Hacker News Reader

Comment by Creationer | Hacker News Reader

The rise of EVs also presents the opportunity for generally lighter, smaller, cheaper vehicles.

Already they are very popular in China: https://insideevs.com/news/340006/big-in-china-cheap-tiny-el...

What would a Tesla Model 3 look like if it had half the range, no frunk, and much lower performance? (ie. limited to 120km/h) How light, cheap, and small could we take it without utterly abandoning safety?

Basically, the kind of vehicle designed just for inner-city commutes and picking up goods.

If these vehicles became more common we would see a 'peace dividend' in the car safety wars - the other vehicles on the road would be lighter, so crashes would be less dangerous (maybe combined with automatic crash avoidance as well) and breaking times shorter, so crumple zones and other big heavy features could be reduced.

View on HN

A lot of those small Chinese EVs turned out to just be subsidy scams. The real EVs that actually get used (eg by BYD) turn out to be much bigger than golf carts.

https://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/subsidy-fraud-reforms-ch...

Neighborhood electric vehicles are already allowed on lower speed US roads and are fairly popular in some areas. But passive collision safety will never be very good. Assuming equivalent materials, a larger heavier vehicle will always be safer due to greater mass and thicker crumple zones.

*Safer for occupants only. More dangerous for everyone else on the road.

Well, now you're stuck in this sort of tragedy-of-the-commons situation where it's better for everyone individually to have bigger cars but worse for everyone as a group.

This is exactly where gov. regulation helps, when applied correctly.

Another example, have you noticed how headlights have gotten noticeably (blindingly?) bright in recent years?

> but worse for everyone as a group.

Not true. 2 modern, big cars crashing into each other at typical urban speeds usually mean no serious injuries. But try crashing 2 LSV at 50 Km/h and see what happens.

Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal in case we hit someone who’s hauling around many unneeded tonnes of metal in case they hit someone hauling...

Also cars don’t only hit other cars.

> Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal

This may be wasteful, but it's safer. So it's not a net loss.

> Also cars don’t only hit other cars.

They also hit people and big cars can cater for this more efficiently (see crash tests for big Volvos for example), as well as hard walls and trees, where the answer is quite obvious.

> This may be wasteful, but it's safer.

You’re missing the point again. Safer than what? If everyone drove low-speed light vehicles, we would be safer too.

We’re in a “safety” arms race, where you’re only safe if you’re in the largest size vehicle possible. Buy an escalade and you are “safe”. Buy a Yaris and you’re risking your life for better gas milage and cheaper car payments.

Safer for cars, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing recently.

Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall. Vehicle size has little effect on pedestrian safety. A compact car will hurt a pedestrian just as badly as a large SUV. Actually the compact car can be worse in some collisions due to the hood height and shape.

> Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall

... and electric bicycles.

In typical urban speeds you are as likely to crash into people or bicycles as into another car.

And then the additional mass is making it more dangerous, not less.

Larger crumple zones on any vehicle in collision will make that collision safer for all vehicles involved. The point about the mass stands, though.

There is a car like this in Europe, probably the first of its kind: https://www.renault.fr/vehicules/vehicules-electriques/twizy...

The problem is: it's relatively expensive. You can have a proper, "normal" ICE car in that price. Probably the best case for mini-vehicles like these is a sharing model. At least, that's the thinking behind the Volkswagen's entry into the market: https://www.seat.com/company/news/cars/seat-minimo-mwc.html

Something like an electric version of this would be better:

https://www.aixam.com/en/minauto/access

These cars are popular among teenagers in France and Italy as they can be driven from 16. Compared to a scooter they are safer, and you can have passengers and cargo space. They are severely underpowered though (anytime they need to go uphill they cause a traffic jam), and the diesel engine is probably except from emissions requirements.

I suspect one of the benefits of EVs will be that the drivetrain cost scales more easily with vehicle size than for internal combustion vehicles. EV drivetrains can easily scale anywhere in output between a cordless vacuum cleaner and a pickup truck. We’ve already seen this property create a whole new class of vehicle with Lime-style electric scooters.

With the Renault EVs, you’re buying the car, but the battery is on a rental contract.

> What would a Tesla Model 3 look like if it had half the range, no frunk, and much lower performance?

Then people wouldn’t buy it or at least different people. Every Tesla driver I met told me first how much fun it is to drive.

I've got a 24Kw Leaf and honestly, it's a blast to drive. You don't need a Tesla to have fun with EVs ;)

I don't think so, most people buy Tesla based on their marketing, most people who actually enjoy driving prefer ICE, I have test driven Tesla and they feel nothing like a BMW M4 or a Mercedes C63 MG, it feels like driving a big go-kart and handles rather poorly.

The interior of Tesla feels plastic and amateur for it's price range, no one outside of the cult says nice stuff about their frame either: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-model-3-design-profit...

> most people buy Tesla based on their marketing

That's a rather strong statement! Do you have any source for it?

> most people who actually enjoy driving prefer ICE

I don't know where you got that idea from--a quick survey of google results for "Model S review" gives me the opposite impression: It has a "fun-to-drive nature" [1], "it’s addictively fast" [2], "fast and great to drive" [3]. The only negative quote I could find was that it "can certainly hack the pace, but it doesn’t bring much sporting engagement" [4], about the 2013 version before any improvements (not that I know they changed the reviewers opinion).

