The average weight of passenger and commercial vehicles has varied over time. The pickup truck, which is America’s best-selling vehicle style, has bulked up considerably since the mid-1970s. As of 2024, the pickup truck has an average weight increase of 30% from 1975. Other vehicle styles, such as sedans and wagons, have slimmed down by 10%.
You know, eventually you’ll need to learn how to use a search provider on your own.
And it's probably worse than that graph seems to show... Since people are moving to a larger vehicle class mostly due to marketing rather than use case...
If the former, that tracks. If you're heavy-set, getting in an out of a sedan (for example) is just plain uncomfortable. Meanwhile, having a seat you can just swing your hips into, or even climb up into, probably works a lot better.
Anecdotal but I'm 6'1", vehicles like the Miata or BRZ or Tacomas sometimes make me wish I was shorter... and didn't have chronic nerve issues in my legs that make small cars painful to sit in
I'm 6'3" and only drive small cars. The form fit the industry uses is the same from trucks to hatchbacks, but fat people prefer taller SUVs and trucks for entry/exit.
No, there is significantly less leg room in lower vehicles, which always have higher floors. I can go from comfy in a Tundra to knees in my chest in a Tacoma.
There is a plausible causal relationship between these two measurements, though. Not proven (at least, not by anything @SaveTheTuaHawk wrote), but plausible.
The fact that you phrased this so specifically to not mention the corresponding increased danger to other road users and pedestrians, suggests you’re a shill pushing industry talking points.
The graphs are terrible but come on, a 10% increase in weight in 10 years, doesn't sound bad to you? Especially when the base value was anything but low to begin with? And an increased space consumption of 6% is a huge additional space consumption in absolute numbers, given the huge numbers of cars.
The weight gain could theoretically be explained by the simple fact that electric vehicles are heavier than their combustion counterpart.
Though I'm well aware these are american cars so probably just means more bigger pickup trucks that will never ever be used to actually pick things up.
Hardly, the EV adoption rate in the US is pretty poor and even if we ignore that, the share of EVs among existing vehicles on the road is way to small to be the dominating factor for the increase in weight. That said, yes, EVs will lead to an increase in weight, a necessary evil. However, that can be compensated by downscaling vehicles to actual needs. People are currently buying cars far larger than what they actually need for partly irrational and partly egoistic reasons (increasing threats to life and well being towards others in the hope to slightly decrease it towards oneself).
When it comes to covering pavement, it also starts at like 2008. Which is funny because I can guarantee you just from being around them that cars from the 70s were gigantic. Long hoods, big old protruding trunks.
I imagine the reason why the change is so small and why it's not quite a linear progression. There is that initial decrease again immediately post recession is just the shift in what's available for stock in the US.
The height of the SUV boom pre-recession, those cars were big. Like, we have CUVs now. Those are built on car chassis, which means they are about as long as a car is, about as wide as the car that they're based off of. For example, a Mazda CX6 is just a Mazda 6, but like, fatter. The popular SUVs of the late 2000s were like actually full-on SUVs built on heavy truck platforms. So we had things like the Hummer and of course the Escalade of the day which were gargantuan. At the same time, because those vehicles got like single digit miles per gallon, people tended to also have commuter cars, which were also a lot cheaper back then. We're talking like low 10,000s or less.
Post-recession though, like we did start seeing a lot more small cars again. For example Chevy brought in the Aveo and eventually the beat in the spark, Honda Fitts became bigger in terms of popularity, Ford brought over the Fiesta. And then gas went down again and because Americans have memories like a goldfish when it comes to gas, car sizes started growing again. When it happened again a few times during the 2010s and of course the big one during the pandemic and now cars had gotten more efficient in terms of their engine engineering and in terms of the prevalence of things like electric cars and hybrid units.
So that mid-sized CUV Is able to get better mile per gallon age or similar mile per gallon age to what someone driving around in a compact in 2007 might have gotten.
There's also a lot of unintended consequences from safety and computer designed aerodynamic models that have led to cars being shaped a very specific way with very thick A, B and C pillars which make the car door openings smaller which make the taller CUV options a little more appealing as well.
Also, just as an aside, I'm sure full-sized trucks wreck the curve because those have been getting bigger and bigger and bigger and it's kind of nuts how big they are and how, despite that, they're also less practical as work vehicles than ever before. Genuinely kind of stupid.
Yea this looks misleading as fuck. Weight graph starts at 3000lbs too. Also no mention of the cars polluting the nearby environment a lot less despite getting heavier. And why measure acceleration instead of measuring brake distance, or pedestrian survivability, or crashes per million miles etc.
"A lot less" is something I'd like to have a source for, especially as the switch to SUVs and trucks is done to a large part to evade the much stricter emission norms for officially classified "cars". Emissions could be a lot lower if the SUV loophole for many of the car norms had not been invented.
i think this is about toxic gases emissions vs CO2 emissions. while CO2 emissions have probably gone up somewhat (my guesstimate is +30% since 1970), the toxic gas emissions have almost completely gone to zero. there was a whole lot more toxic gases around in the 20th century industry and machinery, you had to cough constantly, we just don't remember it because it's comparatively clean now.
Toxic emissions have absolutely not gone down to zero. High respiration activities next to a highway still get you a solid dose of toxic stuff. Yes, it would be much worse with 1970s vehicles but it would be much better if the majority of vehicles sold today would not be able to use the regulatory SUV/truck loophole to be able to pollute more. This loophole is not just about CO2.
I witnessed myself what a huge impact on air quality it had on a street to see heavy two lane traffic gone and that had nothing to do with CO2 and it was even without that loophole you have in the US.
No but I have a nose and lungs and I can smell the difference next to roads with jammed heavy traffic, it ain't the CO2 and I am not simply imagining pollutants.
"almost completely zero toxic emissions" is a fairy tale. Respiratory issues remain to be a bigger issue in cities for a reason.
