[HN Gopher] Small cars are getting larger - are fuel economy reg...
___________________________________________________________________
Small cars are getting larger - are fuel economy regulations to
blame?
Author : aarghh
Score : 50 points
Date : 2022-04-30 19:54 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| Zak wrote:
| It seems to me the problem with the footprint model is much the
| same as the previous model holding "trucks" to a different
| standard: it's treating size as a good reason for people to buy
| less efficient cars.
|
| Size is occasionally a good reason. Someone who needs to carry 15
| passengers needs a van, and someone with a heavy load to haul
| needs a truck. The trend in the US, however has been for people
| who only _need_ cars to drive trucks and large SUVs.
|
| Outright telling people what to drive seems like government
| overreach to me, but there may be another way: adjust the
| standards so that large vehicles don't get special treatment.
| Selling too many large vehicles would then hurt a car
| manufacturer's average and they would be incentivized to stop
| making such vehicles as appealing for everyday use, e.g. by
| removing luxury options.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Unintended consequences are real.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I feel this is completely and ignorantly misstating reality.
|
| Yes, e.g. Golf has grown over last few decades. I assume this is
| so each and every year they can say in marketing materials that
| it's a bit bigger and better, or that it's biggest and best in
| its category, however that category is conveniently defined.
|
| But now there are two more cars underneath it in vw range - Lupo
| and Polo!
|
| Same for any other car mentioned - sure Honda Civic is bigger.
| But Honda fit now occupies it's previous spot. And so on for all
| manufacturers - any given name plate gets bigger and better but
| something slots underneath. Tuscon is what Santa fe was 20 years
| ago. Etc etc.
|
| I find the premise deeply flawed and whole content of article a
| sloppy p0st hoc rationalization based on flawed premise.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Since this article is about American regulations, the existence
| of the Lupo, Polo, and Fit are irrelevant. None of those cars
| are sold in the U.S.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| But they ARE made. I don't think golf grew because of usa
| regulations. I think golf grew for other reasons - and then
| consumer preference , profit margins, safety, and fuel
| regulations combined to guide what is feasible to sell in
| USA.
|
| Article's premise of cause and effect (these models grew
| because of usa fuel regulations) is I believe thusly easily
| disproven.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I personally love small economic
| hatchbacks. But my values and politics and environmental
| thoughts are irrelevant - golf grew across the world for
| reasons many and various outside of usa laws... And other
| small models replaced it. This appears to be a multi decade
| strategy across the board.
| aczerepinski wrote:
| I've never heard of the VW Lupo or Polo so I looked them up. No
| mention of either on vw.com. Wikipedia says the Lupo was
| discontinued on 2005. The Polo has never been sold in the US
| and its popularity is steadily declining in Europe (as measured
| by sales figures). The Honda Fit was discontinued in the US in
| 2020.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| See my other comment for usa vs world ; and names keep
| changing - after lupo there was fox, etc etc. But as golf
| grew there were always smaller models.
|
| Toyota corolla grew and was replaced by Yaris which became
| echo or other way around which was discontinued but then
| corolla got the iq and other small hatch versions.
|
| Nissan sentra grew but then we got micra etc. My whole point
| is forget specific names - models and Renaming aside, tiny
| cars keep existing.
| sundvor wrote:
| Australia: The ~2008 1.8T Polo GTI was quite the little
| ripper. Three door, manual, you could get an APR ECU tune
| that unlocked the engine's true potential - identical with
| and detuned from an Audi A3. So much fun in a small package,
| I regretted selling it later.
|
| It had full stability control and the full set of airbags, so
| it was an early upspec for what would later become the norm
| of safety features.
|
| Looks like it's still being sold now but it is no longer the
| same car.
| adolph wrote:
| The article has a pretty interesting argument and seems logical.
| If a vehicle has some minimum set of vertexes and safety
| equipment that are held constant despite size, then faced with
| higher fuel economy standards the automaker can choose between
| lengthening edges (cheap and certain) or changing engine
| technology (expensive and risky).
|
| "Generally, the larger the vehicle footprint, the lower the
| corresponding vehicle fuel economy target. Footprint-based
| standards help to distribute the burden of compliance across all
| vehicles and all manufacturers. Manufacturers are not compelled
| to build vehicles of any particular size or type (nor does the
| proposed rule create an incentive to do so), and each
| manufacturer will have its own fleet-wide production-weighted
| standard that reflects the vehicles it chooses to produce." [0]
|
| "CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station
| wagon, but Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca developed the idea of
| marketing the minivan as a station wagon alternative, while
| certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance
| with less-strict CAFE standards."
|
| 0.
