[SeanAnderson]

Your perspective is kind of confusing to me.

I'm 35, don't own a vehicle, and have never owned a vehicle. I live in SF. I think I'm finally getting to the point in my life where, maybe, I want a vehicle. I'd use it to take myself to camping music festivals and Burning Man. That's about it. Oh, I'm sure I'd find other uses for it, helping friends haul stuff, etc... but, practically speaking, most of my needs are consistently addressed by public transit and/or Waymo.

I guess what I'm trying to say is - literally the only time I feel like I'm missing out on a vehicle is when I have a need to transport a large amount of stuff a large amount of miles into desolate environments.

Does that mean my desire for a truck is imaginary/aspirational because, if I were to own it, 99% of the time I'd be content with a low range battery? I can see why people would think that, but, to me, it seems more like the 1% is the rationale for owning the vehicle.

[wolfram74]

/Owning/ the truck would be imaginary/aspirational as you imagine yourself using it often enough to justify the expenditure. If it's for trips that are 3~4 times a year it probably makes more sense to rent.

[mikkupikku]

Best car for you is a used beater. It'll be fun for road trips, and then when it rots all year unused in a parking garage you shouldn't feel too upset about it because it was shitty to begin with.

[khuey]

Most Americans live in built environments where they need a vehicle for all the things you do with public transit and/or Waymo.

[Tadpole9181]

Why would you buy a car to use it thrice a year? You'll end up paying a thousand dollars a trip, amortized, on the sticker cost alone. Multiples if you buy a new top-line pickup? Let alone the maintainence nightmare from leaving your poor clunker sitting around for months.

Also, you must understand that your use case here isn't even remotely the norm.

[chrisBob]

I don't think people who can meet there needs with public transit are the target market of many car manufacturers. Most truck miles are driving to work and the store. Your use case sounds like it would be perfect for renting a vehicle, especially since it would save you from storing and insuring it an extra 300 days per year.

[bluGill]

> Your use case sounds like it would be perfect for renting a vehicle, especially since it would save you from storing and insuring it an extra 300 days per year.

Have you ever looked at the real costs of renting. More rentals won't let you tow. They won't let you go off road (no burning man!), even if allowed they will charge you for the damages typical of going off road. Any just when you think you have navigated all that you get there to pick up the car you reserved and they are sold out.

I'm not saying renting cannot work, but it isn't nearly as clear cut as people keep saying.

[interestpiqued]

I agree with you and made a comment in another related thread. I think there’s just a subset of people online who don’t realize it’s a value judgement or just take issue with others judgement of value in owning a truck.

[IncreasePosts]

Why wouldn't you just rent a truck for those few times a year when you would like one?

[amanaplanacanal]

In theory, you could rent a truck for the 1% of the time you need it.

[fooqux]

It's all about convenience, like most things in life. How many times per year do you need to go through the hassle & headache of renting a vehicle before it makes more sense to just buy one?

1% of 365 is still nearly once a quarter. That would be enough for me.

[tristanb]

Yeah but then you can't put a snorkel on it and extraction boards and expedition gas cans so you can advertise how adventurous you are in your spare time.

[sowbug]

Until you buy a vehicle, owning one is imaginary/aspirational.