Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

The fact that regulation precludes the viability of a small vehicle that is able to punch above its size (like a Chevy Astro, or older Ford Ranger) in terms of capability is a large part of why vehicles have grown so large. Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations.

The road to hell is legislated with good intentions.

View on HN

Seems like the smart thing to do would be to treat law and regulation as something that needs - just like any other product - continual feedback, iteration, and improvement.

"Oops we created this bad side effect, let's narrow things down further" in the same way that we'd patch a security hole introduced by a new product feature.

Saying "the answer is to just stop trying to prevent bad things" is nonsensical on the face of it. The problems that caused people to care enough to want regulation didn't just magically go away!

>Commercial needs that used to be served by these small vehicles are being solved by F150s and Transits. Commuters who used to commute in hatches and wagons which could sufficiently perform their weekend duties as well are buying crossovers and SUVs which have nearly identical interior dimensions. This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you implying SUVs have better fuel economy? Because they don't? Also generally safety regulations are tougher in Europe, but cars are smaller, so I don't believe that SUVs comply better with safety regulations either.

The federal fuel economy standards have a weird calculation that incentives vehicles with a large footprint. It's the ratio of footprint to MPG that's important to the feds.

They tried to make exceptions for work vehicles which seems to have spectacularly backfired.

If only people would learn that regulation backfiring is the expected outcome.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I'm European where I don't think calculations like this exist.

Haha, they do, and they are the same bullshit, and basically killed small hatchbacks.

In EU car makers are paying for extra g of CO2/km on every vehicle. And that g/km is calculated based on weight of the vehicle. I don't have exact numbers, but basically 2 ton SUV can have something like 140g/km without penalty, while 1.3 ton hatch has to have 70g/km which is impossible.

>This vehicle inflation has been largely driven by fuel economy and safety regulations.

Why don't we see this in europe, or japan, or any other first world urban area where you see a proliferation of tiny trucks, tiny vans, tiny vehicles, mopeds, etc? Surely these other places also chased fuel economy savings and safety, but they ended up with a market that looks (and weighs) a lot different. I doubt these cars are any more dangerous or less fuel efficient than some American market car. What sort of policies were enacted in these places that lead to the markets for these small vehicles, which we don't see here?

I drive a 2017 Ford Fiesta hatchback that is 160" long, weighs about 2,600 pounds, and gets a minimum of 26, average 28, MPG in Los Angeles traffic on basic gas.

I've moved with it, put a rack on the top, and drive friends around.

It's got CarPlay, cruise control, even stupid LED lighting for my cupholders.

If that's not punching above its literal size and weight, I don't know what would. Unfortunately this car has been discontinued now.

Nothing in today's market is comparable.

Regulation on size/weight will give cars like this the opportunity to survive.

You're missing the point. Between increasing belt-lines, fatter pillars, thicker doors and smooth/aerodynamic and rounded shapes modern cars have less space than older ones of equivalent exterior dimensions. Because people want a baseline amount of interior space in any given class of vehicle the vehicles have grown. Look at the new iterations of compact cars and compact trucks (and their counterpart SUVs) for a good example. They have nearly identical interior dimensions and have grown a couple inches in every direction and a couple hundred pounds. Just because you feel your car is a good deal for what it is does not mean it is not also subject to the same regulatory treatment. An '03 Ford Escort wagon is 10" longer and the same width and weight as your car and blows it out of the water in terms of usable interior space (I could only find a spec for the 2dr coupe but it has 92.x cubic feet vs 97.x for your Fiesta hatch). It's slower and gets worse fuel economy and doesn't have bluetooth but that's just a reflection of the state of tech at the time.

Pretty much every product line has received this treatment over the last 20yr. Your car would exist without modern safety/fuel economy regulation. It would just look like a 2003 Ford Escort that puts down performance numbers that are more befitting the year 2021.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com