I’m positively in love with this romantic idea that my vehicle isn’t really just about A to B. It’s my aircraft carrier from which I launch operations.
It keeps us warm or cold. Powers everything. Has entertainment. Shelter. Carries all my supplies. Having a small SUV in the parking lot of the beach turns my morning trip into a whole day trip with my toddlers napping and taking a break in the shade.
It’s what gets me about the supercarriers. If warfare suddenly disappeared, you’ve got these mobile bases you can anchor off the coast of a disaster zone with massive capabilities for logistics, a nuclear power plant, water purifier, hospital, machine shops, etc. Etc.
So this F150 power generator thing resonates with me.
If you want a base of operation, a SUV is not what you're looking for. An expedition vehicle is. That's literally what they're built and set up for.
A "supercarrier" would be a lorry-sized one e.g. a monster like an EX70-HDQ[0]. A smaller BOO would be something like a maximog or a rally vehicle. There are also conversions for SUV-size chassis replacing the entire back half.
My 32' Winnebago sleeps me, wife, kids and dogs has a 4000w generator and 3000w inverter which runs off two golf cart batteries charged by shore, generator, alternator and 300w of solar.
It has 80 gallons of gas, 70 gallons of water, air conditioning, and giant awning and tons of storage. I carry just about all my tools.
It even has a built in desk in the passenger side dash which I can work remote from using the hotspot / router with external antenna.
I driven cross country multiple times towing my Jeep and taken it pretty far off the grid. Its not an off-road vehicle but you would be surprised.
There are a lot of choices in between mine and a Unicat as well, like a 4x4 Class B or Super C. Some of them are starting to do large 48v secondary alternators with lithium banks and no generator while still being able to run the A/C for up to 8 hours before recharging.
The problem with RVs (as someone who spent most of last year on the road living in one) is that they are built like garbage, with the poorest quality materials and zero innovation. It is clear that no one has shaken up that industry in decades and the incumbents are lazy. The distribution chain has fat profits for everyone. Huge opportunity for someone to disrupt.
I agree, but a lot of enjoyment can still be had with one. My Winnebago cost about as much as a Model X but the places I have gone, the things I have seen...
Its actually very hard to travel by normal car or air now, we just like taking the RV, the space, bathroom and kitchen while driving down the road, our own bed...
You really do need to be handy to own one at this point, it's like a 70's American car. Well the engine and transmission and chassis is fine but everything around it, wow. Luckily it is easy to work on and modify.
I have thought long and hard about trying to start a "Toyota of RVs", I think if you could make a solid, simple well made RV you could dominate the market.
Hymer North America went bankrupt due various finial "irregularities". I believe what was left was bought by Thor. Left a lot of people out in the cold on warranties from my understanding.
Thor planned to acquire Hymer Europe and NA, but discovered the fraud during due diligence and elected not to acquire the NA business (a lot of which was Roadtrek). Thor/Hymer Europe has formed a new US entity for new products. Most of the high-volume brands are a notch down from there.
I agree about Advanced. A notch down would be Safari Condo’s XL Flex and Leisure Travel Vans.
I have a 20 year old conversion van. Lot of space if just two people. And you get a good bed and not have to deal with sleeping on the ground or tents. Have a secondary battery which runs an Engel cooler and a small microwave.
Downside: No bathroom, shower, stove, etc.
Upside: No plumbing to maintain. Lot smaller than an RV.
Do you think you're missing something by not being "part" of the environment while driving? As in, you drive through instead of "drive in"? I only drive with the windows down because I want to be a part of the landscape I'm in. I think a motorcycle is the ultimate crystallization of that.
On the hand, if it convincs you make trips you otherwise wouldn't have made, I think it's a win. I love Road tripping because it forces you to deal with stuff, especially if you're doing it in less developed countries. Probably the most fun I've ever had is driving long distance in Africa. You really never know what's going to happen next!
Never understood this fascination with "crapping in the woods" so to speak. We have evolved past not having to do that yet some want to find their way back to the same old for some reason.
In the end, this seems like different goals - some just want to enjoy nature but not live in any delusion that we need to be more paleolithic to have the most authentic experience, others crave this process more than the end location. I identify more with the former group, and an RV sounds like a better bet for people like that.
I would be curious to know which is the least destructive to the places been to and the environment though. If the RV is worse, maybe that's one argument. But I'm not sure that makes sense - someone who stays in the hotel might end up costing more in resources maybe?
I'm not talking about capping in the woods, just needing other people for things is a great way to experience the world: having to go to a restaurant or store to get food, go to a motel to sleep, etc.
Like poor neighborhoods have so much more community than rich ones because people genuinely need each other to get by. When you're completely independent and don't need anyone, I think you've lost one of the things that gives life its value.
That's fair, but I would wager that countries where RVs make sense (US mainly) is a disjoint set from countries where you have a rich community that's also affordable. If I'm traveling the states by a motorcycle or car I'm stuck with having my meals often at a subway and staying in a super 8 (assuming you're middle class).
I feel the opposite, I have never seen as much of the landscape as through the giant window in my RV while driving. Its one thing I look forward to is just the drive and the stuff seen along the way while having all the normal conveniences.
Also towing a Jeep with us makes a huge difference being able to really explore anywhere around where we are staying and see the sights. I really love Colorado and a Jeep is the way to really see it.
If I was single I might have a smaller RV with just a motorcycle, but with the whole family this setup is perfect, and it seems like kids have really got a lot out of it, they frequently talk about the places we been in the RV and love traveling in it.
Class A diesel RVs are designed for retired couples to drive around the country and live quite well. They plummet in price the first few years and if you're past 10 years old (usually harder to get a loan), the price drops more, often to 25% or less of the new price.
They have pretty beefy systems, with 7kw diesel generators quite common. The engine and chassis will be designed to flat tow a car (or a huge trailer).
And some have pretty interesting features, like tile floors, two bathrooms, in-floor heating, two bathrooms and washer/dryers.
In Canada a Class A brand new can be $400k+. A 10 year old Class A at 25% of the price is still a $100k vehicle. And because they are built like garbage, the repairs start adding up.
I am convinced that if you do the math, it makes more sense for the couple months a year a retired couple will travel to just buy a nice vehicle and do AirBNBs and have no compromise in terms of Shower length, amount of hot water, and other amenities.
Also, don’t get me started on the cost of fuel relative to a normal vehicle. Their fuel economy is abysmal. Think: Russian Tank.
If you just do the math, yeah, buy a fuel efficient travel vehicle and do hotels / cabins / Airbnb.
Just not for me, have done plenty of that and I like my RV better. I can drive 8 hours straight with the kids no stops to a great state park and be chilling by 3pm do it again the next day all the way across the country sleeping in my own bed.
Yes its horrible mileage, I mean I am dragging my whole house with me, but thats what makes it nice too. Its not for everyone but if you like the whole "super-carrier" thing you probably will like it.
I can tell you, you are rather an exception in this mindset.
There are tons of drawbacks in reality compared to romantic idea of 'dragging your whole home with you'. Financially it doesn't make sense. You become a slave of your motor home. It drives like shit.
But far worst for me is, you create your own bubble. You travel, yet want to keep your cozy 'home'. That's completely opposite to why I travel - experience unique, vastly different, exotic places, interact with strangers, other cultures, eat local food etc. Dive deep into the place. This is much more interesting goal of traveling compared to just 'seeing places and staying comfortable'.
You might think we're comparing uncomparable - cruising around rather homogeneous US vs traveling i say South east Asia. Not at all - here in Europe we have such a diversity of cultures that those 'exotic' experiences can be had quite easily with few hundred kms of drive. South is nothing like north, east vs west the same. Every country is pretty unique.
I agree a big RV seems like a US thing and the kind of travel you are talking about appealed to me more when I was younger, but with a family and kids its really nice to go explore during the day and go by to our bubble at night and move on to the next place.
We have seen a lot of diverse stuff in the US and financially, well traveling for pleasure doesn't really make sense, its worth it to me so far.
I did do a good amount of work to make my RV drive better, again if someone could make a simple well made RV I think the demand would be high, its really nice way to travel and see the US.
> In Canada a Class A brand new can be $400k+. A 10 year old Class A at 25% of the price is still a $100k vehicle.
Yes, they can also be $125k. Your AirBNB option can also cost $4,000/night. Picking a price toward the top of the line does not make for a good argument.
And yes, mileage is not great, but it’s not as bad as a tank - a Class A diesel can easily get 8-9 MPG without trying, and a bit of care can get you to see 10-12.
Yeah sorta, its amazing how bad the QA is even on expensive motorhomes. If you are used to buying a reliable modern car you will be in for a shock when purchasing even a high end RV when it comes to the quality and integration.
Get a class C that's built on an off the shelf truck chassis (usually Mercedes Sprinter or Ford E-350/450) and at least the chassis will be reliable. You'll still have to deal with problems with the RV parts but at least you'll be able to drive it (unless your problem is that the slide-out won't retract)
I agree with this statement and I should have been clearer previously. When I complain about build quality and lack of innovation, it is solely with respect to what the RV assembler does with the Mercedes or Ford chassis.
It all depends on whether it's a class-C type cutaway where the cab is built by the chassis manufacturer (so you get a steel cab plus airbags and other safety features), or a class-A built on a stripped chassis where everything but the frame and engine comes from the RV manufacturer -- many of those are essentially a lightweight box on top of the frame and will disintegrate in a crash, and you'll likely not survive a rollover crash. Even with a cutaway chassis, depending on how much of the cab they cutover for cab access, you may not fare too well, but much better than with nothing but a wood and fiberglass box surrounding you.
With a cutaway, the manufacturer takes care of all of the steering linkages, driving controls, etc so you have some assurance of quality -- everything related to driving is built by the company with the most experience in building trucks and cars rather than the RV manufacturer.
I don't know what you get in the $300K+ Newmars and other expensive rigs since that's way out of my (and most people's) price range.
Yeah, one of my friends just bought a brand new RV (I don't know the details), but spent basically a month after purchase getting a whole bunch of QA fixes made, from the minor and cosmetic to fairly major.
They are not lightweight. In the case of many Class C motorhomes build on the Ford E chassis, the manufacturer has used plywood for everything. There are certainly opportunities to build with marginally more expensive materials to make major weight gains.
The plywood mentioned by GP is kind of heavy, and it needs framing for stiffness too. The molded steel used in "real" cars and trucks would be lighter. So would something handmade from carbon. Just thinking by analogy with boat hulls, I don't see why fiberglass wouldn't work either. My parents have a pickup camper the walls of which are made from Styrofoam or something similar. This seems to work; I can climb on the roof to adjust the antenna and I'm fat.
Coach motorhomes are kind of an idiot trap. You're better off with a tow vehicle and fifth wheel. The mileage is better, and you can unhitch and run day trips without having to lift your jacks and unplug everything every single day, then come home and do it all over again every single day. A lot of people end up dragging a car behind their motorhome as a result, when you could just do a fifth wheel and a truck instead and end up with a much easier rig to manage.
The sprinter type campervan setups are a little more practical but obviously trade for space.
I second this. The thing that really turns me off about a motorhome is having this drive train that you only use maybe a dozen times a year but that you want to trust to take your family on a long trip. I'd much rather put that trust (and maintenance expense) in a regularly driven pickup.
Plus when the trailer falls apart, which they all do because they're built like crap, you can just replace it independent of the pickup.
And of top of that you have another engine to maintain.
But fifth wheel is an overkill for most:
For most of them you need F-250/350 instead of F-150. F-250 doesn’t drive as nice as F-150 when unloaded. Preferably you need long bed (not to hit the cab when backing up). With the crew cab this is the longest truck possible. Modern diesels are expensive to run and maintain, 7.3L Godzilla just shipped, you want to give it couple years to get proven...
Then fifth wheel is harder to hitch up and you loose huge portion of bed space. Also bed is nearly impossible to access when hitched up.
Basically, unless you really need the space, go with 25-30ft trailer and F-150 (with 6 1/2ft bed of course, not this short nonsense).
I have no need for a pickup, so I'm better served by a 25 foot RV than an 18 foot truck plus a 25 foot fifth wheel. Plus I'd have to find parking for 2 vehicles that don't fit in my garage, while with the RV I need just one space.
It's debatable whether the truck+trailer is easier to manage than the RV + small car. Though since we tend to take the RV to state parks and such where we don't need to drive after we park, we rarely take the car.
Everyone has different needs, but having owned pretty much every type of RV available, I'd say a truck with a fifth-wheel is much easier to mange than a coach with a flat-tow car.
A fifth-wheel is easy to backup when needed. A coach with a flat-tow car attached can't back up at all.
And as long as you have enough truck for the size fifth-wheel you have they tow much better in wind and handle curvy roads well.
While it's true that you can't back up with a towed vehicle, the advantage of the RV is that you don't have to -- only takes a few minutes to pull the pins and free the car and generally when I'm towing the car, I want to use it, so I'm going to unhook it anyway when I park, may as well unhook it before I back in the space (especially since I typically want to back in all the way and put the car in front)
But as you say, different use cases for different people - if you already have or want a truck (or other tow vehicle), a towed RV makes a lot more sense. But I don't want a daily driver that's large enough to be a tow vehicle and it makes no sense to buy a tow vehicle that's only used for towing.
This is an endless debate among RVers, its personal preference.
I can tell you its really nice having the RV be usable down the road for the bathroom and the space.
I tow a 4 door Jeep which is actually much better for getting around and exploring once we are at our destination than a full size truck due it its smaller size and off-road capability.
Hey quick question, what's your goto RV forum/community? Just looking at getting into it this year and planning to rent one about that size for a couple of weeks in August.
Drawback, they are big. Frankly since I don't have a family I'd rather have the truck with the generator and set up my hammock or tent rather than the RV. I can still use the truck as a utility vehicle to do all my hobby projects and use it like I would an RV. With a RV I need another vehicle. (I'm also sure I could rig a solar panel "roof" to the truck for extended trips).