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2...
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Subaru was able to hack this by making their Legacy station
| wagon a truck since Chrysler was able to game the system with
| the PT Cruiser "truck".
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Although crossovers are mentioned what's not called out is the
| platform sharing between crossovers and sedans. The platform will
| be built for the high volume crossover and the sedan adapted to
| it.
|
| I also don't understand how the crosstrek gets to be a light
| truck since it doesn't meet the first requirements of open bed/3
| rows/10 pass. Maybe in this sentence the author meant "may
| instead" instead of "must also"?
|
| > Perhaps most crucially, however, light trucks must also meet a
| set of measured requirements that deem them capable of "off-
| highway operation."
|
| Finally, I'd really like a full-size sedan but there's a lack of
| options in the market right now. This used to be something that
| dominated sales. The Civic is "growing" but it is still 20 inches
| shorter than an 80s Olds 88? Even the extra long Audi a8 is five
| inches shorter. Stretching a car in the middle should do little
| to harm the fuel economy, all the heavy parts are already dealt
| with, but it appears that available car lengths are being
| squeezed at both ends. The subcompacts are vanishing but so are
| the full size models.
| dahdum wrote:
| Guidelines read to me like just having the off-road capability
| is sufficient, which makes sense as it's referring to non-
| passenger automobiles in general.
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/p...
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I'd like to commend TFA for being (a) well written (b) full of
| numerically based explanations of a numerical phenomenon (c)
| providing plenty of links to dive in a bit deeper (d) properly
| considering the complexity and broader context of the question in
| its closing paragraphs. It feels rare to me to read articles that
| manage to do all four of these, no matter what the topic is.
| Animats wrote:
| The fuel economy regulations don't apply to electric cars, so
| this may decrease as a problem as the fleet goes electric.
| jeffbee wrote:
| There is nothing you can change in the CAFE regs that will be as
| simple, easy, and effective as a $5/gallon fuel tax.
|
| By the way, one car that the article doesn't mention, which bucks
| all these trends, is the Mazda MX-5 Miata. The 2022 model is very
| similar in every dimension to the 1990 model, and uses 25% less
| fuel despite having 50% more power. The later model weighs only
| 10% more even though it meets 30 more years worth of crash
| standards.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| legitster wrote:
| CAFE is not a particularly good law, but the arms race for crash
| safety is clearly to blame. The majority of difference between a
| 1990 Golf and a 2022 Golf is in the size and complexity of the
| body. And if you need a 30% bigger and more expensive frame to
| keep up your crash safety rating, you may as well add a few
| inches of passenger room.
|
| We also cannot flatly ignore consumer preference. Two door car
| options used to be incredibly popular. But ask a new car buyer
| today if they are willing to part with rear passenger doors to
| save $1500 on their car and they will look at you like you are
| crazy.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Are 2 doors really that uncommon? Of the 4 cars I've owned, 3
| have been 2-door. My brother's car is 2-door as well. I bet
| there's a big split on this re if you normally drive by
| yourself or with 1 passenger, vs with more than 1 other
| passenger. Ie, people with families are more likely to not look
| at 2-doors.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| In the US, I can't recall the last time I've seen a 2-door
| car outside of a smaller 2-door truck, and even those are
| uncommon.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Outside of sports cars and specialist off-road, looking at
| the current ranges from manufacturers, you can only find
| 3-door variants in the most extreme budget categories, and
| often not at all.
| aeyes wrote:
| A lot of non budget cars from Europe have 3 door versions
| for their current model years: Golf, BMW 1 series, Audi A3,
| Mini Cooper
|
| I'm not sure if those are sold in the United States, I
| think you also aren't big fans of station wagons which are
| very common in Europe.
| Kye wrote:
| We have weird things that are like an interpolation
| between small trucks and big cars that fill the role of
| station wagons. Stuff like the Ford Edge. They're not
| quite SUVs, and they're not quite minivans. They're
| called crossovers.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_(automobile)
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Those are what I mean by the most extreme budget
| categories of those manufacturers. Looking at their
| websites they don't even seem to advertise them? Maybe
| you have to special order them.