Toxic emissions from road traffic remain as major health problem in the US: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2107402118 (not the newest data but you are not claiming that in the 10 years since, everything has changed ro the beeter,are you?), even if progress has been made. I can't wait to see those dirty combudtion engines (no matter how much you purify the exhaust) vanish from the streets. In Europe we are on the way at least even if China will ve likely faster
well sounds to me like deaths from toxic emissions sank by roughly 60% from 2008 to 2017. it's not "almost down to zero" in that time frame but a lot has happened between 1960 and 2008 too.
SUVs are still popular and large trucks are just awful. It's a big problem in this country. But most of the cars sold aren't actual SUVs. They're CUVs. They're built on car chassis. They are heavier, which means they get worse fuel economy than their car equivalent. And they're less aerodynamic, which means they get less fuel economy than their car equivalent. And that weight means they also erode their tires faster, which of course is just worse for the environment as well as well as their brakes and other components.
That said, the difference in size compared to their sedan equivalent, or even hatchback, five-door equivalent, is not tremendous. Even efficiency, the loss is usually maybe like a couple of miles per gallon on the tests. Though I imagine if you try to hyper mile and you know baby is a throttle you can get more out of the car-shaped vehicle than you can the fake SUV/CUV shaped vehicle.
Pedestrian safety, especially for children, is however much worse, luckily no one cares about that in safety tests in the US. In Europe you get downgraded for it.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.
Definitely agreed on weight.
The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that's like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times
It is certainly cause for concern when heavier and larger moving objects that are able to reach high speeds quicker are being controlled by increasingly more irresponsible people.
Something that’s twice the weight with twice the horsepower only accelerates the same speed. Double the weight and keep the horsepower and you’ll go half as fast.
The graphs aren’t entirely 100% related to each other. The twice as fast acceleration average isn’t because of the double horsepower, that only works if the weight also isn’t doubles.
EVs have massive torque from zero speed. Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque. A Model Y is both heavy and makes 500ftlbs torque immediately.
Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque.
I don't really disagree with your earlier comment, and I agree that the shape of the torque curve matters a lot when it comes to the practicalities and experience of driving a vehicle, but, uhh, what you said here is just completely wrong.
Force and speed (torque and RPM) are both components of power (horsepower is torque * RPM / 5253). Saying that the RPM, or time component, of that equation doesn't matter is the same as saying it wouldn't matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 years for a crane to lift a load at a construction site, since its lifting the same weight either way.
To put it another way, with a long enough lever I can exert enough force to start a passenger train rolling down the tracks with just my own arms (and in fact, people do something similar using compound levers). But what that doesn't let me do is move a passenger train at 200 MPH like high speed rail lines do. There is no arrangement of gears or mechanical linkages that will let a single human being power a high speed rail line like that, the human body does not have enough power output.
The acceleration of Teslas is one reason they have the highest crash rate of any brand. Fucking stupid to give the public more horsepower than a 70s formula one car.
For most cars, higher acceleration I don't think is an issue. However things like the Hummer EV weigh 9,000 pounds and goes from 0-60mph in a smidge over 3 seconds. The amount of damage that can do is insane
I don't know if these graphs, again, I don't know what the source is, it's not really provided, but I don't think they're meant to make a specific judgment one way or another.
Well, except the note that cars have gotten bigger while also becoming more efficient.
I would've expected the ratio to actually shift the other way, where the wheelbase represents a larger percentage of the overall length/width of the vehicle, because American fuel economy regulations actually rewarded vehicles for having larger wheelbases. This killed small cars like the Honda Fit and small trucks like the Ford Ranger.
Also, it seems to be much easier to park vehicles whose front wheels are as far forward as possible. The greater the ratio of wheelbase to overall dimensions, the easier it is to maneuver, and anecdotally it seems easier to maneuver modern cars than cars from 25 years ago.
About double. American cars tend to be bigger so 5m long and 2m wide is probably a fair approximation. Hell, even in Europe the average car is probably something like 4,5m by 1,7m
One story is engineering success. The engineers squeeze out so much more performance per amount of gasoline burned, that the cost of extra weight from a fuel economy standard is significantly less than 25 or 50 years ago. If you chart the fuel efficiency over the same time period, the fleet average fuel economy went from 20 to 34 mpg, even as vehicles were getting more powerful and heavier. A 2026 Camry Hybrid has a 232 hp drivetrain (184 hp from the gasoline engine) that manages to push 3700 lbs 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Those are sports car stats from the 80's, and yet the modern Camry manages to get 44 miles per gallon in fuel economy. Charting emissions shows an even more pronounced improvement.
Similarly, the rise of electric vehicles has increased the average vehicle weight. Batteries are heavy, and the whole chassis needs to accommodate that.
Another story is unintended consequences from dumb regulations. The fuel economy standards were updated for the 2011 model year to allow a sliding scale where vehicles with larger footprints were allowed to be less fuel efficient. Naturally, smaller vehicles were disincentivized, and compact trucks and compact cars all but disappeared. These regs need to be updated, and we'll see the return of smaller vehicles for those of us who prefer them.
And another story is shifting consumer preferences. For a whole bunch of reasons, Americans have expressed a preference for taller and taller vehicles, where crossover SUVs are much more common than the old wagons, the relative balance of sedans versus SUVs has shifted entirely in favor of SUVs.
America needs to make its own KEI car standard. at least they wouldnt be as dangerous for pedestrians, or as disastrous for the environment as the fucking rolling city blocks we have now.
Especially since we're never gonna get a functional public transit system.
I live in Japan and drive a kei van. It's already scary going 100 on the expressway with the lightness of the vehicle and the wind. The acceleration time is also quite slow compared to many vehicles (the limit is 660cc engine size iirc). I don't think it would sell without first making the US highway system safer in general. The highest speed limit in Japan is 120 and many us states are much higher
It's an arms race. I prefer a bicycle, but am I really insane enough to ride it in between these tanks? My wife is afraid in traffic, she would never want to get a small car, just because of her safety concerns.
The only thing stopping this madness is regulations.
