[HN Gopher] Study: car evolution trends (2015)
___________________________________________________________________
Study: car evolution trends (2015)
Author : phreeza
Score : 31 points
Date : 2023-02-19 13:50 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.teoalida.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.teoalida.com)
| petodo wrote:
| odd choosing Opel lineup in Europe, more popular VW Polo, Golf
| and Passat would make more sense, polo was introduced 1975, Golf
| 1974, Passat 1973 and they have even consistent model names for
| almost 50 years unlike Opel
|
| Polo 1 - 360 cm VS Polo 6 - 407 cm
|
| Golf 1 - 382 cm VS Golf 8 - 428 cm
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| A large part of this is VW taking advantage of the brand cachet
| that the Polo and Golf have accumulated to move the vehicle
| upscale. VW then comes up with new brands like the Up to cover
| the market they are leaving behind.
|
| Honda & Toyota do the same thing -- for instance the Honda Fit
| covers the niche the Civic used to cover.
|
| So the study should be done on brands that don't have cachet.
| For example, cars like the GM Vega, Sonic and Spark didn't
| really grow. They just got cancelled.
| namdnay wrote:
| Bear in mind that as each model grows (because each version has
| to be "better" than the last), new models are inserted at the
| bottom. In 1990 the Polo 2 was the smallest car VW made
| (375cm), the Polo 6 has the Up below it (355cm)
| wink wrote:
| Yes, but also no. I'm not a huge car person but it seems they
| automakers are diversifying their lineup quite a bit. Look at
| BMW in the 90s, there was basically the 3,5,7 series (plus a
| few outliers, then the Z4) but now they have troubles putting
| all the models in one navigation bar :P One could argue that
| it's more built-to order now but you could already choose all
| the options, but I guess there was simply a different
| segmentation - i.e. let's say there were like 3-5 engines per
| series and 3 series, and now it's 5 series but maybe not with
| 5 engines each...
| tecleandor wrote:
| Until past year I had a Polo Mk3 and it's baffling the "growth
| speed" for those "supermini" cars... Now I have a 2011 Honda
| Fit/Jazz, and it has the same boot/trunk volume than the Golf
| 8... even when the Jazz is 30cm shorter than the Golf.
| Polo Mk1 - 360 - 1975 Polo Mk2 - 365 - 1981 Polo
| Mk3 - 371 - 1994 Polo Mk4 - 389 - 2001 Polo Mk5 -
| 395 - 2009 Polo Mk6 - 405 - 2007
| namdnay wrote:
| don't get too hung up on the model names. If you're looking
| at specific segments, the current Up is the closest to the
| original Polo, be it in price or features or size
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| Same story in the Jetta in the US. Jetta 1 - 427cm VS (USDM)
| current Jetta - 466cm There is only 19cm between the long-lived
| B6 Passat and the modern US Jetta and no Passat was bigger than
| the new Jetta until the B5. Cars are huge these days
| hawkesnest wrote:
| This article is accurate, but it doesn't talk about causes. Is
| the market looking for larger vehicles? Are the auto-makers in
| cahoots with the oil industry to use larger engines? Is marketing
| convincing people that having larger vehicles is universally
| better?
|
| What about the increases in safety over that time span? Crumple-
| zones in some areas and stronger structural members add weight.
| Air bags add weight and decrease interior space. A-pillars used
| to be dainty for visibility but have been thickened to provide
| rollover protection.
|
| The analysis provided doesn't give any _reasons_ for the changes,
| only pointing out that they trend toward larger /heavier.
| michaelt wrote:
| I once read an article that claimed the rise of SUVs/Crossovers
| in America was the result of a number of factors.
|
| * A loophole allows SUVs to bypass pollution regulations by
| calling themselves 'light trucks'
|
| * Japanese automakers were outcompeting American automakers in
| the late 1990s in the car segment - but not the SUV segment.
| Lawmakers don't want to close the loophole, because SUV sales
| are propping up US automakers.
|
| * The US auto industry made a big marketing push for SUVs -
| adverts, product placement in movies and so on - branding them
| as a sporty choice for your active lifestyle, in contrast to
| the staid image of minivans and station wagons.
|
| * If you do market research on SUV owners asking them why they
| chose that car - they'll say they like the fact it's spacious.
| Makers of regular cars saw the market asking for bigger cars.
|
| * As you've identified, stricter safety demands for things like
| crumple zones have also added to vehicles' sizes.
|
| * With people's heights and waistlines growing every
| generation, it's unlikely we'll ever see a renaissance of cars
| as small as the European cars of the 1970s like the Mini Mk 1
| or the Reliant Robin.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| "Japanese automakers were outcompeting American automakers in
| the late 1990s in the car segment - but not the SUV segment.