Holy fuck, $174k?!? How well do these hold value and much does it cost to maintain? If it's $30k in the first year, that's approximately the cost of an Airbnb every single night.
You have to remember MSRP on an RV is about 30% higher than you would actually pay, its more like 120k new.
You can definitely build your own, many people do, there is a lot of work put into these thing and yes Winnebago makes a profit to do it for you. They are by no means ripping anyone off, good luck finding a 4x4 sprinter Class B for any less brand new. Good luck finding a 4x4 sprinter shell to convert, they are in demand.
Rebel provides good value if you consider most #VanLifers retrofit their stripped Sprinters with an additional 3,000lbs of plywood and another 200lbs of subway tile backsplash. Have fun with that fuel economy!
There is nothing innovative about working with aluminum. As a technically proficient person with a shop I would be reluctant to make full cabinetry and bed frames out of the material because things are just trickier compared to wood.
Savvy of Winnebago to pivot their decades of experience in making things light to a new generation.
$174k is bonkers for that RV. It's a converted Mercedes Sprinter, which has a list price of about $60k (4x4, diesel, long wheelbase, high roof, with a reasonable set of options).
I find it hard to believe Winneago adds $110k of value to the van.
FWIW, if you want a camper van (and not a full RV), Metris conversions are a solid option. PeaceVans (Seattle) has two nice builds - a weekender (bed, pop top, no kitchen nor bath) or a camper (bed, pop top, kitchen, no bath). About $65k for the former and $85 for the latter. Using one of these (or a 40-year old VW Westfalia) limits you to campsites with toilets (or roughing it a bit). The Weekender build is available through your local M-B dealer (via an official up-fitter arrangement).
That is pretty neat. But at the same time, I have to say that a F150 is a lot smaller than that. Also, having a truck bed is pretty darn useful if you like to build stuff.
I took our 21" class B motorhome to the hardware store and to get groceries today. It works perfectly fine as a daily driver -- it's a van, after all. Sleeps 2, has kitchen, bathroom, shower, ...
Obviously, the above commenter just needs an actual supercarrier... Which is to say, an F-150 with a generator is about as big of a base of operations you can get that mostly fits in a parking spot.
If I'm taking a mobile home or... that thing... somewhere, it's generally a planned event. Whereas my "mobile base of operations" should be something that's always with me during my day-to-day, but also has a significant amount of resources I might need.
Looks nice. I didn't see a price there, but this second-hand smaller one from 2006 is EUR 350k (USD 390k). Might get a second hand boat and plane instead.
You can find ex-military vehicles on eBay for pretty cheap in Europe. The problem is here you will need a C1 or C driving license if the vehicle is over 3500kg (7700lb) so the resale values are quite low. And I don't want to guess how much insurance will be.
I'm not a fan of the "overland" builds based on LMTV and other medium duty truck chassis platforms. They're really the "worst of both worlds". A tiny RV on a mostly shitty off-road platform that gets horrible mileage. I say mostly shitty because they are huge and not nimble and really not suited for anything worse than a rough dirt road. Way too big for actual long distance off-pavement travel in places like Utah, where the corners are tight and trails are narrow. They also tear the crap out of the dirt roads. I'm not a fan.
I drive a Land Rover Defender 110 and camp in the back of it. If I was looking for something for long-term camping, or to take a family, I would just buy fifth wheel trailer and pull it behind my Ram 2500, where I have a reliable and strong Cummins turbo diesel.
I've been living in my converted 26ft (7.8m) bus for 3 years. I know what it's like having a large vehicle. A fifth wheel can't go where I want to go. A Defender is too small for me to live in full time, plus they cost 4-7 times what I paid for my LMTV.
Every option is about trade offs. For my use an LMTV makes sense.
I've heard you just need to register it as an RV (and actually have a permanent box on the back) if you want your LMTV to be registered without the annual commercial fees. Is that not true anymore?
I drive one every day that is owned by my employer and I'm amazed how many people fork over $50,000 plus the higher running costs just to utilize the truck features once or twice a year, if that.
You can rent a truck for a day when you need it and save a lot of money and emissions.
Right. I read somewhere a comment that you can go to Europe and (possibly exaggerated for emphasis) see Audi station wagons towing horse trailers at 100mph on the freeway.
Here, you have someone who might move their single horse from summer pasture to winter pasture, and as a result, thinks that they "have" to have a HD3500 "dually".
There are a few things that contribute to this oddity (never using light vehicles to tow in the US)...
Speed limits. Americans generally refuse to slow down when towing. In most of western Europe, the speed limit is 20mph lower (give or take) when towing. In order to tow at a high speeds while maintaining stability, you need a long wheelbase and mass.
Liability and fear of lawsuits. My 2017 VW Sportwagen is rated to tow 2000lbs in the EU. It isn't rated to tow AT ALL in the US. There are no mechanical differences that would impact the tow rating. If a consumer wants a vehicle rated to tow, they literally can't use a mid-size sedan or wagon in the US (despite the exact same vehicle being able to tow a small travel trailer, horse, or small powerboat without problem).
Volvo never played this game. The tow rating for small sedans in the US is as high as in Europe. While I don't max it out or come even close to the limit, I hauled plenty of loads with a small S60 and a Featherlite aluminium trailer.
It's been a few years since I last looked into it, but my recollection is that in Europe (or at least the UK) it is normal to balance the trailer to put less tongue weight on the hitch, which means you can tow a heavier trailer but have less stability at highway speeds (which they compensate for by having lower speed limits when towing). In the US typical trailer loading guidelines recommend putting more of the weight forward of the axle(s) for more tongue weight, which usually means the trailer will not sway even at speeds in excess of what the trailer tires are rated for.
In practice, a vehicle's safe towing capacity is usually not limited by the engine or drivetrain, but by the ability to stop the trailer safely. Brakes on the trailer itself help, but the big problem is that hard braking shifts more weight forward onto the hitch (trailer dive) and tends to lever the front wheels of the tow vehicle up, reducing their braking ability and in extreme cases eliminates your ability to steer while braking. A weight-distributing hitch counteracts this, but in the US light passenger vehicles are seldom rated for use with such a hitch. Towing at a lower speed also somewhat reduces this danger, by quadratically reducing the kinetic energy you need to shed in an emergency stop.
Not using your vehicles to the limit of it's capacity is one of the ways your signal that you're upper middle class.
Think of the stereotypes that plywood falling out of the bed of a 2010 Tacoma evokes vs the stereotypes that plywood strapped to the roof of a 2010 Crown Victoria evokes.
All countries in Europe except Germany have a general speed limit, most around 80mph. Towing a trailer has even lower speed limits, for example in Germany the max legal speed while towing a trailer of any size is 50mph, even on the Autobahn.
This in combination with beefier rear frames on euro car models (and no truck sales this would cannibalize) results in a higher towing capacity rating. It is much more common to have a utility trailer for the 3-4 times a year you would need it.
In reality people go up to 60-65mph with a decent trailer, that is about 100km/h.
I’ve been overtaken by a horsetailer doing a bit over 100mph. I do believe it was a Porsche suv doing the pulling tho. This was in Denmark.
Back when I was young and reckless my old Peugeot sedan was pretty stable doing around that speed with a flatbed dual axle trailer.
The horse trailer probably didn't contain a horse at the time. They're very useful for hauling all sorts of things, most of which are lighter than horses.
Buying anything other than a minimal sedan, minivan, or small suv goes beyond practicality and into emotionality for most people. I don't see a big difference between owning a uselessly oversized truck, a luxury sedan, or a sports car. They are all bad for your wallet, and bad for the environment. I think that trucks are exceptional because people who can't afford them convince themselves that they "need" them.
I just bought one for offroad travel on weekends and maybe some overlanding. It’s completely impossible to rent a capable offroad rig for multi day trips and buying one is really the only option.
The space thing is why I've always punted and bought full sized vans. Downside very limited availability of AWD or 4X4 vans in the US. Yes you can pay through the nose for an after market one.
I went the full size truck route because of the offroad capabilities and the ability to transport things in the bed (with shell) that you wouldn’t necessarily want in the cabin: second battery, porta potty, propane tank, jerry cans, fridge, ...
The week after I bought my odyssey I stuffed a 1500 pound playset into it and took it home. Huge cargo space. We've beaten the crap out of it for 7 years without a single hiccup. Still in great shape.
I had a coworker who daily drove a dodge caravan. If anyone gave him crap about it, this was pretty much the answer he gave. He was especially proud that a full size sheet of plywood could lay flat in the back.
Environmental issues are one thing, your own situation, needs, comfort and enjoyment are other factors.
Individually it won't make much of a difference, if it's about climate change or CO2 reduction you need a national plan and billions of investments in e.g. getting rid of coal power or discouraging energy waste on e.g. bitcoin.
Let's just say opinions differ here. I'm very much not in love with the idea of everyone driving around in massive cars. They take up huge amounts of space, belch out pollution, and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions.
I hate SUVs with passion. Here in Europe, for long time we basically didn't have any (unless you really go to rough terrain, which 95% of SUVs here never do). Apart from football stars, eastern mafia guys and soccer moms.
It became kind of fashion thingie for those who don't understand cars, or basic physics. Soccer moms love them, since they often don't have good driving skills, it puts them higher so they have better overview of the road (while blocking any view of those behind). Pollution, higher maintenance costs, much higher danger of car rolling during accident (and break your neck) be damned.
Then there is category of these tiny 'SUV' (I think proper term is crossover), which are just bigger shopping carts, being a higher above ground. So from driving perspective, the worst combination - small, badly maneuverable car.
We still have big wagons for those who are numerous / carry around a lot of things. These I prefer - they drive well, trunk space is enormous. Compared to most SUV which look big on the outside, but not so much inside.
I dislike them too. You didn't mention that they also mostly diesel in Europe too. But I'm actually considering buying one (a petrol one).
For a start, SUVs don't go off road. They are road vehicles. We had off-roaders for a long time in the form of Land Rovers etc. We called them 4x4s and they weren't really comfortable to drive on the road.
I like the idea of having the right vehicle for the right purpose. If I had to travel to work by car (which I've done before and don't want to do again), I would like to drive a Mercedes "Smart" or VW Up, or similar. These are crap, consumable, plastic cars, but they do the job just fine. For the weekends? A sports car or hot hatch would be fun. For long trips and camping? An SUV would be great.
SUVs and the much higher number of HGVs now also tear up the roads, which isn't great for your sports car. You'll have a better chance in an SUV yourself. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The problem is that, in the UK at least, it's really only possible to run one car for various reasons (even if you could afford the depreciation on multiple cars). So the SUV becomes the default. Also I just want a reliable car. I don't want it to be a project and constant worry that my investment is going to fall apart. That means Honda or Toyota. But if I have to choose between the regular hatchback or SUV, I might as well go SUV because it will be more fun. There's the Civic Type-R. I owned one, but I don't really want one of the newer ones (I don't need 300+ bhp in a hatchback).
I've seen plenty of people assuming SUVs are off-roaders just because they tend to have similar shape and proportions, or some form of 4/all wheel drive that's in no way comparable to true off-road vehicles. The second confusion is that every car that seems a bit "bulged" is called a SUV in Europe. Even small CUVs like the Volvo X40 or Mazda CX-3. The fact that they are also called "crossover SUV" or CSUV definitely doesn't help anyone.
Unfortunately most people can't afford the "right vehicle for right purpose" approach they they pick the compromise that will be sort of a jack of all trades and master of none but cover pretty much all the needs. This comes with some drawbacks (larger outside dimensions, larger fuel consumption, less maneuverable, etc.) and some advantages (larger inside dimensions, more likely to fare better in a crash due to the added weight and ride height).
Normally I'd say that if you have a specific driving need only 1% of the time, rent rather than try to tack the feature onto your car's requirements. There's no point in driving around with those drawbacks 99% of the time for that 1% when you drive with the advantage. But something like the safety advantage is there all the time, unless the manufacturer really screwed up someplace else.
The biggest problem and misunderstanding lies with the CUV/CSUV segment. They are somehow viewed as "SUVs" but actually have almost all the disadvantages of a SUV with almost none of the advantages. Compared to the equivalent hatchback they sport a slightly larger body that increases drag and fuel consumption, and decreases maneuverability, bigger wheels and raised axles that just eat up more interior space, and probably have little to no safety benefit because the added weight contributes almost nothing to this (a Mercedes GLA weighs ~100Kg more than a normal A-class hatchback).
So what do you use to bring your two softball playing girls to an 11 game weekend tournament? That you’re also coaching. And providing hydration for. And shade. And chairs, food, etc. Plus your wife and your 7 year old son. What do you use to take the same crew camping for 4-7 days at a time? I use the ever loving shit out of my vehicles. Keep that euro centric view of “not using big things” in Europe. Thanks!
I mean... a car? You aren't giving some outlandish requirements, all that stuff/passengers could fit into my compact sedan. I might need to get a roof rack for a trip, but that is much less costly than the massive difference in cost between buying/maintaining/operating/insuring an SUV vs a car.
Growing up my family of five were able to comfortably fit all of us plus any luggage/gear in an early 80s subcompact hatchback.
Cars can have trailers, roof racks, and people can rent large cars for the short duration they need them. Breathless one-upmanship aside it’s not unreasonable to go to places with water, or for multiple people to bring water.
Could buy a lot of those for the price of an SUV, especially sharing the price between all the people.
Inb4 the tournament is held on a remote mountain top inaccessible to tankers and hatchbacks alike and only accessible to 4x4s so there’s literally no other choice.
Reading that again I think our definitions are different. If you can pack for 3 weeks in the mountains in a VW Golf I’m honestly impressed. I have a feeling you rely on stores and dining out. I’m talking about what is now called “off grid camping”, what used to just be called “camping”. Yes, when I was 14 I could go into the Ozarks after school on Friday with just my brothers and our packs on our backs and make it until Sunday evening. Now I’m old and have the aches and pains of age, so I need more gear.