My wife and I purchased a new Japanese car last year. Nobody makes small cars anymore, except maybe Suzuki with the Swift? Our small cheap car is bigger than we had anticipated. Good car though.
When I get in some of the newer SUVs it feels like driving a boat.
Real suburbs were small towns connected to the city with passenger rail. They killed your public transport and you think you don't have access because you don't live in the city. Ha! That's what oil propaganda does to a motherfucker.
This actually can explain a lot of it. Obesity epidemic in US is getting so bad that people need actual trucks to move them. A 300kg person will not be able to drive a sedan.
How would you feel about a more-compact car designed around an extra large human space? Big seats and high ceilings inside for you and your large kids, so much legroom your humorously tiny spouse has to drive their own tiny car. But with less extraneous bulk on the outside, so you can see when you're running over the neighbors kids. Wouldn't wanna miss
The point being made is that a lot of that 'extraneous bulk' is actually crumple zones and structure. You can't eliminate it without losing crash protection, and that includes pedestrian crash ratings.
I was with you until pedestrian. Lots of dead pedestrians found themselves the one doing the crumpling. And more so because it's so much harder to see them. I've had several times when it's only because I leaned way forward and back to check that I suddenly realized there's been someone walking or scooting or biking right along with my left pillar, thinking I could see them coming out into the crosswalk/intersection. (And I always back into parking places because I can see with the rear camera much better than down the front hood.)
It's a 50-50. I believe it's mostly lower hoods that improve pedestrian safety, not necessarily just shorter hoods.
European compliant cars have a bunch of requirements for pedestrian collisions, particularly trying to improve head safety - the bonnet dents downwards, rather than either the bonnet being solid or the head hitting the windscreen.
My Honda Odyssey hood curves down, but then it seems to stick out farther than I can see over the curve. This may also be a "design for a big man driver" problem because my seatbelt cuts across my throat at its lowest adjustment and the airbag will probably kill me. But we needed a vehicle that could take a passenger in a power wheelchair plus two kids.
I think a big chunk of that has to do with how cars are designed today though. Some of it is the unintended consequences of safety regulations, which frankly, don't get me wrong, I'm pro strong safety regulations, but it does mean that cars have way thicker pillars in order to accommodate better crash safety and being able to be flipped upside down.
This also leads to cars having this sort of sitting in a bathtub kind of feel. Things do feel a little tighter inside as well and the window openings are smaller.
It's kind of funny because I remember when I started driving just an observation from like how cars changed like There definitely was a trend from the 90s to the 2000s where car interiors got a lot more roomy for the size and you had more glass better window to look out of well also getting better safety ratings compared to the 90s
I do wonder how much of it is the just unintended result of having to design a car around certain engineering specifications and how much of it is also a way for the car companies to upsell people to the CUV variant of that model. Because it is just wild how small car door openings can be these days and as a result how much of a pain in the butt it can be to put a kid in the car seat compared to what would have been a much smaller car 20 years ago.
Right-sizing cars is the cheapest, most rational option for space and public money. There is no reason not to do it other than wasting precious public and private resources into building more parking spots and repairing road infrastructures more often.
I had a Fiesta, was a smaller commuter car compared to the rest of the USA. Save for a few technical issues, it was great. The only reason I would see a need for a larger one is if it's moving a large family but that's not the case with SUVs and trucks I see around me. There might be another passenger but it's one person in a massive vehicle and often times they drive them like crap.
Definitely notice a difference since buying the car I currently drive back in 2012. In my state around 70% of vehicles on the road are trucks or SUVs, while I'm out here driving a car that only weighs around 2500lbs.
Kinda worried about what would happen if I ever got in an accident, don't know if I would fare very well against the majority of vehicles sharing the road with me. Luckily I only live a couple miles from my work, so I'm not in my car very often.
Sedans have stricter crash safety standards than big trucks. The whole reason why Detroit pushes large trucks is the safety loopholes and the myth that a heavier, taller vehicle is somehow safer.
We definitely need weight limits in public roads and special licences for truck drivers. Fucking idiots don't understand braking distances increase with weight.
I work in a hospital and park in a big parking garage. You'll see brand new trucks with like 3 different back up cams take up 2 spaces because they still can't park. Lady, you are a tiny nurse and I can tell you've never towed anything or need to haul around shit in your tiny truck bed. Why have a truck in the first place?
I actually regularly move large shit around town...... I still don't have a giant truck. We just have a small trailer that we tow with my wife's Nissan Altima. Unless you actually have to tow a boat around or something modern trucks are fairly useless, they all have tiny beds nowadays.
Lady, you are a tiny nurse and I can tell you’ve never towed anything or need to haul around shit in your tiny truck bed.
So this is universal. My hospital parking lot was built in the mid 70s and we used to have a small section for "oversized vehicles", now tiny nurses in massive trucks have taken over. They think they are safer, but in Canada, they are fucking dangerous in snow and ice.
I currently live in the south where it only really ices over like once every two or three years. Every time it happens there are giant trucks who think that they can drive as crazy as they usually do because their truck is 4x4.
Like yeah..... You're less likely to get stuck, but it doesn't help you stop at all. It makes every intersection look like a demolition derby. I usually just call in on those days.
yeah I have a minivan and there was this time my father in law needed to move a fridge that would not fit in his truck without the gate down and his sons suv with the hatch closed. fit in the minivan though and with better gas mileage.
Yeah, minivans are underrated. I would get a minivan or a Econoline van before I would buy one of the new trucks. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper anyways. I can't believe how much money people are spending on trucks, half of them are like 1/4 - 1/3 of the cost of a decent home.
all vehicles are going up. I swear I saw the aptera, which is an eclosed motorcycle, now expecting to be the price of a new minivan from years ago. Originally they were targeting like 15k.
I'll never understand why minivans became so uncool when SUVs were able to rise. Now you could make the argument of the soccer mom and mom stereotype of the minivan making it deeply uncool to people who didn't just want to be known as parents. But then that same stereotype is tied to SUVs.
