[HN Gopher] The loophole that made cars in America so big
___________________________________________________________________
The loophole that made cars in America so big
Author : jseliger
Score : 71 points
Date : 2023-04-22 16:31 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.distilled.earth)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.distilled.earth)
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| By loophole do they mean lots of highways?
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| The loophole is that they were not regulated into oblivion.
| That's not a loophole.
| docandrew wrote:
| Not discussed here is car seat and seatbelt requirements. If you
| have multiple children in car seats or boosters, you're going to
| have a hard time getting more than one in the backseat of a
| sedan.
| hoherd wrote:
| Minivans are the most convenient vehicle for families with
| multiple children. Minivans are not classified as SUV's.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| Most mid sized SUV (the most popular ones) are minivans
| dressed up as SUVs.
|
| Unless you're looking at an expedition or the like, they're
| all unibody, front wheel drive, and turbo charged inline
| fours. Just like a minivan.
|
| The SUVs of old had a truck chassis, a large V6 or V8, rear
| wheel drive.
| docandrew wrote:
| For CAFE purposes SUVs and minivans are both considered
| "light trucks."
| ghaff wrote:
| I have friends (not soccer moms) who often transport a lot of
| people for activities (like shuttles for whitewater
| paddling). A number of them use minivans and don't like how
| the options have decreased relative to 3-row SUVs which they
| think are relatively less practical cars for their purposes.
| (And I tend to agree.)
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| I don't get why anybody that has operated a sliding door
| would choose a 3row SUV. It's just so practical and you
| don't have to worry about the kiddos door dinging anyone.
| kube-system wrote:
| The market optimizes for what people will buy, not what
| they like. If people begrudgingly buy 3 row SUVs instead of
| minivans, the bean counters count that as a win.
|
| There are still 4 minivans on the US market, and really I
| don't think there's space for any others to sell
| successfully. The ones that exist are damn competitive for
| what they are, and they still don't sell well.
| ghaff wrote:
| >There are still 4 minivans on the US market, and really
| I don't think there's space for any others to sell
| successfully. The ones that exist are damn competitive
| for what they are, and they still don't sell well.
|
| Oh I don't really disagree. The Sienna and Odyssey seem
| like good vehicles. I'm less familiar with the remaining
| American(?) models.
|
| I also don't know enough to meaningfully speculate why
| 3-row SUVs took over from minivans for fairly similar use
| cases even though they seem less effective in a lot of
| circumstances. Part of it is probably image--especially
| for some male drivers--but I lack the data to have a
| strong opinion.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Most of the "SUVs" in the US market are really just
| minivans disguised to look masculine. It took a few
| decades for manufacturers to realize that this is what
| people wanted- the rugged looks of a 4x4 with the people
| transporting ability of a minivan, and no wasted expense
| or weight on offroad ability. The VW Atlas for example is
| made specifically for the US market, a 3 row front wheel
| drive minivan that looks SUV like.
|
| It was pretty funny 20 years ago before this was
| realized- big SUVs had low range transfer cases, skid
| plates, lockers, air suspension, and tons of other
| expensive and complicated offroad hardware. The people
| buying and driving these had no idea what those parts
| were for, and only found out they had them when they
| would accidentally activate them on pavement and get an
| expensive repair bill.
| tzs wrote:
| There are sedans that can have three child seats installed on
| the backseat.
|
| See [1] and [2] for examples.
|
| Note that the second link is to an Australian site, so may be
| using car seats that are not available in the US.
|
| Here's a unit, not available in the US, that fits 3 kids in the
| back of a Fiat 500 [3]. They have a 4 seater [4] that works in
| a Honda Civic and similar sized cars.
|
| [1] https://www.carmax.com/articles/cars-that-fit-three-car-
| seat...
|
| [1] https://www.onlineauto.com.au/best-cars/5-seat-cars-
| fit-3-ch...
|
| [3] https://www.multimac.com/p/multimac_1000_3_seater
|
| [4] https://www.multimac.com/p/multimac_1200_4_seater
| docandrew wrote:
| A custom $1500 set of car seats for a small compact is
| unreasonable. Good luck fitting three normal car seats in any
| of the sedans in that first link. It's difficult enough in a
| _full size truck_.
| prepend wrote:
| If you have triplets or three small children then you will
| be used to $1500 on stuff. Do not look up prices for
| strollers.
