Wank tank confirmed

They look so small when they climb out I have to laugh. They think they make them look big and tough when they really make them look small, insecure, and silly.

Sad thing is it looks like he has spacers on his wheels so he is as wide as a dually with no marker lights. Lifted so even less visibility and prolly a douche.

This is coming from a guy who owns a f350 dually who uses it for work / hauling stuff for the farm. Not for getting groceries or cruising the strip.

Really should be a law proving you need the truck for something other than a commute but then again. ‘Merica!

Really should be a law proving you need ~~the truck~~ a license for something
- I mean that's against the freedom to do whatever you pay for. Is it stupid? Absolutely. Is it useful? Not even a little bit. My ex GF used to call these "small penis trucks". I don't see the point. My Bolt has way more capacity in the back and I don't have to lift it into the bed.
What I don't get is how people can afford driving any truck for personal use.

I mean I'd like a truck for hauling stuff around the house, like feed, firewood, and the odd building materials. But I can't afford a car just for that, so I would need to use it for daily driving as well. I did a cursory search for used f150s and the cheapest I've found is a 2015 king ranch gas powered two seater, which, besides the ridiculous price tag of 56k USD, is guzzling gas at an astonishing rate. Just the gas for my commute alone would be about 700USD monthly.

I know my numbers are a little high, these are Danish figures, but I still see dodge rams and f250s on the road. How the fuck are people affording that? Are they just going deeper and deeper into debt to peacock? That hardly seem sustainable.

Edit: somehow I claimed that I could afford a separate car for truck stuff, and then proceeded to explain why that wasn't the case. Fixed that.
- It broke my european mind when I was talking to an American about fuel prices. I spend like 90$ a month MAX, usually less on petrol. And then this mother fucker says 200-300$ A WEEK!!! BROTHER WHAT?!? And American fuel price are lower than here due to government subsidies, so like holy shit... How much more is that thing eating up??? He said that he only included his non work driving too...
- It’s crazy to think I bought my 2012 f350 loaded in 2014 for 38k
When I was a teen, I drove my parents' 94 Chevy S10 with the mini-extended cab. The kind with those two, tiny little sideways seats.

That truck had a 4-banger in it and was lucky to hit 70mph with nothing in the bed and a stiff tailwind. But damn if it didn't haul everything we threw at it.

Beauty bark, topsoil, gravel, rubble from demo work, river rock, goodwill hauls, and moved multiple friends into apartments, piled way over the cab with furniture.

It screamed and revved, but it never failed us. About 20 years of faithful service before it was put out to pasture.

I still miss that truck...
Whether or not he has spacers, you aren't getting much work done with rubber band tires.
Really should be a law proving you need the truck for something other than a commute but then again

Personally, I'd just like an affordable bare-bones option for something like the 1990's ford rangers or 80's chevy luv's. I don't need extra seats and I'd like to be able to take stuff to the dump.

Just gonna keep on posting this

There really should be legal requirements for sightlines like this for most vehicles on the road.
- That’s a good temporary fix but the long term solution is to get rid of stroads and get back to proper separation between streets (which are narrow, one way, and walkable) and roads (which have a high speed limit, very few intersections, and no driveways). This would dramatically cut down on the number of encounters between pedestrians and cars, while also making suburbs much more walkable and livable.
  
  Streetcar suburbs, the most desirable neighbourhoods to live in, are illegal to build in most cities!
10 meter visibility is fucking insane. How is that not illegal.
- Because when laws and policies are first made with the assumption people aren't assholes. We literally believed people will do the right thing.
  
  All the addendums were to fix asshole behaviors.
it bothers me a little that it's not in order
- It's in an order: height of the front of the vehicle from the ground.
i know this is anecdotal but i've sat up front in the bajaj re tuktuk. one can almost see the single front wheel from that position -- visibility for that one vehicle is definitely closer than the 2 meters shown in this graphic.

I don't get the problem here.

We just need some big ass bikes!

The year is 2050, Trump's dessicated husk is dictator-for-life due to Elon Musk's life extending technology.

Vehicles have steadily gotten larger to meet supposed consumer demand. The smallest "compact" sedans require a 4 foot step ladder to enter.

Bicycles are now at least 500 pounds of solid steel. The tires cost $250 each due to their enormous size and thickness.

It is illegal to spend less than $1000 dollars on gas per month, and all homes are required to have a minimum of three garages.
- a minimum of three garages.
  
  Which are filled with useless crap because because the vehicles are too large to fit in them.
- Imagine the gearing on a half tonne bicycle hahaha.
  
  I like to think in this future, vehicles have also become wide enough they take up multiple of our current lanes as to not tip over by being tall as a house.
  
  America's new best selling vehicle:
  
  Bonus, the compact car of next century:
  
  The infrastructure would be comical.
- For more than a hundred centuries the Emperor of Mankind has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Earth. He is the master of mankind by the will of the gods and master of a million worlds by the might of his inexhaustible armies. He is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with power from the Dark Age of Technology. He is the Carrion Lord of the vast Imperium of Man for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day so that he may never truly die.

