Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 528 posts

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#281

Post by dhf17 »

chadgeidel wrote: post #94
old-gregg wrote: post #84

I suspect that people of the future will look back and be amazed that for more than a century we've been legally allowing our slow-reacting bodies [1] to ride around at 80mph in a 2-ton hideous mechanical equivalent of a horse, killing ourselves [2] and simultaneously destroying our cities [3]. I myself used to be a "petrolhead" my 20s and it's quite amazing to observe this awakening when looking in the mirror. I sus…

I think this is often overlooked. Traction aids and computer control has filled in so much as horsepower and weight increases. It's absolutely mind-boggling that people drive around in giant SUVs with huge amounts of horsepower until you look at the suspension and brakes - which are bigger and more complex than performance cars of just a few years ago. * still a "petrohead" but I prefer light weight and low displacem…

NA Miata owner here :) Wouldn't mind just a little more in the power department though.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#282

Post by VintageCool »

ajross wrote: post #218
orf wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly not, or not enough to make a difference. America didn't stop producing gas guzzlers after the 70's. If anything mpg went down as trucks got bigger

The article clearly shows mpg getting rapidly better in the 1970's, with an inflection point right at the passage of the mileage target.

Moreover, as soon as the government-imposed target was met, carmakers stopped improving mpg fuel efficiency and made no progress on that front for 20 years.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#283

Post by bpodgursky »

azinman2 wrote: post #165

For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

(most) libertarians are perfectly happy to structure a market to internalize the externalities of pollution, since it's not practical to privatize air O2 and CO2.

A different, possibly more market-oriented, solution would have been a carbon tax on emissions instead of mandated efficiency standards. I think it would have gotten us to a similar place. But there's not anything inherently anti-market in saying "you cannot fill up collectively owned air with emissions."

Libertarianism are against regulations they consider paternalistic and which prevent free exchange of goods and services -- for example, minimum wages and taxi unions.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#284

Post by wtallis »

gozur88 wrote: post #64

>If a 1976 driver were to somehow get his hands on a car from 2017, he’d be at grave risk of whiplash. Since those days, horsepower in the U.S. has almost doubled, with the median model climbing from 145 to 283 stallions. 1976 was right in that era where gas prices took a huge jump, and to keep Americans from buying the more fuel efficient Japanese cars US car makers were producing seriously underpowered vehicles wit…

> I wouldn't be surprised if that year represents the nadir of horsepower in American cars.

And yet, a graph in the article shows more than 25% drop in horsepower from '76 to '83. Are you claiming that was entirely due to an increase in Japanese car models dragging down the average even as American models bounced back?

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#285

Post by demilicious »

uslibs887 wrote: post #233
grandalf wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians are not anti-regulation, they just believe that the good and bad consequences of regulations should be understood. Often, those who are not libertarians will support a regulation simply because they agree with its stated aim... things like "the patriot act" or "the affordable care act". Those names are chosen to sound good, not because they reflect the intent of legislation or the outcome of it. To give…

It would be great if you'd clarify that you are generalizing about mainstream libertarianism thought in the US. US libertarians are a special breed that hacked up classical libertarianism to fit within the framework laid down by the US Constitution. Basically they are believers in the US Constitution first and libertarians second. Not a rigid definition but neither is the parent post

It's not difficult to fit classical liberalism into the US Constitution. Both are children of the Enlightenment, and have the same philosophical underpinnings.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#286

Post by rubyn00bie »

coredog64 wrote: post #269
rubyn00bie wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to point out this is due to confusion by almost all peoples who haven't formally studied the economics of regulation. There are in fact, two types of regulation: "Safety and Soundness" and "economic." Economic regulation is almost always a bad thing and results in gross market inefficiencies like barriers to entry, cronyism, and destroys any hope of a functioning capitalist system. Think trucking regulat…

Can you please point out the exact parts of Glass-Steagall that, had they been left in place, would have prevented the GFC?

Copied from wikipedia because I'm lazy, and you could've googled this easily:

> The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

* dealing in non-governmental securities for customers * investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves * underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities * affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities

It prevented mergers and acquisitions which allowed the banks to become too big to fail.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#287

Post by colanderman »

Theodores wrote: post #274
lacampbell wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pedal-powered bicycle that dusts ICE cars at stop lights. For, like, 5 metres... I've noticed that too. I'm no athlete, but I can often beat cars across an intersection. Another thing I've noticed is that many cyclists don't shift down before they stop. They have to get up off their seat to even start. Even people in full kit on expensive bicycles do this.