We used to do three weeks “off-grid” camping with a Volvo, no problem (assuming a roofrack as well for the tent). Nowadays we could probably do it without the roofrack as tents are considerably lighter than they used to be.
I've never done three weeks in the woods, but when my friends an I do one week "off grid" camping trips we are 4-5 adults plus food and gear per car (and none of my friends own anything larger than a midsize). We try to keep it 4 to a car for comfort, but we'd rather have a car of five than take an extra car.
> and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions
I rammed into the back of an Uber Cadillac SUV (who had hit someone in front of them) on the highway doing about ~50-60km/hr upon collision and my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch.
This almost makes me want an SUV rather than not. But I get what you're saying.
It's like wearing masks during COVID, it mainly only prevents you from getting others sick, not the other way around... but that's half the battle.
Cars are literally designed to collapse in a crash. It's what the crumple zones are for. The passenger compartment is a protected space and the rest of the car collapses to absorb as much energy as possible. This means that the accelerations experienced by the occupants are less, reducing the chance of serious injury.
Typical SUVs (excluding more modern car-chassis based ones) use body on frame construction - the chassis of the car is a big and heavy steel ladder. It doesn't have the same crash performance - even though it may look less damaged, the accelerations experienced by the passengers are greater.
That only really works for vehicles of sufficient mass. Physics means the mass of a large engine needs a lot of force to move around quickly in a collision. So car vs motorcycle or full sized SUV vs a Supermini doesn’t work that well.
> my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch.
SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of efficiency (fuel, space), and damage to other "softer" traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, smaller cars).
This effect is exaggerated by the fact that when braking or hitting something all cars lean forward and the nose goes down. So a small car crashing into the back of a SUV when both are braking (or the SUV just impacted someone in front) will definitely slide under the SUV and see a lot of damage. Also the back of a car is not designed to crumple as much as the front so it will see a lot less damage.
And because I see a wave of downvotes without an actual counter-argument, I will leave this here [0] and quote the essential:
> Research by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that drivers and passengers in a hybrid are 25% less likely to be injured than those in the same model with a standard gasoline engine. And the death rate for drivers in hybrid crashes also was lower. The hybrid advantage is all about weight, it turns out.
Putting 2 and 2 together, between cars built to the same safety standards and level of quality, the heavier one is safer. I though this would be obvious for the technical crowd, especially the ones willing to get past reading just the first half a sentence from a comment.
They can be relatively safer in multi-vehicle collisions (importantly, that remains the case whether you're comparing 3 vs 2.25 ton vehicles or, e.g. 2 vs 1.5 ton -- you're not objectively safer, but you are safer in the current metagame at the cost of killing more people who aren't you).
In single-vehicle collisions against approximately immovable objects (trees, barriers, etc) though, that mass is no longer an advantage, and if the crumple zone doesn't function as well because of the frame design in a larger vehicle then you'll be worse off.
It's probably also worth mentioning that heavier vehicles tend to be more susceptible to rollover. More importantly, traction scales sub-linearly with vehicle weight, so stopping distance, the ability to not slide off a curve, and whatnot all have reduced performance. That increase in the chance of an accident matters.
It might be the case that most accidents are completely unavoidable multi-vehicle collisions where one would want to optimize with a heavy, sturdy vehicle. That's a bit of a different argument from just pointing out that heavier vehicles suffer lower acceleration when colliding with lighter vehicles.
This is why I never understood the concept of "transportation as service" replacing privately owned vehicles. Sure a ride hailing service can work well enough for single urbanites to get around in a dense city. But when I go somewhere it's super helpful to have my own car as a secure storage area. And I want to leave a bunch of stuff permanently in my car so it's always available rather than wasting time loading and unloading a rental car for every trip.
This is true for me if I’m going to the park or camping or something like that, but for a typical day at the office or shopping, I don’t really need to be carrying around a carload of stuff.
There are many small conveniences that come from having a personally owned vehicle, but I would ecstatically spend an hour or two loading/unloading my car every couple weeks when I go on a trip as long as it meant I didn’t have to sit in traffic for hours every morning because everyone wants to have their own personal aircraft carrier sitting outside their office for whatever reason.
Thats exactly the struggle I choose to grapple with as a carless city person. 99% of my day-to-day, my bicycle and/or my backpack and feet are all I need and I love it.
But the car industry at large is so invested in this car-as-sanctuary idea that jumping into a random rental is often a frustrating experience. Pairing a phone for navigation or audio is a whole big thing. Finding a place that can rent a companion bike rack or other accessory like that for an outdoor trip is difficult, and supplying your own is usually forbidden - if you even feel comfortable betting on a generic enough model. Those 1% of activities where I really benefit from a car can be really difficult without the aid of a friend who owns their own personal vehicle, and it feels like that is by design a lot of the time.
My hope is that the proliferation of “transportation as a service” will eventually get to the point where all of those frictions you mentioned will be alleviated. If we stop treating cars like a personal sanctuary like you mentioned, perhaps we will get more focus on things like painlessly connecting your phone to a new vehicle at the tap of a button or making bike racks more commonplace.
One really difficult problem to solve is child car seats. That’s definitely no item you want to take to the museum and then just install in the next car for the drive home. My family did a few city trips where we wanted to use Uber to get around and it was a very frustrating experience.
I'm not sure it's by "design" so much as catering to very specialized tastes is difficult/expensive. Add to that, the sort of people wanting "outdoor trip" vehicles are probably going to stress those vehicles a lot more than the person renting a car to drive 30 miles from the airport and back.
There's a reason renting Jeeps in Death Valley is something like $200/day--assuming you have your own insurance that will actually cover how you intend to use it.
With subways like BART allowing bicycles, going around traffic jams and being economical and somewhat social, basically cars, taxis/Uber and public transit are fundamentally different services that strongly overlap.
Which means no one is going to be happy eliminating any of these and that makes it even harder for any self-driving taxi system since it would have to indefinitely navigate human filled roads and would add-to, not replace, all the traffic that exists now, threatening considerable congestion.
I think its an understated idea that for many people vehicles are a lot like mobile living rooms, except they're more private and can be attuned directly to whatever environment you want. Loud music, no sound, hot cold, etc. Its like a blanket fort. And for some, its by far the nicest "space" they have.
>I think its an understated idea that for many people vehicles are a lot like mobile living rooms
Ha! Part of my family owns an auto shop that I used to work at many years ago. I always thought of vehicles as "mobile trash cans" as it is actually quite common for us to be working on a car that has garbage that is level with both front and back seats. Even sometimes with trucks/vans, only with the higher seats that means the garbage is 2 ft deep. Perhaps it is just like their "living room".
The irony is we don't really mind these customers. They are not the ones that try to sue us for getting grease on their seats or scratching their windows. Yes we actually had someone complain that we scratched their window, as if our mechanics just walk around with diamond tipped drill bits putting .5" scratches on random glass.
My experience with people with dirty cars - they tend to use them only as transportation. Their living room isn't necessarily nearly as dirty (though just about NEVER clean). But their bathrooms are horrendous. Never use the bathroom of someone with a dirty car.
You can tell what possessions are part of a person's identity by how they maintain them.
I'm always confused when I see cars with a bunch of expensive non-functional aftermarket accessories on their car. Like, why would you spend money on that? Then I remember that for me, my car isn't really part of my "self", but for others it is.
When I worked on the USS Carl Vinson we used to discuss what it would be like in some post apocalyptic scenario where we were left on the ship. We didn't like the idea. Of course, while the ship could have power and fresh water for years, the aircraft couldn't operate long without more fuel and the people on board would run out of food pretty quickly.
Presumably, with power and fresh water, the flight deck could be converted into a rather sizable garden. It even has access to sunlight and protection from pests.
>> When I worked on the USS Carl Vinson we used to discuss what it would be like in some post apocalyptic scenario where we were left on the ship. We didn't like the idea. Of course, while the ship could have power and fresh water for years, the aircraft couldn't operate long without more fuel and the people on board would run out of food pretty quickly.
> Presumably, with power and fresh water, the flight deck could be converted into a rather sizable garden. It even has access to sunlight and protection from pests.
You'd need dirt too, and lots of it.
In such a scenario, it'd probably most practical just to anchor or dock the ship somewhere safe near land, and use its facilities to jump-start a settlement. I'm guessing with the maintenance possible in such a scenario, all the ship's systems would break down within a decade or so (and it'd need to be refueled with enriched uranium at about that point, too), so you really wouldn't want to stay dependent on it for too long.
I thought you can (with Toyota?). As long as you do not drive it that much. But aircraft carrier need not just fluid. Well if you persevere a bit can the nuclear plant just do thing important whilst the ship is parked somewhere.
I think that analogy is a bit of an exaggeration, gardens can be surprisingly space efficient if you plan well. It might still be too little for the whole crew, but it'd feed a lot of people for sure.
From a calorie perspective I don't think that's true. If you grow all potatoes which are one of the more efficient calorie/acre crop you have approximately: 90 days for 1 crop at ~15e6 kcal/acre. Nimitz class aircraft carrier has a surface area of ~1 acre and a crew of about 6000 people requiring ~10.8e6 kcal per day. So after 90 days of growing potatoes you would have about one days worth of food, or enough to feed ~66 people continuously. Of course you could always fish...
I don't imagine fishing is great right next to an aircraft carrier, what with propellers and sonar and all that fun stuff making noise in the water and scaring fish away?
Fishing from a boat is actually really easy. The hull is quite rich in small crustaceans and flora. This attracts bait fish, which attracts larger fish. A carrier at anchor bunkering would have all sorts of animals swimming around.
I like that idea too. I just wish it didn’t involve belching fossil fuel emissions. More and more, the exhaust smells really ruin any fun or use of vehicles for me. The shelter in place period that dropped the number of cars driving by my house and thus improved air quality really underscored how much pollution there is around me.
>More and more, the exhaust smells really ruin any fun or use of vehicles for me.
What vehicles are you driving/living by? Vehicles made in the past 10 years have virtually no smell once the engines are warmed up unless something's wrong with the catalytic converter.
I agree most gas powered vehicles are basically odorless and have low impact on the air that is noticeable to a human.
However, even a single diesel vehicle can make the air in a half-block radius harder to breathe for minutes after it passes, even relatively recent ones. It is really shocking to me that such vehicles are legal, even if only by grandfathering in. Maybe I'm uniquely sensitive to them or something.
Even worse, companies actively seek them out because they are super reliable and will run for up to a million miles or more. In principle you are not allowed to make any more but there are companies selling "glider kits" that are basically an engineless truck that you can drop your old engine into.
Ancient diesels or newer “deleted” diesels - all floored for maximum exhaust it seems. Also just other big vehicles. Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc.
But even the fumes from my hybrid are a noticeable bummer if I’m out of the vehicle.
I can tell you didn't grow up during the 70's, with leaded gas and carburetors that dumped raw fuel out the tailpipe. In comparison, today's cars emit practically nothing but water. (there's room for improvement of course - but I see that as being an EV once they get to a half-day's driving range)
I once made a pickup like this for a big camping road trip by putting 100W of solar panels on the canopy roof rails of a 1990s truck. An extra car battery went in the back, and it worked fantastically.
I could keep all of my stuff charged while camping, which let me stick around longer in the forests and parks. And it could buffer enough energy to keep a Switch or laptop charged for the occasional stretch of inclement weather.
Of course, 100W of panels did not generate enough power to run climate control or a refrigerator, but compared to a traditional generator, I thought the silence was worth that tradeoff.
Putting a beefier and smarter generator in passenger cars makes a ton of sense. There's already an alternator anyways, which my '90s donor car manual actually refers to as a "generator". And I think the newer Prius cars, at least the V models, can run climate control off the battery and automatically turn on the engine to recharge it when necessary.
Also, this trend might make thickly-settled campgrounds more palatable. It would be nice if they didn't always turn into a susurration of ancient sputtering generators at sunset.
Oh, and the idea of using the outlets to charge electric dirt bikes? Now that is exciting.
>If warfare suddenly disappeared, you’ve got these mobile bases you can anchor off the coast of a disaster zone with massive capabilities for logistics, a nuclear power plant, water purifier, hospital, machine shops, etc. Etc.
I wasn't on a supercarrier but I did render humanitarian aid in Indonesia from an LHD. This is absolutely one of the missions these ships are capable of.
Yes I worded that poorly. Because even today a lot of these ships undertake these kinds of missions.
But imagine if you could retool these ships with a singular primary goal of disaster relief. Imagine if every carrier group was some internationally funded disaster response team.
100%. My car is completely equipped for the vast majority of unexpected scenarios that I could plausibly run into while going about my life. Impromptu road trip? Check. Camping? Check. Got held up in the middle of nowhere and need a meal? Check.
This isn’t just idle fantasizing; I actually use these capabilities all the time. It’s hard to imagine how much flexibility a well-equipped vehicle gives you when you’re living in a dense urban center without a car (which is how I often live a few years at a time).
And, of course, having a high-quality SUV makes the logistics of my equipment-heavy interests way easier. I often have to lug around scuba gear, ski gear, big rifles, power tools, etc., and often on extremely shitty roads (muddy, potholed, iced, you name it). This would be completely infeasible with a non-“aircraft carrier” commuter vehicle.
If you haven't read it already, you might enjoy the Culture series[1] by Iain Banks. It's sci-fi about a Culture of humanoids that have effectively mastered the galaxy, and they have GSVs (General Systems Vehicles) which are huge spaceships that effectively carry all of the Culture's knowledge and manufacturing capability with them wherever they go.
As an additional side note, many of the spaceships in the series are sentient and have interesting names, two of which SpaceX used to name their own drone ships.
#vanlife is this idea. The generator here is total overkill for most daily needs - you can get diesel/propane powered appliances that work better. The application for this generator is powertools, where you do need high electric power. Most electric devices like computers, lighting, are really efficient today and you can get by on just a single deep cycle battery.
I actually don't think solar panels are really needed today unless you're doing stationary vanlife, like setting up an aid camp in Africa. It's just so much simpler to charge your battery from your alternator while you drive.