| Lawmakers don't want to close the loophole, because SUV sales
| are propping up US automakers."
|
| The reason for this is tariffs on SUV imports.
| slaw wrote:
| > * A loophole allows SUVs to bypass pollution regulations by
| calling themselves 'light trucks'
|
| SUVs, light trucks and cars have to pass the same emission
| standards in the US. I think you meant fuel economy that has
| different rules for light trucks and cars.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| There is also a vicious circle where I feel less safe in a
| small car between huge ones. Not sure how this cycle can be
| broken without regulation or higher taxes based on vehicle size
| smileysteve wrote:
| I think it is the market, and by market, I mean baby boomer
| legacy. They were always taught that bigger is better (because
| crumple zones didn't exist in their parents cars), and now they
| guilt x, millennial, and z.
|
| I feel this pressure from my baby boomer parents and millennial
| partner - especially in the southeast; they ignore the
| likelihood of rollovers in SUVs and the proven safety of modern
| suspensions and airbags in sedans.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| >because crumple zones didn't exist
|
| But bigger is pretty universally better from energy
| management perspective, right? Simply having more
| material/size means lower deceleration rates for whatever
| you're trying to keep out of the passenger compartment.
| buran77 wrote:
| It's a safe assumption that safety requirements were a big
| driver of increased size and weight. And some of this factors
| have a snowball effect. Some requirements make the car bigger
| and heavier so it needs bigger engine, wider tires, bigger fuel
| tank, then it's even bigger and heavier.
|
| Add all the luxury elements that attract customers and you have
| a lot more extra weight. Small cars are generally seen as entry
| level, unsafe, so car manufactures are more than willing to
| provide bigger, fancier models. It's not just the size that
| shot up, prices did too in order to cover all the extras.
|
| People are also bigger and heavier than they used to so extra
| space and carrying capacity are more than welcome.
| bluetomcat wrote:
| In Europe in particular, there was the diesel craze of the
| 2000s. Few cars in the 1990s had diesel engines. The average
| family car was something like a Ford Mondeo with a 1.8 NA
| petrol engine.
|
| By around 2005, almost any "premium" mid-sized car like a
| Mercedes E-class or a BMW 5 series had a turbocharged
| 6-cylinder diesel engine around 3 litres with common rail
| injection. These engines have much heavier blocks and need a
| lot of additional systems for emission control.
| jmrm wrote:
| I think this could be different depending of the country.
| In Spain the most popular engines in premium cars in the
| 90s were the 2.0L and the 2.5L turbo Diesel, and lots of
| compacts and mid-sized sedans, specially at the late 90s,
| were sold with 1.8L to 2.2L engines (Peugeot 205, Citroen
| Xsara, Renault Clio, Opel Corsa).
|
| At the early 2000s, about 90% of the cars sold were Diesel
| IIRC. We always care a lot in terms of economy where buying
| a car, and with a Diesel oil cheaper than gas, and Diesel
| cars that had more mileage than petrol ones, there's the
| reason.
| petodo wrote:
| It's mostly safety, engines got actually much smaller since you
| can't get atmospheric engine anymore, where you would have in
| past basic 1.5-1.8L without turbo now you have 1.0L turbo.
| wkjagt wrote:
| Would be interesting to see a similar article on car design
| through the years. I've always wondered what happened in somewhat
| recent years where many cars were made to look like they had an
| angry monster face. I haven't looked into it much but that trend
| seems to be changing now in favour of more futuristic looking
| cars, especially the electric ones like the Ioniq 5.
| georgeolaru wrote:
| I'm also curious in the design evolution
| Zak wrote:
| As I understand it, fuel economy regulations in both the US and
| EU allow larger cars to burn more fuel before there's a penalty
| or a need for the car maker to buy offsets from a company that
| sells more efficient cars[0].
|
| I'm inclined to think that's a bad idea since it incentivizes the
| production and purchase of larger, less fuel-efficient cars, and
| could probably be fixed by simply treating all passenger cars and
| light trucks the same.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31218747
| CalRobert wrote:
| If I'm going to be in a crash, I want to be in the bigger car.
|
| Of course, what I _actually_ want is to be riding a bakfiets with
| my kids in the front, but when I'm getting tailgated by an F-150
| that's not very practical.
| rainsford wrote:
| It would be interesting to see a study on the net impact
| increasing vehicle size actually has had on safety. All else
| being equal, it makes logical sense that a larger vehicle would
| be safer in a crash than a smaller one. But the proliferation
| of larger and larger vehicles almost certainly causes some
| second order effects that means all else is likely not equal,
| especially when you consider the population as a whole.
