Carmakers are pushing electric SUVs, but smaller is better when it comes to EVs | Hacker News Reader

Carmakers are pushing electric SUVs, but smaller is better when it comes to EVs

theguardian.com

44 pointsPaulHoule92 comments

I am a little afraid of the long-term safety implications of people driving these massive (literally by mass, not volume) EVs. As if being a pedestrian, biker, or small-car driver wasn't already dangerous enough in the US. For context, a compact SUV EV weighs almost as much as many full-size trucks:

Current Cars

* 2023 Compact Gas SUV (RAV4): 3,370 lbs

* 2023 F-150 V8 Supercab: ~4,500 lbs

* Your typical American short school bus: 10,000 lbs

EVs

* 2023 Tesla Model Y: ~4,500 lbs

* 2023 F-150 Lightning Extended Range: ~6,500 lbs

* 2022 Hummer EV: 9,000 lbs

Except now the 9,000 lb SUV can go 0-60 in 3 seconds.

I work on large diesel trucks for a living, and if you told me there would one day be a truck that weighed over four short tons and went as fast as a corvette I'd ask for tickets to your drag race.

Hah, no kidding. It's undoubtedly a massive feat of engineering, but so are a lot of things that don't belong on our roads.

I'd much rather live with the vast majority of smaller cars and trucks electrifying and letting the 0.1% of people who feel the need to drive a Hummer keep their gas-guzzling cars. At least the old gas models were a "mere" 5,000 lbs and accelerated 0-60 in a much more reasonable 7-8 seconds.

I can't speak to the other brands. But per https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport, Teslas are averaging about 1/3 the odds of an accident per million miles of other cars. Unfortunately the autopilot figures there are misleading since autopilot only goes on for the safest kinds of driving.

Why? Sensors and maneuverability matter. Being hit by a Tesla may be worse, but it does a lot to avoid hitting you.

not a huge Tesla fan, but they adhere to the road and a breath to drive. The best car for me will still be my grandfather's Xantia (sadly retired now), but compared to tally city car or huge SUVs, a Tesla is rather nice.

I drove a SUV not that long ago on a country road, i now understand why it tends to have more accident than a regular car, especially if you drive fast on a curvy road.

To some degree. It’s also because because Teslas are new cars driven by affluent, youngish people.

What’s the argument for mass being a driving factor in pedestrian safety? You’re outweighed substantially by anything bigger than a moped. Certainly anything bigger than a Civic. Seems like it’d be more about body angles, visibility, and driver attentiveness.

If we're talking cars hitting you at 80mph, sure you're probably dead no matter what. But a 9,000 lb car hitting you at 35mph is traveling with the same momentum as a 3,000 lb car going 105mph. You might survive a 3,000 lb car hitting you at 35 mph, you're unlikely to survive the other.

This feels... wrong, somehow - we wouldn't say that a 100,000lb shuttle transporter hitting you at 1mph will do the same damage as your 3,000lb car at 35mph. There's way more dynamics at play here.

I agree. If I jump up and down and impact the earth with my feet it's quite harmless. I suspect above some lower bound it doesn't matter how much something weighs, it's all about how fast something hits you (because it's mostly you that's being accelerated).

Although the weight (and correspondingly, the size) of a car does play into sight lines, maneuverability and how fast the car can decelerate.

It is kind of wrong. What matters is the force impacted upon the person (their acceleration), not momentum. Basically, change in velocity over time is what really matters, but because momentum is conserved, it influences what the total change in velocity is.

You are right I think, it's about impulse, force over time, surface area and how much energy can be transfered through the surface area through the underlying tissue and create a ripple basically. I suspect that at some point, the 'transfer function' of energy just maxes out and mass of the vehicle itself is pointless over that point, as it's all lethal.

Outweighed substantially is doing a lot of handwaving. Turns out that difference matters[1] when it comes to injury.

Maybe an analogous question would be: would you rather be stepped on by a horse or an elephant? Both substantially outweigh you but I bet you'll pick the horse.

