I don’t get how these people even feel comfortable driving something where you can’t see the road that’s in front of you for 10+ meters out. I just wouldn’t feel safe, there could be any kind of obstruction you can’t see on the road from 10m away but will still fuck up your day and/or life.
I have a Chevy 2500 to tow my RV (needed for the weight and it’s my home) and I hate not being able to see shit. I would gladly replace it with a cab over if they brought them to the states. The truck only gets used to move the RV from site to site and I have small single cylinder motorcycles to get around because fuck parking that thing anywhere.
If they thought about things and came to good conclusions afterwards, they probably wouldn’t be driving this kind of car to begin with. The people who are driving it are probably not good thinkers.
As a truck driver I get it. It’s nice to see more. The tradeoff isn’t worth it and not why they do it. I would bet my paycheck they never take it off road either. Which would be the only good reason to raise something that much. Truckers have a good reason to. They have giant engine and transmissions that need to last for the industrial work involved.
4-8x longer to stop because of cold snowy or icy weather? Or because of increased weight of such large vehicles?
And why does seeing farther matter for stopping distance, when the rule of thumb is to maintain X car lengths or Y seconds between your car and the car in front of you? Not even a fully loaded semi needs the entire length of what their higher viewing angle grants them
cabovers are almost exclusively used throughout europe and asia. it’s only america and australia that tends to use the big bonnet american style trucks.
To be fair the regulations on vehicle length and older infrastructure makes the cabover popular.
American style trucks(long nose) get better mileage on longer hauls than the blunt nose design. They also provide more cabin room. As a final note American audiences are conditioned for the long nose design and it’s difficult to find the imports here.
Having driven both I think they both have merit. In Europe an American truck would be impossible to maneuver in towns.
Simple solution there is to replace long-haul trucks with rail freight and use cabovers, box trucks, and sprinter vans to connect train depots to retailers and “last mile” delivery hubs. We could do with broad re-zoning to allow smaller shops rather than centralize everything into giant all-in-one grocery stores and mini malls as well but that’s not an entirely connected issue.
That would be great. I don’t know if the aging American rail infrastructure that is already being utilized would be able to handle it. It would be a big ticket item that Congress would need to pass… Oh well that was a fun though experiment.
A lot of trucking is long-range. America is fucking big and not everywhere is served by ports, railroads, and tributaries.
Those roof-scoops and curvaceous hoods aren’t just for being sexy. They greatly increase aerodynamics and with it, range.
The important thing is that it requires specialized training and a license to drive something with such poor visibility. The pickups, any 16yo kid can legally drive.
There is a reason for it: Regulations that limit the overall vehicle length. The EU has a lower maximum than the U.S., so it favors the cabover design, which allows a longer trailer. The U.S. had lots of cabover trucks on its roads until it increased the allowed length, when truckers took advantage of the easier maintenance and better ergonomics of the bonnet design.
No the reason was already mentioned earlier. Europe mandates a relatively short overall maximum vehicle length whereas the US mandates a maximum trailer length. So European trucks are almost always cab over design to maximize trailer length.
There is a reason in Australia, the distances travelled and the enormous loads they haul require far more powerful trucks. Look up road trains. They are significantly more efficient than using multiple trucks.
Trains would be more efficient but Australia is too large and too sparsely populated to do everything with trains.
They are also safer for the driver than the Cab over style.
I’d imagine most road trains to run between cities, or mines, ports, industry, and cities. Building railways between them would certainly make sense, but it’d have to be the state, no single actor alone would make that investment.
What I mean to say is that trains are better and you could have them if you just chose to.
No, you don’t have the first inkling of how much that would cost. Not only would it not be cost effective due to how sparsely populated most of Australia is but no Australian Government could afford it to start with.
Road trains service extremely remote and tiny communities across Australia, as well as supporting many industries. They go off road to reach some of these communities.
You really can’t fathom how remote until you’ve been into the Outback.
Also we do have trains in many places where it makes sense. Not as many as we could have but they’re hardly ignored as an option.
You misunderstand. The trains aren’t for the supply of tiny settlements. It’s fine to use road vehicles for this. I am specifically talking about industry, cities, ports, mines.
Agreed, but some people drive that way. It’s their road, get out of the way. I had a 1996 Dodge dually long ago for pulling a trailer, and its visibility wasn’t very bad, except for around the damn side columns. I got into the habit of leaning forward and back as I would turn so that I had some idea of what was being blocked. At one point we had considered upgrading to the big trucks like the F-450/F550, and I got into one to see what it was like. I could see EVERYTHING. I was like, holy shit, this is luxury.
Side columns like that should be illegal. I was driving my stepdad’s '21 Silverado 1500 crew cab a few weeks ago and was totally blown away when I almost pulled out in front of someone coming from the right in a big ass truck.
I don’t get how these people even feel comfortable driving something where you can’t see the road that’s in front of you for 10+ meters out. I just wouldn’t feel safe, there could be any kind of obstruction you can’t see on the road from 10m away but will still fuck up your day and/or life.
I have a Chevy 2500 to tow my RV (needed for the weight and it’s my home) and I hate not being able to see shit. I would gladly replace it with a cab over if they brought them to the states. The truck only gets used to move the RV from site to site and I have small single cylinder motorcycles to get around because fuck parking that thing anywhere.
If they thought about things and came to good conclusions afterwards, they probably wouldn’t be driving this kind of car to begin with. The people who are driving it are probably not good thinkers.
I have one of these out of necessity. I don’t understand getting one as a daily driver for someone to go to their office job and pick up groceries.