| massysett wrote:
| Nowadays in the USA at least, it's hard to even find a 2-door
| pickup truck. Forget about a 2-door car unless it's a sports
| coupe. Even a tiny cheap car like a Honda Fit or Nissan Versa
| is 4 doors. And they eliminated mid-range coupes like the
| Accord Coupe or Camry Solara.
| x3iv130f wrote:
| I think us as a society may need to accept that there is no
| safe way to operate 3000+ lb vehicles at the speeds we do now
| with our current system of roads and infrastructure.
| legitster wrote:
| On the contrary, driving has never been safer!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in.
| ..
|
| The only blip came from the introduction of smartphones
| (distracted driving). But I think people just need to know
| one of the tradeoffs has been fuel economy.
| legitster wrote:
| One of the first things that you learn with a fancy marketing
| degree is that consumer responses to prices are not linear - if
| you have to raise your price $1 because of some new regulation,
| you may as well raise it $1.50 and add in a free drink.
| _moof wrote:
| _> But ask a new car buyer today if they are willing to part
| with rear passenger doors to save $1500 on their car and they
| will look at you like you are crazy._
|
| Oh man, I would totally do this. I have so many other things I
| want to spend $1500 on.
|
| (Not saying the average car buyer would do this or trying to
| dispute your point. Just sayin' _I_ would.)
| legitster wrote:
| Same. But then again I have yet to actually buy a new car in
| my life. If I'm willing to buy a cheap car, I'd just as soon
| buy used.
| karaterobot wrote:
| If I knew I could get a (late model, U.S. market) compact
| pickup with 2 doors, where the vestigial passenger space most
| trucks have was converted into an extra foot of bed length
| instead, I think I would stop typing this comment and go buy
| one right now.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| I came here looking to comment similarly - one of the other
| effects of the regulations not discussed in the article is
| the near complete disappearance of two door pickups from
| the American market. I have a two door, two seat 2008 Ford
| Ranger with manual transmission. It has a 6 foot bed which
| conveniently fits so many things, and it's also compact
| enough to parallel park easily. I would love to upgrade to
| a newer model but I fear there will never be another truck
| that fits those requirements released again. Mine currently
| has ~150k miles on it and I've owned it for a decade and I
| fully intend to own it for another decade and another 150k
| miles.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I suspect there's something a bit like the "small phone"
| problem: there's almost certainly a market for smaller sedans
| and coupes, but for whatever reason companies have decided that
| it's not worth their time to make cars for that market.
| (There's a similar issue for families with 6+ kids, where
| there's just not a lot of good options in the "more seats than
| a minivan" space)
| deadmutex wrote:
| Ehn, didn't Apple over estimate the small phone market? It
| seemed like a good idea on paper, and there were many vocal
| supporters on the internet.. but at the end of the day, it
| missed expectations.
| jmisavage wrote:
| Apple shot themselves in the foot with pricing. The 13 mini
| is $699. While the old iPhone 11 which is still sold is
| $499. The mini is better in every way, but that's a big
| price difference. Even the new SE is roughly the same size
| just with a inferior screen and it's only $429.
|
| The iPad mini is in the same boat now too. It used to be
| the most popular iPad for a while because it was also the
| cheapest. But then they started updating it and moving it
| up the pricing ladder. It's basically a smaller version of
| the Air except that just got updated to a M1.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Two things about the iPhone situation make the result not
| generalize. First, the Mini got a worse camera than the
| larger models. Second, Apple waited years before
| reintroducing a small phone so apps including theirs had
| mostly moved on. The small screen user experience is
| compromised in a way it wouldn't be if there had been
| continuity.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Adding to that, I think there are tradeoffs you typically
| make with small phones. E.g. worse battery life or slower
| phones. Given these tradeoffs, people end up not choosing
| small phones. If you could have same specs as an ultra or a
| pro in a smaller body, that is a different story.
| legitster wrote:
| For both we are talking essentially about "affordable
| options" - and the problem is twofold: they only make sense
| with economies of scale, and they can end up cannibalizing
| sales of existing products more than they generate sales.