[1] https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/vehicle-weight-and-automot....

Brake distance, the heavier the vehicle the longer it takes to slow it down.

I'm surprised I'm not finding a weight vs. stopping distance graph anywhere. I know that the physics theory says weight doesn't matter for stopping distance (spherical cow in a vacuum), but there's some nonlinearity in the friction response that does make it matter somewhat. It'd be interesting to know how big a different it does make.

If you're at a crosswalk, then you'll roll over the hood of a Camry or Mustang going 30mph.

If the same thing happens with a Escalade or F150, there's more mass and it's hitting dead on.

Bumper height is the factor there, not weight. A higher bumper is more likely to knock you down and under, not up and over.

The Hummer in any form seems like a ridiculous vehicle. The Rav4 Prime weighs more than the Model Y, so depends on what version. The 4runner, Tacoma, Tundra, Sequoia etc. are all same or heavier, the big difference is that in the future, battery technology is expected to get better, so EVs should become lighter.

Model Y RWD weighs 4065 pounds, but pretty sure my Tundra is a lot less safe for pedestrians, as it sits higher and weight about 1800 pounds more without fuel.

Yeah, smaller cars are better for pedestrian safety, but North American drivers in general want bigger cars. Ford stopped making passenger cars for NA, even. Although you could argue some of their small 'SUV's are really hatchbacks at this point.

Not sure how you get people to want to buy smaller cars other than taxes.

I should have clarified I'm not picking on the Model Y in particular because I think it's a perfectly reasonably sized car and I agree it's much safer than most full-size trucks, it's just surprising how much EVs can weigh. The worrying trend is that moving forward, there are a lot of EVs much bigger than the model Y in the pipeline:

* Kia EV9 (likely ~6,000 lbs)

* Volvo EX90 (likely 6,000+ lbs)

* Rivian R1S (7,000 lbs)

* Electric Chevy Silverado (likely 8,000+ lbs)

* GMC Sierra EV (likely 8,000+ lbs)

There's no physical law of nature that requires EVs to be heavier than ICE equivalents.

As battery tech improves they'll get lighter and they're predicted to beat ICE on this metric in a couple of years

Battery energy density reaching that of petrol in a couple of years is unlikely to nigh impossible unless you’ll be switching to hydrogen fuel cells and even then I’m not entirely sure about that due to the energy density per unit of volume being drastically lower.

"long term", EVs are going to be significantly lighter than modern gas cars because the batteries will continue to shrink. An electric drivetrain is much lighter than an ICE drivetrain.

I think they'll probably end up around parity. Energy density will improve, but people are still likely to want to have a big enough battery that range isn't an issue.

One thing I think that could dramatically improve people's perceived need for energy storage capacity is if we started getting electrified roads where cars and trucks can charge while moving. (There are some of these in Sweden and Germany as test projects, and apparently Sweden is moving forward on doing a permanent installation.)

The Hummer is a limited production expensive vehicle. The original Hummer was also extremely heavy :

1995 Hummer H1 6766

2005 Hummer H2 SUT 6780

2006 Hummer H1 Alpha 7558

2009 Hummer H2 6614

-------Stopping distance

2022 Hummer - 70mph 211 ft

2005 Hummer H2 SUT - 70mph 214ft

2008 Hummer H2 - 60mph 152ft (motortrend)

Bringing up the Hummer as an example of EVs makes no sense, they've sold less than 1000 so far. Just in 2022 the F150 sold 653k units. Let's look at weight for the 5 most popular vehicles in the US in 2022.

------- Top 5 Vehicles of 2022 (Car and Drive, Trims excluded so I used the entire range)

1. F150 4000 - 5740

2. Chevy Silverado 4490 - 5240

3. Dodge Ram 4775 - 6439

4. Toyota Rav 4 3370 - 3655

5. Camry 3310 - 3595

Finally, why does weight matter to you so much? Not stopping distance, safety systems, front end design? If I get hit with a vehicle that weighs X pounds and it causes me to die what does it matter if it weighed 2x the amount? Can you show there's a meaningful difference between 3000 pounds, 4000 pounds, and 5000 pounds when you strike someone?

