Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsamuels | Hacker News Reader

it's also because Americans spend a lot more time in their car than their friends across the pond.

if you're in your car for 2 hours a day commuting, driving the kids around, etc, then bigger is better and more comfortable

View on HN

It could also be that Americans are bigger.

(I'm not referring to height)

except, we aren't. people are fat everywhere. we aren't even the fattest country.

What is more relevant here is fatness of population among car manufacturing nations. Not sure that the US wins that either though.

which country is the fattest? I assumed it was here in the US.

In obesity rankings, Pacific island nations tend to top the list. I think Mexico is fatter than the US, as well as the the petrostates in the Middle East.

Not the fatest, but really close. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_ma...

36.2% obesity, 12th place. Beaten mostly by small island nations. It's still the 1st most obese western country.

BMI might not be the best indicator since it also factors in height. If we go by weight only, USA is #3 behind two small island nations.

Americans are big. They also have more fat people than other western nations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9345086/The...

Your suggestion of weight only is even worse than BMI. That's like saying a 15 lb turkey is fatter than 12 lbs of lard.

BMI doesn't account for muscle mass. If you have decent muscle you're overweight according to BMI.

weight only < BMI < caliper measurements

Any article that equates fatness with weight is not accurate.

I guess I'm trying to argue that Americans are more voluminous, and trying to approximate volume through mass since body volume by population isn't a commonly available stat. I'd argue that mass is closer correlated to volume than BMI.

Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps have normal BMIs. BMI is very sensitive and not very specific, meaning that it has few false positives and lots of false negatives, the opposite of what you suggest.

In this article[1] "Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin" you can see this dramatically illustrated in Figure 1 [2]. The upper left quadrant (different colors for men and women) is the most populous. It contains the people who are obese by body fat percentage but not BMI. The lower right is the least populated. It contains the people who are not obese by body fat percentage but who are flagged as obese by BMI.

The small fraction of the population that have devoted such attention to the cultivation of muscle over other goals, such as athletic performance, are surely well aware of their body fat levels and are unlikely to be impacted by this edge case in BMI measurement. (Their excess muscle may also not be healthy for their cardiovascular system.) Dismissing the utility of a easily applied and highly sensitive screen like BMI is a mistake, both for individuals and for public health.

[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=...

But American cars were bigger in the 50s and 60s too. A very brief search shows that Americans were taller than Europeans then, but the same search shows that they are now too. Not the best source. https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Yes, a big drop in the ranking apparently:

> Men and women in the United States also experienced a growth spurt, but to a lesser degree. In 1914, U.S. men were the third tallest in the world, and U.S. women were the fourth tallest. But despite increases in height of 2.2 inches and 2 inches (6 cm and 5 cm), respectively, U.S. men are now ranked 37th and women are ranked 42nd, the study found.

https://www.livescience.com/55580-tallest-shortest-people-in...

I have a feeling mexico is a huge factor in that, but have never seen height in US broken down to by race/ethnicity.

Asian living in US and somehow we have come to prefer SUVs too and no it is not because we are fat(I used to drive Hyundai i10 in India), it is because at the end of day SUVs indeed are more comfortable. Taking out baby car seats and putting it back is easier in a SUV. Going on 100mile+ drive is easier in SUV. Mother-in-law visiting? - picking her up(with entire family) from Airport is easier in SUV. So on and so forth.

Obviously - one gets used to these things. In India - typically for example whole family does not go to pick one up from Airport. Babies don't have to be ferreted around in cars that much. Furniture delivery is almost always free in India whereas in US either you have to pay extra or pick up.

A minivan serves a similar purpose.

You should try a Volvo V70 or V90, VW Passat Variant or Audi A6 Avant if you still think SUVs are confortable. No more bouncing around at >120 kmh. Toyota probably also has a comparable Auris Touring or those Verso models. And then there's the Mercedes V Class if you have an extended family.

A 2003 diesel jetta is way better on the highway than a 2015 ford explorer.

This is an absolutely crazy response. In no world is a 15 year old economy sedan more comfortable for a highway commute than a newer SUV. The only argument you could make is fuel economy.

The diesel Jetta emits way more particulate pollution than a modern gasoline-burning SUV, too. Like over an order of magnitude more.

I imagine the GP was talking about easiness to drive. Low cars are more stable and lighter cars accelerate better (not only on speed-ups, but while breaking too).

Overall, driving a truck is much more stressing than a car.

But we're specifically talking about highway commutes where driving dynamics don't really come into play. IMO, the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway but the 2003 Jetta reference is what really makes the comment absurd.

