Comment by rayiner
3 years ago
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.
I feel like this could also just be based off a "biased" sample set. Like you're more likely to notice a large truck with fog lights, meanwhile the Ford Maverick is sold out for the entire next year and it's fords nicest looking, smallest hybrid truck
3 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?
It's also perfectly valid to hold an opinion and have preferences contrary to those around you.
And these opinions aren't about shoe style, they have consequences on the broader society, and thus are open to criticism for their societal impacts.
I didn't detect any blame in the GP's comment, nor the claim that "I dislike it and therefore it's inherently bad."
The more accurate reading would be that the GP thinks that it's bad, and that's why they don't like it. But even still, the comment doesn't appear to contain blame, only bewilderment.
5 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.
Why did you censor “sack”? That’s not even a foul word.
8 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.
Maybe we just have very different ideas about what aggression looks like, but the average 1980s F-150 looks downright homely to me. It basically comes equipped with a farmer in overalls and a wide-brimmed hat.
The 2022 F-150, on the other hand, has much more front-facing chrome, a much larger (and higher, and therefore dangerous to pedestrians) bumper, and much larger headlights. Some of these are probably good features! But they certainly feel more aggressive to me.
2 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.
And how many people have been killed by MacBooks in the past year?
1 reply →
> reducing potential velocity and penetration as you swing it around wildly
This is a shame. Armor-piercing Macbooks used to be a viable option for home defense. Apple isn't the same company they used to be.
1 reply →
> 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
Ah, that's awesome! :)