/yard where you're dealing with thousands of pounds of supplies. You can overload an SUV/Wagon/whatever incredibly quickly with sand, mulch, rock, etc.. and it will be nowhere near full.
- ianai 5y ago
  Of course many home improvement stores will just rent you a truck for the afternoon. That’s the principle reason I see against owning a truck for a homeowner. Just rent the right tool for the odd job(s). It’s poor optimization otherwise.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    It's cheaper to borrow it from your truck-owning friend.
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  I find it ironic that you bring up fuel spent for what is a one-time inconvenience when pickup trucks are some of the most inefficient vehicles out there. A regular pickup will do about 14 l / 100 km. A modest ford focus will easily do 5 l / 100 km on the highway.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    A bicycle would get you 0 l/100km.
herbstein 5y ago
> As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot of mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a typical single family homeowner would want that you absolutely wouldn’t want to transport in an SUV or minivan People should do what is generally done here in Northern Europe. Get a Stationwagon/Estate with a tow hitch and a trailer. With that you get a smaller, more practical, car in terms of day-to-day driving. And when you really need to move something bigger/something you don't want inside your car you still have options. Renting a trailer locally is incredibly cheap too, costing just $26 at a nationwide gas station. IKEA, and similar local stores, will lend you a trailer for free. Here's how two friends and I transport our gokarts. One in the trailer, another secured on top. The car on the day of the picture is a Mercedes CLA Coupé. Other times it's the other friend's Ford Fiesta. And yet other times it's one of our dads driving an Audi Q5 or a Peugeot 3008. https://imgur.com/jOoEzuS https://imgur.com/jOoEzuS A hitch gives you the price and size advantages of e.g. a Ford Fiesta while still having the option of hauling several hundred kilos worth of stuff. The Q5 can haul a ton and a half. I'd wager that very few people regularly (weekly) need to haul several tons worth of stuff, and the few that do have a legitimate reason for owning a pickup.
- lstodd 5y ago
  That only works if you've got good roads that get snow-plowed regularly in winter. F.ex. where I live a Hilux or a Landcruiser is a must.
  - theshrike79 5y ago
    You can tow stuff with a Hilux or a Landcruiser too.
    - lstodd 5y ago
      Well, yes. But in case of a Hilux or an L200 you often don't need to. What I wanted to say is that a 'station wagon' is useless for half a year in some climates. And it doesn't make any sense to keep two cars, one for 'summer' and one for the 'rest of the seasons'.
aidenn0 5y ago
My mom was an avid gardener and regularly moved mulch and manure in her station wagon. We cleaned it out afterwards and it smelled musty for about a week afterwards. It was usually in the spring though, so we just drove with the windows down if it wasn't raining.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
It's pretty easy to cleanly haul stuff with a suv. You throw a nice, thick blue tarp in the back, load your stuff, boom. Job done. Bonus, it makes unloading easier too.
beerandt 5y ago
>blame EPA regulations To elaborate, since I've even had to explain this to some "eco-conscious" engineers: This is also partially why trucks have gone from steel to aluminum, which is lighter (to gain a marginal increase in mpg), but also requires larger shapes (moment-arms) to achieve the same amount of strength and resilience (crumple zone rigidity & required crumple zone size, etc). Of course the other side effect is that using aluminum frames/engines won't last as long, since they deform easier, so all that saved energy from increased mpg doesn't make up for the wasted embedded energy from decreased useful lifespan.
ummonk 5y ago
As much as I think a body-on-frame truck is way more practical, some of what you're describing is really a matter of attitude. As far as I'm concerned, dirt, scrape marks, etc. in my SUV is just a sign that I'm making good use of it.

by jrsj 5y ago

pkulak 5y ago

I'm not at all saying that trucks aren't useful, or that they aren't the best vehicle for a lot of people and/or tasks. I'm saying that the trend right now is for trucks that are way taller than they need to be purely because the buyer prefers that look. I had zero issues with pickup trucks 10 years ago, before they turned into a political/biological/emotional statement piece, instead of a tool.

