Comment by woodruffw
3 years ago
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...
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).
Where I live - which my wife still questions our decision - the giant mean trucks aren't just giant and mean, but they are outfitted with what sounds like a freight train horn, and many myriads of flood lights.
Nobody knows why this is, because most people live in subdivisions and not farms, where you might feasibly need giant mean trucks with flood lights. And yet the big mean, loud, bright trucks are quite popular.
> Nobody knows why this is
But isn't that sort of an easy thing to generalize? (forgive me). It's not about need. It's about want. Everyone surrounding you has a big truck, you need one too. You buy a bigger truck than them, now it's up to everyone else to step and make theirs bigger, meaner, louder, etc. You spit coal out of your exhaust? Cool, now I spit more. Pretty simple human behaviors, unfortunately.
4 replies →
> Nobody knows why this is, because most people live in subdivisions and not farms, where you might feasibly need giant mean trucks with flood lights. And yet the big mean, loud, bright trucks are quite popular.
Tail fins used to be a big things on cars, but no one knows why that was, because cars don't fly. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_tailfin
It is a prisoners dilemma, people want safety from all the dangerous cars, so they buy a bigger car to feel safe, this makes other people want even bigger cars than your car so they don't end up being crushed by you. The end result is less safety and more deaths and injuries.
Sometimes people are different than you and enjoy different things and it doesn’t inherently mean they’re bad.
Perhaps try adjusting to your new location instead of blaming the locals?
8 replies →
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.
9 replies →
I don't know about that - you can track the F150 over time and a 1980's F150 of pickup carrying pickup fame is significantly more aggressive looking than a 2022 F150.
3 replies →
> ‘How do you decide what looks “meaner?” ‘
If you’re a pedestrian crossing in front of one of these or sharing a narrow residential street while riding your bicycle you might feel it. Last time I felt this was when I was in a shopping center parking lot and someone, parked gangster style (facing the wrong way in a no parking zone), pulled out much too quickly (it’s a frigging shopping center parking lot) in front of me on my motorcycle.
The curb weight can rival a light armored Humvee. And the grill is very high, promising to plow you under the vehicle.
Add lifters, 20+ inch rims, battering ram grill attachments, and all black trim…then you’re looking at the grim reaper of vehicular death.
The "meaner" look isn't just about aesthetics, but about physical size, which is increasing. The MacBook analogy seems flawed because the change in the design of the MacBook doesn't actually make it harder for me to avoid killing pedestrians while using it.
All vehicles are getting bigger, for various reasons including safety regulations. A 1985 BMW 3 series had a curb weight of 2,400 to 2,600 pounds. Today a BMW 3 is up to 3,200 to 4,300 pounds. A Tesla model 3, which is in the same class, is up to 3,500 to 4,000 pounds. The top end of both cars actually hits the bottom end of the current F150 range, which is about 4,100 pounds.
> the change in the design of the MacBook doesn't actually make it harder for me to avoid killing pedestrians while using it.
Actually the profile of the current MacBook Airs when closed is less “sharp”, reducing potential velocity and penetration as you swing it around wildly while walking down the street.
4 replies →
> How do you decide what looks “meaner?”
Yes, they are designed to look mean.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
---
I don't see any fix for this arms-race besides legislative. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles are threatening to smaller, greener vehicles, and we need to be greener.
While there are EV trucks coming, those EVs require like 3X as much battery materials as a normal-sized vehicles, and even normal-sized vehicles are too large for the dominant commuting use (single-passenger). That massive battery use is a concern since supply is constrained by real-world limitations.
Also, the larger vehicles create urban planning problems -- bigger vehicles means bigger lanes and parking spots, which hurts walkability. Again, we're back to climate change concerns.
But if you've got the money, the downsides of an oversized vehicle are wholly externalized to the other road users.
I don't really see any feasible way to solve this besides legislation. At the very least, large vehicles should be punished more heavily for highway infractions because they represent a larger risk to other road-users. Speeding in a truck is intrinsically more dangerous than speeding in a car - the larger mass, poorer bumper compatibility, and larger cross-section are a risk for others on the road.
But because of the culture war issue, no mainstream politician is going to ever have an adult conversation on the subject because it will come back to "why do you hate farmers/working men/whatever you latte-sipping urban liberal elitist".