I wonder if it is worth it to the world for the extra space, air pollution, micro particles that you take into beautiful and populated environments. But as long as your happy I guess, who cares about that?
That is what the USAs aircraft carrier have predominantly been used for in recent memory.
Anyway, me weekend vehicle is a VW T5 Transporter and you can pry it’s dirt spewing 2.5L turbo diesel from my cold. dead. hands. It’s a massive piece of shit with regard to anything bolted to the engine, like the whole rest of the car, but it handles like a dream and uses fuckall diesel.
I’ve owned vans for two decades now. There’s no going back.
I wonder if you could use it to power your house during an outage, given pg&e was trigger happy with turning off northern California's power last year this could be a great use case.
You could use it power a house the same way you can with any generator - using a double male end extension cord.
The reason you can't find such a cord at Home Depot is that it's dangerous and a generator should only be connected to a home electrical panel through a transfer switch that prevents paralleling it with the utility supply.
It would also be more economical to install a stationary generator or battery system for emergency power.
You probably know this but for others: doing this is a great way to kill linesmen who are trying to repair your local outages. It’s often illegal for the above reasons.
You need a few things to go wrong in order to kill a lineman.
The load of the neighborhood looks a lot like a short to your generator. The lineman should be grounding the line because the power company and other linemen kill linemen by energizing things much more often than homeowners kill linemen and he wants to avoid that. Even just momentarily grounding the line shorts your generator. Most linemen are going to assume the line is hot (it often is) and work accordingly so either your genset breaker will flip when your generator tries to power the rest of the grid or you'll break something when the grid forces your generator to instantly synchronize with it.
There was a big thread on a popular VS owned forum that shall remain nameless and they were able to find two instances in North America of linemen being killed by back feeds and one of the stories didn't conclusively say the death was caused by a generator back-feeding the grid.
Yeah you should use a proper transfer switch but it's not nearly as risky as internet commenters make it out to be. The real reason to use a transfer switch is so that the system is stupid proof enough that you can make a different member of your household go plug in the generator when the power goes out in the middle of a hurricane.
Many things in electrical and building codes aren't that risky to break one at a time, but they all contribute to safety by eliminating possible hazards.
You're right that temporary protective grounding protects power workers from inadvertent energization, but that is primarily to protect from sources of hazardous energy that can't be isolated (like lightning or induction from parallel lines). Temporary grounding can fail too (improper application, bad jumper, an accident severs the earth connection after the job begins, etc) so we provide multiple levels of protection instead of relying on just one thing to keep people safe.
Electrical systems need to be stupid proof because although you might be smart, the next person who comes along won't be. I agree that improper use of a home generator is unlikely to injure someone, but the job as electrical engineers is to think of unlikely but hazardous things and prevent them from happening.
definitely. I just helped my parents get a Honda 2200 working at their home in Northern California in anticipation of the PG&E blackouts. We tested it out and it can power certain things together, but not an entire house. The 2200 Watt generator was able to power a fridge/freezer + some electronics, which is enough to get by for a couple days.
Unfortunately all that engineering talent is wasted designing ever more wasteful vehicles that are ruining the environment. Kind of like loads of CS engineering talent is wasted improving insidious ad technology that is ruining society.
Take a look at the innovation in the manufactured/modular home space. The quality/price ratio has been improving tremendously. Even for site-built homes, using things like prebuilt trusses is an improvement.
Even the 5+1 apartments that are disliked for their uniform aesthetics are a big step up on quality/price than the approaches of decades past.
There are manufacturers such as Huf Haus that make very high quality (luxury) prefabricated homes[1]. They feature all the modern fittings you could want, and they are installed in the factory not on site. There was an episode of Grand Designs which featured a Huf Haus[2], it was constructed in a week on a concrete slab.
I have been expecting Honda to do something like this for ages. They seem to have the technology, but I guess they don't have the demographic.
Interesting that Ford is coming out with a truck with a power supply so closely after Tesla's. Too close I suspect for it to be a copy-cat move. Which leaves 'great minds think alike' and 'someone got tipped off.'
Sort of. Honda doesn't really make any trucks designed for commercial use, which I suspect is the market Ford is talking about when they mention the stats about their customers carrying generators.
Yeah, this kinda makes me want an F-150. Though I'd really like a more conventional SUV form factor with this generator in it. I generally keep my car stocked with a tool bag, emergency supplies, etc. such that in most cases, if I'm in proximity to my car, I have everything I might need. Add a generator and I'm golden.
I agree with others: I love this feature, but I wonder if most people need the level of power being offered vs. an inverter that can do 400W or so.
Having a "second aux battery" would be a nice factory option, so you don't worry about draining the starter. There are mods you can do to vehicles to make this work.
In the case of the F-150, it seems Ford has the numbers to back up that a lot of people would otherwise literally lug generators around with them. For the construction market, I absolutely suspect this feature will be well-used.
I'd like it in an SUV, and I'm willing to bet if offered, folks would jump on it, but I agree it's a lot less likely it'd be heavily used.
Re: Adding another battery, I've considered (and done some napkin math) adding solar panels and a second battery to my car to power the computer I run onboard. But it's something I don't have the time or money to play with right now.
Ford is clearly aiming at their fleet customers with this feature -- they're the ones hauling 5000 watt generators around. Fleet sales are a particularly profitable segment for Ford, they want to attract those customers more than your average Joe off the street.
In my kit I also have six basic towels. The kind you get at the gym. I’ll give about one away per year for assorted things. I know this is a meme but honestly, bring a towel.
You can add a 1kw inverter to any car, the 12w system will handle it just fine though not indefinitely. There's a really simple formula you need to know.
P=UI
P=Power
U=Voltage
I=Current
Get the specs of you generator and you can see how much you can sustain while your engine is running. The inverters do usually create a square voltage "wave" rather than a good sine one, but it has never been a problem in my experience.
Agreed, and Cybertruck for the win. All the benefit of a pickup, with a big back seat and enclosed storage - with a multitude of power sourcing options (including just parked in sun, if the solar cover becomes a thing).
> multitude of power sourcing options (including just parked in sun, if the solar cover becomes a thing).
Under good conditions and direct sunlight, the total power that reaches the earth's surface is about 1000 watts per square meter. The best (commercialized) solar panels right now top out right around 20% efficiency. Ignoring losses due to conversion, you're looking at about 200 watts tops.
Over an entire day of ideal summer conditions you'll maybe get enough power out of it to make a quick pot of coffee.
The main difference is that there is a 95+% probability that Ford will manufacture between 500,000 and 1,000,000 of their trucks over the next year. If you want one, you will most definitely be able to get one.
I like the idea too but, alas, with this many people on the planet it is just not possible to have each family with their own personal aircraft carrier. Also cars are just not built to last. They are consumables and maintaining one for any length of time is significantly more difficult than a building.
Because of a growing family I bought a van recently. I thought I would hate it because of it's size but I actually love it. It's like driving a fortress around. Third row folds down so it's also like a cargo van. I don't think I could go back to a small sedan.
I've been saying for years that vehicles, in general, aren't keeping up with new electrical demands placed upon their 12 volt battery systems. Safety systems, LTE connections, HUDs, charging, even literal built in fridges and vacuums.
For example my 2016 vehicle, left undriven, will completely drain the battery after just two weeks thanks to a timed flush and an always on LTE connection. Plus it refuses to run the alternator on any road slower than 35 MpH, even if the battery is almost depleted. Even while idle at a traffic light, it would rather just waste the energy than charge the battery.
So this sounds fantastic, I'm just glad they're thinking about electrical power AT ALL.
> The generator system is completely separated from the rest of the vehicle's electrical system, adding a layer of safety and ensuring that any Pro Power system problems will not impact the drivability of the truck.
This is a double edge sword though. While obviously you don't want your tools draining your starter battery, it also means that any issue with your starter battery cannot be immediately resolved by the two additional 12-volts you already have (at least without tools to physically move them).
Essentially you could get left stranded, even while having a completely working 24-volt system. So while the goal is admirable, being able to jump the vehicle from 24-volt would have been a function I would have wanted.
Manufacturers have wanted to move to a 24V (or higher) system for at least a decade. They just haven't agreed on how to do it. Jump-starts work because everyone is on 12V, and while there are various solutions to that, there just hasn't been a convergence on a single solution yet.
Jump starts have always been a crappy approach IMO. I think a small hand-cranked generator into a decently-sized supercapacitor could be a much better way to kick over a motor. I feel like you could get a reasonable jump start with just a minute or so of cranking. Certainly faster than waiting for someone to find their jumper cables or drive out to assist you.
Keep in mind that this is already sort of a thing for cars with manual transmissions. In this case, the proposed supercapacitor is replaced by the kinetic energy you are pushing into the car.
According to a google an average car might take ~9000 joules to start. Also according to google, an average hand crank only puts out about 15 watts. So you might be cranking for at least 10 minutes.
If you could convert gravitational potential energy into charged battery energy at 50% efficiency, you would need to raise something weighing 2000 lbs to a height of 6'6". Your own car maybe? You could have tripod legs that deploy from the side of your car, allowing you to winch it up that amount, and then to start it you just drop the car.
You've really only got to fire one plug one time to start a car that's in a fundamentally startable condition. A battery that doesn't have enough juice to turn a starter motor (which requires a lot of amps) often still has more than enough to fire the plugs if you can turn the engine over some other way.
Several times in my life I've had to roll-start a (manual) car with some regularity[0]. You don't have to getting it going to even a brisk walking pace if it's a small (< 2 liter) four cylinder engine. If you clutch out and back in pretty quickly, it'll start if it'll fire. If the battery is too dead to run the ECU and/or plugs, you're pretty well dicked unless you can find somebody to jump you.
Now, neither of these applies to an F-150, since you can't get one with either a manual or a four-banger, but practical experience indicates that for at least some cars, it's got to take less than 9000 joules to start the engine.
In rough numbers, if you have a 1500 kg car moving 1 m/sec, you've only got 750 joules to work with. In all cases, I wasn't trying to do this in the dead of winter.
[0] On 2 different cars:
1) I left the headlights on two days in a row and discharged the battery pretty deeply. I got it back after a couple days of driving my short commute.
2) I had an intermittently bad connection between the battery lug and the wire running to the starter motor. I finally figured it out after it did it at night and I could see the sparks with the hood open. That was after 2 or 3 months of bump-starting the car at least once a week :-)
4-cyl engines are easy enough to start with a hand crank off the crankshaft. Standard starting procedure for a long time, really. My first car had one, and it was made in 1963.
Won't work on the hulking mammoth engines of a modern F-150, but maybe a step down ratio maybe 1:4 (and a bicycle) and it could work.
Or a small lithium battery to supply the necessary current which is already a thing you can buy on Amazon for $80 and will start any vehicle short of an excavator.
To agree with this some, the super-capacitor jump starters should definitely change the necessity of jump starting, as they provide more amps closer than 6' cables.
Unfortunately, education is lacking; my father is an example that kept jump starting even when he had a super capacitor jumper.
With all the engineering needed to redesign the system, it could easily be configured in a way to prevent situations where there was not enough battery to start the motor. Battery guards are popular in boats [1]. Some systems already integrate reserve starter batteries that can only be discharged by the starter.
I would like to know if putting my Mazda in Park at a traffic light and revving the engine to 2000 rpm charges the battery. Same question for city driving in "sport" mode (2000 rpm at 30mph). I'm guessing it should work, but I could also just be wasting gas.
Measure the voltage at the 12V accessory socket. If the alternator is running it'll be somewhere in the 13.5 - 14V range. If it's just the battery, it'll be more like 12-12.5V.
There's a 12v pin in the OBD2 socket to power whatever OBD2 reader or Bluetooth dongle you have plugged into it so you can use that to read the system voltage for the vehicle.
For my and others' future reference, here's a random video of how to do this with an obd2 port, as suggested by a child comment: https://youtu.be/dDY2lMMrpLU This may or may not be more convenient than the accessory socket.
I upgraded the battery from factory to a larger capacity, hybrid deep cycle, and that has increased idle discharge time by a couple of additional weeks.
So a low quality OEM battery compounded the issue, but either way the electrical system leaves a lot to be desired.
Cripes, that would help explain why I had to jump my ‘16 Outback three times during early shelter-in-place orders after sitting for long periods with very little use. I just blamed it on a crappy OEM battery (which I suppose is partially to blame), but I didn’t know about the alternator situation.
The guy there didn't even realize they sold a correctly sized one for Subaru Outbacks, because they're typically for e.g. larger pickups or similar.
For $50 more, you're getting a much nicer battery: AGM internal structure, higher reserve capacity, higher CCA, better durability, some deep cycle properties (i.e. it can get drained down lower without damage), and so on.
I mean it is 10 lbs heavier, while fitting into the same physical space, that's the AGM structure within the battery. The new battery has been great, but the alternator is still not kicking on until freeway driving.
> it refuses to run the alternator on any road slower than 35 MpH
I noticed this in my 2017 Subaru Outback when I went to jump my wife's car. The car was running, but the battery voltage was only sitting at 12.6v or so. I'm used to a battery putting out 14v or so when the vehicle is running. The extra voltage seems to help a lot when jumping another vehicle. I understand why they did it, but it seems odd. Perhaps it's why my battery died after 3 years, when most others I've had last close to 5.
This. There are some features I decided to turn off in my car or the battery would just die every time. 70 amp hour batteries used to be way more than enough, but cars today have unbelievable battery draw that manufacturers have not taken into account -- heck my parking brake of all things is power driven. All the battery draw leaves little for cranking up.
After I got my license as a teenager my first vehicle was an old Ford cargo van. I installed a 1200W inverter and an extra battery, through a low voltage disconnect to avoid accidentally draining the main car battery. Designed a bracket for it, carefully cut out all the metal bits with a cutoff disc on a cheap tablesaw, took it to a local autoshop and begged them to spot weld it together for me. Got home and realized it was assembled backwards (d'oh!). More work with the tablesaw and some bolts. Went a little overkill on wire gauge the size of my thumb to connect it all (it was fun to fish that under the rockers).
