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

The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#91

Post by frumper »

Tagbert wrote: post #75
theGnuMe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1980 and 2021 civic get basically the same mpg.

That is a big win for the much larger, safer, and more luxurious 2021 Civic. The 1980 one was tiny and not something you wanted to be in in a crash. Also, the EPA ratings have changed between now and then getting stricter and closer to actual mileage. That 1980 vehicle would get much lower mileage ratings now than it did then.

It's also probably a huge win on the pollution front as well. Emissions controls are much tighter now.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#92

Post by bdcravens »

pengaru wrote: post #21
bdcravens wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270499/co2-emissions-in-... 2. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportati…

2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19. Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.

I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#93

Post by pengaru »

bdcravens wrote: post #92
pengaru wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19. Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.

I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.

Well, the distribution of transportation's emissions within the US is completely out of wack throughout COVID-19. People stopped commuting by car due to shelter in place and WFH, air travel was paralyzed, deliveries went up and trucking was a shit show.

Throughout 2020 I practically never saw jets in the air, and that's quite unusual for my locale, being east of LA (JTNP).

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#94

Post by parineum »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15
parineum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a radical idea... don't tax either. Adding a disincentive creates an unpredictable incentive. Just add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it.

> add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it Doing both lets those causing the harm to subsidise those providing the solution. Finding everything out of general revenue means taking public-transport riding city folks’ funds to pay for suburbanites’ electric SUVs.

> Finding everything out of general revenue means taking public-transport riding city folks’ funds to pay for suburbanites’ electric SUVs.

That's how government works. Everybody pays for things that the majority agrees are good for the people.

It's not like a gas tax doesn't cost those public-transport riding city fold money. A gas tax increased the price of everything that uses gas, from the bus they ride in to every single product they purchase. They're subsidizing those electric SUVs either way, it's just hidden from them, which is how politicians like it.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#95

Post by corbulo »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #57
jmpman wrote: post #52

The SUV Loophole was not a consumer decision. It was a bill passed by Congress after lobbying by the big three automakers who had a niche they could compete against the Japanese and the Europeans. Without it, our domestic automobile industry would have died. It won’t be closed unless the big three have another profitable path forward. I expect electrification is that path with products like the F-150 lightning. The v…

> If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array Could an Average American home solar install actually charge enough to match their consumption (average daily miles), and with such a big vehicle (very heavy, moreso as electric)?

No

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#96

Post by pandaman »

amluto wrote: post #68
red-iron-pine wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a soft sport for the old Rangers, but they had some serious safety shortcomings and lack many of the factors that drive modern truck sales now, like large size, higher up, and a correspondingly smoother ride. It's a work truck, and in the US modern trucks are luxury vehicles, effectively mid-to-large-sized SUVs with a flatbed. I worked in Australia for a while and their 'ute's were quite stripped down in compa…

I’ve never understood the purpose of high beds on a pickup truck. Maybe for carrying ATVs on bad roads? If I were regularly carrying large or heavy loads in a pickup truck, I think I’d much prefer a low bed for ease or loading and unloading and for a lower center of mass.

Unlike SUVs, pickups don't have an adjustable suspension (pneumatic or hydraulic springs) so if you had a low bed on an empty pickup, it would have likely compressed the shocks completely under a heavy load, or, alternatively, you'd had shocks so stiff that they would not move without load at all. Most people who carry heavy loads in their trucks prefer neither and opt for the "lifted" look due to the long shocks, which work both empty and loaded.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#97

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

jawmes8 wrote: post #85
TexanFeller wrote: post #31

I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…

Those little trucks with long beds are awesome. On a related note, people here in Hawaii have been importing Japanese kei trucks like crazy!

I would KILL for an entry level EV Ford Ranger for our farm. I was close to pulling the trigger on two Chang Li EV trucks, and just keeping one on the charger and hot swapping them if one ran out charge.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#98

Post by jmpman »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #57
jmpman wrote: post #52

The SUV Loophole was not a consumer decision. It was a bill passed by Congress after lobbying by the big three automakers who had a niche they could compete against the Japanese and the Europeans. Without it, our domestic automobile industry would have died. It won’t be closed unless the big three have another profitable path forward. I expect electrification is that path with products like the F-150 lightning. The v…

> If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array Could an Average American home solar install actually charge enough to match their consumption (average daily miles), and with such a big vehicle (very heavy, moreso as electric)?

Assuming 50kwh/day (2/3 of an entire Model 3 battery pack) I’d need roughly a 10kw system. According to Google Sunroof, I can fit a 25KW system on my roof. I could have 2, and still run the AC.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#99

Post by cozzyd »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #45
prepend wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]… “ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.” This specific speech chang…

Taking this to its logical conclusion, I commissioned a Landkreuzer P1000 for my family. It's the only way to be sure you have enough lebensraum on the road. (I considered the M1A1 Abrams, but just didn't feel safe in the thing.) I think women and girls especially should drive main battle tanks, given their psychological fragility and propensity to trauma. If you are such a person, and it makes you feel safer, you sh…

that puny thing? I only feel safe in one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overburden_Conveyor_Bridge_F60

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#100

Post by BobbyJo »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #81
BobbyJo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I can't run a marathon then why leave the couch?"

Where did I say we shouldn't do this? Was it perhaps in this comment where I said we should do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610696 My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines: > Please respond to the strong…

If you apply your own advice to the original comment in this thread, they were saying it was one of the easiest things we can do, not that it was sufficient by itself.

If I apply that interpretation of the original comment, and look at your comments as a rebuttal (which the strength of your language implies), it forces me to interpret them as "worrying about transportation is futile".

Even in this comment here:

> it's an incremental step, at best

You are implying my interpretation wasn't wrong. If it's a step "at best", then what is it at worst?

Post reply on HN