| latortuga wrote:
| Is it though? You'd easily save that 1500 by buying a
| smaller car.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| 1. Where's the reverse facing seat for infants? Ive had one
| installed in my car since '16 and Ill continue to have one
| for another three years (legally anyway. I hate them and Ill
| probably chuck it in two).
|
| 2. There are tons of car review sites touting three cars
| seats side by side. I own one of these cars. They don't
| actually fit. Not in real life. Think of it like the McBurger
| commercial on TV. In real life... bleh.
|
| 3. A big car solves many problems other than transporting
| three kids. Ive only put 2800 miles on my SUV this year, but:
|
| - Ive driven six (six!) people on two >600 mi journeys.
|
| - Ive loaded it with all the tiles and flooring needed for my
| remodel
|
| - picked up 2x4s and the like
|
| - taken my neighbors kid's to the theater with my family many
| times
| smeej wrote:
| Which of these things can't be done with a minivan? They're
| a lot less "cool" looking, but they can accomplish the same
| things.
| hallucy wrote:
| In what sense are minivans "better" than SUVs such that
| this question is relevant? I could imagine some have
| lower bumper heights (safer for pedestrians) but they're
| definitely getting higher. One imagines they are broadly
| comparable in terms of weight.
|
| (Personally I find minivans have _more_ utility, but I
| don't feel like I'm doing something "right" by owning one
| instead of an SUV).
| prepend wrote:
| I don't know about that. I had a tiny Audi a3 over 10 years ago
| and easily fit two giant recaro car seats. And a booster seat
| sat between them.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| Yup. I can squeeze the kids in the Golf... if my eldest doesn't
| use her booster.
|
| I can put them in the Sorrento.... But I have to buckle her
| into her seat belt while shes standing holding the boosted.
| Then I have to lift them both to get them i to position.
|
| We want a new car. We were going to buy a Sienna hybrid. But
| they're ridiculously priced, unobtainium and, frankly, not that
| big. So Im looking at a low milage Expedition Max or convincing
| the wife for a Sprinter.
| freedomben wrote:
| Yep, we just got our Sienna hybrid a couple weeks ago. We
| literally waited _19 months_ to get it. It 's beyond absurd
| at this point.
|
| Maybe some people are buying SUVs because they can't wait
| until their new baby is walking and talking before driving
| them somewhere?
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| The golf is such a well designed car... a tiny efficient car
| with more usable space inside than many SUVs.
|
| When I had a kid I went from a golf to a full sized SUV and
| was shocked to find that the usable space was barely any
| larger.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| Love the Golf, but honestly, the hatchback versa's space
| efficiency impressed me more than the golf. It's
| significantly smaller than the golf, but its tall, has a
| smaller engine bay and very thin doors.
|
| It was easier to pack my firstborn's stuff in it than the
| Golf. We got rid of it for the Sorrento when we got rear
| ended when my daughter was four days old. Then I decided
| I'd get the heaviest vehicle I could then afford - the
| Sorrento.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Yeah, why not allow for 3-row wagons and the return of 3rd rows
| with reversed seating? It seems like an easy win for some
| families who have to choose between an SUV or van.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| Putting the seat there is easy. The trick is making it safe
| when it's on or behind the rear axle. Everyone else in the
| car is in a cocoon.
| nine_k wrote:
| What makes it less safe?
| ultrarunner wrote:
| The rest of the giant vehicles on the road
| lukas099 wrote:
| Man, I loved those rear-facing seats as a kid.
| sbaiddn wrote:
| They were great. Especially in college with chill friends
| Simulacra wrote:
| _The intent of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was
| to make all passenger vehicles in America more fuel efficient.
| But auto lobbyists convinced regulators to make a subtle change
| to the bill's text. While efficiency standards for cars would be
| written into the law itself, the standards for trucks were to be
| set by regulators at the Transportation Department._
|
| In short, because SUVs are built on a truck frame and are
| considered trucks, they are not held to the same fuel standards
| as cars.
| jdsully wrote:
| That was true in the 90s but most SUVs people are buying today
| are on a unibody frame.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| There are many gaps in the article.
|
| They talk about SUVs the size of the Ford Expedition, which
| certainly sold well, but smaller SUVs like the Ford Explorer,
| Chevy Blazer and Jeep Cherokee that are more similar to the
| crossovers our roads are jammed with today sold even bigger
| number and continued to grow in popularity.
