this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
268 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59429 readers
2799 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 98 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you losing a race if you sit at home and ignore it?

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 61 points 11 months ago (8 children)

Yeah hah, they are largely not even in the race.

They are still able to sell SUVs and basically at this point road legal monster trucks to a consumer base that still cannot grasp the concept that they could do 99% of what they use a car for with a sedan or hatchback, and that 1% of the time just rent a uhaul.... they could do that and save tons of money on gas with the greater fuel efficiency.

But American car owners are not exactly known for making rational decisions or being good drivers.

Much more important to flaunt status and lifestyle with a car.

Much more important.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The US government created this issue by exempting trucks and SUVs from fuel economy standards imposed on cars. That was the initial motivating factor behind car manufacturers pushing these large vehicles. Now it doesn’t upset car dealers that they can sell them for more money. Also, consumers feel safer in larger vehicles… largely because all the other vehicles on the road are now bigger and will do more harm to smaller vehicles. And, because it’s America, there is a special individualism factor baked in that prioritizes ego over rational sound decision making for the collective betterment of humanity and the environment.

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Gonna be reeeeallly fun when all the people who daily drive these things realize:

Wait a minute...

what even is peak oil ?

WHAT?! Gas prices are basically never going to go down again and just keep going higher?!

-===-

My guess is they will then all start complaining about the lack of public transportation, having spent their entire lives voting against funding it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Gas prices are basically never going to go down again

Unfortunately they will, and this is where a responsible government should step in to manage the market for our future, not just for our right now or oil companies profits.

The problem is that we’re not running out of oil reachable with current technology, fast enough. Peak oil is likely driven by reductions in demand, rather than supply, which pretty much guarantees lower prices. I would bet this will be a drawn out process with multiple cycles of demand decreases driving down prices, leading to shrinking oil supply industry leading to higher prices.

[–] KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

No, they will just keep complaining about how gas prices rose under [current Dem president] because the liberals hate freedom.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Buyers feel safer in a taller car, and car dealers are happy to sell this bullshit, even though SUVs are far more likely to roll over in a crash.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The reason people feel safer in a taller car is because of everyone else that has a tall car.

The driving american seems to use the mutually assured destruction doctrine from the cold war as a how to guide rather than a warning.

Worse, this is spreading ocer to Europe as well, though governments are starting to tax heavier vehicles more than normal vehicles, and that is fantastic.

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

One of the funniest things in the world to me is that I first saw an Aston Mini in I think the Bourne Identity in the late 00s. Or maybe it was some other Spy Thriller from around the same time?

Fast forward to today and there is now an American version, still called a Mini, that is just as big as every other SUV.

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/american-trucks-suvs-almost-bigger-world-war-ii-tanks/

These are not exactly precise, and I cannot believe I am actually citing the DailyMail, but you get the idea:

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We could fix that in an instant by removing the astronomical fuel subsidies, but any sitting President would be instantly crucified because for some reason gas prices are indicative of how good the President is doing.

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean I agree that this should be done, but the problem is that basically that would instantly destroy what is left of the entire economy.

People and shipping business are operating on razor thin margins right now, and if the price of gas basically doubled in a 3 to 9 month period from ending all of the subsidies to oil and gas companies, basically logistics firms would go out of business, large retailers with their own shipping would make up the slack by cutting standards and raising consumer prices, and a huge amount of peoples personal budgets would collapse as they can no longer afford their daily commute.

This of course was and is the plan of oil and gas companies. You cannot double the price a what is functionally a drug the economy is and has been addicted to for quite a long time (cheap gas) without, at this point, life threatening withdrawals.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

that would instantly destroy what is left of the entire economy.

Yeah I was being a bit ridiculous but we definitely should have a long-term plan for weaning America off of fuel subsidies. Maybe make an exception for commercial vehicles.

[–] vexikron@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I once outlined ideas for ways to phase this in, in a way that would possibly be politically workable.

Those days seem quaint now.

Itll never happen. All the corpos control such kinds of policies and related politicians so thoroughly, and the country is currently in a sort of cold civil war over such things as 'should an insane criminal who openly states he wants to be a dictator be president again, after leading a coup when he lost.'

We are the most dangerous banana republic in the world.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

You are an idiot if you think the consumer base wants larger vehicles. It is the manufacturers who want larger vehicles. Widen a car's stance by 3 inches and lengthen it by 6 inches, and it's suddenly in a class that allows higher emissions and lower economy.

Every manufacturer has killed off all of their subcompact options rather than even trying to meet the tightening standards for that class. The perverse incentives they have push them to build bigger.

Paradoxically, the only thing that is going to bring back efficient subcompacts is eliminating economy requirements on the smallest, most efficient class of car, rather than tightening them.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 11 months ago (24 children)

You are an idiot if you think the consumer base wants larger vehicles.