If you are concerned about EV safety because of weight, don't want to restrict non-EV trucks, and used the Hummer EV as an example I believe you are arguing disingenuously.

sources: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a40618071/2022-gmc-humm... https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gmc/gmc-hummer-ev/gmc-hummer... https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15131760/hummer-h2-sut... https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/163-0804-2008-hummer-h2/ Weights come from Car and Driver or Google

> massive (literally by mass, not volume)

As a Gen-Xer I used borrow my parents' minivan quite often when I was young, and I could easily/regularly fit 6-7 people in that comfortably. For all their size, a lot the SUVs nowadays cannot accomplish that.

Why are these SUVs so big? What is their size going towards?

Suspension, leg room, boot space and also safety the Minivan that you used to borrow in the 90’s was built quite differently.

A minivan is still more practical. They’re just not “cool”.

Would you be satisfied to address your safety concerns by: 1. banning cars from regions with a high density of pedestrians (e.g., like downtown London) 2. requiring dedicated bicycle lanes at mid-density regions 3. recognizing that pedestrians and bikers don't really exist appreciable number in rural regions and leave those areas alone?

One thing to keep in mind is that EVs with single-pedal mode (ie, regen braking always on if not accelerating) are simply way more responsive than any ICE in terms of stopping. They simply brake faster because you simply have to not accelerate.

Faster acceleration also means more confidence so you don't have to keep the momentum.

From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I feel EVs are just safer.

Or, you become so used to using only a single pedal that when an emergency happens you delay using the brake and get into a crash.

We have a nimble EV and a slow lumbering non-EV. Never had this issue and neither has my spouse.

Carmakers are ‘pushing’ SUVs because a large fraction of buyers want SUVs.

I find it concerning that this seems incomprehensible to many people.

You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

> You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

Yes you can, you can educate them. Decide on how to categorise the environmental impact of each car and mandate that it is labelled as such. Unless you deem such regulation as dystopian?

I think he's talking about policies similar to natural gas stove bans, which ostensibly seem less concerned about addressing externalities and more concerned about imposing a choice onto others.

Worth noting is that there really isn't a push to ban natural gas stoves, that is just politics hyping up something someone somewhere said because it gets uncritical supporters spun up and paying attention to who they're supposed to be angry at today.

There are definitely some places that'd like to stop building out new housing with natural gas service, however. But that isn't quite as rage inducing as telling people the leftists are coming for their cherished gas range.

> Worth noting is that there really isn't a push to ban natural gas stoves, that is just politics hyping up something someone somewhere said

NY state has banned gas stoves in new buildings[1]. Someone is pushing enough for legislatures to act.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-c...

That's a push to ban gas service from new construction. It's not specific to gas stoves. Nobody is coming for your gas stove. Not now, not ever. It's such a huge political loser that nobody other than a few crazy municipalities will even talk about it.

>Worth noting is that there really isn't a push to ban natural gas stoves [...] There are definitely some places that'd like to stop building out new housing with natural gas service

There might be a tangible difference between "banning gas stoves in new construction" and "banning gas stoves", but as it relates to this conversation they're still the same. ie.

>ostensibly seem less concerned about addressing externalities and more concerned about imposing a choice onto others

The push isn't anything to do with stoves, though. Nobody cares about stoves, the primary negative externality is the health of the user, and presumably they made that choice of their own free will. The push is to ban natural gas utilities at all, which are a meaningful contribution to pollution. The idea that it has anything to do with stoves is just politicians & 'media' personalities playing to the fears of their base.

This assumes people buy cars based on the environmental footprint. Sure, a few people do, but most people just look for something that meets their needs.

In my driveway sits a Chevrolet Bolt. In my garage is a Model 3. When I replace one of them, it will be with a crossover. A Model Y, if I could just wave a magic wand today and replace the Model 3. I want a slightly taller car. And not because of some conspiracy of marketing, either, but because it will be a better fit for my needs.