Many van seat people way more comfortably. The sliding door makes getting into the back seat way more practical. The visibility from out the windows is nice. And on the ones where you can either take out or fully stow the seats, you essentially have the capacity of a truck. They aren't the ideal solution for everyone's lifestyle, but like, if you need a big vehicle to haul the kids around and to, you know, bring stuff back from the store that are big, well, a minivan will do the job better.
their one thing they do not do well is offroad. they have low clearance and not super great turn radius. no one living in a city or suburb hough by and large needs that capability in the slightest.
They need a truck to cosplay as a rugged individualistic person.
Though it makes no sense how they are rugged or individualistic when they are driving a mass produced truck made by a large corporation bailed out by the government several times in the last few decades.
The size of vehicles around me in the US is absurd. I live in a pretty white & republican area, with a mix of rednecks in their compensators and temporarily embarassed billionaires in their 2-3 ton $100K luxury grocery getters.
I'm a big guy and I drive an old Mazda3 sedan that we've had for almost almost a decade and a half. It's what some Europeans might call a family car. It has fun driving dynamics which I care about and enjoy, though that seems to put me in a tiny minority. It's even practical enough that I have hauled home 8-foot lumber dozens of times with the back seats folded down, because I actually build shit unlike most of the truck drivers.
It sucks knowing all the SUVs with their rushed & distracted drivers weigh 50% more than my vehicle, sure. But the pickup trucks have become caricatures of themselves. I'm sure most folks in this community have seen the charts showing how terrible the forward-looking visibility is in modern pickups versus everything from older trucks to heavy construction equipment. It's like the number one feature driving sales is how fucking high off the ground they can get the hood/bonnet.
It's like driving around mobile buildings. The front grilles of these vehicles are just a vertical wall. And even for how large and high the entire bodies of these vehicles are, the new look seems to be having the hood/bonnet in the front sitting even higher than the edges of the bed in the back. I might think that automakers were in competition to see who could get the most customer's children run over, but I am all too familiar with our garbage culture where everything is a competition and every other person must fall on a spectrum somewhere between rival and mortal enemy.
132 Comments
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 30d
That’s vehicles classified as “light duty” — pickup trucks.
All other vehicle classes are down in curb weight over that same period.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 30d
Yeah, show us the average numbers for all vehicles used for private personal transport then.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 30d
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/average-car-weight.html
You know, eventually you’ll need to learn how to use a search provider on your own.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 30d
Ah, ad hominem. Always nice.
Your quote does not answer my question, but the source you linked to actually did.
Average vehicle weight by year
2014: 4060 pounds
2024: 4419 pounds
Jiral@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30d
grue@lemmy.world MOD · 0 pts · 30d
Watch it. The only reason your comment didn't get removed is that @Jiral found your link useful.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 30d
soft
snowykitty@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 30d
But those searches don't tell me what I want to hear!
Venator@lemmy.nz · 4 pts · 28d
Another issue is that more people are buying "light duty" vehicles...
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 28d
It’s infuriating. The number of trucks with their ass hanging out of driveways and parking spots is a legitimate public safety emergency.
Venator@lemmy.nz · 3 pts · 28d
And it's probably worse than that graph seems to show... Since people are moving to a larger vehicle class mostly due to marketing rather than use case...
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org · 24 pts · 30d
US-americans will get a stroke
nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 30d
I guess that will lessen the number of insanely sized cars and drivers then…
massive_bereavement@fedia.io · 19 pts · 30d
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride!
Hominine@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 30d
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 30d
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!
trebach@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 29d
Top of the line in utility sports!
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 30d
Fat people want big cars. You can overlay these graphs.
rollerbang@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 30d
This would be interesting to see with height as well.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30d
Ride height? Or height of the people?
If the former, that tracks. If you're heavy-set, getting in an out of a sedan (for example) is just plain uncomfortable. Meanwhile, having a seat you can just swing your hips into, or even climb up into, probably works a lot better.
rollerbang@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30d
Yeah, meant people's height.
JamesTBagg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 30d
Anecdotal but I'm 6'1", vehicles like the Miata or BRZ or Tacomas sometimes make me wish I was shorter... and didn't have chronic nerve issues in my legs that make small cars painful to sit in
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 30d
I'm 6'3" and only drive small cars. The form fit the industry uses is the same from trucks to hatchbacks, but fat people prefer taller SUVs and trucks for entry/exit.
JamesTBagg@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 30d
No, there is significantly less leg room in lower vehicles, which always have higher floors. I can go from comfy in a Tundra to knees in my chest in a Tacoma.
testaccount789@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 30d
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
grue@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 30d
There is a plausible causal relationship between these two measurements, though. Not proven (at least, not by anything @SaveTheTuaHawk wrote), but plausible.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 30d
Fat people are more comfortable in taller/wider vehicles. Ever watch a fat dude get out of a sports car? hilarious.
antianarchist@sopuli.xyz · 16 pts · 30d
Then goes ahead and shows a change from 48.9 to 51.8
Whoever made those charts wanted to make the change look bad, no matter what.
Where is the chart of the average heavy injuries per passenger? Or the average energy efficiency of engines?
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 30d
The fact that you phrased this so specifically to not mention the corresponding increased danger to other road users and pedestrians, suggests you’re a shill pushing industry talking points.
antianarchist@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 30d
Maybe I am just Mr. Ford
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 29d
to be somewhat fair to the auto industry pedestrian habbits probably changed, but they probably changed to be more afraid of cars.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 30d
The graphs are terrible but come on, a 10% increase in weight in 10 years, doesn't sound bad to you? Especially when the base value was anything but low to begin with? And an increased space consumption of 6% is a huge additional space consumption in absolute numbers, given the huge numbers of cars.
Atomic@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 30d
The weight gain could theoretically be explained by the simple fact that electric vehicles are heavier than their combustion counterpart.