The most 'ludicrous mode' vehicle for 0 to 5 metres has to be the small wheeled folding bicycle. After those first 5 - 25 metres other modes of bicycle will be going past at speed, but, in that initial start you cannot beat the low weight and low center of gravity found on a Dahon style folding bike with gears. Trackstands are instinctive on the folding bike and the small wheel helps filtering through traffic immense…

Yep, I have a 6-speed Brompton; I have to make a conscious effort not to pop a wheelie at every light change. Having a 3-speed hub shifter means I'm always sure to be in one of the two lowest gears at a light.

I do appreciate being able to stay ahead of cars for half of each block.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#288

Post by fiblye »

1_2__3 wrote: post #126
fiblye wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 out of 70 is pretty damn huge. We have global campaigns about preventing cancers that are less dangerous than car accidents. There was panic over Ebola, which killed essentially nobody compared to car accidents. Yet the general response to 1/70 people deaths being because of cars is "meh, oh well."

I think you might misunderstand the statistic. He's saying one out of every 70 deaths. If there were only 70 deaths a year, one would be from a car accident. Far more would be from suicide, cancer, and heart disease.

I grasp that. ~1.5% of deaths is a significant number. People worry about getting brain cancer or being struck by lightning more than they worry about the risk of being annihilated by a machine, despite the latter being more common.

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#289

Post by irixusr »

kmm wrote: post #195
irixusr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived (and appreciated) Europe and their cars: 1. You guy drive a lot less than us. I do trips three times as long as what would destroy me in Europe (twice a month I drive 500 km without stopping and back the next day) 2. Are you using the imperial gallon or the american gallon? Very common mistake (the mile used in the article looks like and probably is the 3.8l gal) Edit, you're using the right gallon.

Sure (if true), but that's not the point, because driving more doesn't increase mileage. Why does driving more make you prefer less efficient cars? What do you get back from it?

Sorry I forgot to finish the point for 1.

A larger car (more space, inertia and soundproofing) with a bigger engine (lower rpm therefore less noise) with more cylinders (less vibration) is more comfortable and wears you down less. And I loved my wife's no frills stick-shift Versa (4000 rpm at 80 mph really got annoying though)

As to American's driving large distances, based on my personal experience, there's no comparison. American cities are further apart, families are more scattered, families are larger. Don't forget that in many ways America is actually two societies in one. One America lives in places largely undistinguishable from Europe. The other has 90 mile one way commute (a colleague. Mine is only 17).

Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient

#290

Post by DamnInteresting »

davexunit wrote: post #262
DamnInteresting wrote: post #73

A few weeks ago I bought a Chevy Bolt EV...according to the dealer it was the first one sold in my state (Utah). I'd been on a waiting list for almost a year. Sure, ICE engines are getting better, but EVs are rapidly gaining and will soon surpass. The Bolt is a bit expensive for a car of its body type, but "gassing up" at home is amazing, the 200+ mile range is great, and the sharply reduced emissions are a weight of…

Did you get the LT or Premier? Also, do you have a Level 2 EVSE at home? To me, the Premier version is the only version really worth getting (with the DC Fast charging port upgrade at the very least), but the price tag is a bit hard to look at, especially when thinking about the sale tax, dealership fees, registration fees, electrician fees for the EVSE installation (optional, but barely), etc. that go on top.

I deliberately chose the LT, few of the Premier options were desirable for me (I care not for heated seats, heated steering wheel, etc). Some of the driver assist options would be nice, but not enough to justify the cost for me. I'm a safe driver, I don't do anything silly like text or talk on the phone while driving.

Mine came with fast DC charge support, I don't know if they moved that to be a standard feature, or if I just got lucky. I've used public fast DC chargers a few times now.

At the moment I am relying on the equipped 110v home charger and public fast chargers, but I will eventually get a home 220v charger. It's just not urgent because I maintain plenty of range as long as I plug in whenever my car is at home.

Post reply on HN