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

The end of cool small cars

blackbirdspyplane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 198 posts

Re: The end of cool small cars

#101

Post by leokennis »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #87
leokennis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in The Netherlands. In the last year I’ve seen several micropenis-compensating huge RAM and Ford pick-ups appearing in my neighborhood. They don’t fit a standard parking spot. For small businesses they carry less than something like a Ford transit. Horrible noise. Terrible visibility from the wheel. Terrible fuel economy. I’m severely hoping that our government imposes a 1000% tax on them or something.

I feel like the "compensating" joke about large SUV and truck drivers has really run its course by this point.

Except for some edge cases, what else is the use of a 3,000kg 6m truck when it is transporting between 1 and 4 people except to compensate?

Re: The end of cool small cars

#102

Post by cf100clunk »

cafard wrote: post #100
cf100clunk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the North American passenger car manufacturers' changeover from ladder-frame to unibody construction was the death knell for the kind of station wagon you've described, with four-pillar proportions and normal car handling and styling. With the 1970s fuel price crisis, those giant dinosaurs were terribly impractical, but a full sized mid-1970s ladder-framed station wagon could pull a large trailer without being…

My family had at least one station wagon--Jeep Wagoneer, Ford Falcon, Ford Ranch Wagon--for most of the 1960s and 1970s. I don't remember ever hearing a concern about carbon monoxide. When did this start being talked about?

> Station Wagon Effect

Described in several links I just found here: https://search.brave.com/search?q=Station+Wagon+Effect

but I'm remembering that concerns about it started coming up in the 1960s when vehicle safety regulations were becoming a thing. Sorry, I don't have a historical reference at hand.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#103

Post by rascul »

dusted wrote: post #2

I've noticed a large increase in what I call "idiot cars" in Denmark too, these giant monstrosities that seem impractical in every way except for driving through smaller cars and making sure the driver survives whatever incompetence lead them to buy it in the first place. I feel it might be time to legislate this, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to drive a very large car, like, you live 100 miles from the near…

Maybe calling everyone with a car you don't like an incompetent idiot isn't the best way to go about doing things.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#104

Post by Twixes »

redeeman wrote: post #60
sw104 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very defensive reply. Many people use Range Rovers to simply drop their kids off at school, to drive to work, or to transport groceries. If you're really for people leading active lifestyles, maybe those such people should get their kid to walk to school.

and you probably use an extremely overpowered device for checking your email, but perhaps you also use it to do other things?

The impact of your high-end or large laptop on other people's lives is nil. Nobody cares, even the energy grid. The impact of your large SUV on other people's live is significant – be that when they find themselves anywhere near you, or when they just live in the same city and don't enjoy infrastructure for cars getting ever larger at the expense of humans.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#105

Post by i2km »

As my modest contribution to the battle against SUVs/crossovers/other bloat, I am attempting to popularise the term ‘bimbo box’ - the credit of which belongs to Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash

Re: The end of cool small cars

#106

Post by xethos »

daisystanton wrote: post #69

As for the "why": I'd love to learn about all of the historical and regulatory incentives here. From what I've managed to cobble together, this is partly due to CAFE standards[1], partly due to Section 179 of the US tax code[2], and possibly(??) due to contractor demand[3]. [1]: In 2006, the NHTSA adopted a "footprint" approach to CAFE standards, where fuel efficiency standards are set based on the vehicle's wheelbas…

> partly due to CAFE standards

Posted above; CAFE plays a larger role than you might assume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azI3nqrHEXM

Re: The end of cool small cars

#107

Post by nicelunch »

redeeman wrote: post #20
dusted wrote: post #2

I've noticed a large increase in what I call "idiot cars" in Denmark too, these giant monstrosities that seem impractical in every way except for driving through smaller cars and making sure the driver survives whatever incompetence lead them to buy it in the first place. I feel it might be time to legislate this, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to drive a very large car, like, you live 100 miles from the near…

[flagged]

So... a wagon would suffice?

Every single person that I know that have bought a gigantic car (Like a ford raptor) uses it for commuting to their work that is less than 7 miles away and GROCERY SHOPPING...

While yes, there are definitely people that need to transport large amount of things, they can most of the time do the same thing by buying a wagon or a subcompact car. See Jeep Renegade.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#108

Post by nicelunch »

forinti wrote: post #15
leokennis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love my 2010 Honda Jazz (called Fit in the US). Small, can carry loads of weirdly shaped stuff, roomy enough for two adults and two kids, unbreakable. And on summer holidays I rent a roof box for about €100/week so I can fit all our luggage.

I have a 2016 Fit and had a first generation Fit before that. They are the most reliable cars I've ever had. I'm a fan of the Toyota Yaris too. It's such a shame they were discontinued.

The Honda fit 2016 is my first car, and only car. I can't imagine getting another car. It's just too good!

Re: The end of cool small cars

#110

Post by GoToRO »

Aromasin wrote: post #73
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing to me is that all the 'rational' arguments given by SUV buyers (more storage, easy of entry, larger interior space) are without exception much better in any family MPV instead of SUVs that invariably are also pretty shit off-road vehicles. Literally just more weight and waste, zero function other than satisfying the buyers reptilian brain.

Agreed. I've been a passenger in plenty of them; many of them don't seem any bigger on the inside than a hatchback, with very similar boot space. It's all pointless, superficial bodywork that makes the demand for them seem even more egregious to me.

Because the space is under the car, between the wheels. I was surprised too.
Post reply on HN