[HN Gopher] Rivian R1T is the first EV to win the longest off-ro...
___________________________________________________________________
Rivian R1T is the first EV to win the longest off-road competition
in the US
Author : dkobia
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-10-23 00:33 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| codeTired wrote:
| Just be careful not to dent quarter panels on a rivian. It's
| something like $40k to replace. Normally a $2k-$3k job on any
| other pick up truck.
|
| These car companies suck when it becomes to repairability.
|
| Edit: I'm not going to argue with naysayers below, this dude was
| quoted $41k but was able to
| PDR(https://www.thedrive.com/news/41000-rivian-fender-bender-
| act...). Tesla repairs with giga casting are also a lot more
| expensive than similar "regular" cars. This isn't an issue of
| unibody design. My family owned a body shop and I painted cars
| for few years.
|
| I will stick with main stream brands like Toyota.
| almost_usual wrote:
| Yeah, insurance will not pick that up if it was caused while
| off roading.
|
| I'm guessing taking your Rivian off road will also void the
| warranty.
|
| If you off road it's good to know how to repair your rig.
| codeTired wrote:
| It's best to off-road in a reasonably built car, like a Land
| Cruiser or a bronco.
| mikeryan wrote:
| It won't void your warranty. The Rivian was designed, and is,
| an incredibly competent off road vehicle.
|
| It literally has an Off-Road drive mode with 4 different
| setups within it and a built in air compressor in the truck
| need for adjusting your tire pressure when you take it off
| road.
| almost_usual wrote:
| > It won't void your warranty.
|
| Wow, that is truly surprising. I'd be more worried about
| the driver if I were Rivian? What stops someone from
| driving through a creek and submerging their truck?
| Damaging their undercarriage on a rock? Sliding into a
| tree? etc.
|
| > The Rivian was designed, and is, an incredibly competent
| off road vehicle.
|
| It looks like it doesn't have locking differentials but
| that's usually overkill.
|
| > It literally has an Off-Road drive mode with 4 different
| setups within it
|
| I'll need to read more about the "Off Road" drive modes. It
| sounds similar to the Tacoma's "Crawl Control".
|
| > a built in air compressor in the truck need for adjusting
| your tire pressure when you take it off road.
|
| An air compressor is nice but you can pick up a Tsunami Air
| Compressor and a tire deflator for like $130.
| wkipling wrote:
| Off-road cars have limitations. I'll bet the Rivian just
| like other 4wds will have a maximum wading depth for
| water crossings.
| defrost wrote:
| If the door seals are good there's not a maximum wading
| depth, rather a maximum time paddle boating in water
| before seals give way | river current moves the 4x4 too
| far.
|
| See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5ld79joIA
|
| Note that the Land Cruiser is bouyant in the water and
| not touching ground.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| It doesn't have differentials at all ...
|
| Each wheel has it's own motor.
| caseyf7 wrote:
| Rivian insurance covers off-road use.
| Retric wrote:
| Probably closer to 8-14k if you're not willing to leave the
| dent. The famed 42k bill was for a rear end collision that
| caused more damage than it looked like. Cars are much safer
| today but crumple zones mean minor fender benders result in
| huge repair bills. However, they are also a major part of the
| 90+% reduction in vehicle fatalities per mile over the last 100
| years.
|
| "They took the R1T to a certified Rivian body shop who said the
| entire rear quarter panel, as well as some tailgate internals,
| needed replacing. The total cost of replacing an entire body
| panel and some tailgate bits was reportedly just over $14,000."
| https://www.thedrive.com/news/rivian-r1t-fender-bender-turns...
| Moto7451 wrote:
| I was rear ended about 8 years ago. I was in a lane that is
| parking most of the day (like when I stopped) and no
| stopping/anti-congestion during rush hour. My Camaro was hit
| by a person traveling at least at the 45MPH speed limit. They
| were on their phone and thankfully were so angry they
| unintentionally confessed it all to the police office taking
| the report. I ended up not paying a cent to fix the car, but
| I did get a copy of the bill.
|
| All in all the cost to repair it was in excess of $18,000
| from a third party shop that didn't do a great job on the
| finish. That was only $5k less than the Kelly Bluebook value
| for my car at that point in time.
