6 ms·

It's not really a truck though, nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. I'm planning on having a cybertruck as our car for town and trips, and keep my 15

It's not really a truck though, nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. I'm planning on having a cybertruck as our car for town and trips, and keep my 1500 for actual work and recreation. I generally want an extra can of gas to fill up the truck when on the trail and on the ranch.

dcchambers 3y ago
> nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. Why is that?
- theultdev 3y ago
  there's no electric plugs where I take my truck. and my truck can haul a lot more at a longer range. love ev's for casual roadtrips and jetting around town, but not for 4x4 adventures.
  - titaniumtown 3y ago
    That doesn't make it not a truck.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      it makes it not function as a truck for myself. use whatever definition you want for it though.
      - Kon-Peki 3y ago
        > it makes it not function as a truck for myself. No, you use a truck to accomplish tasks for which vehicles don't get named "truck". That's perfectly fine; you can and should do whatever you want with the vehicles that you buy. When you go out in public and say "that's not a truck" about something that clearly is, it's you who is "using whatever definition you want", not everyone else.
        theultdev 3y ago
        Okay. So want to talk about my points I outlined or continue with your definition tirade? If it's the latter, you'll have to do so amongst yourself.
  - mort96 3y ago
    I don't think I understand. Are you saying that any electric vehicle is by (your) definition not a truck? Does any established definition of the word "truck" agree with you?
    - theultdev 3y ago
      it doesn't meet the requirements to function as a truck for me. obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        You need to understand that you are not the arbiter of definitions. You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.
        theultdev 3y ago
        would you like to reply to my points or continue to attack the phrasing of one sentence? don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.
      - mort96 3y ago
        Maybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.
        theultdev 3y ago
        that sentiment was in my main post. I even said "nor do I consider" you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.
        mort96 3y ago
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    You have a very unique definition of "truck". Sure, totally understand it may not fit your needs given where you need to drive it and what you do with it, but I'd posit that none of your constraints require redefinition of a commonly understood English word.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I wouldn't say it's unique, very common around here, but sure you can have the semantics debate if you want. my point was I don't consider it a truck as it doesn't meet my needs for a truck. I don't see how that wasn't obvious, you're being pedantic.
      - heleninboodler 3y ago
        > sure, you can have the semantics debate if you want Helpful rule: Don't start a semantics debate and then complain that people are having a semantics debate with you.
        theultdev 3y ago
        They spawned one out of one sentence while ignoring the sentiment of the rest of my post.
        frumper 3y ago
        You're defining what the word truck means.
        theultdev 3y ago
        I'm defining what it means to me.
      - MostlyStable 3y ago
        It's not pedantic. You were wrong. You said "it's not a truck" when you meant "It doesn't fit my needs". Those are not subtle distinctions. Language is often murky and meaning can shift over time and across different areas. This is not one of those times.
  - ori_b 3y ago
    Since when did recreational offroading make something a truck? Wouldn't that make it a toy instead of a working vehicle?
    - theultdev 3y ago
      Did you miss where I also said I need it on the ranch too? There's no electricity in large parts, and often we'll be out there for the full day. An extra can of gas is cheaper and easier than getting the electric company out to run a line so I can install plugs. I guess I could haul a generator but... uhm, kind defeats the purpose right?
- NDizzle 3y ago
  Here's my answer, living in Arkansas. Body on frame? Solid axles? Lockers? Missing any of those, not a truck.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    I almost spat my drink out when I read this as I interpreted it to mean it wasn't body on frame. Looks like the lightning is just missing the solid rear axle, which is fair. I agree: it's not truck.
  - Always_Anon 3y ago
    F-150 Lightning: >Body on frame? Check >Solid axles? Not required for EVs. >Lockers? Not required for EVs. Final score: It's a truck.
    - NDizzle 3y ago
      Doesn't need lockers or solid axles? Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components. This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543
      - Always_Anon 3y ago