| noobermin wrote:
| The fix is easy but politically difficult, remove the distinction
| for light trucks or at least severely increase the standard for
| them, then the benefit for crossovers will disappear.
|
| The industry responded to regulations and they can respond again.
| nradov wrote:
| The whole notion of fuel economy regulations is so stupid. If we
| want people to burn less fuel then just increase the tax on fuel
| and let the market sort it out. Which is worse, a Chevrolet Tahoe
| driven 3K miles per year or a Toyota Prius driven 25K miles per
| year?
| burlesona wrote:
| Agreed. There's profound value in simple rules that we can
| actually reason about. Yet it seems that governments are only
| capable of _adding_ complexity on top of the existing mountain
| of regulatory tech debt.
| dlp211 wrote:
| I agree with you in concept but in reality go ahead and try
| passing a gas tax in the US. You will end your political career
| and you won't get your tax.
| nradov wrote:
| We already have a federal gas tax in the US. Most states also
| impose their own gas taxes. Increasing the gas tax would be
| politically difficult, which is why most serious proposals
| call for coupling it to a cut in income taxes in order to
| make the overall net change revenue neutral. The tax increase
| would also have to be gradually phased in over 10+ years in
| order to give consumers time to adjust.
| massysett wrote:
| Yikes that's a great recipe for a regressive tax hike. The
| poor and working class feel the pinch every time gas prices
| inch up. Those with higher incomes only notice at all if
| they pay attention to the sign at the gas station--and many
| don't and won't even bother to cross the road to save money
| on gas.
| hedgehog wrote:
| In major metros it's even worse than that, the people
| with the longest commutes are those who can't afford
| housing in the city.
| nradov wrote:
| No, you misunderstood my comment. The idea is to couple a
| gas tax increase with an income tax decrease. If done
| properly, most poor and working class would end up with a
| net lower tax burden.
| dlp211 wrote:
| You think that poor and working class folks pay income
| taxes? You'd have to pair it with a fully refundable tax
| credit to make it even somewhat viable, but even then,
| folks won't care. All they will see is money leaving
| their pocket every time they visit gas station. I think
| you over estimate the rationality of people.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Proposals like that create perverse incentives. If gas
| taxes become a significant source of tax revenue, the
| government starts depending on them, and lower gas
| consumption starts looking like a threat. While consumers
| would have the incentives to reduce gas consumption,
| governments have many indirect ways of encouraging
| activities that generate tax revenue.
| noobermin wrote:
| Why not do both?
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| I wish that was true.
|
| In my country taxes on gas are incredibly high, they account
| for more than 70% of the cost at the pump, still we have one of
| the highest number of cars per capita in Europe.
|
| for comparison in USA gas costs around 70 Euro cents per liter,
| while here is close to 2 euros per liter (depending on the
| brand between 1.79 and 1.89).
| nradov wrote:
| The number of cars per capita isn't the real issue. The
| problem is with CO2 and particulate emissions from car
| engines. That problem could be significantly reduced with a
| change in tax policy.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| those cars are not standing by in some residential
| neighborhood with a lawn, they are constantly moving on the
| streets of our cities.
|
| I think it would be hard to make people pay more than that,
| look at what happened in France with the gilets jaunes when
| they tried.
|
| The only possible way I see to reduce car traffic is to
| stop making new roads, gradually close existing ones and
| enhance public transport and proximity to allow people to
| walk.
| antisinguIarity wrote:
| Yes. The EURO emissions regulations will make it essentially
| impossible to sell a new, purely ICE-powered car in the near
| future (in Europe). Every new car will be a bloated hybrid,
| designed entirely to scrape through the emissions and efficiency
| requirements.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Or electric. Which is good.
| antisinguIarity wrote:
| Hybrids have a much smaller battery, which will make them
| cheaper.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| They are the worst of both worlds: anemic, still burning
| fuel, hybrid complexity and combustion maintenance. BEVs or
| bust, anything else is window dressing on tech we're
| leaving behind.