For such an expensive and important purchase, only a small fraction of people would care about this label. There are too many other factors at play (Can this car fit my whole family? Is this car safe, affordable, reliable? etc)

What Europe has done is to tax the externalities in for these vehicles.

They are heavier, so they wear the roads more, so there are higher taxes to cover that.

They are less efficient per km, which uses more grid, so there are higher taxes/charges to cover expanding the grid.

This seems to work and they same thing could work here

You talk about Europe like it's a single entity. It's not. Road tax is a country local matter, not regulated at the EU level - for example France has no road tax.

Similar to your other example: it's made up and is not the reality.

Although it isn’t to the same extreme as the US there are plenty of large SUV’s on the roads in Europe.

or just tax the shit out of vehicles by weight.

The US government was also largely responsible for incentivizing the supersizing of American cars with emissions standards based on footprint (road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.), which then had a knock-on effect on consumer demand. So it's certainly possible to incentivize automakers to go the other way, even if you can't change public behavior directly.

> Carmakers are ‘pushing’ SUVs because a large fraction of buyers want SUVs.

It's the other way around. Making SUVs desirable has been an absolutely massive marketing project since the '90s, to take advantage of weaker regulations on "light trucks" and bigger per-unit profit on larger vehicles.

>Making SUVs desirable has been an absolutely massive marketing project since the '90s

examples of this? If SUVs have better sight lines from being higher, people want better sight lines, and car manufacturers put that on their advertisements, is that really carmakers "pushing" SUVs or people wanting SUVs?

As far as I know, actual features are mostly mentioned as points of differentiation from other SUVs. The overall marketing slant has primarily been emotionally-driven stuff about being bigger, tougher, more independent/adventurous, etc. than people who drive conventional passenger cars (e.g. notice the general shift in tone and emphasis in the compilation at [1]). It was a big enough trend that The Simpsons lampooned it in 1998, complete with a jingle sung by Hank Williams Jr. [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYnRHiWpmc0

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA

I rented an SUV once (I have a minivan + econobox EV) and I have to say for that week I was an asshole driver. It had better visibility for cars, but less visibility for pedestrians.

All cars are "light trucks" these days according to CAFE rules. Even sedans

SUVs are exploding in popularity in Europe, too, though they do tend to be smaller there.

If you compare an european style SUV with a sedan / station wagon with similar interior volume, you will notice that the SUV is shorter, and thus easier to park, offers better visibility to the driver, feels roomier, and while less aerodynamic, is actually lighter, so there’s not much increased fuel consumption. Those are reasons why consumers might prefer those types of cars.

The "weaker regulations" are primarily CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations, which were intended to limit gasoline usage to prevent dependency on foreign imports after the oil shock in the 1970s. EVs don't use imported fossil fuels, so CAFE regulations don't make sense. We just need to keep increasing the fraction of locally produced, renewable energy supplying the grid.

All true, but I'm not sure that relaxing or abolishing CAFE now really moves the needle. It seems like the damage was mostly done by 2010 or so, and now SUVs are just sort of the default kind of vehicle Americans are expected to buy.

> You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

Or you can, by using marketing, exactly the strategy auto manufacturers in the USA used to push SUVs, SUVs that conveniently skirted emissions regulations which smaller cars were required to fulfill.

Interesting how your definition of dystopian is exactly what marketing/PR has been invented to do, to change the minds of people about what are their "needs".

If you haven't seen, I thoroughly recommend Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self".

> SUVs that conveniently skirted emissions regulations which smaller cars were required to fulfill.

How would you expect a larger car to adhere to the same emissions regulation as a smaller car?

>Interesting how your definition of dystopian is exactly what marketing/PR has been invented to do, to change the minds of people about what are their "needs".

When the government does it, it's definitely a problem because there is not much mechanism to check this power.

When it's a company doing it to sell a product, it's a problem if there are no competitors. That's sort of why we have fairly stringent anti trust regulation.

