Exactly that's what rating is for: To know how much you can tow.

You can say out it loudly (or post it publicly, as proven right now.

We wait for the patch^B^B^B^B^Bconcrete sarcophagus.

See? In the U.S., many small cars which would be able to tow some serious loads, are not rated at all for towing. If they were, people would not use that argument very often. But apparently, in the U.S. mind, non-trucks are not able to tow.

If you can't sell off your old car at a decent price (and your car dealership also has the lot full of them), your calculation for the next truck has to include a higher deterioration, which makes buying your next truck more expensive. And financing the truck with a loan also might get harder, because your bank might also look into the resale value of your truck, because if they impound it, they don't want to sell it at too much of a loss.

Statistics. If you see a work trailer only on 1% of the trucks out there, you can be statistically sure that only 1% of all trucks are actually using their towing capacity.

I never understood the towing capacity argument. My tiny compact with a 1.6 liter Diesel engine has a towing capacity of 3400 pounds.

For a lot of people, and a lot of use cases, it's the right tool for the right job.

Wrong. It is not the cause of Global Warming, and it is not caused by Global Warming. So far you would be right. But it is a problem whose consequences get worse due to Global Warming. So yes, it has to do with Global Warming.

I wonder whether this is a good idea, for several reasons. First, air traffic control and congestion is already a problem in many areas. Are we in a position to handle a significant increase in air traffic? Second, does this make sense in terms of use of energy and environmental impact? Third, if "flying cars" means vehicles more like cars than helicopters and airplanes, this presumably means vehicles that can also travel on roads. Is it possible to build vehicles that both provide adequate survivability of crashes on land and that are airworthy and energy-efficient? Maybe such issues can all be solved in the long run, but at least in the short run I suspect that this is a terrible idea.

Anybody driving four to five hours without taking a half hour break is, in fact, doing it wrong, and actively endangering themselves, and others.

I find it sadly funny that people will say 'human activity can't alter the climate, and besides, we know humans are altering the climate with cloud seeding, chem trails, and the HAARP weather control lasers!'

No, my point is explicitly that, gas car or BEV, if I'm driving from St. Catharines to North Bay, I'm stopping an on route just south of Barrie to eat. With a gas car, I'm fueling up, then eating. With a BEV, I'm plugging in, then eating.

The fact that *you* wouldn't do it the way *I* do it doesn't negate the fact that for my process, which includes a half-hour break *either way,* it's more efficient to charge while taking that break than it is to fuel up, then take that break.

You are not here. You are at a place where a back-of-the-envelope calculation states is the minimum required. The real thing is probably at least twice as large.