America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by henrikschroder » Sat, May 20, 2017, 12:45 AM UTC

cr0sh wrote: post #485

henrikschroder wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you see - in the United States it is assumed that any towing or work activities must be done with a truck. I love subtle cultural differences like this where two sides are completely unaware that life could be any other way than it is. :-D In the 80's and 90's in Sweden, I remember that every single car had a trailer hitch with a tow ball. And if you needed to buy something bulky at a hardware store, you borrow…

The reason pickup trucks are used for towing generally is because they are body-on-ladder-frame construction, not unibody with sub-frames. With a receiver hitch attached (which is why you don't generally see the tow-balls on the bumper of pickups), you can haul and pull a lot more weight (because the hitch is connected directly to the frame).

If you have a regular sedan with a tow ball in Europe, you know that you can't attach very large trailer or pull a lot of weight. Knowing how much you can tow and under what circumstances are part of the written driving test in Sweden at least.

But, and here come the funny cultural differences again, for many Americans it's always MAX STRENGTH or nothing. Regardless of the actual future needs, most would go "YEAH BUT WHAT IF I WANTED TO PULL A HORSE TRAILER? I CAN'T? THEN NO!"

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

#492

Post by grzm » Sat, May 20, 2017, 12:47 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #491

cr0sh wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason pickup trucks are used for towing generally is because they are body-on-ladder-frame construction, not unibody with sub-frames. With a receiver hitch attached (which is why you don't generally see the tow-balls on the bumper of pickups), you can haul and pull a lot more weight (because the hitch is connected directly to the frame).

If you have a regular sedan with a tow ball in Europe, you know that you can't attach very large trailer or pull a lot of weight. Knowing how much you can tow and under what circumstances are part of the written driving test in Sweden at least. But, and here come the funny cultural differences again, for many Americans it's always MAX STRENGTH or nothing. Regardless of the actual future needs, most would go "YEAH BUT…

Please, there's no need to use all-caps for emphasis (and it's against the guidelines). If needed, please use italics (using asterisk for demarcation) instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#493

Post by mikeash » Sat, May 20, 2017, 2:07 AM UTC

mastre_ wrote: post #488

mikeash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a Tesla S85 and recently had a Cadillac ATS rental for a few days. It was an interesting contrast, since the official 0-60 times of the two cars are almost the same, yet the Cadillac felt like an absolute slug by comparison. I think a lot of it is that there's a great deal of lag in traditional drivetrains, and we rarely do 0-60 in actual real-life driving. More typically we're doing 0-30 or 30-40 or 55-65. Onc…

I recently completed a day of high performance driving school where we ran M3s and M4s the whole day (these were all equipped w/ DCT, the Competition Package, and Carbon Ceramic brakes). There is so much more to actual high performance driving than acceleration numbers. You may say "oh yea, cornering!" and while that's certainly delving deeper into it, there's a _lot_ more than just that (and many, many things go int…

> and the 0-60 numbers on most/all cars are like MegaPixels on digital cameras.

I think you're telling the same story from the other side. And it's a good one!

I see two major problems to overcome before EVs can start to really intrude on this particular part of the world.

First is weight. A Tesla battery is somewhere around 1,000-1,500lbs. Putting it under the floor helps a lot, but that's a lot of weight to carry around. You can overcome that in straight-line acceleration by suppling lots of power, but other aspects of handling can't help but suffer. I'm not very experienced with this stuff, but I hear that the Tesla handles reasonably well for its size but at the end of the day it's huge and heavy.

Second is heat. The electric drivetrain is efficient, so it doesn't produce a lot of waste heat, but it still produces some. And it's a lot harder to remove. You'll never run into this in normal driving, but with the sort of activities you were getting up to, an EV would start to limit your power output pretty quickly.

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

#494

Post by grandalf » Sat, May 20, 2017, 2:45 AM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #299

grandalf wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> am I right that you... support the fuel efficiency regulations passed in the 70's and 90's No I would prefer a carbon tax charged per vehicle based on miles driven per year and the pollution emitted from the vehicle. > If someone expert told you that similar regulation passed today would have a similar effect, would you support it? What effect did it have? Do you think automakers would have continued to use 1960s e…

Sounds great but it's a regressive tax when you consider that it disincentivizes people actually using their cars. Once they've bought their new, fuel efficient car you want them to drive around and create economic value. This tax will ensure that less value is created. Your "far better" proposal is potentially worse.

Carbon equates to gallons of gas used, so from an environmental perspective we'd want to reduce unnecessary use to reduce the carbon impact.

