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

If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#131

Post by Timshel »

margalabargala wrote: post #22
metadat wrote: post #5

At a hefty 3.5T / 7,000 lbs, the Rivians* aren't much lighter than an E-Hummer (4.5T / 9,000 lbs). Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? Ever noticed how the trucker lanes on the highway are the first to get potholes? The taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize luxury toys. Let the owners pay a fair amount relative to the strain they're adding to th…

> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical. No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is…

I doubt all roads are built to the same specification and they should not. 18 wheelers have no place in city center or suburb.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#132

Post by Timshel »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #68
judge2020 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentioned this in my comment, but the "AASHO Road Test" gave us something called the Generalized Fourth Power Law. Explained > It’s a rule of thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in terms of axle loads: > (W1/W2)^4 > In the equation, W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which we would compare to W2, the weight of an axle on vehicle 2. For W1 of 4 tons on…

> For W1 of 4 tons on an axle and W2 of 1 ton on an axle, vehicle 1 does 256 times as much damage to pavement as vehicle 2. OK so take a loaded semi-truck at 40 tons / 80 000 pounds. How much more damage does it do than the 4 tons W1 of your example? How's the road still even there at all after the semi-truck passed on it? The answer is: because even the W1 vehicle at 4 tons cannot even dent that road. Now I'm not sa…

You do realize that not all roads are designed to allow for frequent 40t trucks usage (and they should not). So they might not dent a highway but probably not the same for city streets / suburbs and parkings.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#133

Post by fho »

ptman wrote: post #127
fho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy that basically no "fast Velomobile" is in the market. Something shaped like a velomobile (goes 100 km/h downhill by gravity alone), but some what bigger, with a motor and more safety features.

Where are the tens of alternatives to https://www.podbike.com/ . There should be lots of competition in this area

Except that basically every velocar is vaporware atm.

Here in Germany regulations are unnecessarily complex and your best option is to get 10-20 year old Velomobiles that can legally be driven as S-Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h) because they were at some point certified for that speed.

But getting a new velomobile, that you can easily drive faster than 45 km/h by muscle power alone, certified to be powered electrically is apparently near impossible (i.e. not financially feasible).

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#134

Post by xethos »

ForestCritter wrote: post #126
xethos wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wired has really fallen I mean maybe, but TFA is from Slate. Moreover, the article argues in favour of taxing the thing we want less of: weight. Weight means more power required to start, more mass to change direction and stop, more materials required for the larger batteries, and more of a literal impact on pedestrians.

It also often equates to safer vehicles. Crash safety matters.

Only to the people inside. Though per US crash regulations (until recently), anything and anyone else was literally an externality.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#135

Post by unnamed76ri »

darkteflon wrote: post #31
unnamed76ri wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom.

Uh huh, nice word. And could you put some details around that, some specifics? What would our society look like, in your estimation, without regulation?

Some regulations would exist even with a smaller government. I just can’t understand all the other responses here that amount to giving the federal government even more power and having them take even more money. We already lose something like 30-40% of every dollar in various taxes and they have the power to continually devalue whatever is left through inflationary monetary policy.

Just look up total inflation over the past several decades and it becomes very clear why so many are struggling just to make ends meet. And again, so many of the commenters here think giving the gov more power is the answer.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#136

Post by jillesvangurp »

> But EVs still require energy to move, and generating it creates emissions.

Only if you use coal/gas plants to generate your electricity. Mostly, there are better options. Many EV owners also have solar panels, for example. Or alternatively they'll use charging stations that are mostly powered by renewables (because that's cheaper for those who operate those commercially). The bottom line is that generating electricity indeed generates some emissions sometimes. And generally a lot less than burning petrol/diesel do.

> Gigantic batteries consume larger amounts of critical minerals like graphite and lithium that are in short supply worldwide.

Lithium shortages are mostly on the refining side; there's plenty of lithium on this planet. And for cheaper cars there's also sodium ion. Likewise, we're not exactly running out of carbon. Scaling up graphite and lithium production is a bit of a logistical challenge. We're much better at producing epic amounts of oil. The problem with that of course is that we need to stop doing that. Vastly less oil in exchange for a little bit extra graphite. Maybe we can even turn (some) oil into graphite.

This reads to me like a puff piece that is designed to lazily (without much critical thinking or journalistic expertise) rehash some cliches and half truths about EVs. We can guess at motivation but probably some advertising money can be traced back to the usual suspects in the burning dead dinosaur juice sector.

Are cars needlessly big and heavy in the US. Yes. No doubt about. That started years ago, long before there were EVs. And the trend continues. It's not because batteries are heavy but because people thing they need big heavy cars. It's perfectly doable to make a small, lightweight EV. There are some sports car conversions to electric that weigh less than the original without loss of range and with a lot better performance.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#137

Post by wink »

fho wrote: post #133
ptman wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the tens of alternatives to https://www.podbike.com/ . There should be lots of competition in this area

Except that basically every velocar is vaporware atm. Here in Germany regulations are unnecessarily complex and your best option is to get 10-20 year old Velomobiles that can legally be driven as S-Pedelecs (up to 45 km/h) because they were at some point certified for that speed. But getting a new velomobile, that you can easily drive faster than 45 km/h by muscle power alone, certified to be powered electrically is…

Except that most cyclists I know (me included) would be too scared to use one.

Re: If You Want a Car This Heavy, You Should Pay Through the Nose

#139

Post by reducesuffering »

Timshel wrote: post #131
margalabargala wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't road wear non-linear, with heavy vehicles doing disproportionate damage compared to lighter ones? This is correct, and it's why your conclusion is nonsensical. No one is subsidizing luxury toys. The amount of damage done to roads by an e-Hummer or Rivian is mildly above that of, say, a Camry. Both do hundreds of times less damage than an 18-wheeler. The amount of damage done to a road by a passenger sedan is…

I doubt all roads are built to the same specification and they should not. 18 wheelers have no place in city center or suburb.

How do you think goods are getting into a Target or Costco? 30 delivery vans an hour?
Post reply on HN