It’s not tiny, no, but it’s hardly a monster truck. Personally I prefer a hatchback, too, but I don’t think he’s fucking nuts for calling it reasonably sized.
But I’m from the south and everything looks reasonably sized when you see fucking Chevy Tahoes and F350s all day so maybe my fuckin brain is just fried.
F350s and F150s are too tall to fit in a lot of car parks in my country. That kind of vehicle essentially does not exist here, and I do think it skews the brain. But also, trucks and SUVs are different segments. A Rivian also isn’t a van or HGV, but that doesn’t make it “reasonably sized”. The brainrot here is the idea that a pick-up or an SUV is a normal car for normal people rather than a speciality care for niche uses.
Why does a normal family need the high ground-clearance of an SUV? Why do they need four-wheel-drive? Why do they need the enormous cargo space? Not that no normal family needs one or more of those features, but the point - belaboured to death by now - is that most SUV owners don’t really need them even every year, never mind every week.
So yeah I think there is some brain-fry in those who find that reasonable.
Drive slower when it’s icy (or not at all). 4WD won’t help you in the most important situation on ice: braking. What will help are studded tyres.
You can fit two large instruments in a station wagon. You can fit two medium instruments in basically any car.
But I think you missed the point of my questions. What proportion of SUV owners actually need all those features? Are they worth it for the increased axle weight, emissions, and pedestrian deadliness? Obviously few, and obviously not.
Rivians sell pretty well from what I hear.
Wish they’d sell them in Australia.
Rivians are uggo and too big. I’ll have a nice, sensible (electric) hatchback or sedan, please.
Shorter in length than any sedan I’ve owned. 10ish inches wider though.
E.g.?
Currently my 2013 impala is longer than a r2. The 02 and 08 malibus i had were similar in length.
Fair enough. Yeah, the R2 isn’t crrrazy long. But it is very tall and quite wide.
Rivian R2 is a reasonable size.
Source: on the waiting list
You are fucking nuts
Source
Diagnosis: SUV-brained
It’s not tiny, no, but it’s hardly a monster truck. Personally I prefer a hatchback, too, but I don’t think he’s fucking nuts for calling it reasonably sized.
But I’m from the south and everything looks reasonably sized when you see fucking Chevy Tahoes and F350s all day so maybe my fuckin brain is just fried.
F350s and F150s are too tall to fit in a lot of car parks in my country. That kind of vehicle essentially does not exist here, and I do think it skews the brain. But also, trucks and SUVs are different segments. A Rivian also isn’t a van or HGV, but that doesn’t make it “reasonably sized”. The brainrot here is the idea that a pick-up or an SUV is a normal car for normal people rather than a speciality care for niche uses.
Why does a normal family need the high ground-clearance of an SUV? Why do they need four-wheel-drive? Why do they need the enormous cargo space? Not that no normal family needs one or more of those features, but the point - belaboured to death by now - is that most SUV owners don’t really need them even every year, never mind every week.
So yeah I think there is some brain-fry in those who find that reasonable.
Shitty roads
Snow and ice
Two kids who play instruments, or semi-frequent long-distance trips.
These are all pretty reasonable requirements for what Americans deal with on the road.
But I think you missed the point of my questions. What proportion of SUV owners actually need all those features? Are they worth it for the increased axle weight, emissions, and pedestrian deadliness? Obviously few, and obviously not.
You do you, boo. I drive it and it was just right for me, even in the streets of downtown Chicago.
That thing is still massive 🫠
R3X for you then!