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

#495

Post by greglindahl » Sat, May 20, 2017, 4:25 AM UTC

mastre_ wrote: post #488

mikeash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a Tesla S85 and recently had a Cadillac ATS rental for a few days. It was an interesting contrast, since the official 0-60 times of the two cars are almost the same, yet the Cadillac felt like an absolute slug by comparison. I think a lot of it is that there's a great deal of lag in traditional drivetrains, and we rarely do 0-60 in actual real-life driving. More typically we're doing 0-30 or 30-40 or 55-65. Onc…

I recently completed a day of high performance driving school where we ran M3s and M4s the whole day (these were all equipped w/ DCT, the Competition Package, and Carbon Ceramic brakes). There is so much more to actual high performance driving than acceleration numbers. You may say "oh yea, cornering!" and while that's certainly delving deeper into it, there's a _lot_ more than just that (and many, many things go int…

Hey, I'm all for people who like track racing, but you know, there's other people who like drag racing, and still others who like being able to floor it from a stoplight and beat that Maserati driver who's scared to even try because he'll make an embarrassingly-loud noise and lose.

Different strokes and all that. And for 2 of the 3 groups I just mentioned, 0-60 times are not like MegaPixels on digital cameras.

Enjoy your track racing!

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

#496

Post by convolvatron » Sat, May 20, 2017, 4:40 AM UTC

cr0sh wrote: post #479

alistairSH wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3,000 mile oil changes hasn't been a standard recommendation in the US for at least a decade, probably longer. These days, most (all?) cars have an idiot light that pops on every 5-10k miles, based on usage patterns. Some have a more robust algorithm than others. Either way, in my experience, my last 3-4 cars (Jeep, Lexus, Volvo, VW) have all gone about 8k miles between services, as indicated by the light.

In all honesty, the only way you can really know when to change your oil is to have regular oil analysis done, to know when certain variables change that indicate "oil change needed soon" (or worse - service engine now). But that isn't cheap, and it must be done on a regular schedule, and you must also understand the results. It used to be that the oil change interval was something like 3k miles for stop-n-go traffic…

take the dipstick out, wipe it on your hand and give it a good whiff.

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

#497

Post by ido » Sat, May 20, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC

shas3 wrote: post #455

Someone1234 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric vehicles are a tough sell now though. The Chevy Bolt EV has a 60 kWh Lithium-ion battery; to charge that fully costs $8.7 in Utah (14.5 cents per kWh). Per the EPA's measure that gets you 238 miles. Gas costs approx $2.24/gallon in Utah. A Prius has a 11.3 gallon tank and a 540 miles range (again, EPA standard). That means that $11.15 would get you the same distance as a full Bolt EV charge in gas. Now, befo…

Honestly you can take the $10k+ difference and donate it to charity or save it up for your kid's college, if you have children. $10k can buy malaria nets for 4000 kids in Africa, if you donate to some place like Against Malaria Foundation. At the moment, I don't see any altruistic outcome from buying EVs. Personally, I am also against using any non-economic arguments in choosing cars, unless you are really rich and t…

The cynic in me would say that saving 4000 African children would actually adversely affect the environment, where as supporting development of electric vehicles is at worst trivially beneficial.

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

#498

Post by jacquesm » Sat, May 20, 2017, 9:31 AM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #465

jacquesm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable Sorry?

Sorry, keep smoking your cigarettes, it won't be your fault.

1) I don't smoke

2) You can get cancer from many other things than cigarettes.

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

#499

Post by fulafel » Sat, May 20, 2017, 9:34 AM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #164

dashundchen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/3 of avoidable deaths is not insubstantial - and traffic accidents aren't the only harm done by autos. Add in an estimated 53,000 deaths in the US due to transportation emissions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013... Potentially millions killed by auto emissions worldwide. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/17/pollutio... The leading cause of death in the US for people under…

Except that some illnesses like cancer are avoidable, it's not just accidents. Except that buses and trains and horses and teslas kill people and pollute. Even bikes kill people. Every mode of transportation is a killer, so if you want to eliminate travel deaths you can only eliminate travel. If you eliminated cars completely tens of thousands would likely still die in the US from transportation accidents. But now yo…

The sure way to avoid cancer is not palatable to most people.

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

#500

Post by DanBC » Sat, May 20, 2017, 10:01 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #498

valuearb wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, keep smoking your cigarettes, it won't be your fault.

1) I don't smoke 2) You can get cancer from many other things than cigarettes.

Most lung cancer is caused by cigarettes. Many cancers have a "lifestyle" component. This does not mean that every single case of cancer is caused by something the person did. It does mean that we need to give people better information. Some lifestyle factors are much stronger than others. Smoking causes a lot of cancer. Alcohol causes less.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/lung-cancer/ris...

> Smoking tobacco is one of the biggest causes of lung cancer. More than 8 out of 10 lung cancers (80%) are caused by smoking .This includes breathing in other people’s cigarette smoke.

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of...

> Over the long term, drinking alcohol increases your risk of serious illnesses, such as mouth, throat and breast cancer1. Of course, not everyone who drinks will get cancer. But scientists have found that some cancers are more common in people who drink alcohol than those who don’t.

[...]

> One study has estimated that around 4% of all cancers are due to alcohol consumption