5 ms·

Author assumes the only reason people buy a truck is for "signalling".

coolbreezetft24 2y ago
I think specifically the criticism was leveled at the F150, given the comparison to a significantly smaller less-impressive looking truck yet still had the same size truck-bed in it.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats. It is just a tradeoff between carrying people and carrying stuff.
  - aydyn 2y ago
    That and the F150 isn't even a big truck, it's literally classified as "light duty". If you're trying to signal for _excess_, you aren't buying a F150.
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
    - panopticon 2y ago
      Yeah, when I imagine excess I'm picturing a ridiculously lifted F-250 or 350 juxtaposed with low profile tires.
      - osigurdson 2y ago
        Can you define "excess"?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - five_lights 2y ago
    >The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats. F150's come with multiple cab/bed options depending on the year. Yes, some have short beds with cabs, others have Long/standard beds with cabs (enough to put a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back). Some come with short beds and no cab. Long beds with no cabs.
jabbany 2y ago
Where do they imply that? The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling... The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.
jmprspret 2y ago
If we're talking about what I assume you mean to be beefy utility vehicles (Utes, we call them in Au, Americans seem to call them trucks from what I've heard). I mean let's be honest, more often than not, if you're not buying a ute with a bog standard metal tray and little extras, it is for signalling. Because the more "luxury" ones, with a hard top, with a thick plastic, painted body kit, and bullbars - compromise heavily on actual usability, and are way less useful than a standard ute with a tray
- adolph 2y ago
  I thought a “Ute” was specifically a unibody vehicle with an open area in the back for cargo. Most typically the Ute is adapted from a sedan or coupe. There have not been many Utes in the states. Notable exceptions include the recent Subaru Baja and earlier Chevy El Camino. Some trucks have started to use unibody chassis but this is a relatively new development: Honda Ridgeline, Ford Mavericks and Hyundai Santa Cruz. Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed: Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)
coldtea 2y ago
Which for the most part is true. Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).
- roenxi 2y ago
  As far as I recall the most expensive two purchases a family makes are the house and car. So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU. Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen. I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
  - pieresqi 2y ago
    [dead]
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    I think the biggest reason is that trucks are less practical in Europe. European streets are often narrower and parking spaces smaller. Many trucks that are popular in the US are so heavy that you may not be allowed to drive them with a standard license. You need a truck license, which may be valid only for a few years and have stricter standards. And due to the climate, you are more likely to have to protect the cargo from the elements, which shifts the balance towards vans. But vans are not very convenient in daily use.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either. Not to mention in the US tons of regular working class people buy tracks, when people with 2x to 10x their income in Europe don't. >Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen. LOL, what people would believe!
taneq 2y ago
Ironic, given how often drivers of those giant tanks don’t indicate. ;)

I think specifically the criticism was leveled at the F150, given the comparison to a significantly smaller less-impressive looking truck yet still had the same size truck-bed in it.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats. It is just a tradeoff between carrying people and carrying stuff.
- aydyn 2y ago
  That and the F150 isn't even a big truck, it's literally classified as "light duty". If you're trying to signal for _excess_, you aren't buying a F150.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    Where I'm at, this is true. The F-350 is for signaling, F-150 is a decent utility vehicle (that allows for decent city driving). People actually use the all-in-one hauling, towing, and off-roading-in-comfort F-150 & Tundra here.
  - panopticon 2y ago
    Yeah, when I imagine excess I'm picturing a ridiculously lifted F-250 or 350 juxtaposed with low profile tires.
    - osigurdson 2y ago
      Can you define "excess"?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- five_lights 2y ago
  >The bed in the F150 is shortened to make room for a second row of seats. F150's come with multiple cab/bed options depending on the year. Yes, some have short beds with cabs, others have Long/standard beds with cabs (enough to put a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back). Some come with short beds and no cab. Long beds with no cabs.

jabbany 2y ago

Where do they imply that? The article literally shows two examples of ads for trucks, one advertising utility and one signalling... The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. It doesn't imply that is the only reason, just that it's an increasingly _common_ one.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The fact that most ads _today_ focus on the signalling type speaks more about how consumer goals have changed, such that more people are buying for signalling. Marketing has driven, rather than responding to, the change in consumer goals.

jmprspret 2y ago

If we're talking about what I assume you mean to be beefy utility vehicles (Utes, we call them in Au, Americans seem to call them trucks from what I've heard). I mean let's be honest, more often than not, if you're not buying a ute with a bog standard metal tray and little extras, it is for signalling. Because the more "luxury" ones, with a hard top, with a thick plastic, painted body kit, and bullbars - compromise heavily on actual usability, and are way less useful than a standard ute with a tray

adolph 2y ago
I thought a “Ute” was specifically a unibody vehicle with an open area in the back for cargo. Most typically the Ute is adapted from a sedan or coupe. There have not been many Utes in the states. Notable exceptions include the recent Subaru Baja and earlier Chevy El Camino. Some trucks have started to use unibody chassis but this is a relatively new development: Honda Ridgeline, Ford Mavericks and Hyundai Santa Cruz. Maybe I’m just old fashioned and have an appreciation for imported Commodore Utes. It seems language has changed: Traditionally, the term referred to vehicles built on passenger car chassis and with the cargo tray integrated with the passenger body (coupé utility vehicles). However, present-day usage of the term "ute" in Australia and New Zealand has expanded to include any vehicle with an open cargo area at the rear, which would be called a pickup truck in other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)

coldtea 2y ago

Which for the most part is true. Outside farming and certain professionals nobody really needs a truck, including families with kids (which e.g. in Europe manage to get just fine with a regular car, not even a SUV).

roenxi 2y ago
As far as I recall the most expensive two purchases a family makes are the house and car. So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU. Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen. I don't think we can be confident that social signalling is the major factor here.
- pieresqi 2y ago
  [dead]
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I think the biggest reason is that trucks are less practical in Europe. European streets are often narrower and parking spaces smaller. Many trucks that are popular in the US are so heavy that you may not be allowed to drive them with a standard license. You need a truck license, which may be valid only for a few years and have stricter standards. And due to the climate, you are more likely to have to protect the cargo from the elements, which shifts the balance towards vans. But vans are not very convenient in daily use.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >So while nobody needs a truck, that statistic might reflect the relatively lower disposable incomes in the EU Nah, people with higher disposable incomes don't buy trucks either. Not to mention in the US tons of regular working class people buy tracks, when people with 2x to 10x their income in Europe don't. >Trucks could plausibly be the better mode of human transport but the EU doesn't quite have the finances to make it happen. LOL, what people would believe!

taneq 2y ago

Ironic, given how often drivers of those giant tanks don’t indicate. ;)