|
| An accident involving two large vehicles seems like it could
| actually be more dangerous than an accident involving two
| smaller vehicles since there is a lot more force involved. And
| to your example, it seems like larger vehicles could make
| people drive more aggressively since they feel more
| invulnerable. Certainly larger vehicles are less agile, harder
| to control, and more prone to things like rollovers, which
| could make avoiding an accident in the first place more
| difficult.
|
| I think the statistics show that if you're making a personal
| buying choice in 2023, a larger vehicle is safer than a smaller
| one. But the impact on overall safety of all those personal
| choices added up is less obviously a positive one.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| A key value is that larger cars are worse in every single
| accident avoidance situation. Braking distances are longer in
| the dry and much longer in the wet, moose test results are
| often failed by large SUVs, rollover risks are higher, and
| general vehicle visibility is worse. A Toyota RAV4 for
| example has a stopping distance (in ideal situations) of
| 135ft. A Camry stops 15 feet quicker. Interestingly, the
| Hybrid RAV4 Prime with eco-focused tires stops up to 12 feet
| further than the base RAV4.
|
| This isn't all due to SUVs of course, a Volvo XC40 does it in
| a stunning 110ft. But cheap tires and small brake packages
| harm SUVs worse.
| trgn wrote:
| The answer is right there, so obvious. More mass in motion at
| high speeds, all things being equal, is more danger, damage
| and destruction, more wear and tear on roads. Simple physics.
|
| It is a tragedy of the commons. Any individual
| rationalization is in effect making the situation worse, and
| a post hoc justification of the current arms race.
|
| This needs top down regulation, not bottom-up convergence.
| Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years ago,
| because cars have gotten more foul. Note that the only places
| where this noxious effect is countered, are the places that
| side-step the issue by curbing driving as a whole. The
| galvanizing program of every western european city the last
| 10-15 years has been calming traffic and encouraging walking,
| cycling, transit. The effects are clear. Cars are trashing up
| those cities less than before, they've improved quality of
| life. In most of the US, the effect is the opposite. No
| efforts to curb driving; and the bigger cars and trucks have
| made cities worse; deadly, dangerous, scaring people into
| bigger cars, scaring people from riding bikes, walking.
|
| Things can always get worse, and we've been finding out.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >more wear and tear on roads.
|
| Listen, I hate the electric hummer and Chevy 2500s as much
| as the next guy but talking point needs to be taken out
| back and shot. The wear and tear light vehicles put on the
| road is a rounding error on any road that sees commercial
| traffic
|
| >Many cities are objectively worse now than 15-20 years
| ago,
|
| This is just pure lying. The "fleet" is much cleaner than
| it was 15-20yr ago for a variety of reasons. Cities are
| much safer and richer.
|
| >This needs top down regulation,
|
| Top down regulation is what gave us LA. People in general
| can't be trusted to centrally plan and the people who think
| they can solve the world's ills with central planning are
| the least trustworthy. We need to "regress" to pre-1940s
| urban development patterns.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Cities are much safer and richer.
|
| Speaking generally, rather than specifically in the
| context of cars, most big US cities were worse on pretty
| much every axis (other than cost) in 1990 than they are
| today. I suspect most people who object to the, say,
| Disneyfication of Times Square weren't there at night 30
| years ago. Cities were in general significantly more
| dangerous and grittier than they are today.
| nine_k wrote:
| Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity _squared_ , so
| yes, heavier cars expend more energy in collisions, likely
| making the collisions more destructive.
|
| "Being in a larger car" is basically the classic competition
| of armor vs projectile: the currently bigger thing has an
| advantage, but the opposing side of the collision quickly
| gets up to par and beyond, and the cycle continues.
| s1mon wrote:
| This chart is fascinating but seems somewhat devoid of the
| reality of marketshare, price, regulations (safety, taxes), etc.
| Tracking a particular set of car models and talking about how
| they have evolved over time is only relevant if the marketshare
| is similar and the demographics of the customers are similar. If
| the average selling price of a particular a "compact" car has
| increased in price (relative to inflation and the market) by 2x
| and it's gotten .5m longer, is it really the same car segment
| anymore? Just because it has the same name is it the same thing?
|
| Another aspect which is fascinating is how neatly these mythical
| segments all increase in length over time. The reality is that
| for any given year, there are a variety of sizes of car for sale.
| Do we look at a scatter plot per year of length vs price, or
| length vs engine displacement, or length vs marketshare? There
| are so many ways to slice and dice the data.
|
| The auto industry has also been predicated for years on the
| concept of planned obsolescence. Each year the new model of a
| particular car needs to get slightly "better" in some way.
| Bigger, better (more "luxurious"), faster....
|
| The overall average of all of this may be essentially similar.
| The graph reminds me a bit of a Shepard tone. It's an audio
| illusion where a sound seems to be constantly rising in pitch,
| but on average it's actually staying the same.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_tone
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-20 23:02 UTC)