FTR I hate this pickup and agree with the sentiment of this photo, but I feel like there's some skewed perspective tricks going on based on this manually photoshopped drag to relocate (no resizing of anything in photo) to demonstrate.

I think the perspective issue is that the person you've dragged down is further back than the bicycle. Try dragging them just in front of the bicycle by the tank and I think they'll still look tiny.
- That's kind of the point. If you compare where the camera is in both pictures:
  
  In the tank photo, based on that you can slightly see the top of the Tank Hull, and are looking down at the 2 service members right side that the camera is roughly in line with where the tank barrel joins with the turret. Photographer is likely standing on something, or using a tall tripod.
  
  In the truck photo, you can see the top of the bike seat and the underside of the side mirror so the camera is roughly in line with the gas cap. Photographer is crouched.
  
  Combine that change in height with the use of a shorter lens which quickly distorts the size (service members close and huge vs. dragged person on top of turret looks tiny) and you can see that it isn't a truly fair comparison.
Why'd you shrink the wank tank down in your collage?

I can clearly see the bike wheels are different sizes.

Also, I don't think perspective does much here. The bike stands flat against the object in both photos.
- It hasn't been resized. You're seeing things.

I can't understand why someone would want that large of a car

It’s not even good for truck stuff. All that lift kit is extra weight and puts the bed too high to load stuff into it without a crane.

It’s also really expensive so you’re not gonna fuck it up when off-roading, though those wheels and tires aren’t off-road ready.

ETA: It's not even artistic. A low rider isn't good for anything but they look great. Sometimes art can be a reason. But this is just a giant, ugly, beige piece of crap with hideous wheels.

It’s an entirely useless vehicle that isn’t good for anything and I hate it.
- The reason is "mine is bigger than yours", almost entirely.
  
  And expense, but the size and power numbers are most of what these people care about, like it makes them better than other people in smaller cars in their mind.
  
  I'm pretty sure a lot of them think everyone driving something smaller is jealous and if they say they aren't jealous they're just lying to cover up that they can't be as awesome as big truck drivers
- It’s also really expensive
  
  This is the reason. Conspicuous consumption is a pox on us all.
- lift kit = extra weight, bed too high
  
  The weight added by a lift kit is a rounding error on the weight of the vehicle
  Beds are too high from the factory so this doesnt actually matter
  
  Offroading
  
  This style is not built to go offroading
  
  Not artisitic
  
  Not up to you. People are allowed to like things.
  
  Get better, defendable arguments.
  
  These trucks suck to drive, ride like shit, get poor fuel economy, pollute the planet (especially after emissions equipment is deleted), but most importantly are unsafe to be on the road: they barely fit in the lanes, the view out of them is abysmal, and are extremely heavy which makes them unsafe in a collision.
- Not to mention the borderline useless low profile tires. The bead would probably slip off the rim on a bumpy cottage road, i can't even imagine how poorly they'd perform in real offroad conditions.
- It's good for making the owner forget they have a micropenis for a short while.
I know right?

The tank is obviously better for the commuter.
Right? If I'm going to get a vehicle that big it better have a 120mm cannon at least.
- And come up to traffic ahead? What traffic? You just keep going!
Otherwise it wouldn’t fit the owner’s inflated ego.
Insecure little boys generally
society has made us see cars more as a statement of one's image rather than an object of utility.

this is also why luxury brands thrive in general -- because there exist people with more money than sense.

The tank also legally requires a crew commander with functioning communications with the driver to help alleviate the blind spots if it is to be driven on public roads during peace time. At least in Canada anyway.

Why are tanks allowed to be driven on road during peace time?
- Training.

But which one gets better mileage?

You can invade other countries with the tank and take their oil. Free Oil - Infinite Milage.
I actually wouldn't be too surprised if it was the tank.
- It's not the tank. They get less than one mile per gallon.

The issue is the tank too small, and bicycles shouldn't exist. /s

Lol modern day tanks are insane, they probably have the same top speed

The Abrams uses a jet engine so it might actually get better gas mileage than the pavement princess

How do you even park that monster?

Dude, I wouldn't drive that truck if it was free. 100% would sell and get something actually usable.

When an IFV is a sensible vehicle in comparison....

We literally have Hummers as street legal vehicles...
- A Hummer is much smaller then the truck or the tank shown.
IFVs generally carry a full load, making them more fuel efficient per pax than the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

I don't get it.

"Wank tank" is a derogatory term for lifted, oversized pickup trucks, implying they're as big as a tank, but with the only purpose of serving as wank material for the owner.
In these pictures, the pickup truck has a longer wheelbase than the tank, and is of comparable size overall, confirming that the term is appropriate.
The bicycle in both pictures with the parallel lines proves that both pictures are at the exact same scale.

Tank has a better turning radius too

To be fair, the tank has better turning radius than everything, besides a bike if you count lifting it and rotating it. A tank can turn in place.

The view of a tank is fairly bad though, which is why it's impressive the truck is worse.
Bad for the asphalt though.
- 'Where we're going, we don't need any roads Marty'
  
  Invades the middle east