Though I'm well aware these are american cars so probably just means more bigger pickup trucks that will never ever be used to actually pick things up.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 30d
Hardly, the EV adoption rate in the US is pretty poor and even if we ignore that, the share of EVs among existing vehicles on the road is way to small to be the dominating factor for the increase in weight. That said, yes, EVs will lead to an increase in weight, a necessary evil. However, that can be compensated by downscaling vehicles to actual needs. People are currently buying cars far larger than what they actually need for partly irrational and partly egoistic reasons (increasing threats to life and well being towards others in the hope to slightly decrease it towards oneself).
Atomic@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 30d
The graphs doesnt say "cars on the road" it says "new vehicles". As in, new vehicles sold. Today. Are heavier than new vehicles sold, 5 years ago.
Tja@programming.dev · 3 pts · 30d
Or plug in hybrids. Even a 20kwh battery is quite hefty.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 30d
Yeah, electric versions of American monstrosities are part of the same problem and completely offsets any EV benefit. They just shouldn't exist.
inverted_deflector@startrek.website · 6 pts · 29d
When it comes to covering pavement, it also starts at like 2008. Which is funny because I can guarantee you just from being around them that cars from the 70s were gigantic. Long hoods, big old protruding trunks.
I imagine the reason why the change is so small and why it's not quite a linear progression. There is that initial decrease again immediately post recession is just the shift in what's available for stock in the US.
The height of the SUV boom pre-recession, those cars were big. Like, we have CUVs now. Those are built on car chassis, which means they are about as long as a car is, about as wide as the car that they're based off of. For example, a Mazda CX6 is just a Mazda 6, but like, fatter. The popular SUVs of the late 2000s were like actually full-on SUVs built on heavy truck platforms. So we had things like the Hummer and of course the Escalade of the day which were gargantuan. At the same time, because those vehicles got like single digit miles per gallon, people tended to also have commuter cars, which were also a lot cheaper back then. We're talking like low 10,000s or less.
Post-recession though, like we did start seeing a lot more small cars again. For example Chevy brought in the Aveo and eventually the beat in the spark, Honda Fitts became bigger in terms of popularity, Ford brought over the Fiesta. And then gas went down again and because Americans have memories like a goldfish when it comes to gas, car sizes started growing again. When it happened again a few times during the 2010s and of course the big one during the pandemic and now cars had gotten more efficient in terms of their engine engineering and in terms of the prevalence of things like electric cars and hybrid units.
So that mid-sized CUV Is able to get better mile per gallon age or similar mile per gallon age to what someone driving around in a compact in 2007 might have gotten.
There's also a lot of unintended consequences from safety and computer designed aerodynamic models that have led to cars being shaped a very specific way with very thick A, B and C pillars which make the car door openings smaller which make the taller CUV options a little more appealing as well.
Also, just as an aside, I'm sure full-sized trucks wreck the curve because those have been getting bigger and bigger and bigger and it's kind of nuts how big they are and how, despite that, they're also less practical as work vehicles than ever before. Genuinely kind of stupid.
absquatulate@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 30d
Yea this looks misleading as fuck. Weight graph starts at 3000lbs too. Also no mention of the cars polluting the nearby environment a lot less despite getting heavier. And why measure acceleration instead of measuring brake distance, or pedestrian survivability, or crashes per million miles etc.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 30d
"A lot less" is something I'd like to have a source for, especially as the switch to SUVs and trucks is done to a large part to evade the much stricter emission norms for officially classified "cars". Emissions could be a lot lower if the SUV loophole for many of the car norms had not been invented.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 3 pts · 30d
i think this is about toxic gases emissions vs CO2 emissions. while CO2 emissions have probably gone up somewhat (my guesstimate is +30% since 1970), the toxic gas emissions have almost completely gone to zero. there was a whole lot more toxic gases around in the 20th century industry and machinery, you had to cough constantly, we just don't remember it because it's comparatively clean now.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 30d
Toxic emissions have absolutely not gone down to zero. High respiration activities next to a highway still get you a solid dose of toxic stuff. Yes, it would be much worse with 1970s vehicles but it would be much better if the majority of vehicles sold today would not be able to use the regulatory SUV/truck loophole to be able to pollute more. This loophole is not just about CO2.
I witnessed myself what a huge impact on air quality it had on a street to see heavy two lane traffic gone and that had nothing to do with CO2 and it was even without that loophole you have in the US.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 1 pts · 30d
do you have any numbers how much toxic emission there is today compared to 1970?
Jiral@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 29d
No but I have a nose and lungs and I can smell the difference next to roads with jammed heavy traffic, it ain't the CO2 and I am not simply imagining pollutants.
"almost completely zero toxic emissions" is a fairy tale. Respiratory issues remain to be a bigger issue in cities for a reason.
Toxic emissions from road traffic remain as major health problem in the US: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2107402118 (not the newest data but you are not claiming that in the 10 years since, everything has changed ro the beeter,are you?), even if progress has been made. I can't wait to see those dirty combudtion engines (no matter how much you purify the exhaust) vanish from the streets. In Europe we are on the way at least even if China will ve likely faster
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 1 pts · 29d
well sounds to me like deaths from toxic emissions sank by roughly 60% from 2008 to 2017. it's not "almost down to zero" in that time frame but a lot has happened between 1960 and 2008 too.
inverted_deflector@startrek.website · 3 pts · 29d
SUVs are still popular and large trucks are just awful. It's a big problem in this country. But most of the cars sold aren't actual SUVs. They're CUVs. They're built on car chassis. They are heavier, which means they get worse fuel economy than their car equivalent. And they're less aerodynamic, which means they get less fuel economy than their car equivalent. And that weight means they also erode their tires faster, which of course is just worse for the environment as well as well as their brakes and other components.
That said, the difference in size compared to their sedan equivalent, or even hatchback, five-door equivalent, is not tremendous. Even efficiency, the loss is usually maybe like a couple of miles per gallon on the tests. Though I imagine if you try to hyper mile and you know baby is a throttle you can get more out of the car-shaped vehicle than you can the fake SUV/CUV shaped vehicle.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 29d
Pedestrian safety, especially for children, is however much worse, luckily no one cares about that in safety tests in the US. In Europe you get downgraded for it.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 4 pts · 30d
yeah axes should start at zero.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 13 pts · 31d
I'm not sure it's reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.
