Those are impractically large or not highway ready for horse trailers and other comparably sized trailers that are used for working. The F250 and 350 sized trucks are for in between light loads and those loads.
Not everything needs to be at the extremes of tiny or semi trailer.
I thought you were talking about massive trailers and not horse trailers. Noone needs a clown car to tow a horse trailer or something comparably sized. Your average station wagon is totally capable of that.
In case you aren’t trolling, I’m talking about horse trailers that anyone familiar with horses would understand.
Also comparable trailers.
None of these should be driven around in a city regularly. These trucks are not made for commuters or small spaces. They are for large farm, construction, and other work that requires more than a light truck but not a semi or tractor. They are comparable to delivery trucks and vans. In fact, large vans are just enclosed versions of the trucks. This was the van version of the F350 of its day.
Sorry I didn’t intend to troll. I’ve never seen one of those things in your picture. I don’t even think they exist in Europe. If you were to transport more than two or three horses here, you’d probably use something like this (but I’m not much of a horse guy so I’m not sure):
For the hay bales, you’d just use your tractor (they can drive as fast as 80km/h nowadays) unless you’re really going for a loooong distance. In that case you’d use some kind of small truck and trailer:
But that’s rarely necessary anyway. Why would I want to deliver hay across the country when the local hay is just the same.
yeah that doesn’t exist in australia either… those trailers probably came after the truck: there’s no need… transport 1-2 horses or rent a commercial company to transport them… nobody is transporting horses that often they need that stupid ass truck to be produced at commercial volumes
So what? Your local farmer drives 200 miles (and back) to deliver 10 bales of hay to the next town instead of commissioning a truckage company that has the right equipment to transport three times the load at half the cost as they can use the truck to transport something else on the way back? Don’t your farmers have something more useful to do with their time?
Ah yes, two trailers of hay bales is the exact same thing as one trailer!
Why move hay long distances? Well, in rural areas of the US moving hay 200+ miles in open states like Montana or Kansas isn’t really moving it that far and they don’t necessarily grow hay everywhere. Different crops are clustered in different areas because of growing conditions. I don’t think you grasp the scale of plains in the middle of the US.
Look, the US has a lot of open space OUTSIDE OF CITIES where loads less than commercial cargo need to be moved around at highway speeds (75 mph/120kph) for longer distances. Tractors do NOT meet that need, they aren’t fast enough. Large cargo hauling cabs are overkill.
Construction jobs often needs to move around very heavy, but not massively large construction equipment for which heavy cargo haulers would be overkill.
Again, these ‘oversized’ trucks are actually oversized for commuting and light duty use but are appropriately sized for a ton of purposes that fit between a lawn mower business and building a skyscraper. They are being used in the wrong contexts which makes them a problem. Most of Europe is the wrong context in the same way that most US cities are the wrong context unless they are going to or returning from a job site with a load that probably includes a trailer’s worth of materials and equipment.
Demonize them for being used in the wrong context. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a reason to exist in the first place because of some other options that don’t fit the same need.
Ah yes, two trailers of hay bales is the exact same thing as one trailer!
If you don’t need two trailers, maybe just don’t attach the second trailer?
In Europe, the maximum weight you’re allowed to tow with a passengers car driver’s license is 3500kg. And even that requires an extended licence for driving with large trailers. Everything bigger than that requires a full truck drivers license anyway (Including all the shenanigans that come with commercial freight traffic like a driving logbook, minimum resting times).
So people will either use a real truck if they need one or they’ll use a passenger car if they don’t.
Not sure which type of bobcat that is, but you can probably pull that with a slightly bigger station wagon, but surely with a Van.
No, it’s obviously not.
A van without enclosure looks like that:
A pickup truck with enclosure looks like this:
One of these allows you to see a three year old standing 60cm in front of your car, the other one doesn’t even allow you to see the same kid when it’s 3 meters away.
First of all, I already said they shouldn’t be used for daily commuters and I hope there aren’t a bunch of children on a job site.
Second, the hood design is separate from the purpose of the vehicle. They could put sloped hoods on F350s, and they have had sloped hoods on comparable pickups in the past. That is a separate and valid design issue.
Third, your van without an enclosure IS THE SAME THING with a different cab and hood design. That is a FLATBED PICKUP TRUCK with a better hood design. What you should be arguing for is the DESIGN instead of just trashing the concept of the type of vehicle existing in the first place.
I think he means that the engine, transmission, and frame are the same, not necessarily the body.
Also, I don’t think you two really disagree with each other, as his first comment was:
The big one is a work truck and should not be driven as a commuter. It really shouldn’t be allowed on roads where cargo trucks aren’t allowed.
The horrible sightlines of modern pickups is a different issue, and I was actually going to post that same chart in this thread because I was thinking of it too. I will add that the pickup is about the same size as the tank, though, and has a worse view.