|
| In short, it costs a lot to repair crash damage. That's
| something people probably don't think about too deeply if
| they have comprehensive coverage and pay just their
| deductible.
| codeTired wrote:
| A dent is much different than a 45mph crash. At that speed
| you have to replace half of the car. We have done those at
| our shop on an occasion. It's rare as it's a pricy repair.
| m463 wrote:
| > In short, it costs a lot to repair crash damage
|
| ...and I suspect the car will never be "right" again.
| bg24 wrote:
| The challenge with these repairs is that they only focus on
| the body part. However, nobody knows the damage to the
| other systems in the car when hit at 45mph. Imo, it would
| have been better for the insurance company to total the car
| and pay you to buy another one.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Vehicle fatalities for people inside the car but not for
| those outside. We've made the average vehicle much more
| dangerous for anyone not in another large vehicle.
| xyzelement wrote:
| You got a stat for this?
| hibikir wrote:
| https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/03/20200302-ghsa.ht
| ml
|
| It's unsurprising when you think about it: America is
| full of larger trucks which have to meet o on the laxest
| of regulations to minimize pedestrian damage in case of a
| collision. Where before the contact zone might be on the
| knees, many a modern truck will hit a pedestrian in the
| chest. Add to that how America sets up situations very
| unsafe street crossings, often 8 lanes wide without a
| median, and increased pedestrian deaths are unsurprising.
|
| Note that this is a matter of most security freatures:
| Good crumple zones don't lead to tall trucks with large
| hoods. The only one that adds risk is the curtain airbags
| that have lead to wider A pillars, and with that somewhat
| lower visibility. But we could make cars safe and also
| safer for pedestrians: Just not by driving heavier,
| taller vehicles that look like 18 wheelers and have
| frontal dead zones that could hide multiple Miatas.
| rwiggins wrote:
| Walkability in the US is indeed dire, but:
|
| > Add to that how America sets up situations very unsafe
| street crossings, often 8 lanes wide without a median
|
| I don't think I've ever crossed an 8 line highway on foot
| (US native). I definitely wouldn't call it "often". Maybe
| in a place like LA or Houston? I do cross 4 lanes pretty
| frequently, though.
| saturn8601 wrote:
| I guess thats where AEB technologies come into play
|
| [1]:https://twitter.com/remouherek/status/17160126702629319
| 46
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| To me this seems like a design failure (maybe intentional?)
|
| I'd think a properly designed crumple zone would only crumple
| at a "fatality" speed and not at fender-bender speeds. I
| remember asking a friend why you almost never see Lexus in
| China - and they said they notoriously crumpled at the
| slightest collision (there are a lot of very low speed fender
| benders on city streets there). Other Japanese brands seemed
| to not have this reputation
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| "just" over $14,000.
|
| You can buy a new car with that amount.
| petersellers wrote:
| Not in the US, you can't.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| $40k is just incorrect. My buddy did exactly this and he's
| facing a bill of $14k. Which is still outrageous, but like
| three times less.
| holoduke wrote:
| I bought my 20 year old infiniti for 14k, 10 years ago. I
| think most people will be in serious issues when they suffer
| a 14k bill for a fender. I think if do a large overhaul
| including a full repaint on my car it would cost less than
| 14k
| smcl wrote:
| It's a third of $40k, "three times less" than $40k would be
| -$80k
| dag11 wrote:
| "X times less" is actually a technically meaningless
| statement, but colloquially would mean 1/X. There's nothing
| to be gained by being pedantic over that
| gnicholas wrote:
| Does this mean they are incredibly expensive to insure?
| rokkitmensch wrote:
| A buddy close to underwriting heaves giant sighs and mutters
| darkly when anyone in his book of individual policies wants
| to insure one because yes.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Is that because after barely scraping by $80k or an
| $800/mth payment, they freak out why there's another
| $300/mth?