They don’t look or care. Their car is big enough that they’ll plough right through a bunch of kids before they even notice they’re on the sidewalk.
As a truck driver I get it. It’s nice to see more. The tradeoff isn’t worth it and not why they do it. I would bet my paycheck they never take it off road either. Which would be the only good reason to raise something that much. Truckers have a good reason to. They have giant engine and transmissions that need to last for the industrial work involved.
but you don’t actually see more, that’s kinda the whole point here?
maybe you see over other cars but you lose sight closer to you
You see more further down the road. Which you need when it takes 4 to 8 times longer to stop depending on conditions.
Can you elaborate? I don’t quite follow.
4-8x longer to stop because of cold snowy or icy weather? Or because of increased weight of such large vehicles?
And why does seeing farther matter for stopping distance, when the rule of thumb is to maintain X car lengths or Y seconds between your car and the car in front of you? Not even a fully loaded semi needs the entire length of what their higher viewing angle grants them
cabovers are almost exclusively used throughout europe and asia. it’s only america and australia that tends to use the big bonnet american style trucks.
there no real reason for it
To be fair the regulations on vehicle length and older infrastructure makes the cabover popular.
American style trucks(long nose) get better mileage on longer hauls than the blunt nose design. They also provide more cabin room. As a final note American audiences are conditioned for the long nose design and it’s difficult to find the imports here.
Having driven both I think they both have merit. In Europe an American truck would be impossible to maneuver in towns.
So that’s the “real reason for it”.
Simple solution there is to replace long-haul trucks with rail freight and use cabovers, box trucks, and sprinter vans to connect train depots to retailers and “last mile” delivery hubs. We could do with broad re-zoning to allow smaller shops rather than centralize everything into giant all-in-one grocery stores and mini malls as well but that’s not an entirely connected issue.
That would be great. I don’t know if the aging American rail infrastructure that is already being utilized would be able to handle it. It would be a big ticket item that Congress would need to pass… Oh well that was a fun though experiment.
Yeah, “simple” does not mean “easy” or even “doable” in this case.
I would kill for a 4x4 cab over in the states to replace my 2500. The offerings here don’t compare.
2500 Desiel - 21000lb towing // Isuzu NPR desiel - 14500lb towing
Both are the same price at around $68000
A lot of trucking is long-range. America is fucking big and not everywhere is served by ports, railroads, and tributaries.
Those roof-scoops and curvaceous hoods aren’t just for being sexy. They greatly increase aerodynamics and with it, range.
The important thing is that it requires specialized training and a license to drive something with such poor visibility. The pickups, any 16yo kid can legally drive.
There is a reason for it: Regulations that limit the overall vehicle length. The EU has a lower maximum than the U.S., so it favors the cabover design, which allows a longer trailer. The U.S. had lots of cabover trucks on its roads until it increased the allowed length, when truckers took advantage of the easier maintenance and better ergonomics of the bonnet design.
I think there is a legal reason for no cabovers in the USA. Maybe something based on crash safety (for just the occupants of course).
No the reason was already mentioned earlier. Europe mandates a relatively short overall maximum vehicle length whereas the US mandates a maximum trailer length. So European trucks are almost always cab over design to maximize trailer length.
There is a reason in Australia, the distances travelled and the enormous loads they haul require far more powerful trucks. Look up road trains. They are significantly more efficient than using multiple trucks.
Trains would be more efficient but Australia is too large and too sparsely populated to do everything with trains.
They are also safer for the driver than the Cab over style.
Power is not the issue. Cabovers can have just as much power as long-hood tractors.
I’d imagine most road trains to run between cities, or mines, ports, industry, and cities. Building railways between them would certainly make sense, but it’d have to be the state, no single actor alone would make that investment.
What I mean to say is that trains are better and you could have them if you just chose to.
No, you don’t have the first inkling of how much that would cost. Not only would it not be cost effective due to how sparsely populated most of Australia is but no Australian Government could afford it to start with.
Road trains service extremely remote and tiny communities across Australia, as well as supporting many industries. They go off road to reach some of these communities.
You really can’t fathom how remote until you’ve been into the Outback.
Also we do have trains in many places where it makes sense. Not as many as we could have but they’re hardly ignored as an option.
You misunderstand. The trains aren’t for the supply of tiny settlements. It’s fine to use road vehicles for this. I am specifically talking about industry, cities, ports, mines.
You think Australia doesn’t have any trains?
Of course not. I think Australia could have more. If the Australians wanted to.
It’s simple uneducated hubris. Nothing bad could ever happen to them because they are a Good American.
That would require rational thought
Agreed, but some people drive that way. It’s their road, get out of the way. I had a 1996 Dodge dually long ago for pulling a trailer, and its visibility wasn’t very bad, except for around the damn side columns. I got into the habit of leaning forward and back as I would turn so that I had some idea of what was being blocked. At one point we had considered upgrading to the big trucks like the F-450/F550, and I got into one to see what it was like. I could see EVERYTHING. I was like, holy shit, this is luxury.
Side columns like that should be illegal. I was driving my stepdad’s '21 Silverado 1500 crew cab a few weeks ago and was totally blown away when I almost pulled out in front of someone coming from the right in a big ass truck.
This attitude is really prevalent here. As in you don’t really need to see the road, just the car in front.
People scream blue bloody murder about bikes on the road.
Looking at those dumbfucks driving their emotional support vehicle in the city, they don’t seem to be comfortable
They are driving slow and can’t stay in their lane, as they can’t judge the distances correctly
Emotional support vehicle? Don’t you mean Gender Affirmation Vehicle?
They don’t care, as long as they get to drive their behemoth and feel powerful.