Definitely agreed on weight.
The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that's like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.
destructdisc@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 31d
It is certainly cause for concern when heavier and larger moving objects that are able to reach high speeds quicker are being controlled by increasingly more irresponsible people.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 30d
This is why there is an increase in SUVs crashing through shops when grandpa hits the wrong pedal.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 29d
0-20 times and 0-60 times are not necessarily closely correlated.
Could argue that's due to a reduction in manual vehicles, or a reduction in driver competence / medical status.
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 30d
Something that’s twice the weight with twice the horsepower only accelerates the same speed. Double the weight and keep the horsepower and you’ll go half as fast.
The graphs aren’t entirely 100% related to each other. The twice as fast acceleration average isn’t because of the double horsepower, that only works if the weight also isn’t doubles.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 30d
EVs have massive torque from zero speed. Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque. A Model Y is both heavy and makes 500ftlbs torque immediately.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 30d
I don't really disagree with your earlier comment, and I agree that the shape of the torque curve matters a lot when it comes to the practicalities and experience of driving a vehicle, but, uhh, what you said here is just completely wrong.
Force and speed (torque and RPM) are both components of power (horsepower is torque * RPM / 5253). Saying that the RPM, or time component, of that equation doesn't matter is the same as saying it wouldn't matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 years for a crane to lift a load at a construction site, since its lifting the same weight either way.
To put it another way, with a long enough lever I can exert enough force to start a passenger train rolling down the tracks with just my own arms (and in fact, people do something similar using compound levers). But what that doesn't let me do is move a passenger train at 200 MPH like high speed rail lines do. There is no arrangement of gears or mechanical linkages that will let a single human being power a high speed rail line like that, the human body does not have enough power output.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 29d
Both are very limited comparability especially between drive types.
Torque was normally measured ahead of the gearbox and that introduces a whole pile of extra messiness.
Power is relevant once you're into higher-speed regimes e.g. merging onto a fast road, overtaking, and climbing hills (especially if towing).
Force-speed or acceleration-speed curves would be nice.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 30d
The acceleration of Teslas is one reason they have the highest crash rate of any brand. Fucking stupid to give the public more horsepower than a 70s formula one car.
grue@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 30d
I want to see that chart (a) starting at 0 sq. ft., and (b) going all the way back to the '50s.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 29d
Yeah, American cars have had a reputation as 'land yachts' for a long time.
Duallight@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 30d
For most cars, higher acceleration I don't think is an issue. However things like the Hummer EV weigh 9,000 pounds and goes from 0-60mph in a smidge over 3 seconds. The amount of damage that can do is insane
inverted_deflector@startrek.website · 1 pts · 29d
I don't know if these graphs, again, I don't know what the source is, it's not really provided, but I don't think they're meant to make a specific judgment one way or another.
Well, except the note that cars have gotten bigger while also becoming more efficient.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 29d
It explicitly says "on this chart, down is worse".
zergtoshi@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 30d
The 5 square meters are no accurate display of the pavement covered by those cars, because they're much longer than just their wheelbase.
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 29d
Has the average ratio changed over time?
I would've expected the ratio to actually shift the other way, where the wheelbase represents a larger percentage of the overall length/width of the vehicle, because American fuel economy regulations actually rewarded vehicles for having larger wheelbases. This killed small cars like the Honda Fit and small trucks like the Ford Ranger.
Also, it seems to be much easier to park vehicles whose front wheels are as far forward as possible. The greater the ratio of wheelbase to overall dimensions, the easier it is to maneuver, and anecdotally it seems easier to maneuver modern cars than cars from 25 years ago.
Tja@programming.dev · 4 pts · 30d
About double. American cars tend to be bigger so 5m long and 2m wide is probably a fair approximation. Hell, even in Europe the average car is probably something like 4,5m by 1,7m
cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 30d
The true measure is dick to floor.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 29d
After swimming or before?
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 12 pts · 30d
Just the empty cars and not with an average American inside, right?
sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 29d
There are a few different stories going on here.
One story is engineering success. The engineers squeeze out so much more performance per amount of gasoline burned, that the cost of extra weight from a fuel economy standard is significantly less than 25 or 50 years ago. If you chart the fuel efficiency over the same time period, the fleet average fuel economy went from 20 to 34 mpg, even as vehicles were getting more powerful and heavier. A 2026 Camry Hybrid has a 232 hp drivetrain (184 hp from the gasoline engine) that manages to push 3700 lbs 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Those are sports car stats from the 80's, and yet the modern Camry manages to get 44 miles per gallon in fuel economy. Charting emissions shows an even more pronounced improvement.
Similarly, the rise of electric vehicles has increased the average vehicle weight. Batteries are heavy, and the whole chassis needs to accommodate that.
Another story is unintended consequences from dumb regulations. The fuel economy standards were updated for the 2011 model year to allow a sliding scale where vehicles with larger footprints were allowed to be less fuel efficient. Naturally, smaller vehicles were disincentivized, and compact trucks and compact cars all but disappeared. These regs need to be updated, and we'll see the return of smaller vehicles for those of us who prefer them.
And another story is shifting consumer preferences. For a whole bunch of reasons, Americans have expressed a preference for taller and taller vehicles, where crossover SUVs are much more common than the old wagons, the relative balance of sedans versus SUVs has shifted entirely in favor of SUVs.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 30d
Is there a metric version?
destructdisc@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 30d
It's 'Merica, so...no
Jiral@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 30d
'Merica is more metric than even USians are ready to admit.
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 30d
I can convert it to bananas for you if that helps
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 30d
America needs to make its own KEI car standard. at least they wouldnt be as dangerous for pedestrians, or as disastrous for the environment as the fucking rolling city blocks we have now.
Especially since we're never gonna get a functional public transit system.