|
| I think the number of reason is cheap fuel compared to Europe,
| marketing, infrastructure and norms. We don't have old cities
| with narrow streets like Europe does. Our suburban homes have
| space for a large car. Our cars were always big.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| SUVs have grown in popularity in Europe too. In Germany it
| feels like it's becoming the new standard car class, every
| brand seems to have an SUV as their most popular model.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Please note that what's called SUV in Europe is quite
| different from the average SUV on US roads. A vehicle in the
| sub-compact segment consuming less than 5.5 liters of
| gasoline per 100 km is something else than a Grand Cherokee.
| mertd wrote:
| The loophole enabled car makers to produce SUVs but ultimately
| the consumers who still had a choice between fuel efficient
| sedans and SUVs, overwhelmingly chose to buy SUVs.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah, people are quick to call regulation, but the consumers
| continue to have the choice. It's not like they're obligated to
| buy a car that's so tall you can run over a child without
| noticing.
|
| And then again, other countries have lower limits on the weight
| of vehicles you can drive with a regular driver's license.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| > It's not like they're obligated to buy a car that's so tall
| you can run over a child without noticing.
|
| We're stuck in a race to the top.
|
| Intuitively, a larger car is safer: if two differently-sized
| cars are in a crash, the big one will win while the small one
| suffers greater damage. In the modern age of safetyism, that
| means that if I'm on a road surrounded by larger cars, I also
| must by a large car in self defense. Thus, everybody keeps
| upping the ante, buying larger cars.
|
| (FWIW, I don't subscribe to that approach. I favor a nimble
| and agile car to allow me to avoid a collision in the first
| place.)
| hoppla wrote:
| Is it not a truck license required to drive a truck in the
| US? It seems unsafe that inexperienced drivers can drive
| around with <<trucks>> at park lots
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| You only need that if driving commercially, but the real
| barrier to entry is a training program before any
| carriers will take you seriously as a professional
| driver.
|
| For reference you can drive 60ft of recreational nonsense
| in most states with a basic license.
| [deleted]
| zdragnar wrote:
| Nope. I own a truck (mostly because I do some light
| forestry work a few times a year that a smaller utility
| vehicle can't handle) and they're generally perfectly
| fine for driving. American parking lots are a good deal
| larger than what you'll find in a dense urban European
| city.
|
| Additionally, the newest models have had 360 degree
| cameras for a few years now since they're cheap to add
| and mark up the price by a bit. An inexperienced driver
| will have an easier time parking one of those than a
| standard sedan without.
|
| It is profoundly stupid to own a pickup truck if you
| don't plow snow, need to haul things off road, or
| regularly tow recreational vehicles.
|
| With that said, the higher trim models are easily the
| most comfortable vehicles to ride in that you'll find.
| I'm 6'4", and I can sit in the back seat of a modern crew
| cab truck without slouching and leg room to spare. Most
| smaller cars I can't even do that in the driver's seat.
| metiscus wrote:
| The old struggle between the Dreadnought and the
| Battlecruiser rears its ugly head again. It's amazing how
| such different things can run into the same human idioms.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| Sure, in the same way that when I'm trying to lose weight and
| want a snack I will make a choice between a celery stick and a
| cookie, or I can forestall the choice by not having a cookie in
| the house in the first place. The story of Odysseus and the
| sirens.
| replygirl wrote:
| Except in automotive we have options that taste like cookies
| with all the benefits of celery sticks: hatchbacks and wagons
| with great cargo capacity, ride quality, driving dynamics,
| and fuel efficiency. In America we go with the unhealthy
| cookie even though the healthy one tastes the same, because
| we don't want to look gay or poor
| venk12 wrote:
| I believe this has to do with how the cities are designed in some
| sense. For most places in the US, you need to travel so many
| miles to get basic stuff including your groceries. This means
| people would have to prefer convenience more than shorter trips.
| SUV looks like a good option from that standpoint.
| nine_k wrote:
| The problem is that the US have relatively few cities proper,
| in the European meaning of the word. If you live in NYC, most
| of the time you don't need a car, and a ton of people here
| don't even own one. If you look at, say, Houston, it's a whole
| different business.
| sb057 wrote:
| The reason large cars are popular in America is because Americans
| want to and can afford to buy them. This is due to a number of
| factors beyond this "loophole", including advertising, cultural
| norms, the fact that a third of Americans are now obese and can't
| fit in smaller cars, a safety arms race, and a number of other
| things.