Look at Tesla 3/Y. The Y outsells the 3, despite being virtually identical except taller, and priced ~$10k (25%) more.

The consumer base wants larger vehicles.

load more comments (24 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] muffedtrims@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

BuT mA FreEduMb!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

This is also a downside to the cheap gasoline we’ve enjoyed in the US, relative to most of the world. There’s less incentive for us to make a more efficient choice

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mystech@lemmy.world 65 points 11 months ago

"American Automakers Refuse to Participate in Race to Make Accessible, Fuel-Efficient Vehicles"

Fixed that title for you, Verge.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They are, however, winning the race to make more gas guzzling profit generators that destroy this planet for the benefit of their shareholders.

[–] Mamertine@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which is apparently what the average consider wants or at least expects.

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

American* consumer. Around the world most popular models are smaller than the American ones. And those expectations are driven by marketing from those car companies to circumvent the safety/emission laws set up for cars in the us

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago

I agree with you, but this happens in Europe as well.

Tying acceptable emissions to the car weight made SUVs very attractive for the car makers. And people lap it up like noone's business.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 15 points 11 months ago

And more dangerous to their drivers as well, because while they may "win" collisions, they also roll over much easier.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Until the exemptions for “light trucks” go away this won’t change. The current CAFE standards reward automakers for making even larger, less efficient and more dangerous “passenger” vehicles every year.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

On top of that average lifetime of a car in US is 12 years so those car's will be on the roads for a decade or two after exemptions are removed.

[–] TheIllustrativeMan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Much longer than 12, that's the average age (including new cars). This site says the average lifespan is closer to 17 years.

[–] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Were they trying to win?

[–] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 11 months ago
[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 18 points 11 months ago

They lost this race to Japanese car manufacturers like 30 years ago.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I thought they already lost during the OPEC oil crisis and then lobbied congress to put import restrictions on foreign cars to save themselves.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They did, decades ago. That is no longer an issue.

Now we have current efficiency standards that focus on cars. However trucks have much lower requirements because businesses might need additional capabilities. No individual would ever buy a truck as a personal vehicle , right? So you have these criteria meant to give a break to businesses, but ever larger vehicles mean that personal vehicles now also qualify. They can be made more cheaply, with more profit.

Somehow, they didn’t consider the criteria would be abused for more profitable personal vehicles

  • Pickup truck? Clearly a contractor so let’s give you a break
  • All wheel drive and high clearance? Clearly a rare specialty off-road vehicle that needs a break
  • Seats 7+, even if they’re only toddlers? Clearly a transportation service, so needs a break in efficiency to carry more passengers
  • Tow hitch? Clearly in need of extra torque and heavy duty frame for whatever business need you’re towing
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How can you win when you're running in the opposite direction?

[–] BulbasaurBabu@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago

This just in: Obese Man perpetually on the couch isn't going to finish the marathon, experts say.

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

They don't have to worry, because the Buy American provisions in recent legislation (passed under both Trump and Biden) protects them from competition by more fuel efficient foreign competitors.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 points 11 months ago

True, but in time they will be able to sell only in the US as their cars will not be allowed anywhere else. So if they will want to compete outside US, they will need two lines of the same products. Then they will realize that it will be less expensive to keep only the one that can sell in more places.
If they have not failed in the meantime.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

The classic definition of "American" cars has really fallen apart. Stellantis is an international consortium at the management level. GM and Ford have extensive manufacturing in Canada and Mexico. Honda, Toyota, VW, etc assemble most of their North American vehicles in the US. Parts come from all over the world. Even if the part assemblies are made in the US, supplies (or the component supplies) are globally sourced.

Phrased another way, can you really call it American if the lithium is mined in Africa, refined in China, assembled into a battery in Ohio, assembled as a car in Mexico, under the direction of a company headquartered in Detroit? Same for steel, glass, etc?

At what point does it become, or cease to be, an American car?

(In 1984, this question was directly answered by Honda, by creating their first assembly plant in Marysville, OH. Based on the laws at the time, this meant anything manufactured there qualified as an "American" car, not subject to import taxes and restrictions)

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Real-world fuel economy in model year 2022 rose slightly to 26 miles per gallon, according to the EPA’s latest Automotive Trends Report.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized that rule back in 2022, and earlier this year, it proposed even higher standards for cars made between 2027 and 2032.

Numbers for real-world fuel economy tend to be about 25 percent lower than official compliance data might show, according to Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Average fuel economy for Ford, General Motors, and Jeep and Dodge parent company Stellantis last year ranged between about 21mpg and 23mpg.

Supersized passenger vehicles burn through more gas than smaller cars, which also means that they create more tailpipe pollution that worsens air quality and causes climate change.

Fortunately, the emission rate for planet-heating carbon dioxide from new vehicles still dropped 3 percent to a record low last year, the EPA reports.


The original article contains 689 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›