> no one outside of the cult says nice stuff

If I was being uncharitable I might say it seems you're in a different, but equally dogmatic cult.

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s

[2] https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/tesla/model-s

[3] https://www.motortrend.com/news/2013-motor-trend-car-of-the-...

[4] https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/tesla/model-s/ride

> most people buy Tesla based on their marketing

Most people buy things based on marketing.

> most people who actually enjoy driving prefer ICE

Did you just make that up? It sounds a lot like gatekeeping.

> it feels like driving a big go-kart

That's a big plus for some.

> no one outside of the cult says nice stuff about their frame either: [link]

The linked article is content marketing for a teardown consultant who wasn't privy to tradeoffs made during the design process.

> Most people buy things based on marketing.

There is a difference between buying Channel products based on marketing and buying your power tools based on marketing. The difference is that one is marketing for actual spec and durability the other for status and gimmicks or worst outright lies.

> Did you just make that up? It sounds a lot like gatekeeping.

The sales number speaks for it self, along with TSLA Financial Results.

>> it feels like driving a big go-kart and handles rather poorly.

> That's a big plus for some.

Not sure what you're getting at, people who would not buy low range and specially lower performance cars somehow would prefer go-kart like feeling and handling?

> The linked article is content marketing for a teardown consultant who wasn't privy to tradeoffs made during the design process.

Calling Munro a marketing consultant is a poor effort.

I just ordered a model x despite being very skeptical. However I don't have the consciousness to drive a petrol car any longer, my kids will murder me when they grow up.

So I looked at all the viable cars, my summer house is 440 km from here and I would like to be able to get there in an emergency on one charge and I have a big cat that needs room + family. I've been saying for years that I want an electric but I want a "real" car maker to build a proper one. So now we are here with two new competitors.

The I-Pace has too short range and too little space. The E-tron has too short range and too little space. In the end the model x was the only viable one for my criteria.

My biggest counter before to the tesla was the build quality, but after inspecting several model x and testing them, it is noting like the old model s versions with rattling windows etc. It actually feels like a nice car.

> However I don't have the consciousness to drive a petrol car any longer, my kids will murder me when they grow up.

Is there assesment available of full environmental impact of an ICE vs electric car in a country like US (with a certain mix of green and non-green sources of electricity)? Generally, more stuff goes into an EV, so the production is probably higher impact - I wonder how the all-inclusive numbers look like.

I don't know about the US, but since the power here is 99% hydroelectric it should only be the manufacturing and transportation emissions (it has to be transported from the US to Holland and then here.

The Teslas may cost more upfront, but they save a ton on gas, oil, maintenance, etc, and are estimated to last for up to a million miles.

Even if the electricity comes from coal an electric car is still more efficient than petrol.

Maybe they make different models in USA vs Australia or probably we have a different standard of quality for the Tesla Model X price range. I find it rather flakey and poor.

I bought a Tesla because it was rated as the best car ever made. It's the safest, one of the fastest, has amazing tech, and is a complete blast to drive. I've never loved a car like I love my Tesla. Driving an ICE car after getting used to the powerful, instant torque of an EV, and the one pedal driving feels absolutely terrible.

Tesla doesn't even do any traditional marketing. They are selling hundreds of thousands of cars mostly by word of mouth and wildly enthusiastic owners spreading the love. I believe Tesla is also the highest rated car by owner satisfaction?

Personal anecdote but I find that hard to believe: I've driven the model 3 performance and found it to be dreadful. That thing understeered like mad and I couldn't feel the back end.

It would look like a Chevy Bolt.

These cars already exist, but only in California. Local tax laws result in cars like the fiat 500e, which are cheap and cheerful electric commuters.

VW UP (has eletric version) has 5/5 stars in Euro NCAP testing. As well there is VW ID.3 but it is larger than UP I believe.

I think itd look like a Nissan Leaf, a car that has sold in only moderate numbers over the years

I get that EVs in general haven't been historically popular cars, but stating that Nissan Leaf, literally the best selling EV of all time, has only sold in "moderate numbers", is a bit of a joke.

Even in annual sales, it's only recently been surpassed by the Model S.

Furthermore, while it does do relatively close to half the range of a Model S (and the gp did state "half"), given Tesla's advances in range, along with Nissan's own advances in battery longevity, I don't think they're skimping on cheap tech for low range. One could go a lot lower and still have a very usable city car.

All that said, the general point was: would it sell. The Leaf is extremely popular in Europe where (in my highly subjective opinion) car buying is slightly more rational/practical: the US market seems to favour mass-for-the-sake-of-it (clearly evident even comparing the range of cars available on the market in Europe vs the US), so I don't think smaller would do well there.

I guess I should have clarified that I meant it has sold in moderate numbers compared to ICE car sales. Honda sells over 300k Civics each year.

Fair. You're right that the Leaf hasn't been the breakthrough dominator in the car market, propelling EVs to the top. But I the fact it got into the same order of magnitude as popular ICEs does seem like something of a breakthrough.

Moderate numbers? 400.000 cars?! It's "the world's all-time best-selling highway-capable electric car" according to wiki

According to Wikipedia, the Leaf has sold 400k units over it's lifetime. In comparison, Ford sold more than 450k F-series pickups in the first six months of 2018[1].

[1] https://www.autonews.com/article/20180716/RETAIL01/180719854...

It's sold a lot more than Tesla, but the CEO doesn't have as entertaining a social media presence so everyone forgets that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com