|
| BEVs will get cheaper faster as battery manufacturing
| ramps. No need to waste any more effort on combustion
| technology and infra.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Disagree. It's the 80/20 rule, the PHEV will get you to
| 80% of your destinations on electricity. Paying $20,000
| more for a battery for the added range to make those last
| 20% or trips isn't worth it. (And with the state of
| charging, there are probably trips your EV can't make
| that a PHEV can)
| sitkack wrote:
| I'd rather see those KWHr distributed to as many vehicles
| as possible, able to prevent 80% of the CO2 emissions
| that they would generate, then hoard that capacity in a
| single high end vehicle that won't even tap into it.
|
| Hybrid gas engines should be sized to only operate the
| vehicle on flat ground at highway speeds, so around
| 10-15KW tops.
| hedgehog wrote:
| The gas engine should be able to handle a mountain pass
| in hot or cold weather, closer to 150KW. That avoids
| needing to carry enough battery for that use case.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Actually disagree, plug-in hybrids will run on battery
| for most short trips in the city. It's cutting out all
| the low hanging fruit for pollution. Most of your trips
| on 20/30mph roads where fuel efficiency is poor. Stop and
| go traffic. Sitting at a stoplight. If you're running on
| battery in those scenarios, I'd say you're making a huge
| improvement.
|
| And then you still have gas for a longer trip somewhere
| with no charging infra. But those trips will hopefully be
| rarer. And when you're going 60+ mph on these longer
| trips, you're only ever burning fuel at the engine's
| better efficiency.
|
| I think there's a good place for this tech in some
| lifestyles.
|
| EVs are obviously the future, but intermediate vehicles
| to help people get into EVs aren't bad. If someone
| chooses a plugin-hybrid over gas, but would have chosen
| gas over EV for range and charging reasons, it's a good
| improvement
| chki wrote:
| > Actually disagree, plug-in hybrids will run on battery
| for most short trips in the city. It's cutting out all
| the low hanging fruit for pollution.
|
| That's true in theory. Unfortunately in practice - at
| least where I live - Hybrids don't get charged at home.
| People buy hybrids for the tax/other benefits but just
| park them on public roads. Which means that you get the
| worst possible state where you have pseudo-green ICE
| vehicles that run with a lot of extra weight in the form
| of a basically useless electric motor. (Except for
| recuperating but that's not worth it)
| rsynnott wrote:
| They work fairly well for some use cases. I know a few
| people who have plugin hybrids with maybe 50km battery
| range; they typically commute entirely on the battery
| (short urban commutes) and use the petrol engine maybe
| once or twice a year for long journeys. The plug-in
| hybrid is, of course, much cheaper than an electric car
| that could handle the occasional long trips, but most of
| their driving is on electric.
|
| If you live in a city and mostly use the car for
| commuting/shopping, this can make a lot of sense, and
| that's not a small market.
|
| One problem with this usage mode is that it can leave the
| petrol engine unused for very long periods, which will
| ultimately lead to problems (I think some hybrids will
| now deliberately periodically run it for a bit to deal
| with this).
| manmal wrote:
| I own an EV (Ioniq) and believe this is the future. But
| Toyota Hybrids have been known to drive 400k miles
| without major hiccups. There exist use cases that EVs
| just can't fulfill right now. So why not save 30-40% fuel
| while battery production is ramping, which will take a
| few more years.
| sitkack wrote:
| > They are the worst of both worlds: anemic, still
| burning fuel
|
| You should back up these strong opinions with some facts.
| Hybrid batteries which minuscule compared to EVs, put out
| 25kw+ instantaneous power. More than enough to beat ICE
| cars across the intersection.
| toast0 wrote:
| I drive a PHEV (Ford C-Max) and I don't get the claim
| that it's anemic. It spins the tires just fine taking
| off, and I've never felt it was short of power except the
| couple times I tried to quickly get up to highway speeds
| in 'EV Only' mode. But running in EV Only mode at highway
| speeds uses the battery too fast anyway. It's better to
| use gasoline to go fast and electricity to go slow unless
| I was expecting to have enough electricity to do the
| whole trip. You can still put it in 'EV Now' which will
| mostly use the battery but turn on the engine when you
| need it for acceleration.
|
| Combustion maintenance intervals are doubled on the PHEV
| vs a conventional gas only vehicle. And the transaxle
| shouldn't require any service (although Ford had some
| manufacturing defects and a recently got a new one under
| warranty).
|
| Battery manufacturing improvements would improve a PHEV
| too. Smaller batteries would take up less storage space
| (C-Max design is suboptimal) or allow for a bigger EV
| range with the same volume.