        >Doesn't need lockers or solid axles? No, EVs do not require those for the same reason they do not require gas tanks. >Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components. You have it backwards: ICE trucks will never be able to mimic the instant torque and torque vectoring that EV motors provide. Rivian is a good example of this: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stock-rivian-r1t-is-a-breeze-here-s-proof-219895.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stoc... >This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 That's not a Ford F-150 Lightning. The Rivian stock will outperform almost practically every other stock vehicle as shown above.
- atrus 3y ago
  Because they're tiny and can't carry much. There's a world of difference between a pickup and a truck. It's difficult to buy them with 8' beds, most have 6-6.5' bed which makes carrying construction materials more difficult/dangerous. They have small load limits, which probably is for the best because you rarely can bring down the sidewalls to forklift decently sized stuff anyway! They have their niche, but that's what they are, niche tools that got heavily pushed/marketed to everyone when a car/van or actual truck would be so much better of a fit for their needs.
titaniumtown 3y ago
> I'm planning on having a cybertruck Do you live during the zombie apocalypse? It seems so unnecessary and unsafe to those around you especially pedestrians.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  The Cybertruck will be the ultimate "fuck you" status symbol after everyone got bored of the vanilla Teslas as every tech bro and their mom have one now and in the wealthy EU cities they're used as taxis, making them uncool for those who want to be seen as "avantgarde" while still retaining the vulgarity of the pick-up truck. Elon was a marketing genius here.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Everyone buys different luxury goods. If they want cybertrucks, and it offsets combustion miles, so be it. Telling the consumer they don’t want something doesn’t work; give them what they want. Anything that destroys petroleum demand is welcome, even if impractical. Not my money. (the US is responsible for ~35% of global gasoline consumption [1] [2] [3]) [1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gasoline-superusers-only-10-of-us-drivers-burn-almost-a-third-of-the-gas/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gasoline-superusers-only-... [2] https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers-2-report/ https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers-2-report/ [3] https://ibb.co/Vq928g5 https://ibb.co/Vq928g5
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Many people don't buy luxury goods, even those with money. Luxuries are pointless by definition, so clearly having money is not a valuable metric for knowing what's good or not.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        People who don’t have purchasing power don’t move the needle. Inconvenient truth. They get dragged along by other factors. Tesla built out their >$1B global supercharger network and manufacturing base on luxury vehicle sales (S, X), for example (until they could spin up 3, Y, and utility scale storage manufacturing). And their profit margin is still higher than legacy auto. TLDR Sell to people with money and who aren’t price sensitive, pour that cashflow into spinning up a flywheel. Fighting reality will lead to disappointment, ignore feelings and operate according to the data. Go where the money is. Buyers with only opinions are not worth chasing.
wlesieutre 3y ago
The 1500 isn't really a truck though
- theultdev 3y ago
  careful, you'll have a lot of people reply saying you are trying to change the definition for having an opinion.
drivebyadvice 3y ago
Not sure why this was down voted. If you're hauling, the lightning gets very little mileage. If you've got a camper trailer, you're not going far from home, even if the campsite has chargers (lol). Compare with a regular truck, where you can haul something as far as you can drive. Got to take something to the hazwaste dump that's hundreds of miles away? Lightning is a non starter. This isn't to say Lightning is all bad, but it's a fundmentally limited product right now compared to a real pickup. It's almost like what's suited for an urban lifestyle isn't for everyone.
r00fus 3y ago
> It's not really a truck though, nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. This sounds a lot like the classic "no true scotsman" fallacy.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Not really, as I outline what I need in a truck. I don't mind if things are done other ways, as long as they are practical. No purity test needed, just practicality. Currently EV trucks are impractical outside of using them in town / on highways and they are not practical to haul range-wise. If you don't need that stuff, what's the point over getting a car?
  - r00fus 3y ago
    But you specifically say "they're not really trucks" - that's not saying they're not useful trucks for you, but that you think they're not even in the same category.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I said in my original post I will be the owner of a CyberTruck soon. It will be useful to me, to replace my car. But since they only work well for in town and on highways, they don't work well to replace my truck for ranch and recreational off-roading use. These categories are based on my own needs, but they aren't that unique.

