3 ms·
> we should see a proliferation of light trucks just long enough to avoid the classification That's certainly possible, but is that necessarily the outcome? Wh
by jetrink 4y ago
> we should see a proliferation of light trucks just long enough to avoid the classification
That's certainly possible, but is that necessarily the outcome? What if there are two maxima for optimum truck size and the line that this regulation establishes is on the up-slope towards the higher of the two? E.g. It used to make sense to build a small, two-door truck, but now that trucks need to be at least x size, it's better to make an (x + 50cm) four door vehicle rather than an oversized two-door.
- tpmoney 4y agoAnecdotally this would drive my purchasing if I bought a truck today. I started with an old 80s S10, and would love another “small truck” if someone made it. But I also need a vehicle that will transport more than 2 people. In the 80s, a third, small truck for the times you need a truck was a viable approach. Given the sizes it might be a tight fit to have 3 vehicles but it would be doable. Today, the size of trucks makes squeezing one as a 3rd vehicle in my parking areas would be impossible. So if it’s going to replace one of the people haulers, it has to haul people, which means it needs the extended cab space, and then needs to be longer still because buying a truck whose bed space is largely taken up by cab defeats the utility of the truck.
- paulgb 4y agoAs I mentioned in my edit, it does seem to be the case that it's a more complicated formula, but we can still determine whether there's a proliferation of vehicles that are close to the boundary of that formula, or not. I'm not saying that the article's theory is wrong, just that it is empirically testable if anyone cares enough to do some math (another day, I'd be up to the challenge myself. It would be a neat blog post).