> Roof rack for long stuff. Unfortunately I'm 5'7 and even the low roof transit is 6.8. So it's paying >$10K more for a pretty non-ergonomic solution. > seems

> Roof rack for long stuff. Unfortunately I'm 5'7 and even the low roof transit is 6.8. So it's paying >$10K more for a pretty non-ergonomic solution. > seems too small to even be useful for that. One advantage of a bed when transporting 2x's is that you get the hypotenuse. So the bed goes further than you'd think in terms of load length. The 60/73 beds of the tacoma are certainly better than the mavericks, and those trucks are still smaller/same size as the transit. But my actual observation is that, in cities, transits just really are strictly more annoying and dangerous to drive than a mid-sized truck. Maybe it's just me, but maintaining situational awareness on an unprotected bike lane to my right in a transit is way way way more difficult than the same in a mid-sized truck. The shorty transit connects from the 2010s aren't what the modern line-up looks like. Modern transits are heavy long wheel-base vans with surprisingly large displacement engines and unfortunate blind spots. I do get the animosity about trucks on city streets (...I bike to work and pass 4 ghost bikes every morning and evening and have had my share of close calls...). But as a bicyclist, I'd rather ride next to a tacoma or ranger than a current gen transit. And it's not even close. If you bicycle and prefer vans over trucks on your streets, I encourage you to test drive any 2026 transit. It'll change how you ride around vans, even if you're already a careful cyclist.