Taldan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 30d
I'd settle for at least legalizing Kei trucks across the country
It's beyond frustrating that I can't even drive my own Kei truck on public roads where I live
AeonFelis@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 29d
No can do. That would be one letter away from legalizing DEI.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 30d
I thought kei cars/trucks/etc were legal if they were over 25years old due to antique car laws?
JordanZ@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 30d
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 29d
I wonder if also legalizing 4 wheelers on public roads would improve the odds of it passing
farmgineer@nord.pub · 1 pts · 28d
I live in Japan and drive a kei van. It's already scary going 100 on the expressway with the lightness of the vehicle and the wind. The acceleration time is also quite slow compared to many vehicles (the limit is 660cc engine size iirc). I don't think it would sell without first making the US highway system safer in general. The highest speed limit in Japan is 120 and many us states are much higher
Katana314@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 30d
One of the sad bits of this is that the move to EVs, while a positive in many ways, also makes our cars even heavier for the battery.
benjirenji@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 30d
It's an arms race. I prefer a bicycle, but am I really insane enough to ride it in between these tanks? My wife is afraid in traffic, she would never want to get a small car, just because of her safety concerns.
The only thing stopping this madness is regulations.
UnfairUtan@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 30d
Relevant watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm4de6-eTg
ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz · 6 pts · 30d
My wife and I purchased a new Japanese car last year. Nobody makes small cars anymore, except maybe Suzuki with the Swift? Our small cheap car is bigger than we had anticipated. Good car though.
When I get in some of the newer SUVs it feels like driving a boat.
coredev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 29d
No they do make small cars (maybe just a bit bigger than 30 years ago for saftey). They might just not be sold in the country where you live.
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com · 5 pts · 30d
Citation link needed
ben_dover@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 30d
some people must have really tiny weiners, so much over-compensation...
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 30d
Women make more than 60% of all car buying decisions
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · -1 pts · 30d
I don't think choosing color counts as 60%.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 30d
I’m a big dude, I like having big cars. Nothing wrong with a personal taste.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 30d
If your vehicle is so large it makes you a danger to those around you, it is no longer simply a matter of personal taste.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 30d
Kind of a loaded question, a soccer mom with 4 kids and drives a mini van would destroy a Honda civic
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 30d
Then ride a fucking bus or train then. Those are the top of the food chain.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 30d
Not options where we live, not everyone lives in a concrete jungle
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 3 pts · 29d
Real suburbs were small towns connected to the city with passenger rail. They killed your public transport and you think you don't have access because you don't live in the city. Ha! That's what oil propaganda does to a motherfucker.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 30d
This actually can explain a lot of it. Obesity epidemic in US is getting so bad that people need actual trucks to move them. A 300kg person will not be able to drive a sedan.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 30d
How would you feel about a more-compact car designed around an extra large human space? Big seats and high ceilings inside for you and your large kids, so much legroom your humorously tiny spouse has to drive their own tiny car. But with less extraneous bulk on the outside, so you can see when you're running over the neighbors kids. Wouldn't wanna miss
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 29d
The point being made is that a lot of that 'extraneous bulk' is actually crumple zones and structure. You can't eliminate it without losing crash protection, and that includes pedestrian crash ratings.
Exception rear trays.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 29d
I was with you until pedestrian. Lots of dead pedestrians found themselves the one doing the crumpling. And more so because it's so much harder to see them. I've had several times when it's only because I leaned way forward and back to check that I suddenly realized there's been someone walking or scooting or biking right along with my left pillar, thinking I could see them coming out into the crosswalk/intersection. (And I always back into parking places because I can see with the rear camera much better than down the front hood.)
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 28d
It's a 50-50. I believe it's mostly lower hoods that improve pedestrian safety, not necessarily just shorter hoods.
European compliant cars have a bunch of requirements for pedestrian collisions, particularly trying to improve head safety - the bonnet dents downwards, rather than either the bonnet being solid or the head hitting the windscreen.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 28d
My Honda Odyssey hood curves down, but then it seems to stick out farther than I can see over the curve. This may also be a "design for a big man driver" problem because my seatbelt cuts across my throat at its lowest adjustment and the airbag will probably kill me. But we needed a vehicle that could take a passenger in a power wheelchair plus two kids.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 28d
An extra seat cushion can help lift you up; my mum used to drive that way.
I assume your seat is fully up already?
inverted_deflector@startrek.website · 2 pts · 29d
I think a big chunk of that has to do with how cars are designed today though. Some of it is the unintended consequences of safety regulations, which frankly, don't get me wrong, I'm pro strong safety regulations, but it does mean that cars have way thicker pillars in order to accommodate better crash safety and being able to be flipped upside down.
This also leads to cars having this sort of sitting in a bathtub kind of feel. Things do feel a little tighter inside as well and the window openings are smaller.
It's kind of funny because I remember when I started driving just an observation from like how cars changed like There definitely was a trend from the 90s to the 2000s where car interiors got a lot more roomy for the size and you had more glass better window to look out of well also getting better safety ratings compared to the 90s
I do wonder how much of it is the just unintended result of having to design a car around certain engineering specifications and how much of it is also a way for the car companies to upsell people to the CUV variant of that model. Because it is just wild how small car door openings can be these days and as a result how much of a pain in the butt it can be to put a kid in the car seat compared to what would have been a much smaller car 20 years ago.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 29d
Can confirm, I have an 05 Camry and longer with bigger doors then the new ones
Folstar@lemmus.org · 5 pts · 30d
Chart has clearly labeled x and y axis in addition to writing the numbers directly on the line.
Trogs: this is misleading as fuck!
pilaz@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 29d
Right-sizing cars is the cheapest, most rational option for space and public money. There is no reason not to do it other than wasting precious public and private resources into building more parking spots and repairing road infrastructures more often.