It worked great - I could easily run handtools like hammer drills (this was before they came with batteries) and even managed to power that tablesaw. Toward the end of highschool we built a bunch of theatre sets in the parking lot running off it.
Girls got a kick out of making hot chocolate while we were out in the country stargazing, and loved being able to plug in a hairdryer.
As the van got older and crankier, it was handy being able to flip on the second battery to give it some extra starting juice on cold winter mornings (-35°C).
I did wear out an alternator prematurely but the replacement one lasted the remaining life of the vehicle.
I wasn't planning to buy a new truck but this feature could actually draw me in.
You could run an entire house off this thing for a non-trivial amount of time. 7.2 Kw is plenty of power to crank over my 5 ton heat pump and whatever other relatively insignificant things I might be running at the same time.
I would say Ford should develop some emergency home power kit, but all you would really need to do is have a transfer switch and a panel installed for accepting the 220v plug. None of that is proprietary and could be installed by any licensed electrician.
It isn't mentioned but even 80% of that power would be enough to continuously run even the largest residential heat pump after its various rotors come up to speed. You just need a few hundred milliseconds of face melting power to overcome the locked-rotor amperage.
The way this is being marketed leads me to believe they have engineered it for fairly extreme use cases. Specifically, the mention of air compressors (i.e. a heavy reactive load) gives me confidence that this can handle other similar devices.
Yeah, the air compressor got my attention too, but a little 1.5hp pump isn't a big deal. Surely no one's going to plug in their old full size piston pump and try to keep up with a plasma cutter and a die grinder, right?
I do expect the duty cycle's going to end up on the high end of the scale for consumer level generators if it's on Ford's warranty liability. 80% would be awesome, anything under 60% is going to be a headache for everyone.
> Surely no one's going to plug in their old full size piston pump and try to keep up with a plasma cutter and a die grinder, right?
Ford is advertising that you can literally do this on the 7.2kW version. It remains to be seen if the marketing folks are talking out of their ass or not.
I expect it's continuous. It probably uses the engine's own cooling system for heat management, and I'm sure it will auto-throttle the engine based on load.
Totally thought the same thing. I would love tying this to a breakout generator fuse box for the house. Even the 2.2 kW is enough to power the house for emergency reasons. The nice thing is that you don't have to worry (as much) about someone stealing your car instead of a generator in emergency situations.
Yeah, I do this with my Kubota L4760 and a PTO generator, runs the house just fine on a similar sized generator.
This is probably even a bit better because you have an inverter decoupling the mechanical load compared to needing to have a large enough flywheel to overcome big surges in usage.
I am in the ERCOT region and the power is extremely reliable. The only time it is not reliable is after a category 3+ storm blows through and rips out the last mile infrastructure.
In the gulf coast area, you do not get a standby generator because a random thunderstorm takes your power out for 2 hours at a time. You get a standby because a hurricane might deprive you of basic comfort for 7+ days at at a time. There is absolutely no living in this region after a tropical storm blows through unless you have functioning HVAC. 100% humidity at 90F+ for days and days. Even for natives it is too much to bear. If you got any water in your home during one of those storms, having functioning AC is the best way to make sure your house doesnt turn into a mold factory.
> There is absolutely no living in this region after a tropical storm blows through unless you have functioning HVAC.
I think that's a little extreme of a claim. It definitely sucks, but I've been without A/C for several days after hurricanes in New Orleans and Orlando. I wouldn't care to repeat the experience, but it's not the end of the world. Humans lived in those regions for thousands of years before A/C was invented.
The hard part is that modern homes in the South aren't designed to be livable without A/C. If you've got an older home like a shotgun house, you're in a better state because it's designed for natural airflow.
> The hard part is that modern homes in the South aren't designed to be livable without A/C. If you've got an older home like a shotgun house, you're in a better state because it's designed for natural airflow.
Too much legal liability for which party? How is this any different from plugging a portable generator into your home with an identical configuration?
At some point you have to assume responsibility for yourself and your own safety. Neither Ford nor some arbitrary electrician can ever be held accountable for whatever fucked-up combination of things I choose to engage with relative to their respective components in this scenario.
What I really want is for Tesla to partner with someone to come out with a line of DC-plugin tools so I can plug my tools into the new Tesla truck without the conversion penalty.
Battery operated tools are DC already. They just need a plug to charge and run at the same time. An optional AC adapter too.
Tesla's motors run on 3-phase AC internally. (That's why the name of the company is "Tesla.") The trick would be finding a way to engage the internal inverter and then tap off it, possibly with a transformer to make it 120VAC. The conversion penalty of Tesla's internal inverter and your switching battery charger are going to be quite small.
I'd be a little surprised if the new truck doesn't just have an outlet built-in.
high frequency switching conversion is surprisingly efficient though > 90% in some cases. For most people thats "good enough" and the rest can be wasted, but I do see your point
A 10:1 transformer would work wonders. Lots of lawn equipment is 40v or 80v. That's less efficiency losses than charging a smaller battery and running off of that.
Transformers only work with alternating current. You would be better off using a direct buck-boost conversion scheme, rather than DC->inverter->xformer->rectifier->DC.
I was assuming you'd already have an inverter for 120v AC. Wouldn't it be less loss to convert at 400v, step that down to both other voltages, and convert back to DC at 40v than to have a buck convertor for 40v and an inverter for 120v separately? Of course then you'd draw fewer amps to just go ahead and plug 120v tools in and not convert back.
If you're just skipping the NEMA wall outlet and going to 40v DC that's different. You might want too go with a non-isolated switched mode there for efficiency. Still, an inverter above 20kHz and transformer at high frequency in an RCC or resonant forward configuration shouldn't have terrible losses and the transformers at high frequencies can be small and multiple for different output voltages if necessary.
I think the design goals regarding space, weight, cost, flexibility, and reliability really come into play here.
About that buck convertor... I'm just a hobbyist when it comes to power supplies but since a buck convertor tends to use semiconductors I'm thinking a 400v input might be an unusual design. The highest input voltage rating I find for a "high voltage" DC buck convertor is around 140 volts. If you tap the battery a quarter of the way through you could do that, but then you're loading that portion of the cells more than the rest. I can find 700 volt "AC bucks", but there again you're talking AC power. Everything I can find that bills itself as a 400v capable down-stepping DC to DC buck convertor has an isolated portion labelled, which means it in fact has at least a 1:1 transformer somewhere connected to the buck. If you're talking about flipping mechanical relays quickly instead of transistors and diodes, you're going to have a lot of noise, slop, and reliability issues aren't you?
You could convert, but you'd have the converter loses too as bob1029 pointed out. A switched DC going into a transformer can act as a convertor, then a step down transformer, then... yeah. A buck regulator would be better.
If you have something to run that needs constant motion besides the current, a motor-generator might be useful. That can convert pretty directly. I'm thinking like the outboard drive shaft on older midsize tractors.
Switching DC through a transformer is just what you do in a flyback converter, so the two windings of the transformer act like separate inductors to the circuit and the turn ratio sets the duty cycle instead of the output voltage. Tends to be more lossy than a buck or SEPIC converter (though less lossy than a low-frequency AC transformer), but provides isolation easily.
And a motor-generator is far lossier than a flyback converter, they're mostly good for high-power applications where you need to convert from single phase to 3-phase and need isolation at low cost. Even then a VFD (variable frequency flyback converter or inverter) will be more efficient, just more expensive. Though days VFDs are getting quite cheap for their power.
They're almost certainly all paired with a transformer for isolation (unless maybe the whole thing is in a sealed module, but that would be rare). But it won't be a low-frequency high-loss AC transformer, it will be driven at a much higher switching frequency to minimize losses. That will also mean the core material will be different, though as I'm not a power supply designer I can't tell you the most appropriate formulation for such applications. Probably not silicon steel used for 50/60Hz AC transformers though, likely some sort of ferrite.
Basically not all transformers are equal. You need to get the properties right to match the application. In the case of their use as a component in an isolating DC-DC converter (or inverter, or other similar system) they're typically not mentioned separately, since the converter is usually a module.
Well, yeah, but a high-frequency transformer can still itself have a coil differential for step-down and is still a transformer. They make them that operate at tens of kilohertz just fine, which is about where the inverter is going to operate.
I'm surprised they expect the take rate for the hybrids to only be 17%. I'm wondering if they're publishing a lower number than they really expect.
As an aside, I'm really excited for this truck, not because I want one (I don't), but it's a nice, easy way for truck customers to be eased into the idea that hybrid, and eventually all electric trucks can be a viable alternative to ICE trucks. I've said it here before and I'll say it again, once hybrid/BEV trucks outsell pure ICE trucks, that's how you know that electric vehicles are seen as a "mainstream" thing.
The hybrid is available only with the 3.5L twin turbo V6. When Ford introduced the 2.7L twin turbo V6, that engine became the best seller.
Once they get the $$$ from selling only 3.5 hybrids, I hope they offer the hybrid in the 2.7 - and then they'll most likely see a huge jump in hybrid sales.
Keep in mind that a large fraction (majority?) of Ford trucks are work trucks. They aren't purchased because consumers have a particularly strong emotional connection to them. If they tick the right boxes and make the job easier, they get bought.
Putting a generator on it is such an obviously good idea I'm now surprised they didn't do this decades ago.
Yeah, this is going to be a major selling factor for a whole bunch of on-site service industry companies (carpenters, framers, roofers, electricians, plumbers, welders, etc).
Even a 2.5kw generator is pretty big: 2'x1.5'x1.5', weighing 80-100lbs. This takes up a significant chunk of space in the back of a pickup truck, plus requires two people to load/unload if necessary. Having power so conveniently available is pretty compelling, especially if it doesn't mean giving up 1/6 of your bed space, and only having the (I assume) significantly quieter truck engine as noise.
I’m completely unenthusiastic about this truck. It gets 23mpg. My current truck gets 21, the one before that, 20, and the one before that 21.
They’re all 1500/150 >5L V8’s. The one with the best fuel economy had a carburetor. I would have bought a smaller engine, but the dealers don’t carry them (so they’re much more expensive after incentives) or a ecodiesel, but the EPA completely banned them from sale (dieselgate) the last year I bought a truck.
If the current truck died tomorrow, I might buy this truck for the generator, but the fuel economy is embarrassing. It probably doesn’t offset the embodied carbon of the batteries.
Other than that, screw Detroit. The cybertruck cannot arrive soon enough.
Just recently bought a 2020 F-250 and a 40ft fifth wheel, also yes! I spent ~$1000 on the generator setup for 5kw. That said, they are probably much more fuel efficient than running the 6.7L diesel.
Ford steering engineer here. I worked on the 2020 Super Duty line. How has the experience with your truck been so far?
Did you opt for any of the trailer assistance features? Trailer Backup Assist was something I worked a lot on, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
I installed a 2.2 kw inverter on my truck. It's the best $300 upgrade I've done. The alternator has no problem keeping up. I use an induction cooktop off the tailgate when camping or doing a long road trip. You don't need to buy a new truck to get this.
That is great to know. Thanks! Currently, my main use case for my generator is running a 240V well pump that knocks 5000W honda generators over. (PG&E has taken > 2 years to run a wire ten feed and install a meter, for ... reasons)
Future me will likely have use for a “mere” 2.2KW generator though, and I’m really sick of lugging a > 200lb generator around.
The built-in generator options don't output any more power than a generator that you can buy at any home improvement store for several hundred dollars. Sure, having it integrated into the vehicle might be a nice feature, but I don't see anything special about the power output.
This just replaces a free-standing generator strapped down in the back of the truck. Those tend to be noisy but they're relatively cheap. I doubt most jobsites care that much about the noise, but I suppose tailgaters might like it. On the other hand, tailgaters tend to prefer inverter generators which are very quiet and use very little gas.
In fact, thinking more about it, I wouldn't want to be at a tailgate with an F150 running all day spewing exhaust all over. A small portable generator and an extension cord can be located relatively far away from the gathering - that's a lot harder to do with the truck itself.
The article mentions most of these points and provides some compelling reasons why one might prefer an integrated system. I'd certainly rather have one powered by the truck's engine. It's vastly more fuel-efficient, quieter, and vastly more environmentally-sound than a loud-ass 2-stroke portable generator could ever hope to be, and if you're the kind of working person who'd benefit from this, it's a godsend.
A 2000W inverter generator is much, much quieter than the construction generators you're used to seeing. Still louder than an F150, but quiet enough so it's not very bothersome. 50-60dB or so.
That would depend more on the state of the exhaust of the F150. I have the quietest Honda inverter generator (which AFAIK is the quietest generator) and I have an F150 with the most powerful motor available. The generator is quiet for a generator, but much louder than the F150 at idle. It might be pretty close on a hot day during the times when the high speed fan cycles on, though.
The truck has ~$1k worth of emissions scrubbers in its exhaust, maybe more. You're not going to beat that performance with a portable generator. The Honda generator doesn't even have a catalytic converter.
Yeah, but the scrubbers don’t help CO2, which is the most important pollutant these days.
The hybrid truck could run an inverter off battery (in theory), and cycle the engine on and off. A dirt cheap generator (Predator 8750 from harbor freight) runs 8–12 hours on ~5 gallons (the spec sheet doesn’t give tank capacity)
How many gallons per hour does an idle truck burn?
Honda portable generators are some kind of magic. 90% of that thing must be a muffler, but I've never seen a tear-down. I knew a bunch of people into flying model airplanes, and every single person would have one of these out at the field. Until someone pointed one out to me, I had no idea 5+ generators were actively running around me.
Ford says the 2.4-kW system can run a jackhammer or a mobile theater setup complete with a projector, loudspeakers, and popcorn machine for up to 85 hours.
This is the one sentence that basically shows the two audiences this truck is going after. I know a couple of farmers who will be glad to ditch the generator. Might even save some effort given they won't have to bring two trucks out (one with the generator, one with the load).