> How would you expect a larger car to adhere to the same emissions regulation as a smaller car?

I don't, never said that, don't create a strawman. SUVs are classified under small trucks instead of passenger vehicles for emissions regulations in the USA, that's the issue.

> When it's a company doing it to sell a product, it's a problem if there are no competitors. That's sort of why we have fairly stringent anti trust regulation.

No, it's a problem when a whole industry decides to skirt some inconvenient laws by using marketing tactics to slowly change consumers' perception of their product. That's what automakers in the USA did, sold an idea that SUVs are safer, that they are needed for families and so on because it was more convenient to not have to abide by stricter emissions regulations in their smaller cars. There's competition, and the competition is doing the same because it benefits the whole industry's profits. This form of collusion is impossible to prosecute, USA's laws infamously end up having lots of these holes for loopholes to poke through... How much of that is on purpose or just simple incompetence is left as an exercise to the reader.

> Carmakers are ‘pushing’ SUVs because a large fraction of buyers want SUVs.

I think this is an overgeneralization, and there are a few factors at play:

Carmakers and dealers push SUVs because typically they have a better margin. I know when I bought my first car back in 2006, lots of folks tried to push me into an SUV even though I -knew- I wanted a basic compact sedan. [0] One of my past partners had the same problem even last year when shopping for a Sedan from the brands that -do- still sell them.

Many consumer groups overbuy on vehicles in general; Whether it's folks who buy a full size truck when a midsize would be more than enough, or as a 'status symbols' (e.x. Cadillac Escalade or Range Rovers at the start of the century)

Then there's the 'Miseducated' group that think that SUVs/Trucks are 'inherently safer' than a Sedan (maybe in some cases, but then it's a weird game of MAD at best since the counter-argument is that SUV->Sedan accidents tend to go worse for the sedan...)

> You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

IDK. Fixing EPA Footprint rules would be a great start while being more on the 'pragmatic' side than dystopian/fascist.

[0] - RIP Saturn and their no pressure sales.

I don’t buy the margin argument.

If this had been really true, some car company would have decided to sacrifice the extra margin to sell at a lower price point to capture a larger market share.

>You can’t really change what people want without enacting dystopian/fascist policies.

This is a funny thing to say considering most of these vehicles already come with a tax rebate to entice people to buy them over their ICE counterparts. Are taxes and tax rebates "dystopian/fascist"?

Tax rebates are fairly dystopian.

It’s pretty much only useful if you have a large taxable income.

Sucks for you if you are a student, a retiree, a small business owner, etc etc.

The percentage of the population that can afford a $50k+ car and doesn't pay enough in taxes to get the full rebate is rather small and I would imagine mostly extremely wealthy. Even so, it depends on how the tax rebate is designed. We can set them up to pay out a negative income tax if that is desirable. Hardly dystopian in my opinion and inarguably not fascist.

Most middle class people in the US end up buying a car which costs approximately equal to a year's income.

(Average new car price: 46k, Median Income: ~54k before tax)

If tax rebates become a way to control what people can and can not afford to buy, it's just a welfare program deceptively designed for benefiting the top few percent of people drawing a steady income.

Maybe most people are buying cars they can not afford, but that is not an excuse to take away that choice.

Confidently incorrect.

The popularity of SUVs is the result of a "loophole" in government incentives. By being classified as light trucks, regulations which apply to cars don't apply to them. This lead automakers to push trucks and SUVs rather than smaller cars. Simple as that.

If the regulatory pressure were applied in another direction, e.g. by scaling road tax with the 4th power of mass (as road damage scales) or by removing this ludicrous loophole, we would have smaller and more efficient cars rather than monstrosities with hoods as tall as a 14 year old.

The US is not the whole world. Check out stats for other countries which don’t have this loophole.

SUVs are getting really popular in India and most of Europe nowadays, despite narrower streets and lack of parking infrastructure.