| twblalock wrote:
| They are also the only practical solution for many people
| until the EV charging infrastructure is far more
| developed.
|
| EVs don't make sense for people who don't have reserved
| parking spaces with charging. Until that problem is
| solved, hybrids are a pretty good idea.
| hedgehog wrote:
| I used to think this but on reflection my driving pattern
| would be served fine if I plugged in once a week while
| grocery shopping.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Disagreeing too... Neighbors here both have plug-in
| hybrids. 50 km autonomy officially, when they actually do
| 40. Thing is: when your daily commute is 20 kilometers or
| less, this means you don't need the ICE. But you have it
| when you need to do more than 40 kilometers and there's
| no "range anxiety".
|
| They can go for weeks without turning the ICE on.
|
| I do also think it's not a bad stepping stone to bring
| people towards full electric cars: they get used to a car
| that you charge at home. Meanwhile the charging network
| gets better and better and cities/countries get the time
| to adapt too (there's no way everybody can charge a full
| electric car at home without changes to the current
| grids).
|
| I don't see what's wrong with ICE -> plug-in hybrid ->
| full electric.
| bittercynic wrote:
| I thought so too, and bought a cheap EV, but also kept a
| raggedy old civic for taking longer trips. Caring for 2
| cars got old quick. Sold both and bought a cheap used
| plug-in hybrid and haven't looked back.
|
| Even a non-plug hybrid isn't really the worst of both
| worlds. The battery replacement is relatively cheap when
| it eventually needs it, it's gentler on the gas engine
| that and ICE car, and won't waste gas running the engine
| while you're not moving.
|
| As for anemic/not exciting to drive, yeah, true. It's not
| that important for me to have an exciting car, and I
| think most people don't see that as a top priority.
| kyrra wrote:
| Only if the power charging the battery is cleaner than
| petroleum based fuels. If we had nuclear everywhere, I'd
| totally agree with you. But if you in get your power from
| coal power plants, you will cause more emissions charging an
| electric car compared to petrol car.
|
| You're also assuming the electric grids around the world can
| handle this increase in load.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| False. A petrol car burns petrol it's entire life. An EV is
| already cleaner burning coal than a petrol vehicle, and the
| electric grid will only get cleaner over time. You can
| Google "well to wheel efficiency" to confirm.
|
| With regards to charging infra, yes, I assume at the
| current global production rate of ~2 million EVs/year built
| and sold, the electric grid can support these new
| distributed loads. There are already systems to orchestrate
| vehicle charging when there is excess clean energy on a
| local grid ("DER"). Tesla supports this today with a
| Scandinavian utility, no different then your Nest
| thermostat shedding AC load during peak power demand but
| the inverse.
|
| Below is a list of jurisdictions banning new fossil fuel
| vehicle sales and when the bans go into effect. Everyone
| has plenty of notice to prepare.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-
| out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
| adolph wrote:
| It is good for now, given battery powered vehicles' advantage
| in terms of regulation. My guess is that as they become the
| majority of vehicles over time there will be an interest in
| efficiency regulation similar to fuel economy for ICE
| engines. There is already an interest in taxing electric
| vehicles differently given the eroding base of road-building
| taxes based on hydrocarbon fuels.
| mtgx wrote:
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| This is a good thing. I am not sure why any new passenger
| vehicle should be purely ICE powered.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Unless it's a plugin hybrid, a hybrid is still powered by an
| internal combustion engine.
| nixass wrote:
| There was a market research in Germany and plug ins are
| mostly owned by upper class, using it for cheaper/free
| parking and (ab)using government incentives for co2 grants.
| Funniest thing is there's very low percentage of owners who
| drive them in EV mode, they barely bother to charge them,
| it's being ran in ICE mode all the time. It's purely for
| playing the system, catch few benefits (parking) and not
| giving a shit about the environment. Beat me for source,
| read it few months back
| tecleandor wrote:
| When you can get a 455hp (317 ICE + 145 Electric) Volvo
| XC90 Recharge T8, and qualifies as "zero emission" and
| gets free parking all around the city... you understand
| the classification is quite a joke.
|
| Of course, it's absurdly huge (2300Kg, 5 metes long...)
| and its price is almost 100KEUR. It's not precisely
| popular.
