1. Steve Portigal on September 14, 2004 9:02 PM writes...

I wonder how many of these they are going to make, or if it's a "halo effect" product that emphasizes the qualities of their brand? Did they take a concept car and do a short-run production on it? From the way this story has made the rounds on the blogosphere today, it's clearly had a major PR impact.

I'm sure there's a good list we could develop of obscenely supersized objects (I'm not talking Claes Oldenburg here) - like those 6 lb burgers www.snopes.com/photos/commercials/bigburger.asp)

2. ColdngettnColder on September 16, 2004 11:34 AM writes...

"Yes, it IS a problem, International Harvester."

Assumes the reader buys into the global-warming-hug-a-tree-earth-for-animals-not-humans mindset.

3. Paula Thornton on September 16, 2004 9:04 PM writes...

Bob, Personally I agree with your observations, but that's not our job as professionals -- particularly as experience/interaction designers.

Your criticisms can easily be waged against both commercial and non-commercial vehicles (both waste gas through avoidable inefficiencies -- some even moreso on a proportionate basis). An exercise of gluttony? There are plenty of other examples of gluttony (alcoholism -- which by the way monthly takes more lives than all of those lost in the war).

Given that your observations are not isolated to this product, let's look at the possible contributions of this product.What are the differentiating scenarios that answer my fundamental question: If this is the answer, what was the question?

I actually experienced a perfect scenario at work today that fits. One of our crews has a piece of land-moving equipment that routinely breaks down (that's a separate problem), the tactical solution is to reassign other equipment to multiple locations (increase the allocation of the resource pool). The conversation today was whether or not the trucks we had in the fleet were big enough to haul the equipment around. While we could get the equipment there, at the end of the day there was also 'salvage' that had to be hauled off as well. Clearly, none of the trucks in our fleet was powerful enough to handle the task -- and we're a small business -- just big needs.

If we were to move a vehicle like the CTX into our fleet and put our company logo on the doors, we get a powerful branding message in addtion to a meaningful addition to our fleet to help meet our tactical needs. We could also the reassess our processes to make the vehicle operate in a more strategic resource position (allowing us to engage, perhaps in activities we might not have considered in the past).

When evaluating solutions, you have to evaluate them within the context for which they might best be optimized -- or be willing to ask, "Who would suffer the most if this solution were not available?"

4. Dave Stoops on September 17, 2004 6:53 AM writes...

Well Bob I suppose we could assume that your obvious contempt for a vehicle you may not need is genuine or maybe it is just to "stir things up". There are many of us who have to move heavy cargo and several people at the same time who understand the purpose and value of such a vehicle. For me it would replace two 10 mpg trucks thus reducing the fuel needed to accomplish the task thus the highways become "less brutish". The availability of this vehicle to those who are not in the commercial trucking industry provides a whole new level of efficiency. The use of this vehicle as a "people mover" only will be so rare that the only effect that it will have on "the environment" will be the envy produced in those who cannot afford it.
The latest technical journals do not prove that "global warming" is anything more than a normal cycle of the earth's atmosphere. A position contrary to that has now become some-what elementary, ill informed or politically motivated.

5. Bob Jacobson on September 17, 2004 8:42 AM writes...

My replies to these comments, ranging from the ridiculous to the subllme:

1. To deal with the obvious first: the scientific evidence is 95% on the side of global warming as a human-induced phenomenon. Those who think otherwise are living in denial. I'll be glad to engage in a duel of technical journals elsewhere. I won't lose. We all will.

2. I next reexamined the value proposition inherent to the CXT -- and found none. The vehicle is designed not as a hauler but as a pickup truck. In fact, the promotional illustrations depict the CXT hauling a motorcycle. Not exactly the optimal use of a "Severe Service Vehicle," to use International's own product categorization. If you're into efficiency, buy a real truck which, additionally, meets engine efficiency (anti-smog) requirements that the pickup version probably doesn't.