Automakers are pushing SUVs and pickups to the American market because it makes them more money and it's easier to meet emissions standards. Cars cost less to buy and maintain, have stricter emissions standards, and don't create an arms race for a getting a bigger and higher seating vehicle, so you can actually see and feel safe when driving around inattentive drivers in giant unwieldy SUVs.

You can't change what people want without fixing safety regulations to account for the people outside the vehicle, instead calling it a day after 45mph crash tests.

Changing the polices that led to the SUV/pickup arms race just so automakers and dealerships can sell vehicles for higher profit margins is not dystopian/fascist. Pedestrians deaths are going up, smaller lower seating vehicles are becoming unsafe, and the climate crisis keep getting worse.

The trend of EVs getting larger is frustrating for those of us with shorter than average garages. Something like a Bolt EUV fits mine (~177") just about perfectly, while the Equinox that's slated to replace it is too long. I could modify my garage by moving around HVAC and such to make more room but it's rather silly for that to be necessary.

It would be one thing if the lack of cars in this size range also extended to ICE cars, but it doesn't. There's plenty of gas-powered options, some of which are variants of mainstream models (like the Corolla hatchback). It's just EVs where all of the best-regarded models skew larger.

Is there room for a car outside the garage?

Sure, but I'd really rather use my garage since I have one, particularly for an EV which I'll want to plug in.

Most people have their charger setup in their garage.

If you're looking for recommendations, one option is the XC40 Recharge, which comes in at 175".

But I agree they are getting so unnecessarily long. Not just in the car length, but also in the wheelbase. The Ioniq 5 (compact SUV / hatchback) has a longer wheel base (118") and thus worse turning radius than a Toyota 4Runner SUV (110"). Makes it a nightmare for city driving & parking.

Thanks, I’ll take a look at the XC40.

And yeah, the Ioniq 5 bums me out. Love the aesthetic and it seems generally great, but entirely too long.

>It's just EVs where all of the best-regarded models skew larger.

Well, yeah; batteries have really bad energy density and are extremely heavy. Length doesn't affect aerodynamics as much as width or height does, so if you want to offer reasonable ranges, the cars need to get longer.

>It would be one thing if the lack of cars in this size range also extended to ICE cars, but it doesn't.

Yes, because at that size EVs lose their TCO advantage and are strictly worse products than normal compact cars outside of that. They're better in the luxury car segment where you can have twice the horsepower, the same effective range, and more internal space with a decreased TCO because large cars are inefficient- but the Bolt offers none of those things over the Corolla, which is why it's discontinued.

Words not used in the article- “demand”, “consumer”, “want”, “customer”.

Carmakers are pushing electric SUVs because that’s what the (highest margin) customers want and will pay for.

It world be worth tweaking public policy to change incentives (provide more subsidies the more energy efficient the car is) but blaming auto manufacturers for chasing demand and profits is a food errand.

Right now the highly efficient low cost market segment seems like it is better served by traditional hybrids and plug in hybrids- you can get a Hyundai Elantra hybrid at 56 mpg for $24550 MSRP or a plug in Prius for $30k. Of course there is still the Nissan leaf, starting at $28k for a true BEV still.

As component costs (read batteries) come down and manufacturing capabilities go up, I think you’ll be back to seeing more BEVs at the low end, but right now the manufacturers are chasing the premium customer with what they’ve got.

Carmakers are pushing the most expensive high margin vehicles for electrification in general. It's frustrating if you care about the end goal of getting carbon emissions drastically down in a reasonable time frame. Lower end vehicles and the used vehicle market are super important to meet that goal.

Yes. Electric is being framed as "premium". The electric Jeeps and Ford F-150 trucks are all loaded down with "luxury" stuff and have price tags in the $60K and up range.