dcchambers 3y ago

> nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. Why is that?

theultdev 3y ago
there's no electric plugs where I take my truck. and my truck can haul a lot more at a longer range. love ev's for casual roadtrips and jetting around town, but not for 4x4 adventures.
- titaniumtown 3y ago
  That doesn't make it not a truck.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    it makes it not function as a truck for myself. use whatever definition you want for it though.
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      > it makes it not function as a truck for myself. No, you use a truck to accomplish tasks for which vehicles don't get named "truck". That's perfectly fine; you can and should do whatever you want with the vehicles that you buy. When you go out in public and say "that's not a truck" about something that clearly is, it's you who is "using whatever definition you want", not everyone else.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        Okay. So want to talk about my points I outlined or continue with your definition tirade? If it's the latter, you'll have to do so amongst yourself.
- mort96 3y ago
  I don't think I understand. Are you saying that any electric vehicle is by (your) definition not a truck? Does any established definition of the word "truck" agree with you?
  - theultdev 3y ago
    it doesn't meet the requirements to function as a truck for me. obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      You need to understand that you are not the arbiter of definitions. You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        would you like to reply to my points or continue to attack the phrasing of one sentence? don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.
    - mort96 3y ago
      Maybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        that sentiment was in my main post. I even said "nor do I consider" you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.
        mort96 3y ago
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  You have a very unique definition of "truck". Sure, totally understand it may not fit your needs given where you need to drive it and what you do with it, but I'd posit that none of your constraints require redefinition of a commonly understood English word.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    I wouldn't say it's unique, very common around here, but sure you can have the semantics debate if you want. my point was I don't consider it a truck as it doesn't meet my needs for a truck. I don't see how that wasn't obvious, you're being pedantic.
    - heleninboodler 3y ago
      > sure, you can have the semantics debate if you want Helpful rule: Don't start a semantics debate and then complain that people are having a semantics debate with you.
      - theultdev 3y ago
        They spawned one out of one sentence while ignoring the sentiment of the rest of my post.
        frumper 3y ago
        You're defining what the word truck means.
        theultdev 3y ago
        I'm defining what it means to me.
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      It's not pedantic. You were wrong. You said "it's not a truck" when you meant "It doesn't fit my needs". Those are not subtle distinctions. Language is often murky and meaning can shift over time and across different areas. This is not one of those times.
- ori_b 3y ago
  Since when did recreational offroading make something a truck? Wouldn't that make it a toy instead of a working vehicle?
  - theultdev 3y ago
    Did you miss where I also said I need it on the ranch too? There's no electricity in large parts, and often we'll be out there for the full day. An extra can of gas is cheaper and easier than getting the electric company out to run a line so I can install plugs. I guess I could haul a generator but... uhm, kind defeats the purpose right?
NDizzle 3y ago
Here's my answer, living in Arkansas. Body on frame? Solid axles? Lockers? Missing any of those, not a truck.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  I almost spat my drink out when I read this as I interpreted it to mean it wasn't body on frame. Looks like the lightning is just missing the solid rear axle, which is fair. I agree: it's not truck.
- Always_Anon 3y ago
  F-150 Lightning: >Body on frame? Check >Solid axles? Not required for EVs. >Lockers? Not required for EVs. Final score: It's a truck.
  - NDizzle 3y ago
    Doesn't need lockers or solid axles? Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components. This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543
    - Always_Anon 3y ago
      >Doesn't need lockers or solid axles? No, EVs do not require those for the same reason they do not require gas tanks. >Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components. You have it backwards: ICE trucks will never be able to mimic the instant torque and torque vectoring that EV motors provide. Rivian is a good example of this: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stock-rivian-r1t-is-a-breeze-here-s-proof-219895.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stoc... >This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543 That's not a Ford F-150 Lightning. The Rivian stock will outperform almost practically every other stock vehicle as shown above.
atrus 3y ago
Because they're tiny and can't carry much. There's a world of difference between a pickup and a truck. It's difficult to buy them with 8' beds, most have 6-6.5' bed which makes carrying construction materials more difficult/dangerous. They have small load limits, which probably is for the best because you rarely can bring down the sidewalls to forklift decently sized stuff anyway! They have their niche, but that's what they are, niche tools that got heavily pushed/marketed to everyone when a car/van or actual truck would be so much better of a fit for their needs.