3. Will bigger, rougher trucks make the roads safer and more appealing? The evidence so far is, no. Especially from the standpoint of automobile drivers. The purpose for buying a CXT is to display one's possession of excess power, the same motivation for owning an assault weapon. So I stand by my "brutish" comment. The CXT will make driving for most people on the road a more brutish experience.

4. As to my friend and coauthor Paula's nuances based on marketing propositions, they make sense only if you believe that commercial buyers are the main purchasers of this vehicle. But it's not positioned that way. A commercial buyer would be better advised to buy a real truck, which is not only cheaper but more ruggedized for industrial use.

If a company were to display this vehicle in its fleet, my take would be (a) this company is profligate, (b) this company has really weak engineers at work if this is the best they can do, and (c) probably, the owner of the company is using the CXT him- or herself and taking a huge take write-off on it.
That's not branding I'd want for my own.

To Paula: I'm an experience experiencer more often than I am an experience designer. I have professional responsibilities in both roles, my bottomline being creation of an environment that makes sense alike for businesses and the human beings they employ and serve.

6. Paula Thornton on September 17, 2004 12:12 PM writes...

Bob appears to have limited experience in commercial settings. He looks at the truck from the perspective of what he believes the truck can carry. He forgets the 'out of the box' perspective that in most instances such vehicles are used to 'pull' trailers weighted down with the items I mentioned in my last post.

Dave Stoops having similar first-hand experience (the 'experiencer' position that Bob eluded to) confirms my observations.

Immersion in relevant context is critical for understanding.

7. Dave Stoops on September 17, 2004 7:48 PM writes...

1. I don't believe that it is that obvious. Neither of us will live long enough to experience G.W. In my opinion in order for something to be obvious it would have to be demonstrated sufficiently to convince all who observe the phenomenon to agree upon it's effect or being. A duel of technical journals is not necessary. I'm assuming your 95% number was an off-hand estimate. From my research I cannot honestly determine what percentage of science is pro or con. I guess what changed my opinion is that the most recent and accurate papers do not support the G.W. theory. History teaches us that when the steel plowshare was introduced (By McCormick I believe) there was considerable fear that the steel would contaminate the soil. As practice and research eventually indicated that was a fallacy. While I make every effort to be conservative concerning my own energy usage I feel it is very unfair to beat others over the head with the G.W. stick. When one attempts to exert influence over other private entities selling or buying practices in light of the most recent science it begins to appear as an attempt to socially engineer our society for reasons other than environmental quality.
2.You didn't find an inherent value proposition. That indicates to me that you truly do not understand or care about the real value this vehicle can offer to those who need the efficiency that it offers. "the vehicle was designed not as a hauler" Wrong again! It was designed originally as a 7300 series severe service truck. If you are on a commercial electric grid it's very possible that you have the 7300 series to thank for the installation of your power lines. Your children may have ridden to school in one as well because some busses are built with that drive-train. So it IS a real truck. It DOES have to meet emissions standards.
3. If I got to choose what vehicle that I would have to hit head-on (while driving my Prius) it would not be a CXT. I don't get to choose. I believe that when my time's up it's up and there's nothing I can do about it. All I can do is to drive defensively and be personally ready to meet my Maker if it's time. It's assinine to try to dictate what someone else chooses to drive in order to feel safer. Once again you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about this vehicles purpose. I'm guessing the pickup bed has fooled you. I've seen these trucks and other similar (GMC and Ford builds one as well) with hitches installed in the bed or on the rear of the frame. Most applications are pulling trailers as Paula mentioned.
4. It appears to me that International Harvester is taking an efficient truck originally designed for the commercial market and expanding into private uses such as horse, race car, or RV trailer towing. Over the last 30 years my job has required me to spend a lot of time on the road. I've seen MANY accidents caused by a large trailer being towed by an inadequate vehicle. So what we may really be witnessing here is the opportunity for someone to own a much safer tow vehicle!!
Bob, I have to say that I'm not sure if you're really as distraught as you appear to be or not but I felt that the G.W. fallacy needed to be answered. There's just not enough evidence for "intellectuals" to take an assumptive position that it exists without rebuttal!