Toyota finally replaced their hydrogen-oriented CEO with an electric vehicle guy. Old CEO: "Toyoda reiterated that he does not believe all-electric vehicles will be adopted as quickly as policy regulators and competitors think, due to a variety of reasons. He cited lack of infrastructure, pricing and how customers’ choices vary region to region as examples of possible roadblocks."[1] New CEO: "To deliver attractive BEVs to more customers, we must streamline the structure of the car, and — with a BEV-first mindset — we must drastically change the way we do business, from manufacturing to sales and service".[2]

Toyota management is scared. The Toyota Corolla, their best selling car, is being out-sold in California by Tesla. That wasn't supposed to happen.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/02/toyota-ceo-akio-toyoda-elect...

[2] https://archive.is/cBps9

> The Toyota Corolla, their best selling car, is being out-sold in California by Tesla. That wasn't supposed to happen.

I was given a '23 Corolla from a rental agency, and I can say it was a complete disappointment in a way that other random rentals were not.

1) No CarPlay/app integration standard.

2) Horrendous dash geometry and overall interface.

3) Incredibly annoying and non-intuitive lane-keeping alert.

Perhaps Toyota should develop cars that don't suck. Disclaimer: I have owned 4 Toyotas in the past and own an older Toyota currently. I had brand loyalty till about 10 years ago.

> Carmakers are pushing the most expensive high margin vehicles for electrification in general.

From the standpoint of this discussion, the key point is that they are pushing the least fuel efficient vehicles for electrification in general.

> It's frustrating if you care about the end goal of getting carbon emissions drastically down in a reasonable time frame.

This is backasswards. If you want to reduce carbon emissions, replacing a full size SUV with an electric equivalent is going to save you more than replacing a compact sedan with an electric equivalent.

It's hard to prove causality, but I don't think it's a coincidence that not long after the protectionist Inflation Reduction Act passed, Chevy has now cancelled the Bolt EV and EUV.

The Bolt was a rare success story of making a pretty decent reasonably-affordable EV.

The IRA removed the tax credit that Kia and Hyundai vehicles were previously eligible for. I think Chevy is banking on sedans/hatchbacks being so expensive that more consumers will say, "oh well, I guess I'll get a truck."

Maybe Kia and Hyundai and Nissan and Volkswagen will fill the cheap, small car demand eventually as they setup U.S. assembly lines and ramp up production.

I think if we cared more about climate change than geopolitical concerns and U.S. jobs and whatnot, we'd just let BYD sell the Seagull in the U.S. on a level playing field.

The electric hummer weights 9k lbs and averages 43MPGe on the highway.

It's the same co2 problem in a different form.

We are supposed to use less materials to make the world a better place.

Wonder what problems will occur 30 years down the line because of this.

It's only a matter of time before there's some truly awful crash between a 9,000 lbs. Hummer going 60+ mph and anything else (car, building, train).

Train locomotives weigh like 400,000 pounds. Loaded rail cars can also weigh hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Hummer better hope it hits the right part of the train.

Truly. I was amazed to see a recent video of a train blowing through a truck carrying a concrete span like it was nothing. A collision between a high-speed hummer and a light rail car (67,000 lbs?) would be something.

I don't think the train has much to worry about, though it could derail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXJdYqldgn8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fry18SSnK_Y

The hummer will likely burst into flame and possibly be thrown into oncoming traffic or nearby buildings.

I like how the guardian just hates SUVs. Probably because they confuse them with "rich people's" cars and as such are a default target?

The Guardian is also pro-environmentalism and there are many people driving SUVs when a less polluting smaller car would serve their needs just fine.

The Guardian pretty much hates everything. They are picking on everything every single day. It's like reddit but as a newspaper.

I've read them religiously when I was younger but this "everything is bad and we tell you so" attitude is just boring and after a while incredibly toxic.

If I can afford something better I will buy it.

That's just how it works, sorry.

The Guardian journalists don't live in the real world.

An electric SUV is like a gasoline SUV carrying 5,000 lbs of rocks. It won't be able to cross some bridges and won't be allowed on many residential roads. It will also need to be taxed like a proper truck, because its road destruction capabilities will be the same.

An electric SUV is typically about 100-500lbs heavier than a comparable ICE SUV, lets not exaggerate.

The Hummer is an outlier and is gross.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com