There are only a couple million farmers in the United States, and yet the top 5 manufacturers of pickups sell a couple million trucks every year, and the F-Series is nearly a million of those sales. I guarantee farmers are not buying a new pickup every year! (And yes, in my part of Texas a lot of people just say "pickup" instead of "pickup truck"). I'm a city dweller and there are plenty of pickups around, but I can tell you know tons of Texans in both cities and smaller towns who wouldn't even consider buying anything other than a pickup for their daily driver (and no, they're not farmers).
A lot of people around the country don't realize that lots of commercials are tailored for Texas. A big part of those are pickup commercials, saying they're built "Texas tough" or whatever.
That sounds completely crazy from european POV. I've seen probably less than 50 pickup trucks in my life. How do you drive that thing in a city? Where do you park it?
People in the US are obsessed with cars, and as a result cities have been forced to build expensive, absolutely massive streets and even more expensive parking structures.
There seems to be a bit of growing pushback on this since it causes a ton of deaths and injuries due to speeding, drivers not paying attention, etc.
Although a lot of the larger, more dangerous streets in cities are run by state level Dept of Transportations whose only care in the world is how quickly a car can get from point A to point B, and won't downsize streets even though their standards say it is acceptable.
There are lots of videos, etc out there on the insane size increase of driving lanes to accommodate these massive vehicles speeding through areas.
I’ve had to park the truck in downtown San Francisco a half dozen times. I’m pretty good at fitting into tiny spots, but it devolved into Austin Powers-style 100-point turns a few times. That’s with cameras, proximity sensors, power fold mirrors, sticking heads out the window, etc. I take the car instead of the truck whenever it’s possible.
As someone who’s visited Europe a few times, I can say that your big city delivery truck drivers make it look easier than it is in the US. I’ve seen more than one back down an alley at speed after folding back their mirrors to make the truck fit!
An American pickup truck is comparable in size to a European-style delivery van. (Eg: the common Mercedes ones, or the things where the driver sits over the engine.) US delivery trucks are much larger. Our streets were made after automobiles were common, so they’re wider than they should be (I prefer to walk!). That makes driving a truck easy.
Parking spots tend to be under-sized, however. Also, there aren’t consistent rules regarding “compact” or even full-sized parking spots. Some compact spots can’t fit an American sports car (it will be over the lines on both sides, but other compact spots are 2 feet wider and 4 feet longer than a full sized pickup truck.
Parking spaces and roads average significantly larger in the states to accommodate pickup trucks, SUVs, etc. Americans love their big cars for the flexibility it affords.
We used to have this mentality back home: Normal cars- only German made , if you can't afford normal car- buy Japanese,as a second best option,which really is the worst option. And the rest of the brands? Nobody really buys them unless they are crazy.
Funny, I guess we the low-rent version growing up: Chevy cars and Ford Trucks. Oh, the comments when the redesigned Dodge RAM showed up and some folks bought it. Now if I had to choose, I would probably buy a taco (Toyota Tacoma).
I'm not sure why that's the case.I'm having hard time imagining that most buyers really use it as a truck: transport tools, equipment,and so on. They probably don't look so bad on American roads,as they are much wider, however every time I see one in Europe, it's almost 100% that some brash jackass is behind the wheel. Even those who buy them for work tend to follow the rule.
Many have a comparable cabin to SUVs for two rows. So essentially if you buy the "Crew Cab"-style you're buying an SUV but instead of a traditional indoor trunk, you have a much more flexible outdoor one.
I'm not saying everyone needs a pickup truck, but what I am saying is that it makes just as much or as little sense as a similarly priced/sized SUV, and maybe more in certain circumstances. Even for non-pros (assuming a smaller/cheaper pickup, like the F150).
I've lived in both places, and in Europe the default assumption is that you'll have no way to transport stuff (e.g. Ikea furniture, large TVs, DIY supplies, etc) so everyone offers inexpensive delivery. In the US, a lot of places won't deliver or it will be expensive so either owning or having a family member own a pickup is very valuable.
It is one of those things you cannot know until you live in the US.
>I've lived in both places, and in Europe the default assumption is that you'll have no way to transport stuff (e.g. Ikea furniture, large TVs, DIY supplies, etc) so everyone offers inexpensive delivery. In the US, a lot of places won't deliver or it will be expensive so either owning or having a family member own a pickup is very valuable.
This is a very valid point.In Europe the default expectation for anything that weights more than 10kg is that someone will deliver ro your door and most often put it where it need to be( furniture, washing machine). That's why I don't know a single person who has a house and needs a pickup truck. In the worst case scenario, people simply hire a trailer,which solves 99% of transportation issues. Also in Europe,most things are close to you and a thought of driving two hours for some shopping is almost surreal.
Most of the passenger minivans sold in the US have removable seats so they make a great alternative to a truck as long as you don't need much ground clearance. Honestly if I could get two more inches of ground clearance in a Toyota Sienna that would be my next vehicle. It's rare that I would want to carry both 6 people and a half rack of plywood at the same time. But if I want to drive to a trailhead and go hiking or something I'd like to bring some friends.
There's also those fold into floor seats in some minivans, and you can buy a correctly sized mattress online to turn them into a sleeper. They're definitely very comparable to cargo vans in Europe, and I've seen small businesses use them as delivery vehicles with no modifications.
I had a loaner pickup for a while when my car was in the shop for a month (different story) but it definitely had some value. I found myself able to conveniently do a lot of things that I’d have needed a trailer for otherwise specifically because I wouldn’t want to get the inside of an SUV dirty.
The biggest downside to a truck is frankly meh fuel economy. The F150 for example is currently 21 city / 28 highway, which in 2020 is not competitive (e.g. Subaru Outback/Nissan Rogue get 26/33, and Toyota RAV4 26/35).
Creature comforts are comparable to SUVs, the driving/handling is "fine," and while the prices start out higher because they sell more there're more deals to be found too.
I could see myself driving a hybrid Crew Cab-style truck.
> the default assumption is that you'll have no way to transport stuff (e.g. Ikea furniture, large TVs, DIY supplies, etc) so everyone offers inexpensive delivery.
But cars have tow hooks, and IKEA and the hardware store lends you a trailer for free. Or you can rent one for $20 for a few hours. Where in Europe do people not want to use trailers? I (Sweden) wouldn't buy a car without a tow hook, because they are hard to resell.
This is what I don't get about pickups: all the time that I'm not hauling stuff I'm still hauling around that big space.
Granted, towing a trailer to get a sofa from IKEA isn't the best experience either, but it seems to be pretty good compromise for aerodynamics/cost/weight.
> This is what I don't get about pickups: all the time that I'm not hauling stuff I'm still hauling around that big space.
By that logic you'd buy a vehicle with no trunk, since you're hauling around that "big empty space." Or a vehicle with only a single seat for when you have none or fewer than capacity passengers.
You're just arbitrarily distinguishing an outdoor trunk space from an indoor one, and claiming one is wasteful without actual justification. If anything an outdoor trunk has less vehicle side panels, glass, mechanics, and weight therefore less drag: Making it more fuel efficient for its relative size.
The complaint reads like: "It is different to here, therefore I assume it is wrong."
As I said I've lived in both for tens of years, what is popular in the US makes sense for the US, and what is popular for Europe makes sense there too. Without considering the big pictures (e.g. size of roads, size of homes/apartments, parking, quality of public transport, etc) it is difficult to grasp.
> By that logic you'd buy a vehicle with no trunk, since you're hauling around that "big empty space." Or a vehicle with only a single seat for when you have none or fewer than capacity passengers.
It's a compromise for all vehicles obviously. Ideally you'd want one that didn't have those empty seats - but that's not practical. If you want to minimize weight/drag/cost/fuel consumption while at the same time hauling x cubic feet and 5 people, then that is an optimization problem. I don't know what the optimal solution is, but I doubt it looks anything like the traditional pickup (A cybertruck possibly comes closer). The optimization problem becomes differeent if you add more constraints, for example ability to tow X thousand pounds.
> an outdoor trunk space from an indoor one, and claiming one is wasteful without actual justification. If anything an outdoor trunk has less vehicle side panels, glass, mechanics, and weight therefore less drag:
Drag is a shape coefficient, not a weight coefficient. Most modern cars, even SUV's, have drag coefficients in the low .30's. Most pickup trucks don't come close, even in marketing values (One of the lowest claimed values is the Ram 1500 with .36, and the Cybertruck will be lower). An F-150 is north of .50 in testing [1]
Gas is cheap, and trucks are useful. I don't often need to move a bunch of lumber or whatever, but when I do, it's nice not to have to go rent a truck from Home Depot.
And when I'm not doing that, it's basically a spacious luxury vehicle on the inside. What's not to like?
The deaths and injuries caused from allowing any average person to drive a vehicle with a 6’ high hood with massive blind spots on crowded public roads.
No, I don't know the exact dimensions of your truck and I am not picturing you in an 18-wheeler. It's well known that the F150, as well as many other SUVs and light trucks have massive blind spots that prevent kids, disabled people, and just generally anyone shorter than 5' from being seen and ultimately have been responsible for many unnecessary deaths and injuries in the US.
Oh, I see what you're talking about. "Blind spot" usually refers to something on the sides of the vehicle that isn't visible in the side view mirror. You're talking about something in the front/back.
You’re asking for a citation on the impact SUVs and trucks have on injuring and killing people in the US? A few simple google searches on ‘traffic crashes USA’, ‘SUV blind spots’, ‘pickup truck blind spots’, etc... will take you 5 seconds and give you all the information you need.
The average house parcel size is .2 acres or 768 square meters. For those living in rural areas 1-2 acres is extremely commonplace. For home improvements on such a large lot it tends to make sense for a lot of people to own a truck.
Also if you want to haul toys like jetskis, boats, quads, motorcycles, campers, you need a truck. Tons of rural americans have those.
That’s all kinda the story. Many don’t fully use them but they like the idea that they can. However, and this is important, one common misconception about America is that it’s all like NYC or suburbs. The country is positively huge and generally very sparsely populated in the middle. Many people own trucks because they have a farm or an ATV or do their own yard-work or construction or the like. Plus historically, pickups used to be the only AWD vehicles in the past and much of America involves harsh winters or off-road driving. But yeah, the other half of the market just buys them because they like them.
Countries often implement backdoor protectionism through things like vehicle emissions regulations.
In America, the American auto makers weren't competing effectively for anything smaller than an SUV - and when CAFE standards were set, requirements for SUVs and trucks were made much laxer.
And the auto companies' marketing responded rationally: If you're paying for the hero in a movie to drive one of your vehicles, better make it the SUV or truck if possible.
Europe, meanwhile, had auto makers who were disproportionately successful at making diesel cars - and promptly set emissions standards that were barely possible to achieve unless you knew that everyone else was cheating and you needed to cheat too. And decided tax gas and diesel by volume, when diesel happens to have 20% more energy per unit volume and higher emissions.
A lot of folks. Anyone who is in construction and has to work on a house being built usually relies on a gas powered generator or shares plugs with the rest of the trades off the post in the yard. It's why cordless tools became popular, but unlike corded tools they sometimes lack the power required for the job.
Can you imagine having this vehicle in an emergency where there is no power. It could power a refrigerator or a small space heater if necessary. It could help out camping for sure.
Pickup trucks are no longer just work or farmer trucks. They are as luxurious as a high end Lexus with just as much room or more. My brother has an F150 and it is just as comfortable as my wife's Lexus ES350 with a better view out the windshield. The gas mileage is pretty good these days also.
I daily drive a Tesla, but my wife daily drives our F150. It's a great do-everything truck. Hauls the kids and sometimes their friends. Fits their bikes in the back. Hauls bark dust, gravel, big things, etc, whenver we need. Tows our travel trailer a couple times a month. And it does all of this very comfortably.
It's really a great all around vehicle for a lot of families.
Most people who drive pickups don't actually need them. Financially they'd be better off renting one on the rare occasion they actually use the bed or towing capacity.
This applies to all the vehicles. Most of the people own cars that they actually need, and 95% of the time, their needs would be satisfied with much smaller, simpler and cheaper cars.
> Most people who drive pickups don't actually need them.
On threads like this, that gets repeated often. There are probably dozens of nearly identical posts here already. It's just about as common as insinuating the people who drive trucks must have small genitalia. Awful lot of projection going on.
So, can you back that up with something other than your intuition? All of my neighbors have pickups. and we all use them routinely for things only pickups can do. Please don't suggest that it would be financially better for me to rent a pickup every two weeks to tow my RV. I've already done the math.
“ 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.”
Screw the math. Renting a truck twice a month, even if cheaper than owning, is a huge hassle.
In other words, you probably are fine paying a little more to not have to get a ride to the rental yard, fill out the paperwork, decline the damage waiver add-on, etc. Then have to do that all again when you're done with the truck.
I don't own a truck, and it sucks sometimes when I want to do some yard work, or buy a large appliance/furniture on craigslist. If I add just one more use case to my life (more frequent camping, or larger projects), I'm going to go buy a truck and eliminate another hassle.
Uhaul allows pickup via app now. Not as smooth as Zipcar, but it does work. The added $1/mile adds up super quick though, and seems antiquated compared to all other types of car rental.
People self-employed like appliance repairmen, plumbers, fishermen, farmers, carpenters, roofers, grass cutting, snow removal.
Here in Canada it's a great vehicle due to snow and rugged terrain. Even in small towns snow is on the ground 25% of the year but in some places nearly half the year.
I don't care if the truck is gas or diesel as long as it moves. But electric would be preferable for efficiency as long as it can haul a trailer or carry a load.
There are lots of self employed people that own nice trucks, but the primary sales target of the F150 is a wealthy office worker who lives in the suburbs. By far their biggest customer base is people who like the aesthetics of the truck but do not need a truck, and do not use the features of the truck beyond its size.
If you drive through suburbia, you'll probably find one in every other driveway. Very few of them are being used regularly for anything that requires a truck.
