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

Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

the-race.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#21

Post by [deleted] »

dr_orpheus wrote: post #16
quesera wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Deleted naïve physics of uncommon case.)

But the acceleration that you are concerned about here is the acceleration (or deceleration) of a car from it's current speed to the speed after the crash. That's the acceleration that has an impact on humans. A more accurate equation to look at would be kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2. More energy a car has in hitting something the worse the outcome will be. Now you can say that cars with greater acceleration may be more…

[deleted]

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#22

Post by apetrov »

quesera wrote: post #10
strongpigeon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels a bit like cherry picking? I mean, the heaviest EV is the Hummer EV at 9000lbs compared to the original Hummer at 8000lbs. Most other EVs are of course heavier but not garishly so (e.g. Tesla Model 3 coming at around 4000 lbs, which is about the same as a BMW M3). The point about the acceleration being stronger is fair, but I don't think this means overall EVs are much more dangerous than ICE cars.

(Deleted naïve physics of uncommon case.)

it's kinetic energy that matter at the impact. def: E=mv^2/2

assuming car 2 is 2x heavier than car 1, to have the same kinetic energy, their respective velocities should be: m2 = 2 * m1 2m1 v2^2/2 = m1 * v1^2/2 2 * v2^2 = v1^2 v2 = v1/sqrt(2) ~ 0.7

another word 2000lbs car driving at 100mph has the same kinetic energy as 4000lbs driving at 70mph

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#23

Post by xdavidliu »

dr_orpheus wrote: post #16
quesera wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Deleted naïve physics of uncommon case.)

But the acceleration that you are concerned about here is the acceleration (or deceleration) of a car from it's current speed to the speed after the crash. That's the acceleration that has an impact on humans. A more accurate equation to look at would be kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2. More energy a car has in hitting something the worse the outcome will be. Now you can say that cars with greater acceleration may be more…

> A more accurate equation to look at would be kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2. More energy a car has in hitting something the worse the outcome will be.

worse it will be for who, for people in the car or for the something?

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#24

Post by majewsky »

antisthenes wrote: post #19
iLoveOncall wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also never says that electric is not the right direction. Here's the quote: > “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety r…

Some of it makes sense. Safety features make the car heavier ---> weight increases collision force ---> need more safety features. In a way it's a self-reinforcing loop where you end up with a 2-ton vehicle to ferry around 1 person, which is a bit ridiculous if you think about it.

I'm not a car expert by any means, but I just did a quick look through the Euro NCAP database, and apparently there are some models with 5-star ratings that are below 1.5 metric tons. I don't disagree that safety features don't incur additional weight, but it stands to reason that not all the weight gains are caused by additional safety features.

It appears to me that it's more about perceived safety, which leads to an arms race: If everyone around you is driving a 3-ton SUV, you'd be less inclined to choose a Smart ForTwo, even if it's sufficient for your mobility needs and more economical, because you fear what happens when one of the SUV monsters crashes into your car.

There are some ways to fix this: banning SUVs (e.g. by capping vehicle weight for individually-owned cars), providing better public transit options, disincentivizing car ownership in urban areas (e.g. by reducing parking spaces), etc. Obviously none of those policy proposals are going to be popular.

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#25

Post by majewsky »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #20
edhelas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end a car, electric or not, is a 1.5T complex machine that transport most of the time 80kg of human and that stays immobile 95% of the time. You can turn it the way you want, the issue is the concept itself. A bus is more logical, a bike is more logical, a train is more logical, even a commercial plane is more logical.

If I lived in a perfect world with universal bike lanes and drivers that were actually mindful of cyclists and gave them space, I'd gladly do most of my errands with a cargo ebike. Sadly we do not live in that world. Cycling on public streets with real traffic is signing up for a lot of stress and a not insignificant chance of bodily harm. Until that's fixed with infrastructure changes on par with what they have in t…

How did it actually go in the Netherlands? Was it "better bike infrastructure -> more bike usage" like you suggest? Or was it the other way around?

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#26

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #9
strongpigeon wrote: post #4

Honestly, I feel like the submission title is overly editorialized. The part about the auto industry supposedly moving in the wrong direction is barely a paragraph all the way to the end. This is mostly about Newey's career.

He also never says that electric is not the right direction. Here's the quote: > “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety r…

> To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so)

By "SUV" are you referring exclusively to archetypical American models like the Escalade and Expedition? Or do you include somewhat more "polite" vehicles like the Range Rover and Honda CR-V? How would you categorize larger crossover models like the the Model X which Tesla always refers to as an "SUV" despite its shorter wheelbase and noticeably less rear-pax legroom (and doesn't even have seatback pockets...)

Honestly curious, thanks!

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#27

Post by rocgf »

majewsky wrote: post #25
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I lived in a perfect world with universal bike lanes and drivers that were actually mindful of cyclists and gave them space, I'd gladly do most of my errands with a cargo ebike. Sadly we do not live in that world. Cycling on public streets with real traffic is signing up for a lot of stress and a not insignificant chance of bodily harm. Until that's fixed with infrastructure changes on par with what they have in t…

How did it actually go in the Netherlands? Was it "better bike infrastructure -> more bike usage" like you suggest? Or was it the other way around?

It was both. The Netherlands had relatively high bike usage before "the cycling revolution" in the 70s, but either way it's kind of a moot point.

Either way, if you're trying to insinuate that you first need the bikes and then the infrastructure, you're going to have a hard time finding good arguments.

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#28

Post by someweirdperson »

raverbashing wrote: post #13

For those who want the tl;dr: > “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. Agree > All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes t…

And still, motor cycles are still legal to buy and ride. But more dangerous than even the most flimsy car.

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#29

Post by rocgf »

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #18
edhelas wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end a car, electric or not, is a 1.5T complex machine that transport most of the time 80kg of human and that stays immobile 95% of the time. You can turn it the way you want, the issue is the concept itself. A bus is more logical, a bike is more logical, a train is more logical, even a commercial plane is more logical.

the concept is having freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want, whether you're young and healthy or old and frail, whether it's day or night, rain or snow very controversial, I know

Having cars as the primary and often sole viable method of transportation, under any circumstances, be it for a soda craved in the middle of the night, vacationing in a different state or daily commute, and having all the cities and the country designed for them is totally a ridiculous concept.

Re: Top F1 designer says auto industry moving in wrong direction with electric cars

#30

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

rocgf wrote: post #29
throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the concept is having freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want, whether you're young and healthy or old and frail, whether it's day or night, rain or snow very controversial, I know

Having cars as the primary and often sole viable method of transportation, under any circumstances, be it for a soda craved in the middle of the night, vacationing in a different state or daily commute, and having all the cities and the country designed for them is totally a ridiculous concept.

and until we get star trek tech, the only alternative to cars in a city is getting on a meatwagon and having your day enriched by drunks, junkies, crazies and numerous other vibrant urban characters

and outside the cities, would you have buses run around the clock between little towns in the middle of nowhere on the off-chance that someone from a farm might need a ride in the middle of the night?

Post reply on HN