Drak3

Yes. And this truck competes with both it and the base F150.

I already explained that it does have bumpers. They're the black segments jutting out from the front and back of the truck, at the bottom of the body. The center rear view mirror is a camera. Safe to assume that they'd do cameras for the side mirrors as well IF this is close to the final design. It looks like dedicated signal lights are in between the bumper and body (videos might confirm this, haven't watched). For most people, the base model is very usable. Towing capacity is right in line with the 2020 Ford Ranger (which Ford brought back due to popular demand), fully kitted 2020 Canyon (it ranges from 3500 to 7700lbs), and outdoes the 2020 Tacoma (6800lbs). Fun fact, the 2020 Ford F150's towing capacity ranges from 7700 to 13,200lbs.

They really aren't. Most trucks are sold with the tow package because that's how the dealer wants to sell them. Most people buy truck because they think they need more cargo space than a car or SUV. Yeah few people are going to waste their time removing and reattaching the shell of their beds. They treat them as permanent fixtures. It's what SOME prospective customers look for, not all. And don't use the fact that I had a tool box as a form of 'gotcha!' argument, as it was a hand-me-down from my dad, who ditched it as it was better at wasting space than it was offering enclosed storage. He didn't even go out of his way to buy it for the truck, it was just a toolbox with a decent price. They're moderately common, but they're not a requirement for a majority of the market. RAM SRT-10 RAM Rebel RAM TRX RAM Powerwagon Ford SVT Lightning Ford Raptor Jeep Gladiator Those trucks existed explicitly for either racing (SRT and SVT) or various extents of off roading Then you have trucks that are SUVs factory modified to have small beds: Ford Explorer Sport Trac Hummer H2 SUT Hummer H3T Chevy Avalanche Cadillac Escalade None of these trucks are great for towing or hauling. They just have more cargo space than their SUV counterparts as the cargo space isn't enclosed. Same for many small trucks, like the Datsun 720, Ford Ranger, etc. No. Most people don't care. For them, high towing numbers are a moot point. The upper end of the range for ATV weight is a tad over 1100LBs. A small pickup truck like the Dodge Dakota or (1983 and up) Ford Ranger can handle that pretty easily. Neither of those trucks are particularly good in the payload department either. Yeah, no. In the US, the top selling car is the F150, and it's most common use is just that: a big car. That's also how people treat passenger trucks like the Ranger and Dakota (and their primary purpose is given away by the name). Outside of the US, we still see the same attitude, except instead of the pick-em up, UTEs are typically more common. It's as much of as a Ranger or Dakota. It really doesn't. It doesn't meet OUR wants and needs. But the market at large wants these types of trucks, we see that from the demand to bring back the Ranger and the strong sales or F150s that end up being under utilized. Not every company needs what you think they need, and many vacationers don't benefit from having a truck over other vehicles either.

Not everyone cares about towing. Some people want trucks for off roading, racing, ricing, or hauling more than a car. Plenty of people prefer enclosed beds with easy access only being from the back. Tonneau covers and bed caps exist for a reason. Some people just want a bed for things like ATVs or dirt bikes, not tool boxes. I removed mine because it was not practical for my needs. Trucks aren’t only for work. Some people don’t want passengers in their trucks, me being one of them. What this thing offers is fine for us. See #1 See #3 Not everyone wants an intimidating truck. Too early to really know. See #6. Some people also only care about going short distances. The only problem this thing has is refills, which some people don’t care about. If your list was absolute, the Tacoma, Ranger, Dakota, Colorado/Canyon, and other light half tons and smaller wouldn’t exist. But they do, because some people don’t need an F150 or bigger.

When you say closed, do you mean the tailgate, or the tonneau cover too? Because if it’s like other pickups, the tonneau cover might negatively impact range.

It just looks like a test platform for suspension, drive train, etc.

Old trucks weren't all that great. While steel was thicker then, the structural designs weren't as good. Anti-rust measures weren't as good back then either. The durability of old trucks is massively oversold.