Having one truck for an extended family to share is really convenient. (EDIT: E.g. one truck per 4-6 households.)
And let's face it -- cars in general are completely unused at least 95% of the time (EDIT: probably an exaggeration). And you could just as easily say that most of the seats in a car go unused most of the time, even when in use.
So it's really about the gas milage rather than the fact that it has an open bed. Sports cars and SUVs fall into the same category. It's just that a bunch of empty truck beds on the road are more visible than empty seats or over-powered engines.
> Can it be addressed with, say, liability insurance premiums (and is it already)?
if it's priced in already, I would guess that it's in a way that doesn't really discourage driving heavy vehicles. if you get in a collision in your SUV but you're not at fault, the people in the other vehicle are more likely to have serious injuries but your insurance doesn't have to pay for it. if anything, the risk is probably distributed across everyone's premiums, unless SUV drivers are more likely to be at fault for some reason.
frankly I'm not sure how best to deal with it. there are a lot of people who would do just fine with a small sedan but are unwilling to drive one because they (correctly) perceive it as less safe. this is of course a negative feedback loop where the average vehicle gets heavier and the incentive to buy a heavy vehicle for yourself increases.
perhaps there could be an additional tax for vehicles over a certain weight with an exemption for people who genuinely need it for work or have a large enough household to justify it.
Is there a good explanation why pick up trucks are so popular in the US, but no in Europe? Coming from Europe I've always wondered this and only ever have gotten reasons that would be valid in Europe as well. Uses cases of farmers and construction workers should be largely identical. Yet in Europe these get covered by tractors and vans. For farmers I wonder if the larger areas in the US make the difference.
As I just alluded to in another comment, a lot of it is marketing of a macho image, e.g. commercials in Texas are customized to tell guys how the pickup being marketed is tough enough for Texans. So plenty of people I've known buy them because they associate them as being the most appropriate thing for a man to drive, whether they ever use the truck bed or not.
It's got little to do with the width of the road. The Model X is quite popular in Europe, and the difference in width vs the F150 is literally 1 inch.
The biggest reason is probably purchase price. An F150 Raptor (the only model I could find a price for) is $100k in Britain, versus $60k in the US.
You do see quite a few pickups in Europe, especially as commercial vehicles. But the Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi L200, VW Amarok etc. outnumber the American trucks at least 10:1.
And very few trucks are owned by "regular" people. Much better to get a Land Rover Discovery or a Toyota LandCruiser, and throw the big unwieldy stuff you need to move in a trailer.
(As an aside, we used to have a Chevy Avalanche with the 8.1L Vortec. That was a fun car, I'll agree, but you had to close your eyes while filling up with petrol.)
More than half the retail price at the pump in much of western Europe is tax. If you take the base price of the fuel in both Europe and the US, exclude taxes, then the price isn't actually all that far apart.
I prefer narrow roads which leave space for pedestrians, businesses like cafés and shops, properly walkable cities, etc. And I would like fuel to be even more heavily taxed (or other more progressive schemes for taxing personal car use).
Everyone has their own use case, obviously. But remember that a pickup can easily have a canopy, or even just a bed cover. A van cannot take the roof off to haul junk, dirt, gravel, etc.
My point is that a truck is arguably the most versatile, not that it is the best choice for all use cases.
It's cultural, mostly. There are technical or economical reasons both current and historic (Truck Tax, Size of roads, cost of gas...), but mostly I think it's just cultural.
A similar cultural thing made wagons not cool in the US 30 years ago, and they didn't come back (Which is a shame).
A number of my whitewater paddling friends favor minivans (and larger vans) for trips--in part because they're better for shuttling than SUVs. Personally I've had an SUV for decades because they're a bit better on rough back roads--although there have been 4WD minivans for a while now.
What I don't care for are the SUV designs that have basically recreated the minivan with 3 seat rows and they're really not as good for hauling people as a minivan is.
I don't know exactly who or why, but the answer is certainly A LOT of people are buying them.
"Cox Automotive data shows Middle America, with household incomes of $50,000 to $99,000, was the segment of buyers who stayed in-market mostly for new pickup trucks and SUVs, while upper- and lower-income buyers shied away,"
It's probably because if you're low income, you likely can't afford the lower MPG or expensive things like tire replacements, and if you're upper income, you just hire people to do work that requires a pickup. I think middle-income people are in the sweet spot for trucks and SUVs where they can afford the extra costs, but can't afford someone to do manual labor for them, so they actually use the truck to haul things so they can do the work themselves.
Many people buy trucks. I imagine for some it’s the ground clearance, others the actual utility, others the looks, etc. There’s the fleet buyers too. They do make sense, too, if you live anywhere rural or with roads that aren’t paved or get weather and aren’t well maintained. Near me, trucks possibly outnumber cars for as far as the eye can see.
They fit a niche. I saw plenty of trucks and other big vehicles driving around a city of greater than 2 million people.
Well, when the truly bad weather hits, its very nice to have an actual 4x4 truck. They are very useful vehicles. I would have killed in high school (well, in college too) for a truck with a generator. So many times helping a buddy would have gone a whole lot easier. Never mind pulling people out of the ditch. Going to rent one is not a realistic option in many parts of the country.
Right? People arguing about home ownership is hilarious.
I have hauled multiple loads of mulch, other landscaping stuff and animal feed when helping my parents at their home/small farm in the summer.
I have moved in and out of college dorms/houses with all of my belongings (including my TV, kitchen equipment, lots of electronics lab equipment that I purchased to resell as a side-gig in college...)
Ah right, I forgot that there's no animal feed or landscaping supplies that come in bags conveniently packaged for light usage relevant to homeowners.
If you need literal truckloads of bulk supplies often enough to justify owning a truck then congratulations you're probably running a landscaping company or something so you might need a truck.
And that's clearly not what I'm talking about at all in this thread.
I used to own a Chevy Prizm and packed it with all sorts of stuff – including carrying a huge whiteboard on the roof – so I agree that strategy works.
But what's nice about having a truck now is that I don't really have to try. I can just plop most things in the bed and go. You're right that it's not 100% necessary, but it's a great tool when you need it. That's one of the reasons they're so popular where I'm from (Georgia).
Or you know, to do the regular and never ending series of tasks result from owning a home, and which can only be completed (or far more conveniently so) by use of a truck.
In 2019 I spent 1400$ on deliveries and truck rentals. If you own a property, not having to set a 60$ delivery on a 30$ load of bark becomes a major convenience.
Good for you. I personally know plenty of people who buy trucks who have never put anything in the bed that couldn't have been put in the trunk of a hatchback.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. If you've lived anywhere in the states where pick-ups are very common, it's pretty obvious that few people actually need a pick-up truck very often. It's definitely a status/lifestyle thing for many.
I would agree with this for 'new' trucks but going into my 4th year of home ownership, I bought a 3k light duty pickup. If I own it for ~2 years, it will have paid for its self in dump runs and material deliveries alone (not to mention the convenience of being able to do so on my own time).
There are definitely some homeowners who actually need a pickup. But there are tons who have a pickup, but would be better served by a van/SUV, or don't need a large vehicle at all.
I used to live in Alabama, a common enough thing was that a guy who recently graduated high school, if they got a halfway decent paying job somehow (e.g. a local factory), they'd rush out and buy an F-150 or similar. They had no real use for it yet, but it made them look and feel more adult.
I vaguely thought about pickups when I bought my current SUV about 10 years ago. A pickup would be handy now and then but I've never actually needed to rent one and, for weekend getaways, I prefer having the interior space.
this seems like a great idea, especially on the models with the battery packs - you could charge on the way to the jobsite.
My only wonder though, is where you plug in the electronics at the back of the truck bed is exactly where the exhaust is coming out. Seems like they could have at least moved it to a panel outside of the bed on side maybe, but a redirected exhaust would be a good upgrade I would think. Not so bad if youre running a long extension cord to some other place, but if youre trying to use the tailgate as a work surface, seems like that would get old quick.
Different GM truck: that's their conventional (non-hybrid) pickup.
Poking around online, it looks like the original hybrid pickup truck that I worked on was discontinued in 2007, and the second version of the hybrid pickup truck, with a somewhat different design, was discontinued in 2013. I can't find any current hybrid pickup offerings, so it looks like they dropped that capability, and with it the higher capacity 110V system.
I hope the truck keeps a record of how much this was used. I wouldn't want to buy a used truck that nominally had 50,000 miles on it but also had another 5000 hours of generator duty on the engine without knowing about it.
After I moved to Vietnam, I learned pretty quickly that the numbers on ODO's, even digital ones, can be modified to whatever you want, for a few bucks.
US has very strictly enforced laws against odometer tampering.
"Major defendants in large odometer fraud prosecutions have received prison terms of up to seven years under current Sentencing Guidelines which do not permit parole. Sentences in the 18 month to three year range are common."
https://www.justice.gov/civil/case/federal-odometer-tamperin....
Things like Carfax discourage it as well. They have partnerships with oil change (and similar) services that record the mileage and date. Rolling back becomes obvious.
In countries like the US your authorised dealer will be recording the mileage every service, so you can't really cheat it and a consumer can ask the dealer network to check the milage.
However for engine life what you want to know is hours under heavy load and perhaps total revolutions.
I thought that much of the wear on an engine is load related, and non-linear, such that hours idling at low revs is utterly different from high revs at high power.
The odo reading is useful as an indication of wear on the drivetrain and suspension etcetera.
Hours is useful on a tractor/truck/boat because the engine is normally under load for a majority of the hours.
Ford did the same thing a friend of mine a decade ago did with his Volkswagen T4 van - put a separate high-voltage generator on the belt (or on a dedicated power take-off at the gearbox) and a decent solid-state switching regulator behind it.
tl;dr: They took an old concept popular with car modders for ages, elevated it to mass production and will probably make well-deserved bank with construction workers.
Dodge Cummins diesel trucks used to have a generator option. I believe the power outlet was a panel located between the driver's door and rear wheel. I'm not sure of the year but I think it was early 1980s and it was probably just an expensive option not standard.
edit: I see the Cummins diesel engines for Dodge trucks wasn't available until 1989.
You're referring to the DC-DC converter, which powers/recharges the 12 volt system. You need to add a 12V->120V inverter to use the Volt as a generator.
I read about this in the blurb Ford sent us (we own an F250 for towing a trailer) and felt it was a pretty smart move. When we go camping we will take a generator to cover loads larger than the onboard batteries can deal with. If this becomes an option in the F250 I could see us getting it on the next truck.
One of the benefits that is sort of mentioned is running lawn tools from it. This could be a real benefit for small gardening shops that replace their tools with battery/electric tools. Not are they lower maintenance but they are quieter as well so the neighbors are not as annoyed.
There is nothing in that article about the generator's efficiency. I'd like to know how it compares to an equivalent portable gas generator that gets about 4-6 kWh/gal.
>That mobile [7.2kW] welding shop can run for 32 hours continuously on a full tank, making all-day, heavy-duty work possible.
F-150 has a few capacity options. Per a 2019 tech sheet[0], 23gal standard, 26gal on SuperCab or SuperCrew, and 36gal for extended range.
7.2kW for 32 hours is 230.4 kWh. Therefore it's either 10.0, 8.9, or 6.4 kWh/gal.
I would expect the efficiency to be a lot better than a two- or four-stroke portable generator, since the engine design is overall vastly superior.
The caveat is the 7.2kW system is only on the hybrid model, which presumably drains the hybrid battery before switching to generator power, which would imply there's a 7.2kW generator under the hood, which isn't even an option for the non-hybrid model...needless to say I think these are marketing wank numbers and probably have a big but associated with them.
I'd guess 7.2kW is the peak, not the continuous load it is capable of. At least that's usually how generators are marketed, by their peak load capability.
So if my friend has one of these I can charge my Tesla on the L14-30R 240V 30A while sitting in a campsite or far off grid. Amazing if it is actually capable of that.
I find it ludicrous that people use an aircraft carrier to do their daily commute. The freeway is packed to the gills with massive trucks, most of them taking a single white-collar worker to their comfy office job.
The problem is most people want to have one vehicle per-person (or one total), so it's hard to have the ideal commuter vehicle and something that also supports your hobbies. For 90% of my trips, a small electric car with like 20 miles of range would be adequate, but those other 10% end up forcing me into something totally different.
My parents chose to do something which seemed super reasonable here: They both worked and both needed cars. The one with the longer commute drove the fuel efficient vehicle, and the one with the short commute drove the giant SUV, minimizing it's impact. But if the need to transport a lot of people or large items arose, it was there for either's use.
I use my "aircraft carrier" to carry a bunch of stuff every other week, to take a bunch of people and their gear into the woods every other month, to pull a trailer a couple of times a year.
I could be even more wasteful by purchasing a second vehicle and drive that one the rest of the time, but even a small commuter car takes up almost as much room on the highway, even more room at my house, and I doubt the pollution it would save from my truck outweighs the pollution used to create the second vehicle.
I might consider a motorcycle, but to follow the traffic laws, it would take up almost the same amount of room on the highway as a small commuter car.
By reducing usage, you could have both vehicles last almost twice as long, so I think it's safe to directly offset the pollution from gas creation and combustion, making a second vehicle a very good idea from an environmental standpoint. Plus, parts from a vehicle can be recycled or reused, whereas fuel burns once.
Really though, it probably depends how long your commute is.
> you could have both vehicles last almost twice as long
Good point. On one hand I would like the newer stuff though every so often, on the other hand, the older it is, the less likely it is to spy on its owner.
I had a small fun 2-seater (with very good gas mileage) car in addition to my SUV for many years. Donated it last year.
It sort of made sense (or I could at least convince myself it did) when I had a 30-45 minute commute every day. But once I stopped commuting and started traveling a lot, the insurance, registration, state inspection--plus the fact that it meant I really needed to optimize storage in my garage in the winter--it increasingly didn't make sense for the modest number of miles I drove it. Plus it was 20 years old and I didn't really trust it on longer trips.