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Er... I own one and it is maybe 10% more to insure than my
| previous Subaru.
| gnicholas wrote:
| How is that possible, just given the sheer cost
| difference? Or is most of your insurance policy covering
| liability (for if you hit other people), as opposed to
| the risk of damage to your own car?
| jsight wrote:
| Despite claims to the contrary, I haven't really seen evidence
| of this with Tesla. The giga casts have pretty conventional
| crush structures ahead and behind them. It seems like the kind
| of crashes that'd cause massive costs are big enough to be
| massively costly either way.
|
| The Rivian case is a bit of a head scratcher. They made some
| truly odd choices that are making fairly simple repairs much
| harder than necessary. It is obvious they are new to this.
| skullone wrote:
| First to market, but with beginner mistakes. I'll wait for a
| more mature EV truck myself. I want a simple box frame, with
| a body on frame, nothing fancy. Just pure utilitarian EV
| truck like a base F150 but with a battery.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I've heard that EV trucks are mostly unibodies given the
| structure they need to protect and support the battery
| underneath. But I think the F-150 lightning is simple body
| on frame (as you said, although I think you are confused
| that this doesn't exist yet?), and the new Silverado EV
| will be neither unibody nor body on frame, whatever that
| means.
| jsight wrote:
| I think F-150 Lightning is the closest to what you are
| looking for. But it has its own type of beginner's mistakes
| with the batteries. The charge curve isn't great, if that
| matters to you.
| xeromal wrote:
| I'm in the same boat with you. I want a truck or SUV to
| replace my 2003 LX470 (Land Cruiser) but aside from the
| body on frame construction, I really need a 500 mile
| battery. The 320 mile EPA extended range lightning loses
| about 64 miles of range from the recommended battery
| boundaries (don't charge above 90% or below 10%) and
| probably at least another 10%-20% loss from the high torque
| required offroading and the fact you'd probably never use
| regenerative braking since there's a lot more technique
| involved leaves you with about 200 miles of actual range.
| Throw on a roof top tent and some camping gear in the back
| and you probably have less and you have to account for the
| lack of jerry cans that can help you in a pinch if your
| planned mileage is increased from a bridge that's out or
| closed trail. I really want an electric SUV or truck to
| replace my main rig but some of the locations I go to are
| just too dangerous to run out of juice with. I think in
| about 5 years a dream rig of mine will be on the horizon
| wise_young_man wrote:
| What does this have to do with them winning a contest? It comes
| across as argument baiting.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| If car bumpers are made immune to parking lot speed hits, will
| they necessarily be worse at crash safety? Looking at how 4m
| cars have more complex bodies than older Porsches and pack
| lights at each corner of the bumpers.
| dagurp wrote:
| It's s truck, leave the dents alone : - )
| tgtweak wrote:
| Kind of odd that it highlighted the need for chargers and the
| lengths they needed to go to (relying on hydrogen?) to complete
| the challenge.
|
| I'm all for EVs showing their strengths (and own several) but
| tethering to a mobile charging trailer that virtually nobody has
| access to kind of puts a huge asterisk on the entire thing.
|
| I'd love to see an EV-only rally that allows competitors to go
| faster or slower to optimize charge (faster = higher risk, more
| discharge) and, in that, force manufacturers and teams to
| actually innovate on the vehicle to make up for it. Put huge
| batteries and make it too heavy? It'll struggle in the mud and
| will likely blow tires. The function of motorsport (and ally,
| specifically) is to act as a proving ground for vehicles at the
| extreme end.
| wffurr wrote:
| They also set up fuel depots for gas trucks. Doesn't seem that
| different.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's not. HN is obsessed with trying to "gotcha" electric
| cars, any form of power generation other than nuclear,
| public/alternative transit, etc.
|
| You see the same tired shit like "well that's nice but the
| battery will have to be replaced in three years, enjoy
| spending $100,000 to do that", to now screeching about how
| EVs generate more PM2.5 particles from tire wear _ignoring
| that EVs generate far less PM2.5 particles from braking_ ),
| and so on. Every green solution has to be a perfect golden
| bullet solution, according to HN - not an incremental
| improvement.
|
| Some people are desperate to stand in the way of slowing the
| burning of the planet just get a dig in about how some effort
| isn't perfect and thus is 'hyprocritical libturd nonsense'
| leeoniya wrote:
| from the article:
|
| > It took years to find the right partner, build out the
| infrastructure and secure the 800 kilograms of green
| hydrogen required for the 10-day event, she added.