Those are impractically large or not highway ready for horse trailers and other comparably sized trailers that are used for working. The F250 and 350 sized trucks are for in between light loads and those loads.
Not everything needs to be at the extremes of tiny or semi trailer.
I thought you were talking about massive trailers and not horse trailers. Noone needs a clown car to tow a horse trailer or something comparably sized. Your average station wagon is totally capable of that.
In case you aren’t trolling, I’m talking about horse trailers that anyone familiar with horses would understand.
Also comparable trailers.
None of these should be driven around in a city regularly. These trucks are not made for commuters or small spaces. They are for large farm, construction, and other work that requires more than a light truck but not a semi or tractor. They are comparable to delivery trucks and vans. In fact, large vans are just enclosed versions of the trucks. This was the van version of the F350 of its day.
Sorry I didn’t intend to troll. I’ve never seen one of those things in your picture. I don’t even think they exist in Europe. If you were to transport more than two or three horses here, you’d probably use something like this (but I’m not much of a horse guy so I’m not sure):
For the hay bales, you’d just use your tractor (they can drive as fast as 80km/h nowadays) unless you’re really going for a loooong distance. In that case you’d use some kind of small truck and trailer:
But that’s rarely necessary anyway. Why would I want to deliver hay across the country when the local hay is just the same.
yeah that doesn’t exist in australia either… those trailers probably came after the truck: there’s no need… transport 1-2 horses or rent a commercial company to transport them… nobody is transporting horses that often they need that stupid ass truck to be produced at commercial volumes
Texas: nearest town is 200mi away
So what? Your local farmer drives 200 miles (and back) to deliver 10 bales of hay to the next town instead of commissioning a truckage company that has the right equipment to transport three times the load at half the cost as they can use the truck to transport something else on the way back? Don’t your farmers have something more useful to do with their time?
mate, i’m from australia and yall have no idea what distance means… we still have no need for your bullshit tank tanks
Ah yes, two trailers of hay bales is the exact same thing as one trailer!
Why move hay long distances? Well, in rural areas of the US moving hay 200+ miles in open states like Montana or Kansas isn’t really moving it that far and they don’t necessarily grow hay everywhere. Different crops are clustered in different areas because of growing conditions. I don’t think you grasp the scale of plains in the middle of the US.
Look, the US has a lot of open space OUTSIDE OF CITIES where loads less than commercial cargo need to be moved around at highway speeds (75 mph/120kph) for longer distances. Tractors do NOT meet that need, they aren’t fast enough. Large cargo hauling cabs are overkill.
Construction jobs often needs to move around very heavy, but not massively large construction equipment for which heavy cargo haulers would be overkill.
Again, these ‘oversized’ trucks are actually oversized for commuting and light duty use but are appropriately sized for a ton of purposes that fit between a lawn mower business and building a skyscraper. They are being used in the wrong contexts which makes them a problem. Most of Europe is the wrong context in the same way that most US cities are the wrong context unless they are going to or returning from a job site with a load that probably includes a trailer’s worth of materials and equipment.
Demonize them for being used in the wrong context. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a reason to exist in the first place because of some other options that don’t fit the same need.
If you don’t need two trailers, maybe just don’t attach the second trailer?
In Europe, the maximum weight you’re allowed to tow with a passengers car driver’s license is 3500kg. And even that requires an extended licence for driving with large trailers. Everything bigger than that requires a full truck drivers license anyway (Including all the shenanigans that come with commercial freight traffic like a driving logbook, minimum resting times).
So people will either use a real truck if they need one or they’ll use a passenger car if they don’t.
Not sure which type of bobcat that is, but you can probably pull that with a slightly bigger station wagon, but surely with a Van.
A van is an enclosed pickup truck.
No, it’s obviously not.
A van without enclosure looks like that:
A pickup truck with enclosure looks like this:
One of these allows you to see a three year old standing 60cm in front of your car, the other one doesn’t even allow you to see the same kid when it’s 3 meters away.
First of all, I already said they shouldn’t be used for daily commuters and I hope there aren’t a bunch of children on a job site.
Second, the hood design is separate from the purpose of the vehicle. They could put sloped hoods on F350s, and they have had sloped hoods on comparable pickups in the past. That is a separate and valid design issue.
Third, your van without an enclosure IS THE SAME THING with a different cab and hood design. That is a FLATBED PICKUP TRUCK with a better hood design. What you should be arguing for is the DESIGN instead of just trashing the concept of the type of vehicle existing in the first place.
I think he means that the engine, transmission, and frame are the same, not necessarily the body.
Also, I don’t think you two really disagree with each other, as his first comment was:
The horrible sightlines of modern pickups is a different issue, and I was actually going to post that same chart in this thread because I was thinking of it too. I will add that the pickup is about the same size as the tank, though, and has a worse view.