Pickup trucks are the most popular vehicles in America. How many lives would be saved if everyone switched to jellybean cars? What’s the benefit relative to the cost?
Don’t forget that “green” EVs are also extremely heavy. At 4,300 to 5,000 lbs, a Model S is squarely in the same weight class as a Ford F-150. When you get hit by a 4,500 pound vehicle, whether it looks “mean” or like a jellybean doesn’t make much difference.
It's not obvious to me how "I don't really see any feasible way to solve this besides legislation." is any more or less of an adult conversation. The models involved - economic, societal, climate, etc. - are very large and complex and the behaviors and outcomes can evolve for all kinds of reasons. To me, "we must throw everything out and legislate" is simply a call to arms to abandon the discussion in favor of coercion to enforce, unconditionally, the proposition of a specific contingent. This is literally the definition of elitism and it doesn't strike me as very elegant.
Tesla's low-poly truck comes to mind.
But there are also the dudes who get fake testes to hang from the back of their trucks, eh?
Purely meaningless anecdata, but I've only known two people that put truck nutz on, and they were both women who did it because they thought it was utterly hilarious
1 reply →
For a very obvious case of this, observe changes in BMW vehicle designs. The new generation looks like it'll gleefuly ensure death of any pedestrian it hits.
E.g.
2023: https://www.autojakal.com/2022/04/2023-bmw-7-series.html
2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_7_Series_(E65)
Even minivans look meaner.
2002: https://images.iconfigurators.app/images/vehicles/reference/...
2012: https://cfx-vrf-main-imgs.imgix.net/2/4/f/1e950ff3b9d6acc23e...
2022: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9...
Those changes are largely driven by the desire appeal to consumers in china.
https://www.wapcar.my/news/bmws-big-grilles-are-the-tastes-o...
All cars are getting meaner, it's not just fault of the Chinese market. These big trucks are sold mostly in the US and they still have these ever-growing grills.
The higher hood is required by newer European pedestrian impact safety regulations, intended to reduce head injuries.
So the reality is 180 degrees opposite to what your claim is.
Looking like it's going to hurt you, while being safer, is not a contradiction.
Source? Everything I've heard is that the exact opposite is required -- that hoods are designed such that pedestrians will roll over them, and higher hoods increase hip injuries.
My comment was not about the height of the hood, but the overall styling.
1 reply →
> as trucks have gotten bigger, they've also gotten "meaner"[1].
Or to be more precise: a current trend in automotive fashion is a larger grille, and some blogger framed that tendentiously for clicks.
And why is it the current trend in automotive (specifically, truck) fashion?
This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
I used Jalopnik as a source, since they’re a well known car website. I’ll try to find additional sources; I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
> This is a weird indirection to introduce: of course it’s fashionable. The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
People in this thread keep dancing around it but I think nobody has outright said it yet. Maybe it's as simple as: aggressive, belligerent truck styling is uniquely fashionable in America because American culture is getting more and more aggressive and belligerent. Maybe I'm browsing too much r/PublicFreakout, but in the last few years, there's been a visible rise in road rage, people berating service workers, belligerent angry protesting, people trashing businesses over minor transgressions, people losing their shit on airliners, and so on. The public is turning into "that guy in the bar constantly looking for a fight." It shouldn't be surprising that trucks styled such that they look like they're about to bludgeon you are more and more fashionable. Admittedly, this is more of a political statement based on anecdotes than one that comes out of research and data, but hey, this is HN, not Nature.
1 reply →
> And why is it the current trend in automotive (specifically, truck) fashion?
It isn't just trucks. Someone posted a picture of a BMW sedan with a really big grille in this very thread. The Toyota Camrys* even has a similar design: https://www.cars.com/articles/how-the-2018-toyota-camrys-tri....
> The observation is that it’s fashionable because aggression is itself fashionable, at least to the target market.
It's just a big grille. I think the "aggression" aspect is more in the eye of the beholder (or the trolling concept).
> I seem to recall an interview with a Ford or Chrysler exec a handful of years ago where they said, point blank, that aggressive front designs are a key selling point to their customer base.
Assuming that's true, are you interpreting the word "aggressive" correctly? It has many senses besides "hostility", e.g.:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggressive:
> 3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent
> aggressive colors
> aggressive flavors
6 replies →
> And why is it the current trend in automotive (specifically, truck) fashion?