|
| yeah, okay. just a nothingburger /s
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A "2,120-kilometer [off-road race] course using only
| paper maps, compasses, and plotters" is hardly a normal
| use case. Trying to read anything into this for general
| utility to the public is silly.
| m463 wrote:
| > But until this year, the company used diesel generators
| to power up the chargers.
|
| I imagine the green hydrogen was for PR, because
| otherwise you could say the EVs were diesel-powered.
|
| that said, I expect things like one motor per wheel that
| EV's can do will become pretty interesting off-road as
| time goes on.
| modeless wrote:
| I can't tell from your comment if you know this or not,
| but R1T already has one motor per wheel.
| m463 wrote:
| I do. Then if you can electrically drive a suspension,
| that might be the next leap.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| I understand the sentiment. Yes overall EVs are much
| better. It's still important to point out how they can be
| further improved, when they have problems like heavier
| weights causing more PM 2.5 from tires.
| screamingninja wrote:
| > It's still important to point out how they can be
| further improved
|
| That's exactly the point of the discussion above. Why is
| it important to point out?
| reducesuffering wrote:
| So we can look towards and achieve the 80% good solution
| instead of the 70%? Progress? If we're giving out
| subsidies for cars can we encourage lighter weight EV's?
| A Tesla Model X is 50% more weight than a Bolt EV, with
| similar range.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think a large part of it was the hype part of the hype
| cycle went too high and lasted too long (as it tends to
| do). It's a bit like Wayland here, had it not been hyped as
| the greatest thing to have ever happened to display servers
| 5 years ago there'd be significantly fewer complaints
| around it today.
|
| The other large part of it is until something is better
| than the old thing in nearly every way there is going to be
| a significant volume of people who were really served well
| by old thing disgusted by the idea of new thing being
| called better already. For anything as common as cars that
| has more to do with numbers than a specific HN obsession.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > The other large part of it is until something is better
| than the old thing in nearly every way there is going to
| be a significant volume of people who were really served
| well by old thing disgusted by the idea of new thing
| being called better already
|
| That's it for me. I'm not philosophically opposed to
| electric motors powering automobiles. But none of them
| yet produced serve my needs as well as a gas or diesel
| powered car. EV proponents are obsessed with trying to
| "gotcha" my reasons, so there's no need to go into the
| details. If you're asking me to spend $50k or more on a
| car, it better damn well be a heck of a lot better in
| every way than the $5k car I am perfectly happy with, and
| can replace if needed for the same amount of money.
| recursive wrote:
| Not sure if this is a "gotcha", but there are many EVs
| available for less than $50k. Chevy Bolt can be had under
| $30k for the base model.
| bbarnett wrote:
| That's still very expensive compared to what he said, but
| I note that he had other reasons.
|
| These are likely range coupled with charge time.
|
| Some can't understand that no, 20 minutes of time (15+
| minutes charging plus paying and hookup and so on), to
| barely 80%, when you can find a free supercharger without
| route diversion, isn't the same as a 2 minute fillup at
| the gas station.
|
| It's just not. At all.
|
| EVs are where we are going, and I am confident we'll get
| there for all usage cases eventually, but right now EVs
| are not suitable for some.
|
| People need to get over this fact. EVs are not suitable
| for some.
|
| And that's fine! So what of 20% of the population can't
| use EVs due to range, and another 40% due to cost. That's
| what early adopters are for, and the price will come
| down, range via charge time will get even better, and it
| will self resolve.
|
| Frankly, if every car changed to EV tomorrow, we'd have
| blackouts everywhere, and be forced to restart
| depreciated coal power stations, just to handle all that
| sudden power demand.
|
| Not to mention the immense cost of new infra, power
| transfer stations, etc, that needs to be built!
|
| But again, we're doing a gradual rollout. People are
| switching. We'll get there.
|
| But the comments of GP make me think he gets the
| ridiculous replies such as "but no you can just..." if he
| mentions "EVs aren't suitable for me".
|
| The arrogance, and hubris in such replies are astonishing
| to watch.
