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

$4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 264 posts

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#81

Post by JetSpiegel »

danhak wrote: post #19
rwmj wrote: post #15

This is something I've always wondered, why are even the cheapest cars (in the Western world) so expensive? Isn't it possible to make a new car under ~ $10,000?

Safety requirements. Here's a crash test between a 2015 Nissan Tsuru, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in Mexico, and a 2016 Nissan Versa, the least expensive sedan sold by Nissan in the United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0

The first 15 seconds are enough.

Spoilers, The Versa is totalled, but the driver can probably survive. The Tsuru has the front half obliterated and the crash test dummy's skin comes out. No airbags on the Tsuru, but who cares, the car body can't survive the crash anyway.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#82

Post by lclarkmichalek »

chrisseaton wrote: post #56
mschuster91 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the reasons why the Renault Kwid is $4000 is because, well, it uses cheap materials, and with that comes a very bad safety rating. Still, better safety rating than a scooter, and that's the most important part (next to way better emission control, as scooters generally use nasty 2-stroke engines).

> Still, better safety rating than a scooter Is it? I mean maybe it is, I don't know, but I'm guessing you don't really know either. I can imagine that maybe a scooter could be safer than a very bad car. You can get crushed in a car, cars go faster, you've got less situational awareness. I'm not sure this is one of those things that is just obviously true.

Safety ratings do not account for different speeds, and different driving styles, so it's probably best to assume those are equal, for the sake of the conversion (which is about _safety rating_).

Cars are slow to crush. If you're involved in a collision while on a scooter, you don't have a crumple zone to slow down whatever might be eventually hitting you.

Cars have seatbelts. If you're hit on a scooter, you are more likely to be thrown out of the vehicle, compared to being hit while in a car. Being thrown out of a vehicle is not good for your survival rate.

I actually have no clue what safety features scooters have, if any. Cars have a ton.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#83

Post by gorkonsine »

NoPiece wrote: post #73
Retric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on top speed. If you moped never breaks 25mph then a car doing 50mph could easily be less safe. It's also much more dangerous to people around you.

The most reliable mopeds still crash and get hit. Fatalities per mile are greater bicycles and motorcycles than cars.

Where?

If you're in a place where everyone drives a moped or bicycle and cars are rare, then mopeds are a lot safer. Stick the moped in traffic surrounded by clueless SUV drivers and now the moped is a death-trap.

Go to a place where everyone rides a bicycle and there's no cars and I guarantee the fatality-per-mile rate is ridiculously low. See downtown Copenhagen for example.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#84

Post by thinkloop »

So painful to read this article. How did it get on the front page? Is it that it's funny how confidently the author has no idea what "disrupt" means?

Summary: new car introduced at same price as current leading car in category, but with a bit more room and slightly nicer, and they give you cake when you pick it up.

Literally, that's the whole article.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#85

Post by barrkel »

mschuster91 wrote: post #41
smcg wrote: post #16

One of the reasons why the Renault Kwid is $4000 is because, well, it uses cheap materials, and with that comes a very bad safety rating. This is enabled by India's nearly non-existent car safety regulations. Everything has a "price".

> One of the reasons why the Renault Kwid is $4000 is because, well, it uses cheap materials, and with that comes a very bad safety rating. Still, better safety rating than a scooter, and that's the most important part (next to way better emission control, as scooters generally use nasty 2-stroke engines).

Can you name a 2-stroke model scooter being sold new in India? Everything I can find currently being sold is 4-stroke. In fact AFAICT 2-strokes are illegal to sell new in India.

(Personally I'd rather ride a scooter than drive a tiny car in a dense urban area, because my awareness is much higher on a scooter, and also I've ridden scooters around London for a decade.)

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#86

Post by Retric »

NoPiece wrote: post #73
Retric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on top speed. If you moped never breaks 25mph then a car doing 50mph could easily be less safe. It's also much more dangerous to people around you.

The most reliable mopeds still crash and get hit. Fatalities per mile are greater bicycles and motorcycles than cars.

Depends if you limit it to moped - moped collision then the numbers are different. But a car - moped collision is arguably a car fatality not a moped fatality.

That said walking is very dangerous per mile, but cars get a lot more miles on them.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#87

Post by ceejayoz »

abawany wrote: post #58
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emissions and safety standards play a huge role, I'd imagine. It's $3-5k to replace airbags after an accident, for example. The Kwid lacks them entirely.

Looking at the video of the Nissan Tsuru vs. Versa posted above, it seems to me that an airbag might not have been much help in the Tsuru - the passenger compartment in the Tsuru just plain collapsed whereas the Versa's remained whole.

Yeah, I'd imagine the lack of airbags is just the start of a very, very long list of safety issues.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#88

Post by chrisseaton »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #82
chrisseaton wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still, better safety rating than a scooter Is it? I mean maybe it is, I don't know, but I'm guessing you don't really know either. I can imagine that maybe a scooter could be safer than a very bad car. You can get crushed in a car, cars go faster, you've got less situational awareness. I'm not sure this is one of those things that is just obviously true.

Safety ratings do not account for different speeds, and different driving styles, so it's probably best to assume those are equal, for the sake of the conversion (which is about _safety rating_). Cars are slow to crush. If you're involved in a collision while on a scooter, you don't have a crumple zone to slow down whatever might be eventually hitting you. Cars have seatbelts. If you're hit on a scooter, you are more…

Maybe on a scooter you can nimbly get out of the way of a situation on a crowded Indian road that in a car you can't. More safety features don't help you if the other option doesn't even have a crash in the first place.

In the UK you can drive a scooter at 16 but not a car until 17. Is that because they are safer for an inexperienced driver and other road users?

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#89

Post by apendleton »

NoPiece wrote: post #73
Retric wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on top speed. If you moped never breaks 25mph then a car doing 50mph could easily be less safe. It's also much more dangerous to people around you.

The most reliable mopeds still crash and get hit. Fatalities per mile are greater bicycles and motorcycles than cars.

Fatalities per mile is a tricky metric for comparing across modes, though. At least in the US, people getting cars often comes with adopting a car-centric lifestyle: you move to the suburbs, your commute and trips to the grocery store get significantly longer, etc. This is why fatalities per mile are higher on a bike, but fatalities per trip are actually slightly lower than a car: people with cars take longer trips.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#90

Post by ceejayoz »

abawany wrote: post #75
krishicks wrote: post #26

Crash test results: 0 stars https://youtu.be/jePu-6TxypI Reminds me of the Tata Nano (also 0 stars): https://youtu.be/buMXtGoHHIg

Compare this to a 80s Mercedes 190: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw1GNfA_AnU . The passenger cell remains solid though the crash dummies experience injuries. I often wonder how much better the automotive market would be if solid designs remained in circulation instead of these new-old mistakes re-entering the market every time.

Those solid designs mean much higher impact forces on the passengers. Crumple zones are a significant part of why modern cars are more survivable in accidents.

You just don't want to make the passenger part of the crumple zone, which appears to be what Renault has done here.

Post reply on HN