| prng2021 wrote:
| Yea this article makes it sound like the loophole is the
| primary reason but I don't think it's even a significant
| contributor. Anyone can google the top 5 SUVs sold in 2022.
| None of them are over the 6,000 pound gross weight limit to be
| counted as a track. All of them over grown significantly in
| physical size over the past decade.
|
| American family sizes have steadily dropped for many decades so
| the editor's mention of millennials and family sizes
| contributing to demand for large vehicles is nonsensical.
|
| Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps and
| concern over environmental impact.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Americans just love big cars and that desire vastly trumps
| and concern over environmental impact.
|
| Not like it's just Americans either.
| ch_sm wrote:
| Cars in the U.S. are still FAR bigger on average than
| anywhere I've seen (in Europe or Asia).
| masklinn wrote:
| They are, but from what I've seen there are idiots
| getting US-style pickups in Europe these days.
|
| The stupidity threshold is just higher, because European
| countries are not designed for vehicles this long or wide
| so your want for the bloody things has to exceed the
| sheer inconvenience they are for you (I assume whoever
| buys these cares nothing for the inconvenience to
| others), and the money pit they are in fuel and
| maintenance (as they're uncommon I'd also assume most
| garages can't handle them).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I don't think it's even a significant contributor_
|
| I know a surprisingly nontrivial number of people who needed
| an SUV, but upsized because of the tax deduction.
| euroderf wrote:
| And when gas prices go up, everyone gets all whiny and acts
| all oppressed.
| prepend wrote:
| High gas prices are regressive and are a little oppressive.
| So they function like a tax, most impacting the poor.
|
| Makes sense to while about it. And is an oppression, while
| definitely not the worst.
| euroderf wrote:
| I'd like to see the US jack up gas taxes, and then at the
| end of the year, refund most of it as an equal amount per
| adult. That would create some serious incentives to cut
| down on driving or even give up cars entirely, while not
| becoming a cash cow for the feds.
| replygirl wrote:
| This is clever gamification but probably most of the
| players would be the suburban and rural poor, for whom
| excess driving is more likely to be non-discretionary and
| the only option for local + regional travel. The effect
| would be to limit their quality of life, either by
| deferring access to money for basic expenses, by limiting
| access to employment, or by discouraging children's
| access to recreation and socialization opportunities.
| There are similar arguments against VMT taxes
|
| How about we tax cars as property, based on Blue Book
| value and modulated by income bracket, and maybe even by
| specs like weight and fuel economy? Some states are
| already doing at least a basic version of this. And
| instead of giving the money back, we can fund fare-free
| municipal bus and rideshare programs
| geodel wrote:
| Huh, about as whiny as people here get about internet
| bandwidth prices. or about apartment rents when any
| increase is a vast landlords conspiracy.
| nimbius wrote:
| Eh, I think want is a strong word but you're right. Americans
| are conditioned through predatory advertising to assume the
| only safe car is a big one, and the only mark of masculinity is
| size.
|
| Chubbiness of my fellow patriots aside, our commutes suck.
| Plush seating, ample leg room, and a corpulent selection of
| infotainment amenities help ease the pain of a 30 mile or more
| slog through traffic.
| JasserInicide wrote:
| _to assume the only safe car is a big one_
|
| When everyone else on the road has a big one, then yes it is
| the only safe option.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Not for the pedestrians and bicyclists, which are common in
| the suburbs so many live in.
| maximilianroos wrote:
| A good piece of evidence supporting this view over the
| article's is that _many_ things are bigger in America than
| other developed countries, loophole or no loophole.
|
| Take houses -- Americans are richer than Europeans, and spend
| some of that on houses that are significantly larger than
| European houses.
| amelius wrote:
| The build quality is generally lower, though. At least
| compared to Sweden.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Carpentry/comments/vcvanr/why_are_a.
| ..
| prepend wrote:
| Sweden has a very different climate than most of the US.
| Compare houses in Maine or Minnesota to Sweden. The answers
| to most questions in that article can be answered by
| visiting Colorado or Virginia or most places.
| nivenkos wrote:
| Also low energy prices - people pay for heat pumps,
| triple glazing, solar panels, etc. in Sweden because it
| pays itself back.
|
| But when energy is so cheap, why bother?