| jsight wrote:
| > It's not. HN is obsessed with trying to "gotcha" electric
| cars, any form of power generation other than nuclear,
| public/alternative transit, etc.
|
| I've noticed this happening with off-grid setups. People
| will post a YT video with something where solar covers >90%
| of their use, but people will point to the generator as
| some sort of gotcha.
|
| In a lot of cases, neither alone would have been practical.
| That's not a gotcha, that's smart pairing of technology to
| produce a solution to a real problem. But instead we get a
| parade of "see you still need diesel". :facepalm
| Trow83949 wrote:
| 3 tons luxury SUV is not exactly "green".
|
| And replacing battery after seven or three years is not
| much difference. Rugged truck like that, should last 30
| years with basic maintenance! This car is not even
| serviceable!!!
|
| It is the smugg greenwashing people hate!
| spiderice wrote:
| And where exactly did you get the "seven year" figure
| from?
| Trow83949 wrote:
| Rivian battery warranty. If you actually use this as a
| truck, as an off road SUV, or as a farm tractor, haul
| heavy stuff, pull out tree stumps... It will complete a
| few full charging cycles every day. Battery will degrade
| fast. It does so on mobile phones, cars are no different!
| It is a good idea to have it replaced before warranty
| runs out.
|
| > _8-year or 150,000-mile_
|
| > _The high-voltage battery pack capacity naturally
| decreases over time with use. This expected gradual
| capacity loss over time is not covered under the Battery
| Pack Limited Warranty. However, greater than expected
| degradation is covered under the Battery Pack Limited
| Warranty. The warranty will cover a battery pack that
| loses 30% or more of its normal minimum usable rated
| capacity within the warranty period._
| pkulak wrote:
| My gas car is out of warranty and I have yet to replace
| the engine.
| vegardx wrote:
| Do you really replace your car engine and transmission
| before the warranty runs out? You're constructing
| arguments that literally makes no sense. The battery in
| your phone isn't comparable to the one in an BEV. If that
| was true your phone would have a fully working battery
| ten years later, just with slightly lower capacity. Not
| one that dies because you open a webpage with a too many
| moving elements, so battery voltage drops and it turns
| off.
|
| All that said - I don't think a truck like the Rivian R1T
| makes any sense. For the same reason that I don't think
| most trucks make any sense. They're just penis extensions
| that have little to no utility for a vast majority of
| people that buy them. But since we're OK with that for
| regular trucks, I think we should be OK with that for the
| battery electric version too. Lets at least be
| consistent.
| Trow83949 wrote:
| > Do you really replace your car engine and transmission
| before the warranty runs out?
|
| I try! A few months before warranty runs out, it gets
| full inspection, and I claim every part that acts funky!
| It is a free money!
|
| > If that was true your phone would have a fully working
| battery ten years later,
|
| What exactly is the difference? If anything phone
| batteries are way more expensive and sophisticated!
|
| R1T can tow 100 miles on single charge. That is 1500
| battery cycles within 150k miles warranty, or 3000 cycles
| if you do that daily for 8 years!
|
| > just penxs extensions that have little to no utility
| for a vast majority of people that buy them
|
| I actually want to use this as a truck. It should be soo
| much better, new revolutionary technology...
|
| You claim that thing is useless "penxs extension", yet
| somehow manufacturer does not lie about its numbers!
|
| > But since we're OK with that for regular trucks
|
| OK, let's ban useless extensions. Why should people who
| actually need proper truck for work, pay fines and
| sponsor people, who buy useless EV penxs extensions?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Why would you replace the battery after just seven (or
| three) years?
| Trow83949 wrote:
| Because it runs through 1500 charging cycles and capacity
| degrades.
| fho wrote:
| The problem is that your EV experience will differ
| dramatically on your way of sourcing energy.
|
| That starts with what you pay for electricity (e.g.
| 0.4EUR/100kWh in Germany vs. 0.05EUR in Denmark).
|
| But continues with how much CO2 is created. With the German
| energy mix, 1 kWh "produces" 0.434 kg of CO2 (tendency
| rising). Burning 1l of gasoline results in 2.37 kg.
