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

151–158 of 158 posts

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

#151

Post by 93po »

fho wrote: post #121
duskwuff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorcycles are shockingly fuel-inefficient. Some "touring" models get as little as 30 mpg, and few full-size motorcycles get above 60 mpg. While that isn't terrible , it's also not substantially better than a small car, and with much worse cargo capacity and crash survivability.

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.

https://aptera.us/

There have been and continue to be efforts to get something like this to market. There are a lot of hurdles.

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

#152

Post by psunavy03 »

c0nducktr wrote: post #116
psunavy03 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me you've never worked in logistics without telling me you've never worked in logistics.

For all of us who haven't worked in logistics, why not explain what you're talking about instead of being snarky?

I work for a logistics company which operates a hub-and-spoke network of trucks running between its branches in the US and Europe. Think just like an airline running scheduled flights, but with trucks going warehouse to warehouse. The truck is contracted out to a service provider, and goes on schedule regardless of what is on it at the time. The reason we do this is because it offers a predictable way of getting stuff from point A to point B using existing infrastructure. And 99 times out of 100, with the volumes we move, the truck is full of something. Or many somethings.

And when you move the volumes of freight we do, that helps us fulfill our business case, which is "give us your stuff. Here's the paperwork saying we take responsibility. We'll make sure it arrives at point B on time, compliant with customs and all import/export laws, and compliant with all your industry's off-the-wall niche requirements, without you having to do so much as think about it anymore."

This isn't feasible using only rail without multiple governments across the world investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars/Euros in new track. Especially in America, where the rail network has always gotten outcompeted by truck freight for many different reasons. What you're describing is a pie-in-the-sky ideal, not what's necessarily feasible without making freight prices skyrocket due to high rail demand, low capacity, and the probably 25+ years it would take to change this. If not 50-100 years.

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

#153

Post by wink »

fho wrote: post #144
wink wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37036224

Yeah I've seen comment that but I am not convinced. It's expensive, it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike, and the rain doesn't really bother me most of the time. I am not claiming to be rational here, but for me personally I hardly see any upside besides "arrive a bit quicker and dryer (if buying a closed model)"

Not even sure where I'd park it, maybe my building's small motorcycle parking lot has some space.

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

#154

Post by fho »

wink wrote: post #153
fho wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37036224

Yeah I've seen comment that but I am not convinced. It's expensive, it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike, and the rain doesn't really bother me most of the time. I am not claiming to be rational here, but for me personally I hardly see any upside besides "arrive a bit quicker and dryer (if buying a closed model)" Not even sure where I'd park it, maybe my building's small motorcycle parking lot h…

> It's expensive

Definitely... The market is too small and everything is built by hand. You can get reasonable used ones for 4000-6000€, but you probably know that.

Otoh you save gasoline which pays for itself after a while (3 years in my case, not counting insurance or maintenance).

> it hardly has more space to bring stuff than a normal bike

It's a bit more and it's safe from the elements. Some 4-wheel models have an actual trunk.

> the rain

Doesn't bother me either, riding bicycles in the rain is surprisingly ok.

> I am not claiming to be rational here

Maybe try one out. I was convinced of the concept when I could easily keep up with my SO who was doing 45 km/h in a e-VM during a test ride.

That said: I don't own a VM either because it never made sense... Either my workplace was too close or too far for a VM to make sense. But I think there is a sweetspot of around 20-40km one way, where a VM is a great alternative to normal bikes and cars.

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

#155

Post by mjhay »

WillAdams wrote: post #149
mjhay wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a thing in most of the US.

Given that some 1 in 5 accidents are caused by a lack of maintenance, I would argue that it's a threat to public health/safety that they are not.

Yeah, it's not great. Unfortunately, a car is basically required to hold any kind of job in most of the US, aside from the (expensive) cores of few select cities. That's doubly true for low-income folks. It's effectively impossible to enforce safety regs when a large part of the population simply can't afford to maintain a safe vehicle. The alternative is even worse mass homelessness. For similar reasons, extremely dangerous drivers basically never get their license taken away.

I live in a snowy place, and the number of people I see running absolutely bald summer tires in the winter is horrifying.

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

#156

Post by WillAdams »

mjhay wrote: post #155
WillAdams wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that some 1 in 5 accidents are caused by a lack of maintenance, I would argue that it's a threat to public health/safety that they are not.

Yeah, it's not great. Unfortunately, a car is basically required to hold any kind of job in most of the US, aside from the (expensive) cores of few select cities. That's doubly true for low-income folks. It's effectively impossible to enforce safety regs when a large part of the population simply can't afford to maintain a safe vehicle. The alternative is even worse mass homelessness. For similar reasons, extremely d…

Maybe if the police would enforce the laws for proper equipment we could reduce accidents caused by lack of maintenance and that reduction could result in a savings on insurance which would help make things more affordable.

That said, one doesn't have to have a car to get to work --- for almost 5 years, rather than put miles on my truck I rode a bicycle to work, and in the past I've walked to work at need --- hoping to get back to riding to my new job, just waiting for a connecting road through a development to be finished and the ride will become markedly shorter, facilitating this.

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

#157

Post by hanszarkov »

psunavy03 wrote: post #44
whartung wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much damage does a 7,000 lb vehicle do to a road designed for 80,000 lb? Or is the real measure ground pressure? Apparently semi trucks run 6000lb up front per wheel and 4300lb in the rear. The Rivian runs 1400lb. With asphalt, which is softer, I imagine the road damage more readily accumulates over time. Whereas the concrete on freeways I guess has an actual sheer strength and either breaks or it doesn’t. I am n…

I don't think this thread is as much about actual tire wear as it is a bunch of people preening about how Trucks Bad because You Don't Need That.

This.

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

#158

Post by hanszarkov »

Gigachad wrote: post #124
whalesalad wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice that you submitted a link to encourage deflating the tires of large vehicles. > Our aim is to make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4x4 in the world’s urban areas. To do that, we need people everywhere deflating 4x4 tyres, week-in, week-out. absolutely unhinged activities.

The Tyre Extinguishers are doing gods work. Governments are failing to act against car killings which are driven by oversized SUVs and trucks. So some push back from the public is needed. Hopefully the laws soon catch up and ban these vehicles.

Sick people
Post reply on HN