8. Bob Jacobson on September 18, 2004 2:48 PM writes...

Leaving the environmental argument aside, my case about the basic wrong-sizing of this truck -- which is being promoted unofficially as the "next Hummer," whatever the PR flacks say -- is made most eloquently by the Arizona Republic, Sept. 18, "World's Largest Pickup Comes with a Truckload of Baggage." I like this "benefit": "Kids running the local gas station carwash will really have to work for their $5."

9. Steve Portigal on September 19, 2004 11:36 AM writes...

Similar disgust and outrage over at www.boingboing.net led to the creation of this bumper sticker:
http://www.concentric.net/~bbortin/Stick_This/Bumper_Sticker1.html

10. DJ on September 20, 2004 9:54 AM writes...

Coming from a market perspective, I am wonderig if GM has any stake (financial or other) in International. It seems to me that a rather ingenious way to take the environmental heat off of the declining sales of the 10 mpg Hummer, would be to introduce a monster such as the 7 mpg CXT to market. As it was mentioned earlier, this is not being advertised as a commercial vehicle. It's a sign of wealth and power that is meant to be the "Next Hummer." If the CXT becomes the new clay pigeon for environmentalist organizations, GM might see the declining sales of the H2 at least level off.

11. Dave Stoops on September 21, 2004 7:05 AM writes...

DJ,
I don't know of any significant connection with GM. GM has a similar vehicle in their line-up (I saw two of them last week). My opinion is that there is a market for a luxurious tow vehicle such as these and IH has achieved a clever way of getting noticed by trying to "out-hummer" the Hummer. (It's working!) I believe the high fuel prices are more responsible for lower Hummer sales than environmental "heat".

12. Dave Stoops on September 21, 2004 7:26 AM writes...

DJ,
My comment "GM has a similar vehicle in their line-up" may not be entirely accurate. I have seen several of the GMC TopKick trucks equipped with a "pick-up" style box but I cannot say for sure if they were "factory built" or retro-fitted. Never-the-less it is apparent that there is a market for such a vehicle.

13. Biff on September 24, 2004 7:31 PM writes...

Anything over 18,000 GVW needs a commercial driver's license in my state. What's the hissy fit over the truck? Because it is shown with 4 wheelers in the bed? Or because Hummer sales are apparently down and you need a new scapegoat? I don't know how much this truck costs, but I'm guessing most small business owners I know wouldn't waste money on this truck, as it looks like a luxury truck. Luxury truck may sound like an oxymoron, but you should see some of the options available on 80,000 lb GVWR trucks these days.

This is a truck. Pure and simple. Even if it is marketed like a car, state restrictions on vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and state restrictions on vehicles over 18,000 lbs are enough of a hassle that very few to no one will purchase this truck, unless they really need it. And those that don't? I'll bet they have an armored personnel carrier, and a tank or two in their garages.

A Hummer gets 10 mpg? This truck gets worse? What you'll never understand, or what you'll refuse to understand, is that some trucks, some suvs, some vans take the place of more than one vehicle. And can do things that priuses, and cars and pseudo trucks can only dream of doing.

As for 10 mpg? I've driven a van that got 9 mpg in heavy city driving, and as good as 17 mpg in highway driving. Do I wish it did better? I lasted two years spending close to $300 a week on gas. I'd much rather that money went into my pocket instead of the oil companies. But it was cheaper than hiring a second driver with a second van, and using two vans with 6 cylinder engines instead of the v-8 needed for what I hauled. Diesel? Probably should have looked better for one, but there wasn't one available in my city, I can't service a diesel myself, and finding diesel fuel on some of my trips is not easy. In winter, this can be life threatening.

Save your holier than thou attitude. If there were options for all trucks, including pickups, vans, suvs that got better gas mileage, we'd jump on them. If there were options for clean engines (hydrogen) THAT COST THE SAME TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN as gasoline engines, we'd jump on them also.

