341–350 of 875 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Or the Europeans are too ignorant and lazy to update to new stuff like AC (and auto transmission). ;p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A crumple material that will crumple in a car vs pedestrian collision? Like NERF foam or something?
This comment actually got a laugh out of me. I truly have no idea what would be feasible in a collision like this. Probably packing peanuts? Airbags on the outside of the car that deploy when a pedestrian is detected?
A more bizarre solution Google patented always stuck with me: A sticky car hood beneath an eggshell coating so that a struck pedestrian would stay on top of the car instead of falling and hitting their head or being run over [2].
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiBlirAG8w
2: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20953/google-pa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I got older, and now automatic transmissions are so much more efficient than manual transmissions * for ordinary people *. It’s not just ordinary people. The opposite, if anything. F1 and rally cars haven’t been manual for decades. I don’t think any modern super is manual. Though with the ev-ification the point is moot as save for a few rare exceptions they’re single-gear.
While true, the motivating factors for F1 and mass production vehicles are not the same. F1 is pure min/max. Which of course means manual is gone. But min/max on my GTI means I lose connection with the vehicle and my ability to drive matters less. For what? .4 faster 0-60 or 1/4? Eh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, there will be fewer crashes due to the driver having to take his/her eyes of the road in order to squint at which identical button out of 25 turns the blower down one notch.
Were there fewer crashes when these cars were the norm? No. [1,2,3,4] The number of crashes per year has remained remarkably stable year over year, despite the number of driven miles and number of cars rising enormously. Conversely the number of fatalities due to crashes has dropped considerably. So despite driving many, many more miles then they did previously, people aren't dying in crashes at a greater rate (total…
https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/driving-went-down-fataliti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. How so? Could we just use modern crumple materials in the same shape?
A crumple material that will crumple in a car vs pedestrian collision? Like NERF foam or something?
I doubt I'll never buy an automatic transmission vehicle. If that means never buying a new car after some point, then so be it. I've had quite a few manual transmission cars over the years and have driven them through all the things people complain about like steep hills in icy winters, stop and go traffic for an hour or two commute, etc. and I'd still go for a MT every time. Not only is it cheaper and less complex,…
I ended up going back to automatic after 3 years of manual. Automatic is more fuel efficient, more convenient, and honestly I can't enjoy urban traffic either way, at least with automatic I don't have to think about it. If I truly want to enjoy a manual I'll do it on the race track.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A great number of the cool designs from the 50's and 60's are illegal because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. The sloped design of new cars isn't just about aerodynamics. In a low-speed impact a pedestrian is lifted onto the hood. Forward leaning grills, such as on the Dodge Charger, some of the beefier Mustangs, and any number of other muscle cars or sedans, instea…
Okay but then why is the rolling brick wall of a modern pickup allowed?
Automatic transmission isn't gonna be the de facto way to drive everywhere in the world.
I reiterate my compromise proposal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32397975 I will give up my manual transmission, if you will bring back pull-knobs, twist knobs and other tactile switches for the main controls of my vehicle, with the appropriate tactile feedback at set points so I can set them without looking. After thinking on it, I am going to raise my demands, however: you also need to produce cars that are…
> reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965 What alternate dimension are you from? My older brother had a 60's Ford Fairlane when I was growing up. My first car was a 67 mustang. I had a friend with a 68 Camaro. I knew someone else that had multiple Thunderbirds from that era. These were not small cars. The Mustang and Camaro were the size of a full…
This is verifiably false with three minutes of searching, which I did on my cellphone as I sit by a campfire. As an owner of both a 1965 Mustang and a 2015 Explorer, the difference in size between these vehicles is comical. I've rented a 2020 Camry that was larger in every dimension. It got great gas mileage, but small it was not.
1967 Ford Mustang Length: 183.6" Width: 70.9" Height: 51.6"
2020 Toyota Camry Length: 192.1" Width: 72.4" Height: 56.9"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generati...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Camry_(XV70)
The 1965 Mustang was even smaller and lighter. The 1969-1970 Mustangs, while larger, are still smaller in every dimension than a modern Camry. Some older cars were indeed boats, but almost all modern American automobiles are boats, and a lot of this has to do with the laws that regulate and shape the products created by the American automotive industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You asked why, and the answer is cost vs benefit. Car styling alone doesn’t justify the risk to pedestrians, large truck utility can. Yes, this tradeoff kills people, but so do all sorts of things like not physically preventing cars from driving 80+MPH.
This is a non answer. Australia has a vehicle style commonly referred to as a "ute"[1]. I think it stand for "utility". Which is basically a car with a truck bed in the back. This provides many of the advantages of a pickup without the increased danger to pedestrians. Why are car companies not marketing/selling these to the average consumer instead of the monster RAMs and F150s? I suspect the reason has everything to…
As to why Ford etc is targeting regular people with these monstrous trucks it’s both profitable and current regulations promote their sale. You can dig into the history of these regulations but as far as I can tell it’s a mix of trying to appease businesses and a specific voter demographic. Call it corruption or giving people what they want, it’s not going away anytime soon.