| Comparing two cars:
|
| Tesla 3 (18 kWh / 100 km, 80-90% efficiency during
| charging):
|
| (18 kWh / (0.8 bis 0.9)) * (0.434kg / kwh) = 8.68 bis 9.765
| kg (CO2 per 100km)
|
| Toyota Yaris Hybrid (with E10):
|
| 3.9 l * (2.37 - 0.126) kg/l = 8.75 kg (CO2 pro 100 km)
|
| Which is basically the same ball park.
|
| To be fair, Tesla 3 vs Yaris Hybrid is an apple to pears
| comparison. But the argument that can be made is for a
| cleaner energy mix and smaller cars.
| pkulak wrote:
| That's cool and all, but you're assuming gasoline exists
| in pools, fully refined, under gas stations. Since you've
| priced in the entire lifecycle of every watt of
| electricity, now you need to run it again taking into
| account the mining, refining, and transport of oil.
| Refining is literally boiling the crude and collecting
| the bits that come off. Most folks think it's about 6 kWh
| to rifine one gallon, who knows what for mining and
| transport.
|
| What's fun about that number is that those 6 kWh would
| drive an EV about 18 miles. So, unless you have a
| reasonably efficient gas car, even if you never burned
| any of the gas you buy, and used it to fill swimming
| pools or something, you only come out even with an EV.
| mtwshngtn wrote:
| To be fair, you're comparing the amount of CO2 "produced"
| by the electricity generation of 1 kWh but your 2.37kg
| figure of CO2 from gasoline does not include CO2
| generated from production of the gasoline in the first
| place, which would be necessary to do an apples-to-apples
| comparison (of just the "energy source
| generation/consumption" CO2) [0]
|
| [0]: https://natural-
| resources.canada.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/fi...
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I pay extra for my electricity to guarantee 100% of my
| usage is matched by renewable electricity. I expect many
| other ev drivers do the same.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Tbh I see the opposite. Try not cheerleading EV's, and
| point out that yes, while they bring some advantages
| overall the 'progress' is incremental rather than
| revolutionary, and you'll get branded a 'Petrol addict' or
| an 'oil shill' on HN.
|
| My nr.1 beef with cars is the noise pollution and the
| excessive space taken by them. Neither of those are changed
| by EV's. (An EV makes just as much noise above 35 km/h, and
| now they have them even making fake noises below that
| speed).
| Doxin wrote:
| > My nr.1 beef with cars is the noise pollution and the
| excessive space taken by them. Neither of those are
| changed by EV's.
|
| I feel like EVs do actually solve part of the noise
| problem. Yes a EV at speed makes just as much noise as
| any other car due to tire noise dominating at those
| speeds. However You've got no idling noises, nor revving
| noises when taking off. And that's leaving out edge cases
| like how they introduced electric city buses here and
| those make _wildly_ less noise than gas or diesel buses.
| Never mind the lack of gross exhaust fumes.
| Rapzid wrote:
| Mmm, a bone stock :D~
| xeromal wrote:
| Daddddd, get off hacker news
| bagels wrote:
| Okay, some interesting things about this competition:
|
| It looks like a gimmick rally, not a race. So not racing pace,
| and you get penalized for going too fast.
|
| The organizers provided a truck to charge the ev cars, nice.
| Logistics for gas are a lot more accessible, you need a service
| vehicle with fuel tanks in the bed.
|
| It is a woman only competition.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Most impressive is how it was with a stock truck.
| zwaps wrote:
| How do y'all get excited for EVs?
|
| I know my next car will need to be an EV, but I just can't get
| excited for any of them. They all go fast in a straight line, are
| heavy and look like overweight SUV style. Otherwise, they seem
| eeringly similar. Any sort of sound and feel is "generated".
|
| I don't want to get a non-EV vehicle anymore, but the thought of
| shelling out money for one of these uniform soapboxes... I know I
| can just get the cheapest one because in terms of motors etc.
| it's all more or less the same. But then, I'd rather get somehow
| excited for a product I am going to buy.
| kccqzy wrote:
| This is a substance-less comment. How are the multitude of EVs
| on the market similar? If you really think so, do you also
| think all the cars (ICEs included) look eerily similar? If you
| answer yes to that as well, then I can empathize with you:
| these days cars do look quite similar[0] and I found that not
| everyone will notice the differences. But that's more
| reflective of the person than the car. (For example ask an
| average person to describe the differences between bicycles on
| the market and they likely can't either.)