| zip1234 wrote:
| People everywhere like large houses but it is not entirely
| preference. The government has a hand in that as well.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Pundits consistently underestimate how much income Americans
| make and how high living standards are compared to the rest of
| the world. Americans earn a lot of money, hence can afford
| bigger things in general, likes big homes or cars.
| blibble wrote:
| > Pundits consistently underestimate how much income
| Americans make and how high living standards are compared to
| the rest of the world.
|
| Americans constantly overestimate the standard of living of
| the majority of their citizens compared to the rest of the
| developed world
|
| no-one in Europe, Japan or Australia worries about medical
| bills of bankruptcy regardless or their income
|
| I might like a slightly larger house but I'd rather have a
| Fiat 500 than a giant US "sofa on wheels" fake SUV with the
| turning circle of 100ft
| oezi wrote:
| Americans are also notorious for spending their money and not
| having experienced the destruction of private property during
| WW2 and communism are sitting on a larger pile of inherited
| wealth.
|
| The median income is just 20-30% higher compared to Europe.
| thethethethe wrote:
| Perhaps americans prefer larger vehicle because of
| infrastructure design, public policy, and advertising
| campaigns, not because the desire is just innate?
|
| It makes sense that you'd want a larger car when you live in a
| place that is designed for driving and everyone else is doing
| it too. Give people other viable options, like walking,cycling,
| and transit, and I guarantee that they will pick them instead
| because they are more pleasant and convenient.
|
| I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in walkable
| and bikable places either. The two most desirable and expensive
| cities in the United States (SF and NYC) are largely built this
| way.
| goostavos wrote:
| >I also don't buy that Americans don't want to live in
| walkable and bikable places either
|
| The problem is that the walkable / bikable places are so few
| and far between that they're gobsmackingly expensive. Even on
| a FANG salary, getting a reasonable place in one of the few
| walkable neighborhoods is beyond what I'm willing to pay
| these days.
|
| If you want more than 900sqft for your family, trading a
| 15min walk for a 25min drive just makes so much more sense
| with how American cities are laid out and how much
| competition there is over the desirable places.
| daliusd wrote:
| When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing - two
| obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just fine.
| pengaru wrote:
| > When I was working for US company I saw funniest thing -
| two obese coworkers sitting in Mini Cooper. They fit just
| fine.
|
| Oh the irony of this comment if that was a BMW "Mini
| Cooper"...
| mahesh_rm wrote:
| The facts that you remember them, and that this comment is
| hilarious, kind of show that they didn't fit just fine..
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Modern Mini Coopers come in a variety of not-so-mini sizes.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| not true for trucks at least, smaller pickups got killed by
| these regulations. Ironic that there are so many people in
| cities complaining about how big trucks are now when it was
| stuff they voted for that caused it. Companies still make them,
| they just can't be sold in the US anymore due to regulations
|
| https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...
| everyone wrote:
| Saw a good video about this recently...
| https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
| throw0101b wrote:
| > https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
|
| Discussion:
|
| * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35202168
| oldnetguy wrote:
| Why did Chevrolet drop the Spark and Sonic?
|
| Why did Toyota drop the Yaris?
|
| Why is the Honda Civic so big?
|
| Cars have gotten bigger due to a lot of factors and this article
| addresses none of them.
| vidanay wrote:
| 1988 Geo Metro could get like 54 MPG. Impossible to build and
| sell due to 2023 regulations.
| zip1234 wrote:
| What regulations would make it impossible now?
| to11mtm wrote:
| Emissions changes and Crash Regs for starters.
|
| One can look at the Chevrolet Spark; it is not really much
| larger than the Metro, but only gets MPGs in the upper 30s
| AFAIK.
| BigCryo wrote:
| Back in the 1980s Toyota started making super efficient cars
| that hardly ate any gas. So Detroit had to start going along
| with the idea. Cars back then got a lot more gas mileage than
| they do today even though the engines were not as sufficient
| but they did so because the cars had much lighter weight than
| they do today.. cars today are heavier per volume because of
| all the safety regulations. The safety regulations were pushed
| through Congress based on media scare propaganda about traffic
| safety and car crashes and so forth. But who paid the media to
| put out all that propaganda. That led to safer but heavier cars
| that consumed more gasoline? I have an idea. I think it was the
| oil companies that paid the media to put out scare propaganda
| about automobile safety and then they paid the politicians to
| pass the laws to make cars a lot safer and heavier.. that
| caused the price of gas to go back up
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-22 23:02 UTC)