Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.
Uh - I think you just did.
Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.
Read your own spelling. R e a l s l o w...
Again, duh. Guess observation isn't your strong suit.
I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.
So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.
Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?
EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.
Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.
Good thing nobody did then.
Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.
You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.
Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.
I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.
So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.
So you're saying if they dont drive around with something in the bed at all times they dont need it?
You better get rid of all those extra seats in your car. What a fucken tard.....
No, I'm saying it's space that's not being used; in other words whatever they bought the truck for, they're not using it anywhere near its capacity. On the whole.
It's not my place to say what they "need", nor did I intimate that. I'm saying the idea of using the bed to transport things is from empirical evidence not the factor that explains their sales numbers. Therefore something else is.
And the seat comparison is valid. I use mine for cargo. They fold down. Duh.
Sorry if the point went clear over your head but maybe you should do less ducking.
Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?
That and the high water that comes with em.
You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.
Ah. Given the evidence that pickup beds are not being used much for transport, we now have the answer to what their selling point is:
"Boob and cleavage view".
Actually I seem to have a pretty good boob view right here
"Safer in an accident" is another part of that myth. If I didn't complete the point, to spell it out: the safe vehicle in an accident is the one that isn't in one. Therefore the safer vehicle is the one that's able to avoid getting into one in the first place. I had two serious encounters with pickup trucks with my little SW2 wagon. That is, they would have been encounters, and really messy. I got out of both of them unscathed. Had I been driving what they were driving I wouldn't be here to tell the tale. Nor would that motorcyclist who was coming the other way. He got away clean too.
EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.
Good thing nobody did then.
Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.
You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.
Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.
I didn't even bring up CAFE, dood. YOU did. Once again barging in appending shit nobody said just so you can see your name on the internets. Get OVER yourself already.
I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.
So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.
The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time. Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time. But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool. But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.
So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.
The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time. Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time. But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool. But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.
So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.
The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time. Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time. But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool. But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time. Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time. But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool. But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises. And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time. For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
). Clearly there is A market for pickup trucks and always has been; clearly they have always served a need. What we're talking about here is degree; the market for such vehicles has exploded in recent years, and it's equally clearly not because the public suddenly started needing to move more stuff; a significant portion of that increase is the same reason for this shift from normal cars to SUVs: because the advertiser told them to.The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time. Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time. But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool. But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
What a fucken liar!
How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.
Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient. They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features. They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle. (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.
Regardless of how much money you are budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING. Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them: You can see over the roofs of cars. But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS for no reason other than your own self indulgence. How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need. Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time. It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine for the life of the car.
OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction. Amazing, isnt it?
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
What a fucken liar!
I don't owe you an answer; I'm ignoring you along with that other troll.
Why am I ignoring you?
How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.
I don't know (or care) what's in your SUV:
I don't need to look "down";
My story is not bullshit;
My vehicles (3) are not "jacked up"; and
I do not have an Accord.
0 for 5 with 5 strikeouts. That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".
Adios.
Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient. They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features. They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle. (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.
Regardless of how much money you are budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING. Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them: You can see over the roofs of cars. But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS for no reason other than your own self indulgence. How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need. Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time. It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine for the life of the car.
OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction. Amazing, isnt it?
Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs. All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff at sunset. Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle. And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises. And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time. For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs
Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"
Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.
Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient. They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features. They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle. (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.
Regardless of how much money you are budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING. Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them: You can see over the roofs of cars. But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS for no reason other than your own self indulgence. How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need. Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time. It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine for the life of the car.
OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction. Amazing, isnt it?
I hate them, but I can see having one if you are in a rural area.
But in urban areas? They are obnoxious and you can't see over them.
All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises. And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time. For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs
Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"
Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.
Some people just like a truck. If they are willing to pay for it, and pay for the gasoline, why is it stupid to follow their personal preferences?
And the whole "...haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" is simply nonsense. I doubt most owners come anywhere near the towing capacity of their pickups. But if I have to haul bales for my straw bale garden, wood for my fireplace & firepit, my dogs after they have played in the river & mud, I would prefer a pickup truck. None of that involves an asteroid, and I rarely wear anything resembling a cowboy hat.
Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous. If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT. And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero. The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick. Police and Fire excepted.
When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction. Amazing, isnt it?