|
| [0]: https://ade3.medium.com/driving-conformity-49ffb2b1ff9f
| Sophistifunk wrote:
| GP is right, but it's _all cars_ that have become extermely
| samey. If you 're spending Ferrari money your options have
| never been better, but if you're a "car person" what's for
| sale right now to the middle class is incredibly depressing,
| with the exceptions of the 86 and the Z. Several
| manufacturers don't even make a sedan any more.
| spiderice wrote:
| > GP is right, but it's all cars that have become extermely
| samey
|
| If this is the case then I wouldn't call GP "right",
| because their complaint is very misleading.
| zwaps wrote:
| I agree with you and this sort of SUV look is precisely the
| one I don't like. I guess my taste is just cursed.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| With all due respect, it's not like there's that much
| creativity in the ICE market, either. At least, stock that is.
| Kon5ole wrote:
| >How do y'all get excited for EVs?
|
| For me it's the reaction to input. At normal traffic speeds,
| most modern EV's will react like when you pop the clutch in a
| high-revving sports car. It does so silently, in any situation,
| every time.
|
| If you try to drive as quickly in a fossil car, anyone around
| you will wonder who the idiot making all the noise is, so in
| practice you don't do it even if you have a car that could.
|
| Since I basically never drive longer than a battery range I
| haven't had to stop anywhere to "refuel" in the past couple of
| years, which is also nice.
|
| That said - I completely agree about the design and visuals. At
| the moment it's a choice between "big boring" or "bigger
| boring", but I expect that to change once the market settles.
| It's a land grab at the moment.
| akira2501 wrote:
| So for you it's the way that they can be more dangerous in
| less obvious ways to other vehicles and pedestrians in shared
| traffic areas?
| sgt wrote:
| Drive a Tesla. That'll make you excited and probably lose all
| interest in ICE cars. Happened to me!
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Otherwise, they seem eeringly similar. Any sort of sound and
| feel is "generated".
|
| They all have the same problem. The battery technology isn't
| particularly great so to get any appreciable range they have to
| be made with certain materials and with certain concessions.
| Wind is apparently a big factor in route planning so that also
| impacts the exterior design criteria as well.
|
| > I don't want to get a non-EV vehicle anymore
|
| For those who use their vehicles to do repair and other types
| of field or farm work the verdict is not at all clear. I'd also
| prefer Fire, Ambulance and Police to stay on gasoline and
| diesel for probably the next 25 to 50 years, given the abysmal
| rate of infrastructure development that happens in this
| country.
|
| > But then, I'd rather get somehow excited for a product I am
| going to buy.
|
| Pretend I made a new magic gasoline that pollutes, but does so
| "entirely outside the environment." It works with all actual
| gasoline vehicles without modification. Which one on the market
| right now would you want to drive?
| crote wrote:
| It's a car. It's a box on wheels which gets me from point A to
| point B. I get about as excited about it as I get about my
| kitchen table.
|
| Mainstream cars, be it either EV or ICE, haven't been exciting
| for _decades_. They all have the same boring SUV / crossover
| look these days, wasting a ton of space without actually having
| significant carrying capacity.
|
| I judge modern cars by 1) whether I can physically fit in them,
| and 2) how badly they screwed up the controls. "Exciting" just
| isn't a thing these days.
| askl wrote:
| Why do you want to get excited about it? It's just a tool that
| you have to use to get from place to place.
| bartvk wrote:
| Can't you mod it? You can wrap it for more color options, but
| if you're someone who likes to travel, then there are pretty
| cool 3rd party camping options available, notably for Tesla.
| LispSporks22 wrote:
| How did the Tesla cyber truck do in this? I think 4 other EVs
| were there??
| kramerger wrote:
| I don't think cybertruck is ready for that kind of test. One
| dying in the middle of the race would be bad for PR.
|
| There were 3-4 Rivians in the rally, second best currently at
| position 11:
|
| http://www.scoring.rebellerally.com/Display_Results.php?Page...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-23 09:00 UTC)