←back to thread

The Reason Why Are Trucks Getting Bigger

(toddofmischief.blogspot.com)
173 points yasp | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.983s | source
Show context
woodruffw ◴[] No.32425520[source]
The author makes a correct observation (trucks are getting bigger to circumvent emissions guidelines, not solely out of ego), but fails to address the underlying market demand: as trucks have gotten bigger, they've also gotten "meaner"[1]. Emissions requirements don't require a truck to look like it's going to beat you up.

In other words: consumer ego (wanting to drive a big, mean looking truck) is an underlying pressure in the market, even if the sufficient mover for the current size explosion is emissions dodging.

[1]: https://jalopnik.com/we-need-to-talk-about-truck-design-righ...

replies(11): >>32425537 #>>32425714 #>>32425802 #>>32425929 #>>32425964 #>>32425982 #>>32426067 #>>32426432 #>>32426978 #>>32427017 #>>32427614 #
rayiner ◴[] No.32425982[source]
How do you decide what looks “meaner?” This guy fixated on the Chevy Silverado design, but I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It looks more squared off and masculine, and less curvy and feminine, which is a design trend it shares with Apple’s latest MacBook pros. Is Google’s chrome book pixel mean? https://www.zdnet.com/product/google-chromebook-pixel/

I think what you’re actually observing is the counter-reaction to all cars looking like jelly beans due to aerodynamic styling driven by emissions regulations. A squared off looking car stands out in the crowd. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which looks like an evil Japanese robot, partly for this reason (my wife hates the jellybean trend).

replies(6): >>32426387 #>>32426603 #>>32427070 #>>32427595 #>>32427642 #>>32429182 #
woodruffw ◴[] No.32426387[source]
I don’t have a “wrong or not” claim to make. Only that trucks are manifestly more aggressive looking than they historically have been. Whether it’s a reaction doesn’t really factor into it.
replies(2): >>32426607 #>>32427525 #
dimensionc132[dead post] ◴[] No.32426607[source]
woodruffw ◴[] No.32426654[source]
Why did you censor “sack”? That’s not even a foul word.
replies(2): >>32427079 #>>32427156 #
meragrin_ ◴[] No.32427156[source]
I don't think it is meant as a censor, but to be illustrative.
replies(2): >>32427207 #>>32427342 #
1. bigbillheck ◴[] No.32427342[source]
If that were the case, shouldn't it have been 's@@ck'?
replies(1): >>32427476 #
2. woodruffw ◴[] No.32427476[source]
Excellent point.
replies(1): >>32427706 #
3. Izkata ◴[] No.32427706[source]
It has since been edited, so apparently that was the point.
replies(1): >>32427748 #
4. woodruffw ◴[] No.32427748{3}[source]
Mystery solved! Wonderful investigation, all.