Not going to happen. The mustang already took them out. /s

There's a large difference between sharing attributes and having designs that are either unremarkable or highly similar to other vehicles in the class. Trucks share a rough silhouette because that design is the best at filling the purpose of a truck. The giant grill is a requirement for the cooling that larger engine options (Powerstroke, Duramax, Cummins, Hemi, iForce) need when you use the truck for hauling or towing, and there's no point in designing different grills for every engine. Flared wheel help shield other vehicles from debris coming off the wheels. Where trucks get their personality are the actual designs of their features. They are wildly different. Whereas common cars deliberately share designs within brands to reduce costs (sometimes outside of brands, if manufacturers aren't targeting the same market segments), and they all are designed for aerodynamics first.

Given what half of them look like, it's not that unfortunate. Though I wish the Subaru Baja was successful. Give that thing an STI option, and I could see myself driving it.

Given the ground clearance, not likely. Not all that hard, actually. The Raptor is a different animal. That truck, along side the RAM counterparts (Rebel and TRX) and Tacoma, are designed more for fun. The Raptor also wasn't made to be a fast truck on the track, it's a nimble off roader. For fast stock track trucks ,you want to look at the Ford SVT Lightning and RAM SRT-10 (still one of the fastest stock trucks), both of which have been discontinued since '04. Whereas every other truck needs enough get up and go to be able to do things like merge into high speed traffic safely. Anything beyond that is just a cherry on top.

I'd buy now. The odds of you saving aren't super high if the prices are already dropping, and the headache that is Black Friday isn't worth dealing with.

The entire span of the rear light bar might be able to loophole itself into being street legal. There also might be a second rear light bar that we can't see due to the glass(?) tonneau cover...thing. As for mirrors, I think legally, cameras that provide the same function are legal to use. For some people, this isn't really a problem. Particularly those that like to use bed slides, bed caps/covers, etc.

Again, there is no spinning this thing into any concept of "futuristic." It's a basic, outdated design. The fact that it's a truck is irrelevant. The design is outdated. And as for "a truck hasn't been done like this before," this thing is an uninspired lump of metal that looks like a mid 90's game render, something most people don't really like. No truck manufacturer went with this design because none of them are stupid enough to. And it's not like trucks currently on the market have the issue of being either forgettable design or designs being damn near identical. It's not the 80's anymore. So, it doesn't even have an edge in being different. It's just different for the sake of being different.

This piece of shit isn't futuristic. No matter how much mental gymnastics you try to do to say that it is.

The black areas along the bottom, in the front and back, are the bumpers. Headlights are hidden in the top edge where a grill would meet the hood. Front signals look like they’re small lights in the bumper, and rear signals would just be sections of the rear light bar. No. The thing doesn’t rethink the basics, it is basic. The overall design is very much in line with cars like the DMC-12 and Lotus Espirit S2. The silhouette resembles a Lamborgini Huracan that’s been lifted with a small, flat side skirt added. The only things futuristic about it area the headlights and loading ramp. Everything else is a mix between early to mid 90’s render and basic starting point for a generic car design.

I’ve had significantly less dust and dog fur build up after swapping over to an open bench. Dust is a bit of a problem where I live.

There really doesn’t need to be a reason beyond “I want it.”

Currently, it’s a feature that is mostly attractive to tech enthusiasts. It’s a fairly hefty performance penalty right now, but that should change in a generation or two of GPUs.

That’s irrelevant. The FTC only cares that the video subject be appealing to kids. They won’t lose it in their entirety. But should this go through, it’ll be as if they did.

Yes. But as far as you’re concerned, it’s correct. You don’t have the know how to to reduce how much is reserved for a buffer, nor do you have a reason to. Perhaps. But, there are many details I don’t know. GPU model, vBIOS version, other software on the system, CPU, RAM speed and timings, OS version, etc. There are many reasons for the situation you describe. But to insinuate that everyone else is wrong because of only your experience being an exception to the rule is ignorant at best.

No, they don’t need it because there isn’t that much data. Games get more VRAM reserved than what they actually need so that no other programs can eat up a section of VRAM that is needed in one sequence within a game but not another. It’s something most operating systems do with every form of RAM visible to them. Again, they don’t see actual VRAM usage. They see how VRAM is reserved and report it as used, because it might as well be if you’re not a high level techie that probes around for that kind of information. @Mira Yurizaki is exactly that type of techie.

Lockstin does a good job explaining it.

These are the (summarized) rules the FTC is going to be voting to add to COPPA.