Because European pedestrian safety requirements all but demand big bulbous front ends, it's uneconomical to design that much of a car or SUV twice and a fugly grill is the solution OEMs have deemed most effective at prettying that up. The trucks are all but forced to copy the same rough shapes because "brand identity" and "design language".
Aggressive styling and goes over the decades. You can make these cars look however you want with a little bit of black plastic and fake chrome with no impact on safety. The actual underlying shapes and dimensions that you are muddying the waters by conflating with aggression are driven by technical requirements.
5 replies →
Yes, they are designed to look mean. That's what the fashion of the larger grill is for.
https://www.musclecarsandtrucks.com/2020-gmc-sierra-hd-desig...
> ‘Powerful’ and references to powerful things was a theme that the GMC exterior designer referenced multiple times to describe the exterior direction for the 2020 GMC Sierra HD.
> “I remember wanting it to make it feel very locomotive… my first week in Detroit I was driving through downtown and seeing the fist of Joe Louis, and remember thinking that’s what this truck should look like – a massive fist moving through the air.”
or this bit:
> “The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look,” explained the GM designer.
It's true for every class of vehicle.
For example, consider the Mazda Miata -- perhaps the most "feminine" car imaginable.
1990s: https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/1997_ma...
Now: https://cdn.drivingline.com/media/21637/drivingline-2016_maz...
For almost every single car model that has existed for more than 10 years, the old model is friendly, open, soft, "feminine." For the new one, the design language is angular, closed, hard, and "masculine." There's no way to say for certain why this is the case. In my opinion: aesthetic design of products reflects the id of the consumer. Our id has changed.
I’ve often wondered if this has an effect on wildlife. If we perceive the front end of a truck as “meaner”, does that apply to deer as well? Curious if there is any data on the likelihood of hitting a deer with a truck vs a sedan. I assume this would be difficult to capture as areas with higher chances of hitting a deer are also the areas where drivers are more likely to be behind the wheel of larger trucks.
Deer don't avoid cars because their visual system shorts out when they see a light source shining directly in their eyes[1]. You could make the truck look exactly like a mountain lion and it probably wouldn't save any deer.
[1] https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/why-do-deer-get-tr...
It's not just the headlights, but that might very well be the majority. There have been cases where I've had to stop for deer crossing the road at night, but they didn't look into my headlights and freeze, they just kept walking across the road. Also once I had a deer run out of the woods into the side of my car while I was driving.
1 reply →
How long before LED headlights can simply shine around the deer (thus not blinding them), as they do for oncoming vehicles. On second thought that would mean the driver doesn't see the deer; maybe not the best idea!
3 replies →
Truck design used to be such that you pretended to be a working man. Now, you just show everyone how big a jerk you are. There's an entire brand of truck rims that are just called "Hostile". Anyone who would buy such a thing should just be followed everywhere by the cops. http://www.hostilewheels.com/
I think the article would have done well to also discuss America's general lack of vehicle safety inspections. There's a reason people don't drive around in lifted pickups with ridiculous wheels in Germany.
They're just... wheels.
Blind spots increase with truck height.
google has many studies and articles on the dangers of this but a link to get you started
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...
4 replies →
Of course they're just wheels. The GP is remarking on the aesthetic of aggression that's being used to sell them.
2 replies →
They are a reflection of the attitudes of the driver and their intentions every time they climb up behind the wheel. And in California they are unlawful if they protrude beyond the body of the truck, which they invariably do because that's the only reason people buy these.
Slogan of the company is literally "There's no place for mercy!"
2 replies →
Someone somewhere is doing something I don't like! Call the cops!
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't the governing principle of America.
You need to check in somewhere
Lol
I dunno about meaner… (that's a personal feeling) there was a time cars acquired a bug-like appearance and depending on people some fear bugs more than others and could be interpreted as “meaner”; however it was mostly just an ‘organic look’ trend. To many others bugs look cute, so...
Lots of people don't like bugs, but I've never heard someone describe a bug as "mean" in the sense that "mean" is describing the appearance of these pickup trucks.
I guess you could say "big mean bug," but that's because "big mean" is a separate idiom in US English for "nasty looking." But we're talking about an aggressive aesthetic, which is both separate from nastiness and purely human in origin (unlike a bug that provokes a disgust reaction in someone).