| mpol wrote:
| I think the same model gets larger each generation because of
| marketing reasons. And since all the manufacturers are doing
| this, no manufacturer can escape from this. At the top of the
| line models disappear, at the bottom of the line new models get
| added.
|
| Where it goes wrong is at the bottom of the line. There are now
| so many safety regulations (I am looking at you, EU), that these
| cars get heavier and more costly to make. Many manufacturers
| decide to step out or up their game. 10 years ago, the cheapest
| model of a manufacturer would maybe be 10 thousand Euro. Now it
| easily starts at 15 thousand Euro, and it will mostly be a model
| of some years ago. New models at the low and small end are priced
| heavier, because of all these safety regulations.
| nradov wrote:
| The cheapest Dacia Logan models are still under EUR10K. But the
| vast majority of new car buyers prefer to spend more in order
| to get something larger and nicer.
| s0rce wrote:
| I think in the USA its even more. A base Chevy Spark starts
| at $13.6k Mitsubishi Mirage (pretty much junk) starts at
| $14.6k. Not sure you can even find those bare bones models at
| dealers. I'm not sure if there are cheaper options but these
| are bottom of the barrel for sure.
| xunn0026 wrote:
| Well, it's not like Germany would want to sell more expensive
| cars or something?! :)
|
| Note that expensive entry level cars compete with the used
| cars. Plenty of them. Somehow those are still able to drive on
| the road despite not having all those safety features (and
| polluting more).
| bombcar wrote:
| I feel there should be more incentive to buy smaller cars - and
| therefore to make them. We have a bit of this in the "golf cart
| cars" but we should have more - roads that are limited to
| smaller vehicles, etc
| s0rce wrote:
| This seems to work well in Japan with "kei" cars.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > 10 years ago, the cheapest model of a manufacturer would
| maybe be 10 thousand Euro. Now it easily starts at 15 thousand
| Euro
|
| True, but with the State incentives to scrap old models, you
| can buy a FIAT Panda for 8 thousand euros
|
| But the Panda of 2022 is a much better car than the 80s Panda,
| that costed more than that adjusting for inflation.
| altarius wrote:
| Always found it interesting how the small cars grow and then
| the manufacturer has to slot in a new model at the bottom (eg i
| can think of the VW Golf and Pluto, VW Tiguan and now Taos).
| rdtwo wrote:
| If you adjust for inflation that's roughly equivalent price
| pooper wrote:
| We are never going to see those really inexpensive sub ten
| thousand dollar electric cars, are we?
| 6510 wrote:
| If the battery is easily replaceable (say 20 seconds
| without leaving the vehicle) you could use small ones for
| short commutes and drive from station to station (possible
| recharging on some roads) or (rent) a big battery for long
| trips.
|
| Other parts could similarly be crappy, have upgrades and
| the manufacturer could set up a second hand part market.
| They might even invite even cheaper knock offs.
| bittercynic wrote:
| If you adjust for inflation, I bet it will happen. If
| you're willing to buy used, it already has.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| I'm really glad that there are "so many" safety regulations on
| a multi ton high speed device that allows 70 years old/drunk
| users to handle it.
| tecleandor wrote:
| You can buy a bunch of small cars around or even under 10KEUR
| when accounting the discounts...
|
| Dacia Sandero, Fiat Panda, Mitsubishi Space Star, Renault Clio,
| the Hyundai i10...
| bjourne wrote:
| Which safety regulations have caused cars to get heavier?
| prepend wrote:
| Airbags, crumple zones in frame. Here's a whole list of US
| safety regulations and the weight they added through 2012, ht
| tps://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8123...
| xyzzyz wrote:
| The ones involving hitting obstacles and not crushing the
| passengers. Bigger and heavier vehicles are at an obvious
| advantage here, due to longer crumple zones, stronger frames
| etc.
| invalidator wrote:
| Off the top of my head, airbags, anti-intrusion beams, ABS,
| pedestrian protection (the hood has to be higher, which makes
| the whole car taller), rollover protection (the pillars are
| much thicker to prevent the roof from collapsing).
|
| They're sensible things, but each adds weight. Most of them
| scale sub-linearly with vehicle size, so the burden literally
| weighs heavier on small cars.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-30 23:02 UTC)