Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base • Hacker News Board

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#111

Post by xtiansimon » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 2:35 AM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #101

xtiansimon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Suburbanites buy cars” True for Long Island, NY. Can’t go to to the store 0.3 miles away without driving your cage. Kids take the bus to school in even the best weather, that is if their parents don’t drive them.

> Can’t go to to the store 0.3 miles away without driving your cage. Is this due to a lack of footpaths? Or just a cultural thing?

Well. Some of it's mental (can't imagine walking when you have a car) and some of it is what mom who has two kids (with or without the father) is going to want to choose to walk pushing a folding cart full of groceries when they can drive in a community designed for cars. Moms will take back personal time wherever they can.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#112

Post by ajmurmann » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #108

ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are supposed to replace cars we'd need so many of these landing pads. No idea how this is supposed to work. I'm the suburbs it's unclear where you'd put them. Where do I walk to fly this to Costco? Does it land on the Costco warehouse next to an entire line of these arriving instead of cars today? In proper downtown areas I suspect even if you'd cover every rooftop in these it wouldn't be enough capacity

There are two aspects to this: - what are the dimensions of a flying car? Double than a car? Triple? - are they autonomous or need to be flown manually? Looking at current drone designs, you could get away with a flying car the size of large SUV. If they are autonomous, then you don't have to worry much: Car, take me to Costco.

You don't think that there needs to be lots of clearance around the landing area? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have one landing right next to me while I'm loading up groceries

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#113

Post by jjav » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 8:17 AM UTC

dns_snek wrote: post #75

jjav wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right turn on red is an insane idea that any sane person would heavily disagree with. Obviously not since it is so widely adopted. Right on red is an extremely useful optimization so you don't sit waiting for nothing when it is clearly safe to turn.

If you want to optimize traffic throughput you can replace numerous intersections with roundabouts. Then everyone can go when it's "clearly safe to go", not just those who are turning right. An optimization that sacrifices the lives of cyclists and pedestrians is not acceptable.

> If you want to optimize traffic throughput you can replace numerous intersections with roundabouts.

Roundabouts are awesome, love them.

Be pragmatic, the world is not going to replace every intersection with a roundabout, as good as they are. That's where right on red comes in as a local optimization.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#114

Post by ExoticPearTree » Thu, Aug 06, 2026, 11:10 AM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #112

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two aspects to this: - what are the dimensions of a flying car? Double than a car? Triple? - are they autonomous or need to be flown manually? Looking at current drone designs, you could get away with a flying car the size of large SUV. If they are autonomous, then you don't have to worry much: Car, take me to Costco.

You don't think that there needs to be lots of clearance around the landing area? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have one landing right next to me while I'm loading up groceries

If the blades have sufficient ground clearance ;like a helicopter or higher), then yes, they would land next you.

It is going to suck in winter and rainy weather though.

Now thinking of this, you can have landing/takeoff areas and then you taxi on the ground as not to disturb fellow shoppers loading groceries.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#115

Post by lelanthran » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 5:54 AM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #99

lelanthran wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your theory is true we might see an era where supply vastly exceeds demand and car manufacturers will need to offset brand new vehicles to keep cash flow going. Sounds great to me, sign me up for 20$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready. The car manufacturers could have staved this off - they keep developing new models with little to no marginal improvement. Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, t…

> literally no reason for a new model to drop You're making an extremely bold hypothesis that your internet armchair knowledge about what investment auto manufacturers make in research, design, and marketing to remain competitive in the marketplace of car sales easily exceeds what auto manufacturers know about that same topic. You would need some strong supporting evidence to convince people of that. One would be any…

> You would need some strong supporting evidence to convince people of that. One would be any 6+ year old model of vehicles that sells as well as or better than any 5 year old or newer model of vehicles, even if it only competes on price. Can you name such a model?

Yes. GWM did that with their Haval brand and the price difference was significant. They sold both the old gen and new gen concurrently.

Re: Some car companies are operating without regard for a declining customer base

#116

Post by lelanthran » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 6:00 AM UTC

danaris wrote: post #109

lelanthran wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You must be unaware of all the recent safety improvements in cars: things like anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance, and traction control have saved countless lives, and they're being improved on even today. First, those are almost all in the 2010 Toyota that I used as an example. Other than those things (which are in the 2010 model), what did the post-2010 models bring? Second, none of those require an entire new…

...Really? After you said > Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop now you claim it's all about the 2010 Toyota? And this: > an entire new model to be designed that shares no parts with the previous model. is hopeless overexaggeration. Most new models share significant numbers of their parts with the ones around them.

> is hopeless overexaggeration. Most new models share significant numbers of their parts with the ones around them.

I fix cars. The parts are changed in succeeding generations.

I recently replaced a fuel pump on an SUV. Not compatible with the preceding gen nor with the succeeding gen. Same with PCV valve, brake pads, even the sun visors are different.

Talk to a mechanic sometime.

The existing manufacturers have got to coming: they have artificially increased the cost of their cars and the Chinese are going to eat their lunch.