Historically (50's thru early 70's) Americans considered v8 full size cars and wagons the only way to travel the multi thousand mile trips common on the continent. Japanese cars changed all that and their smaller form factor became the norm. Mid sized pickups (Chevy LUV) were unseated by Toyota and other brands and replaced station wagons. SUV and minivans became the norm for families. The high end luxury touring/prestige market remains pretty strong - european brands (even if actually owned by Indians) continue to attract demand. Sedans have increasingly been two door performance vehicles (Challenger, Mustang, Camaro) effectively being full sized sports cars. Only vehicles like the Accord, Camry etc are sold as family vehicles. The exception is hybrids, which IMO are the way forward, replacing the hum drum commuter and family multi use saloons with much greater fuel efficiency. There's a tiny niche market for heavily government subsidized and mostly luxury and status signaling EV's, and this market will almost certainly expand with intense political pressure and Chinese dominance. The challenge is that for decades US unions have protected the jobs around the vast transportation economic ecosphere - parts, infrastructure, design, build. This is all arguably being ceded to Asia with the oligarch pied piper Elon Musk selling the Western dream of cheap ultimately autonomous 'green' transportation. What's missing from the Bloomberg article is that Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms and remain very strong in europe and elsewhere.

Hybrids are no longer a category on their own. You can buy a Camry or even SUVs in hybrid, and all the brands are expanding their offer to most of their vehicles.

Your comment that "Ford Fusion and Focus are on global platforms" may explain why the Ford cars were so tiny when I looked at them last year. I felt like buying a Ford, but none of the cars had enough room for my head. I'm sure it helps fuel economy and knocks 1% off the price, and few people will care in South America or Asia, but it was a deal killer for me.

Almost all manufacturers are now using global platforms. But generally sedan designers have killed off a large portion of their own market share by making their cars increasingly impractical and uncomfortable in a misguided pursuit of styling and efficiency.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180423/OEM01/180429992/for...

Are you over 6’6”? I ask because my brother-in-law is, and has driven the Focus wagon we just sold - and owns a 1997 Passat. The key seems to be being able to drop the height of the seat.

Germans are slightly taller on average than Americans, and the Dutch are pretty well-known for it. Both are countries where the VW Golf is the median vehicle, and the Focus is one of its main competitors.

$6-7/gallon gas probably does cause people to put up with stuff that they wouldn’t if fuel were commonly $2.50, though.

I'm just 6'2" but I like to sit up straight. I need to see upward to read signs and watch traffic lights. I don't want to injure my head when it moves to the side, for example by impacting a grab handle or the edge of a roof window.

Worse though, are my tall kids. One is expected to be 6'10" soon. Does he just have to buy a bus? Getting a car would be preferred.

Very tall guys here seem to go for VWs, or Audis if they’re feeling spendy. Another rather tall colleague of mine drives an Auris (Toyota Europe's Corolla equivalent). My 6’1” husband chose a Fiesta, and he’s rather long torsoed, to boot.

Cars that are compact/economy cars on the US market are midsize/midmarket here, and that might be why little things like very height-adjustable seats are in them. The Golf/Focus (plus Auris, Astra) segment is extremely competitive in the EU.

Huh. Just realized that most cars here don’t have prominent grab handles.

I would much rather be low to the ground on the highway than up high. It all comes down to personal preference.

> the higher position alone makes driving an SUV superior on the highway

I've heard this position from a number of people and never really understood it. It's usually related to the ability to see over other vehicles, but in times of higher traffic density where that would be most useful, there are almost always numerous larger vehicles on the road that still significantly limit vision.

I've made cross-country trips in everything from a sports car to a 1-ton van, and definitely didn't find the van's height to be an asset in terms of comfort.

Comfort is subjective. I had a Jetta and found it very comfortable, though most people would have thought it too firm or even harsh.

It's probably because it's smaller and lighther and it tends to bounce more longitudinally in turns. Being used to small cars I also find it confortable. A Passat wagon is more confortable though but the misdesigned a/c and the seats ruin it somewhat.

Anecdotally, I hate riding in trucks and SUVs for long distances. Particularly SUVs. Can't stand those things. Particularly as a passenger in the back seat. The view height out the windshield is wonky and made me motion sick last time I spent much time in one.

I drove a rental Ford Fusion Hybrid and then a Ford Expedition on my trip to Texas this summer.

The Fusion was a joy to drive; the Expedition was a chore. Squishy driver's seat, soggy handling, and of course, three times the fuel consumption of the Fusion hybrid.

If I recall properly, the North American Fusion is a slightly reworked Mondeo, which is considered a nice-ish car over here, and would also explain why I thought it was nice: we have a Fiesta and just sold my diesel Focus wagon.

Sorry to see that just when Ford seemed to have figured out that their European division designs decent small cars, they’ve given up on bringing them into the North American market.

Often for the price of an SUV you could drive a luxury/sport sedan and have better driving dynamics, fit, and finish as well as comfort.

But trucks aren't that much 'bigger' on the inside than sedans. Go sit in a Toyota Avalon and a Tahoe and tell me where you have more room.

The Avalon probably has 80% as much noise on the freeway and if you set the cruise control to 80, the sedan is going to get 2x-3x better MPG and the Avalon costs half as much as the Tahoe.

What's the adage about a fool and their money?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com