Racoonwithbenefits@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 30d
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 30d
I had a Fiesta, was a smaller commuter car compared to the rest of the USA. Save for a few technical issues, it was great. The only reason I would see a need for a larger one is if it's moving a large family but that's not the case with SUVs and trucks I see around me. There might be another passenger but it's one person in a massive vehicle and often times they drive them like crap.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 30d
Definitely notice a difference since buying the car I currently drive back in 2012. In my state around 70% of vehicles on the road are trucks or SUVs, while I'm out here driving a car that only weighs around 2500lbs.
Kinda worried about what would happen if I ever got in an accident, don't know if I would fare very well against the majority of vehicles sharing the road with me. Luckily I only live a couple miles from my work, so I'm not in my car very often.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 30d
Sedans have stricter crash safety standards than big trucks. The whole reason why Detroit pushes large trucks is the safety loopholes and the myth that a heavier, taller vehicle is somehow safer.
We definitely need weight limits in public roads and special licences for truck drivers. Fucking idiots don't understand braking distances increase with weight.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 30d
Oh I don't think they're any safer, I just think they are more dangerous to me and my car when I weighs 1/3rd as much as them.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 30d
yeah. I actually notice most when in a parking lot and they can't keep these boats in the lines.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 30d
I work in a hospital and park in a big parking garage. You'll see brand new trucks with like 3 different back up cams take up 2 spaces because they still can't park. Lady, you are a tiny nurse and I can tell you've never towed anything or need to haul around shit in your tiny truck bed. Why have a truck in the first place?
I actually regularly move large shit around town...... I still don't have a giant truck. We just have a small trailer that we tow with my wife's Nissan Altima. Unless you actually have to tow a boat around or something modern trucks are fairly useless, they all have tiny beds nowadays.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 30d
So this is universal. My hospital parking lot was built in the mid 70s and we used to have a small section for "oversized vehicles", now tiny nurses in massive trucks have taken over. They think they are safer, but in Canada, they are fucking dangerous in snow and ice.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 30d
I currently live in the south where it only really ices over like once every two or three years. Every time it happens there are giant trucks who think that they can drive as crazy as they usually do because their truck is 4x4.
Like yeah..... You're less likely to get stuck, but it doesn't help you stop at all. It makes every intersection look like a demolition derby. I usually just call in on those days.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 30d
yeah I have a minivan and there was this time my father in law needed to move a fridge that would not fit in his truck without the gate down and his sons suv with the hatch closed. fit in the minivan though and with better gas mileage.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 30d
Yeah, minivans are underrated. I would get a minivan or a Econoline van before I would buy one of the new trucks. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper anyways. I can't believe how much money people are spending on trucks, half of them are like 1/4 - 1/3 of the cost of a decent home.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 30d
all vehicles are going up. I swear I saw the aptera, which is an eclosed motorcycle, now expecting to be the price of a new minivan from years ago. Originally they were targeting like 15k.
inverted_deflector@startrek.website · 2 pts · 29d
I'll never understand why minivans became so uncool when SUVs were able to rise. Now you could make the argument of the soccer mom and mom stereotype of the minivan making it deeply uncool to people who didn't just want to be known as parents. But then that same stereotype is tied to SUVs.
Many van seat people way more comfortably. The sliding door makes getting into the back seat way more practical. The visibility from out the windows is nice. And on the ones where you can either take out or fully stow the seats, you essentially have the capacity of a truck. They aren't the ideal solution for everyone's lifestyle, but like, if you need a big vehicle to haul the kids around and to, you know, bring stuff back from the store that are big, well, a minivan will do the job better.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 29d
their one thing they do not do well is offroad. they have low clearance and not super great turn radius. no one living in a city or suburb hough by and large needs that capability in the slightest.
mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 29d
They need a truck to cosplay as a rugged individualistic person.
Though it makes no sense how they are rugged or individualistic when they are driving a mass produced truck made by a large corporation bailed out by the government several times in the last few decades.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 3 pts · 30d
interesting that it went down after 1975! what happened there?
DavidGA@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 30d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 2 pts · 30d
ooh thank you! makes sense yeah
Zink@programming.dev · 3 pts · 29d
The size of vehicles around me in the US is absurd. I live in a pretty white & republican area, with a mix of rednecks in their compensators and temporarily embarassed billionaires in their 2-3 ton $100K luxury grocery getters.
I'm a big guy and I drive an old Mazda3 sedan that we've had for almost almost a decade and a half. It's what some Europeans might call a family car. It has fun driving dynamics which I care about and enjoy, though that seems to put me in a tiny minority. It's even practical enough that I have hauled home 8-foot lumber dozens of times with the back seats folded down, because I actually build shit unlike most of the truck drivers.
It sucks knowing all the SUVs with their rushed & distracted drivers weigh 50% more than my vehicle, sure. But the pickup trucks have become caricatures of themselves. I'm sure most folks in this community have seen the charts showing how terrible the forward-looking visibility is in modern pickups versus everything from older trucks to heavy construction equipment. It's like the number one feature driving sales is how fucking high off the ground they can get the hood/bonnet.
It's like driving around mobile buildings. The front grilles of these vehicles are just a vertical wall. And even for how large and high the entire bodies of these vehicles are, the new look seems to be having the hood/bonnet in the front sitting even higher than the edges of the bed in the back. I might think that automakers were in competition to see who could get the most customer's children run over, but I am all too familiar with our garbage culture where everything is a competition and every other person must fall on a spectrum somewhere between rival and mortal enemy.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 29d
So does the average American.
5parky@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 29d
Meanwhile, the average parking stall is smaller than a 1978 Honda Civic.
yessikg@fedia.io · 2 pts · 26d
Good
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 29d
Did you change the first graph from weight to horsepower?
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 29d
Oil is too cheap
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 29d
In the US? Definitely.
Worldwide, slightly less so, but generally agreed.
More expensive oil won't help oversized EVs that much.
Large vehicles being expensive (both to buy and operate) also results in them becoming status symbols and then you get conspicuous consumption.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 29d
Look, give us come kind of civilized measurement. Like how many pygmy marmosets is that?
Griffus@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 30d
The US road network would take less wear and tear if people just switched to fucking Tiger tanks. At least the size and weight would be justified.