I think the motorcycle is a decent idea, because it at least reduces emissions. However, there are issues of safety and weather. If a bike (possibly electric) works, that's probably the best commute vehicle.
I'm sorry you have such strong feelings of resentment towards people's decisions on how they wish to pursue life, liberty and happiness, but it's one of the many consequences in living in a democratic and diverse society. People will value different things. I am sure there is something you find enjoyable that another finds ludicrous. Try to be a little more understanding!
Living in a free society does not mean you have to agree with everyone else's choices, merely that each of you are empowered to make those choices.
I, along with OP, am free to be vehemently opposed to the idea that the "default choice" is to drive around, alone, in increasingly-larger vehicles that consume rapidly-depleting fossil fuels and foul up the air for miles. I'm also free to try to jostle, within our political, societal, and governmental frameworks, for changes to those modes being the default or preferred or inexpensive.
Acceptance of the freedom of society does not require understanding nor approval. I grant neither of those things to people who choose to tote around far more vehicle and energy use.
"rapidly depleting" fossil fuels narrative has fallen off a cliff in recent years. Oil became so abundant this year that at one point the price went negative.
No, the rate of oil being yanked out of the ground has become so abundant this year--especially when contrast with the rate of use since a staggering amount of us are staying at home--that the price went negative. (And it only went negative because futures traders did not want to actually take delivery of the physical oil they'd "purchased" with their options contracts.)
The quantity of fossil fuels available to us on this planet is decreasing while our use of them continues to wreck the atmosphere we rely upon. A large component of this is personal transportation (alongside industry).
The proven natural reserves is higher than at any point in history. Massive amounts of oil exist which accumulated for millions of years and we are nowhere near depleting those reserves. And no, contrary to the fear over mild warming, CO2 has many fantastic benefits for plant life on this planet. In recent years, this has caused the total plant leaf surface area to increase by 25-50%:
Photosynthesis quite literally depends on CO2. Thank goodness we're restoring the CO2 back to the atmosphere from which it originally came from. It was buried under ground as an accident of history. Plants evolved to thrive at CO2 levels more than 3-4x what present-day levels are.
3-4x the current level of CO2 is far far past runaway environmental catastrophe. A plant can have all the CO2 it wants but it would have to attempt to eke out an existence in a far drier climate that is multiple degrees hotter.
Road damage scales roughly with the 4th power of axle load. That means that F-150s harm roads more than Honda Fits, but both are a tiny rounding error compared to heavy trucking that's moving goods to markets.
> but it's one of the many consequences in living in a democratic and diverse society.
A democratic and diverse society that's structured such that the costs of the negative externalities that result from individual choices are born by the broader community and not the individual. In this particular case, the most immediate and obvious examples include air pollution and associated consequences, as well as additional wear and tear on public roadways.
Of course, the solution to negative externalities is always the same: tax the behaviour (in this case, fuel taxes, taxes on large vehicles, and tax breaks for car pooling, transit, and other similarly less damaging choices) so that the costs are born by the person engaging in said behaviour.
Naturally, whenever folks are asked to pay for these externalities, the reaction is an immediate and passionate rejection of "big government" curtailing "freedoms"--in this case, the freedom to make everyone else pay for the consequences of their choices. Why? Because people want to engage in the behaviour without having to also own the consequences. While that's a form of freedom, it's an irresponsible one, born of a uniquely self-centered conception of "freedom" that bears a striking resemblance to narcissism.
Pity the lack of basic economic education prevents people from understanding that they're free riding on the rest of us by failing to pay for their damaging behaviours.
It's especially ironic since these same objections are often associated with individuals who would decry the welfare state, which similarly involves society bearing the costs to support individual behaviours; it's just much more honest about it.
> the solution to negative externalities is always the same
Not really. There are lots of actions that have negative externalities and which we choose to treat differently. E.g., consider drug abuse, financial fraud, violent crime. We do not attenuate the incidence rate of these behaviors using the tax code.
The idea of using the tax code to shape behavior by manipulating market forces is relatively new and has a mixed track record.
This is true even market-based solutions to decarbonization. E.g., "cap & trade" crucially includes a "cap" that has to be enforced one way or another.
> Not really. There are lots of actions that have negative externalities and which we choose to treat differently. E.g., consider drug abuse, financial fraud, violent crime. We do not attenuate the incidence rate of these behaviors using the tax code.
I'm specifically talking about directing behaviours that remain legal.
I don't expect governments around the world are gonna ban the F-150.
As for things like cap and trade, you're right, that's an alternative mechanism. At bottom it's the same, though: assign an economic cost to the behaviour, and then use the market system to manage the behaviour.
I might be more inclined to have this attitude if gas were $10+/gal and roads were always paid for at time of use.
But this particular life choice has massive, civilization-changing externalities that aren't priced in, and is then additionally subsidized on top of that.
Over a 200 year window starting in 1900 or so, the personal vehicle is probably one of the two or three most destructive developments.
NB: Not being critical of anyone's personal choice, but of the market/system that enables those choices by failing to properly price carbon and road infra. In particular, I've been known to drive my SUV to work.
Moral indignation aside, the actual generator functionality will have a meaningful improvement in air quality and pollution. The use case for something like this are scenarios where workmen need to use tools on a jobsite.
Running a generator workload on a truck engine with emissions controls is a huge improvement over what people do today -- run standalone generators that pollute far more in terms of particulates, noise and other factors.
Road damage disproportionately comes from freight vehicles, not consumer vehicles. If anyone is benefiting from uninternalized road damage subsidies, it’s people in cities who need to truck in all their food and stuff.
As far as pollution externalities go, you may be right, but actual level-headed analysis of the dollar cost of global warming are tough to describe as “civilization-changing”. Certainly I think the externalities of my own vehicle usage are worth it, and I would be happy to pay those costs if they were internalized correctly (but good luck not turning that into a pork-barrel monstrosity).
> Road damage disproportionately comes from freight vehicles, not consumer vehicles.
Yes, but we need substantially wider roads and more roads when cars are a primary commuting method. It's often the case that trucking is simultaneously the largest source of wear and not the largest contributor to road budgets.
> it’s people in cities who need to truck in all their food and stuff.
How are rural areas any different?
Those peaches from the Walmart in northern WI were probably grown in the exact same Georgian fields as the peaches from the corner store in Chicago. For manufactured goods made in $asian_country, trucking stuff out to Montana from the coast is going to cause a lot more road damage than hauling it from a barge to some store in the bay area.
The amount of road wear&tear probably correlates more with your distance from the major ports than urban/rural. That can go either way.
Unless you live in Iowa and your diet consists mainly of corn and ethanol and you furnish your home with Amish furniture^1, you're benefiting from trucking routes at least as much as anyone in "the city".
There are very few "self-sufficient" communities in the USA. The closest you get .
> If anyone is benefiting from uninternalized road damage subsidies, it’s people in cities who need to truck in all their food and stuff.
As opposed to all the rural subsistance farmers who build all their own stuff? I'm sure there's a handful such people out there, but everybody else has their food and stuff trucked in just as much, with a 30 minute car ride added on top to haul things back to the ranch.
Apparently, road damage is approximately proportional to single axle load to the fourth power. So, a SUV causes approximately 16 times the damage of a compact car with half the mass. And, yes, freight vehicles can cause thousands times more.
> Road damage disproportionately comes from freight vehicles, not consumer vehicles. If anyone is benefiting from uninternalized road damage subsidies, it’s people in cities who need to truck in all their food and stuff.
This is just whataboutism.
Externalities from all vehicular use should be internalized. I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.
> Without the vehicle, the population would be a fraction of what it is and you probably would have never been born.
Personal automobile ownership is more than double what it was in 1960 (410.37/1K in 1960 vs. 831.9/1K in 2018). Needless to say, our birth rates are just a tad lower today than they were at the height of the baby boom...
And that's just in the USA. Look up rates of automobile ownership throughout the world. There are massive variations between countries with similar economies and similar brithrates.
And to head off the obvious explanation for the explosion of car ownership in the US being negatively correlated with population growth, notice that other developed economies also experienced a gender revolution and that this lack of strong correlation exists even if you measure car ownership at the level of households instead of at the level of individuals.
The hypothesis that cars => population growth just doesn't bear out in the data, even after correcting for a lot of possible confounds. The two are, at best, uncorrelated.
(Again, my post mentioned "the personal vehicle", not the ICE or carbonization of the economy more generally, which indeed enabled unparalleled growth)
> That's an insane analysis.
After looking at the data, I think you're completely wrong. But of course your hypothesis was not even close to "insane".
Clearly you couldn't even feed the planet without the transportation network necessary to distribute the food. Nor could you even grow it. Modern agriculture depends on fertilizer, which is made from mined materials. Farms are run with fossil fuel powered equipment. The quality of life and the length of life extended dramatically with the advent of the automobile and electricity (also fossil fuel powered). We wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. Not even to mention the serendipitous effects of expanding human horizons beyond what could be traveled by horse, which alone is a substantial achievement and led to more discoveries and human connection than I can even fathom. Without transport and communication there would be no modern era, no internet, no tech sector. Just an extension of the 19th century.
>> Again, my post mentioned "the personal vehicle", not the ICE or carbonization of the economy more generally, which indeed enabled unparalleled growth
As for the rest? The west was settled by track layers.
There’s a difference between opposing something because I don’t like it versus opposing something because it has substantial negative effects on other people. Solo commuters in huge cars increases traffic danger, pollution, or congestion. If I value not wearing a mask in public businesses, you would be justified in opposing it.
This is not “I enjoy having my house painted orange but my neighbors don’t like it.”
The cool part of this is the market research. It's also how Dodge made the Ram popular - they walked around construction site parking lots and found many of the trucks had custom storage bins and cup holders rigged up in the cabin. So storage space in the vehicle was a major feature in the new Ram in the 90s.
I like the idea, and have always been displeased by the lame underpowered inverters they often put in autos. That said, a compact, quiet 2.5kw inverting generator that weighs about 50lbs will only set you back about $300. Hopefully the addon is comparably priced.
However, it weighs over 200lbs, and is really noisy.
It runs 9 hours at idle. I wonder how long the ford will run at low wattages, and how the gallons per hour compares between the two. (Presumably the hybrid truck does much better at low wattage than the generator or the conventional truck).
I wonder if ~10% of current F-150 sales are hybrids, or if they are really projecting for this model. I'd think people would consider going hybrid for the increased power outlet capacity, which could substantially alter the sales vs previous generations.
I've been thinking how to convert my fuel intake so I can siphon petrol out of it and into a mini-generator, for camping. Only problem is the generator itself and fuel smelling up the car.
Seriously, how useful would that be? A simple onboard SQLite database (or even text file) you can add stuff to via a phone app. That way, when someone asks "when was the last time this car had an oil change?" you can simply check the logs. You can check when your wiper blades were last replaced, etc. If it's standard enough, Jiffy Lube can update it with whatever work they did.
For now I just settle for a paper logbook in the glove compartment...
I think a lot of quick-change oil shops and etc are selling that data to Carfax already. The insurance companies already have access to some of this data too.
Not quite what you're talking about but it's US federal law to keep electronic log books for long haul trucking. Can't be on paper anymore. Not that you'd need a law to do what you're asking. Could be as simple as a text file on a USB mass storage device built into the car. Type whatever notes you want into it.
Well if you have it behind an API in the cloud, how is it going to be transferred when you sell the car? Having it in the car means it's guaranteed to follow the car regardless of who owns it or where it is located.
1. This is not a response to the climate crisis.
2. Ford is working on an electric F150.
3. The amount of fuel consumed is negligible compared to actually operating the vehicle in the first place.
Using every little thing as a reason to interject “What about the climate crisis!?!”, no matter how irrelevant it may be to the actual problem, is just going to lead to exhaustion and make it more likely that people will ignore the issue entirely in domains where it actually does matter.
Using a 200hp (or whatever it is) engine to power a 7kw generator is unlikely to be particularly efficient. That would be better suited to an engine in the 15hp range.
Fine for occasional use but you'd be better with a real generator if it was regularly required. Also, for bonus points the power doesn't go out when someone needs to go pickup an extra sheet of ply.
Many EVs can handle up to 7.68 kW (32A) at 240V. The F150 has a 7.2kW (30A) option, which is pretty close to that, although an L14-30R connector isn't supposed to exceed 24A (5.76 kW) for continuous loads. That's still >20 miles of range per hour for a typical EV.
Still, who wants their truck idling at a tailgate, puffing out exhaust fumes while everyone is crowded around the back? Yes, it's better than a generator but it's still exhaust.
I was disappointed too. I was hoping to see some detail on how they keep the two batteries balanced and if you could still jump 12v cars by only connecting one battery. Instead the details were all vague and mostly taken from Ford's whitesheet.
For the amount of power needed for a jump, I'd have no issues at all jumping a car from a single battery.
I worked as a SWE intern one summer for Daimler (Mercedes) and we were doing some testing one day where we drew the batteries down on our 24V bus that we were working on. My boss was skeptical of my idea that we use both of the 12V support cars we had to jump the 24V bus. I eventually prevailed and we jumped the bus without incident.
Some 100+ comments on here and no mention of the horrible impact having more of these giant trucks around is going to have on the climate. This is technically interesting, but experience shows us that most of these trucks will be purchased by suburban dwelling office workers who commute 90+ minutes/work in this thing, and use the plug in feature 2x/year tops. We really need to stop seeing enormous trucks as socially acceptable and need to start seeing them as sociopathic.
It keeps us warm or cold. Powers everything. Has entertainment. Shelter. Carries all my supplies. Having a small SUV in the parking lot of the beach turns my morning trip into a whole day trip with my toddlers napping and taking a break in the shade.
It’s what gets me about the supercarriers. If warfare suddenly disappeared, you’ve got these mobile bases you can anchor off the coast of a disaster zone with massive capabilities for logistics, a nuclear power plant, water purifier, hospital, machine shops, etc. Etc.
So this F150 power generator thing resonates with me.