titaniumtown 3y ago

> I'm planning on having a cybertruck Do you live during the zombie apocalypse? It seems so unnecessary and unsafe to those around you especially pedestrians.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
The Cybertruck will be the ultimate "fuck you" status symbol after everyone got bored of the vanilla Teslas as every tech bro and their mom have one now and in the wealthy EU cities they're used as taxis, making them uncool for those who want to be seen as "avantgarde" while still retaining the vulgarity of the pick-up truck. Elon was a marketing genius here.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Everyone buys different luxury goods. If they want cybertrucks, and it offsets combustion miles, so be it. Telling the consumer they don’t want something doesn’t work; give them what they want. Anything that destroys petroleum demand is welcome, even if impractical. Not my money. (the US is responsible for ~35% of global gasoline consumption [1] [2] [3]) [1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gasoline-superusers-only-10-of-us-drivers-burn-almost-a-third-of-the-gas/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gasoline-superusers-only-... [2] https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers-2-report/ https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers-2-report/ [3] https://ibb.co/Vq928g5 https://ibb.co/Vq928g5
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Many people don't buy luxury goods, even those with money. Luxuries are pointless by definition, so clearly having money is not a valuable metric for knowing what's good or not.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      People who don’t have purchasing power don’t move the needle. Inconvenient truth. They get dragged along by other factors. Tesla built out their >$1B global supercharger network and manufacturing base on luxury vehicle sales (S, X), for example (until they could spin up 3, Y, and utility scale storage manufacturing). And their profit margin is still higher than legacy auto. TLDR Sell to people with money and who aren’t price sensitive, pour that cashflow into spinning up a flywheel. Fighting reality will lead to disappointment, ignore feelings and operate according to the data. Go where the money is. Buyers with only opinions are not worth chasing.

wlesieutre 3y ago

The 1500 isn't really a truck though

theultdev 3y ago
careful, you'll have a lot of people reply saying you are trying to change the definition for having an opinion.

drivebyadvice 3y ago

Not sure why this was down voted. If you're hauling, the lightning gets very little mileage. If you've got a camper trailer, you're not going far from home, even if the campsite has chargers (lol). Compare with a regular truck, where you can haul something as far as you can drive. Got to take something to the hazwaste dump that's hundreds of miles away? Lightning is a non starter. This isn't to say Lightning is all bad, but it's a fundmentally limited product right now compared to a real pickup. It's almost like what's suited for an urban lifestyle isn't for everyone.

r00fus 3y ago

> It's not really a truck though, nor do I consider the f150-lightning a truck. This sounds a lot like the classic "no true scotsman" fallacy.

theultdev 3y ago
Not really, as I outline what I need in a truck. I don't mind if things are done other ways, as long as they are practical. No purity test needed, just practicality. Currently EV trucks are impractical outside of using them in town / on highways and they are not practical to haul range-wise. If you don't need that stuff, what's the point over getting a car?
- r00fus 3y ago
  But you specifically say "they're not really trucks" - that's not saying they're not useful trucks for you, but that you think they're not even in the same category.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    I said in my original post I will be the owner of a CyberTruck soon. It will be useful to me, to replace my car. But since they only work well for in town and on highways, they don't work well to replace my truck for ranch and recreational off-roading use. These categories are based on my own needs, but they aren't that unique.