jrsj 5y ago
I don’t think this is really the primary reason for this at all. There’s an element of that of course, but there’s other factors as well. This is a decent short article about it. But the tl;dr is popularity of crew cabs + a gap in recent regulations that encouraged trucks to become larger https://www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup-trucks-keep-getting-bigger https://www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup-truck...
- dougmany 5y ago
  This is what I got from that article: >In other words, the regulations put in place to get better mileage out of vehicles also led to an increase in truck size. “There was kind of an incentive to maybe stretch the wheelbase a couple of inches and set the tires maybe an inch [farther] apart, because you get a bigger platform and slightly smaller target,” said Edmunds. “Now, the bigger vehicle would be heavier and might use more fuel, so it’s not as easy as just doing that. But certainly there was a feeling that if they did need to make it bigger to accommodate more passengers, the fuel economy target wouldn’t be onerous. They could do it.” That statement is not very convincing that the regulations lead to bigger trucks.
xyzzyz 5y ago
The trend for growing truck is mostly due to EPA fleet fuel efficiency regulations. If you make a small truck, it gets classified as a car, so it counts for car fleet efficiency. That’s also why you see decline in sedans and rise in relatively small crossovers SUVs: these also count as light trucks, not cars, for fuel efficiency purposes.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  This is why problems should be tackled directly. There was no reason to force vehicle manufacturers to meet arbitrary efficiency standards. If the goal was to reduce fossil fuel consumption, then fossil fuels should have been slapped with a huge tax. Immediately the automakers would have been incentivized to produce more efficient vehicles. Of course, it’s politically impossible to do the right thing due to the general public wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It's more that people prioritize incentives for objective "A" and are totally surprised when it comes at some cost to "lesser" objective "B." In this case, being "environmentally friendly" vs being "safe." I think a lot of "environmentally conscious" people don't realize that more and more of these types of environmental regulations will come at some direct cost in terms human-safety. And also that a surprising number of politicians/activists/people are so committed to the dogma that they don't have any problem with that.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Higher, larger pickup trucks did not come about as a result of safety requirements, they came about from fuel efficiency requirements (or needing to get around them). So net result of indirect regulations to decrease fuel consumption is increased fuel consumption, and more dangerous vehicles for everyone to contend with who is not inside as large of a vehicle. Simply making people pay more for fuel would have incentivized them to prioritize what kind of vehicle to buy, and make it possible for smaller pickups to still exist and/or a rental market for pickups to flourish.
beerandt 5y ago
Believe me, the market would prefer the older, smaller, steel framed trucks than the newer aluminum ones. But they're no longer an option, new. EPA regulation and govt overreach/ unintended consequences are what led to these design changes, not market demand. The blue-book price for my 12 year old steel-framed truck has gone up every year since I bought it used. >before they turned into a political/biological/emotional statement piece The anti-truck crowd, which supported all the regulations that led to the current state of vehicle design, are the ones that made this a political/emotional issue, whether they realize it or not.
- CincinnatiMan 5y ago
  I'm new to trucks and Ford always acts like their aluminum frame is superior to a steel one. Can you share details on the differences?
  - symfoniq 5y ago
    Ford trucks still have steel frames. Only the body is aluminum.

ben7799 5y ago

Good point. It's also super easy in these situations at a nursery, etc.. that the car or SUV owner has to make multiple trips and waste tons of gas because the vehicle can't hold much. People who don't own homes too easily forget it's really really common to have jobs around your house/yard where you're dealing with thousands of pounds of supplies. You can overload an SUV/Wagon/whatever incredibly quickly with sand, mulch, rock, etc.. and it will be nowhere near full.

ianai 5y ago
Of course many home improvement stores will just rent you a truck for the afternoon. That’s the principle reason I see against owning a truck for a homeowner. Just rent the right tool for the odd job(s). It’s poor optimization otherwise.
- mcguire 5y ago
  It's cheaper to borrow it from your truck-owning friend.
eldaisfish 5y ago
I find it ironic that you bring up fuel spent for what is a one-time inconvenience when pickup trucks are some of the most inefficient vehicles out there. A regular pickup will do about 14 l / 100 km. A modest ford focus will easily do 5 l / 100 km on the highway.
- mcguire 5y ago
  A bicycle would get you 0 l/100km.

herbstein 5y ago

> As someone who used to work at a nursery that sold a lot of mulch, sod, etc, there are a lot of things that a typical single family homeowner would want that you absolutely wouldn’t want to transport in an SUV or minivan People should do what is generally done here in Northern Europe. Get a Stationwagon/Estate with a tow hitch and a trailer. With that you get a smaller, more practical, car in terms of day-to-day driving. And when you really need to move something bigger/something you don't want inside your car you still have options. Renting a trailer locally is incredibly cheap too, costing just $26 at a nationwide gas station. IKEA, and similar local stores, will lend you a trailer for free. Here's how two friends and I transport our gokarts. One in the trailer, another secured on top. The car on the day of the picture is a Mercedes CLA Coupé. Other times it's the other friend's Ford Fiesta. And yet other times it's one of our dads driving an Audi Q5 or a Peugeot 3008. https://imgur.com/jOoEzuS https://imgur.com/jOoEzuS A hitch gives you the price and size advantages of e.g. a Ford Fiesta while still having the option of hauling several hundred kilos worth of stuff. The Q5 can haul a ton and a half. I'd wager that very few people regularly (weekly) need to haul several tons worth of stuff, and the few that do have a legitimate reason for owning a pickup.

lstodd 5y ago
That only works if you've got good roads that get snow-plowed regularly in winter. F.ex. where I live a Hilux or a Landcruiser is a must.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  You can tow stuff with a Hilux or a Landcruiser too.
  - lstodd 5y ago
    Well, yes. But in case of a Hilux or an L200 you often don't need to. What I wanted to say is that a 'station wagon' is useless for half a year in some climates. And it doesn't make any sense to keep two cars, one for 'summer' and one for the 'rest of the seasons'.

aidenn0 5y ago

My mom was an avid gardener and regularly moved mulch and manure in her station wagon. We cleaned it out afterwards and it smelled musty for about a week afterwards. It was usually in the spring though, so we just drove with the windows down if it wasn't raining.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

It's pretty easy to cleanly haul stuff with a suv. You throw a nice, thick blue tarp in the back, load your stuff, boom. Job done. Bonus, it makes unloading easier too.

beerandt 5y ago

>blame EPA regulations To elaborate, since I've even had to explain this to some "eco-conscious" engineers: This is also partially why trucks have gone from steel to aluminum, which is lighter (to gain a marginal increase in mpg), but also requires larger shapes (moment-arms) to achieve the same amount of strength and resilience (crumple zone rigidity & required crumple zone size, etc). Of course the other side effect is that using aluminum frames/engines won't last as long, since they deform easier, so all that saved energy from increased mpg doesn't make up for the wasted embedded energy from decreased useful lifespan.

ummonk 5y ago

As much as I think a body-on-frame truck is way more practical, some of what you're describing is really a matter of attitude. As far as I'm concerned, dirt, scrape marks, etc. in my SUV is just a sign that I'm making good use of it.