• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Thats how we view American cars, especially pickups that nobody needs and SUVs that have never seen a path that needed 4WD here in Europe.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Pickups, SUVs, and Vans in America are getting unreasonably large because of poorly-written environmental regulation.

      In the mid-2000s, automakers were classifying everything as a “truck” to skirt CAFE (fuel economy) standards. The tilling point was the PT Cruiser being regulated as a truck. So, starting in 2012, CAFE standards started to be based on vehicle footprint.

      Ever notice how all the little trucks like the S-10, Dakota, and the old-style Ranger all had 2011-ish as their last year model?

      Suddenly, small trucks became effectively illegal, and as fuel economy standards get tougher every few years, the automakers have learned it’s easier to just make the footprint bigger than it is to make the fuel economy better. They’ve since re-released the Ranger, but now it’s bigger than the F-150 used to be.

      And now it’s hit the vans. CAFE outran the small cargo van footprints, so the Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect, and RAM Promaster City have all been discontinued in the last 2-3 years because they can’t make cargo-hauling vehicles that size any longer.

      New York City’s Taxi Fleet changed to NV200s a few years back to improve accessibility, and now they can’t buy replacement vehicles without either dropping the accessibility and going small or moving to fuck-you-sized vehicles.

      The one neat thing though is the Ford Maverick. It’s a small 4-seat truck with a half-size bed that comes standard as a hybrid (trafitional ICE is an “upgrade” so it meets CAFE) for like 25 grand. The only real problem is buying one since they only made like 4 of them.

  • Roopappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I often see a car in a crowded parking lot that is too wide or too long to fit in a parking spot, and I have to wonder if the person driving that vehicle is a complete idiot or a complete asshole.

    How stupid are you that you chose a daily driver that doesn’t work? That you take up so much space that everyone else needs to actively avoid you and curse you because you are so bad at making choices?

    Do you regret your choice? Do you constantly think “Fuck everyone else around me, I do what I want.”, or do you legitimately not notice how everyone else hates you?

    • JordanZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      There is a guy at my office building that routinely parks his fucking VW Golf in 4 spaces under the covered parking. Dude it’s not even that nice of a car. Assholes exist regardless of what they drive.

      Lived at an apartment complex that had external garages and they had two parking spaces, two single garages, and two parking spaces in these perpendicular to the road pull offs. BMW loved to park diagonal across the two space sections. Too bad for him that apartment had a manager that must have found so much joy in towing cars. They were relentless with their parking enforcement. Pretty sure that guy got towed 3-4 times before he got the hint. Parking was always a pain at that complex…

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s a bad example because it’s a Golf.

        Seriously though, pretty much every time I see one, it’s either doing something dangerous and/or obnoxious, or is about to do it in the next 5 minutes. I can also count on one hand the amount of times I’ve seen one respecting the speed limit, and they’re a pretty common car here.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Do you regret your choice? Do you constantly think “Fuck everyone else around me, I do what I want.”, or do you legitimately not notice how everyone else hates you?

      It could easily be all of those things. Regret turns to coping poorly through projection1, followed by just ignoring the problem.

      Re: idiots and assholes. The Venn diagram for those groups have a rather large intersection.


      1. Clinically known as “acting like an asshole”. In this case, it’s the decision that it’s everyone else who is encroaching on their space, while driving a vehicle that is slightly smaller than a shuttle bus.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      That requires introspection. Instead they say things like “the idiot that built this parking lot made the spaces too small.”

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Good thing comedy isn’t mandatory. Also fuck car-centric societies that enable the nonsense this strip is parodying.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah, nobody wants wide cars. Manufacturers are making them wider to make it easier for them to meet NHTSA’s CAFE standards.

      The standards require year-on-year MPG improvements. The problem is that they require proportionally more improvement on the smallest, highest economy cars, and less improvement on the largest, lowest economy vehicles.

      The standards are based on the “footprint” of the vehicle: the rectangle between the contact patches of the tires. The larger the area of that footprint, the larger the vehicle, and the less MPG increase it needs to have.

      So, they are pushing the wheels toward the corners, and widening the wheelbase, approaching a square to maximize their footprints. They are making cars bigger and boxier so they don’t have to make them more efficient.

      Fuel economy of the cars on the road is actually falling, because manufacturers are effectively prohibited from continuing to make their smallest, most efficient vehicles. They are compelled to either discontinue those vehicles, or embiggen them to fall in a larger class.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, I was expecting it to be a joke like:

      • Introducing Longtrucks. 🚌
      • Impress even more strangers of the superior person-hauling capabilities with 32 seats.
      • Includes a light-up sign 🚍 so you can proudly show to strangers where you’re headed.
      • Access a world-wide network of pick-up bays 🚏 for you to pick up strangers from.
  • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s crazy to think that Humvees were designed with war in Europe in mind. They are pretty wide and may have been wider if they didn’t have to worry about train tunnels

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I hate this about newer car models. Many are unnecessarily wide. Lanes don’t get wider though.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is “necessary” for them to be that wide.

      CAFE standards are based on “footprint” which is basically the rectangle of the tire contact patches. If you’re a car manufacturer who can’t meet the NHTSA’s MPG requirements for the size of car you produce, you can increase the size of your cars, so they fit in a larger class that requires less of an MPG improvement.

      The most effective way to increase the footprint is to widen a narrow car, increasing its footprint toward square.

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Am I understanding you correctly? There is a standard somewhere that says you can’t have tires of a certain width on a car unless the car is also broad?

        Why is that even a requirement? I thought broad tires were safer, why would the width of the car have anything to do with it?

        • Alex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          To be brief, some boneheads ages past decided to class vehicles based on footprint rather than simply weight.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, you’re not understanding me correctly. Mostly because I misspoke, so that’s on me, not you.

          The contact patches I was talking about are the corners of the rectangle. Everything between the wheels is the footprint.

          The area of the footprint basically determines the minimum MPG you can have. (The more complicated point is that it is related to all the vehicles you produce rather than a specific minimum, but that overcomplicates the issue. The point is that CAFE standards provide strong incentives for manufacturers to increase the “footprints” of their vehicles. The larger the footprint they can claim, the less MPG improvement they need to make. So, longer and wider wheelbases.

          • CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            And this is exactly why we don’t see small trucks like Rangers or Dakotas anymore. I don’t know if it’s because it’s impossible to make an engine that efficient or if manufacturers are just lazy, but the consequence is that they can avoid stricter efficiency requirements by simply making bigger (larger wheelbase) and heavier (body on frame vs. monocoque) vehicles.