In the meantime, folks like you can sneer down your noses at us small business people for what we drive, until you need a favor to pick up a refrigerator or couch or something else that doesn't fit on the roof of your prius. And after the favor is done, you can go back to your sneering.

At 11,500 lbs, that truck can haul three times more than what I drove. And I'm sure the towing capacity is in the same multiple. If I had money to throw away, and at the same time needed a truck to do what this truck is capable of, maybe I'd buy it. Especially if I had to spend a lot of time in it, whether commercial or non-commercial travel. But since I don't have money to throw away, I'd buy whatever truck was the cheapest that had the same capabilities.

Same with the Hummer. The Hummer is for people that have money to throw away. And at the same time, I know people that could use a Hummer (but can't afford one), who would use it for heavy winter driving, and getting to and from locations in emergency situations where other vehicles would have great difficulty. Like doctors and nurses who rely on local 4 wheelers with lifted suspensions to get them to and from rural hospitals during heavy snowfalls in the winter. This is more common than you would minimize it to be. They don't need a Hummer, but they make other arrangements to do what a Hummer can do straight off a dealer lot.

Because you don't need (or don't have the money to throw away on, or don't want) a Hummer, or the pickup in this article, doesn't mean that the pickup, or the Hummer isn't fulfilling a need. It is. Or it wouldn't be selling. Rich folk alone are not supporting the sales of this type of vehicle, others that have a need for this vehicle that you'll never understand. Or admit to. And the whole exercise is to de-legitimize the entire range of these vehicles by vilifying the worst, right?

You have a problem with a doctor buying an suv and getting a writeoff? Then you have a problem with a doctor writing off any business expense, don't you? Because a 4x4 suv gets the doctor to the office (and in small practices, said same doctor picks up the nurse and receptionist/secretary on the way to the office) during snow periods when otherwise the office may be closed.

Same with a grocer. If the grocer doesn't get to the grocery store during snow storms, the grocery store doesn't open. You'd be surprised the lengths a father or mother of a newborn will go to in order to buy milk for their baby even during a snow storm. Or what it costs to replace entire commercial refrigerator stock for dairy products that spoiled because you couldn't open for a week during record snow storms. Someone like you doesn't think of things like this, right? A Hummer or the pickup isn't needed, but a suburban that can also haul groceries from the wholesaler for extended snow periods is often used in situations like the grocer's, and suburbans, explorers, and other trucks villified by extremists such as yourself are often used in these situations, and countless others like them. Cab drivers who used their personal suvs to carry passengers including doctors and nurses on emergency call during extended snow storms. Mass transportation drivers/engineers who used their suvs to pick up fellow workers and take them to the buses and trains so you could get to work during a snow storm. Lab drivers who picked up blood samples for processing. Express mail organizations who use 4 wheel drive vans that have to get less than 10 mpg, to get express mail packages delivered during snowstorms, packages that include life-saving medical, police, and other equipment that is vital to keep moving.

I know a few families that own one or more suvs in their household. And every one of them wish they could get better gas mileage of all their vehicles. And every one of them use that suv during snow storms for emergency or employment purposes. And when they can stay home during such storms, they do. But small business people lose money when they stay home. And some of them run companies that provide vital services even during storms. But all this is immaterial to you, because it doesn't affect you (or so you think), and it keeps the troops riled up.

14. Bob Jacobson on October 1, 2004 6:12 AM writes...

I'm amazed at the length of the Comments and the obviously well-crafted erudition employed to defend an equally obviously brain-dead service truck duded up as a toy.

Questions about the design of the truck, what it was intended to do for International Harvester's image and fortune, or how we can mitigate its worse effects, never came up, except as I raised them.

I'm curious. Do those who wrote Comments also do design professionally via a practice or study? (Not you, Paula and Steve, I know you're practitioners.) Or are you just a roving pack of apologists for gas-gulping heavy metal on wheels? Even more so in the later case, welcome to Total Experience. Come and learn. Thanks.