5 ms·

Apart from being a deathtrap and making you deaf. Dial back your econonsense, please. I was made like it was because East Germany was broke as hell and could n

Apart from being a deathtrap and making you deaf. Dial back your econonsense, please. I was made like it was because East Germany was broke as hell and could not produce much of anything...

noir_lord 10y ago
An example of something doesn't necessarily mean an exact example. As an example of working within the constraints of the time while preserving the core functions of a car it was a good example, yes from the point of view of western equivalents of the same era they are laughable but western cars didn't have the same constraints. I'd personally like to see what a modern car would look like if you went in the same direction, given the constraints of it must be a functional car and must pass crash test/emission standards whats the most pared back/reliable car we can build. Not because anyone would buy them but because it would be interesting engineering. I grew up in the 80's in the UK, back then cars very very rarely had AC, Electric Windows, Heated Seats etc, you wound the window down and if you where posh opened the sunroof, same with automatic gearboxes (though they are still very rare here, they simply never caught on).
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I get your point from the engineering perspective. Just as side note. The constraints the soviets had were all self made, as the article also mentions. They had all the elements from the periodic table at their disposal, large reserves of oil and natural gas, endless fields of nutrient rich soil. Dacia is probably a car you want to investigate as a more car like specimen. But Smart, or even Renault Elektro is following the spirit of Trabant more closely.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I was looking at it and thought of Smart as a candidate. The Nissan Verso undercuts it, selling in the US for $13,000 (including delivery fees and such). Manual trans, crank windows, with AC. It's also considerably more spacious without sacrificing too much fuel mileage.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      Smart indeed works as a minimal car. It has become quite popular as a secondary car where I live (EU) when an additional parking place is a concern, but it definitely is not appealing as a primary car. Manual transmission is the norm here anyway and crank windows are just an annoyance, but AC is possibly better for your health than open windows when used carefully.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Oh I was just saying that the Verso is probably closer to simplest. It's more utilitarian than Smart and costs less (in the US at least).
jlg23 10y ago
I'm not sure whether the eco in econonsense refers to economy or ecology but in both possible meanings I would like to hear your math behind the "nonsense". * gravity costs less than a fuel pump and it rarely breaks so does not need replacement * recycled material usually costs less than new material, esp. when you consider garbage disposal costs * less moving parts and parts than can be repaired by amateurs mean less parts overall which means less costs and waste I don't doubt that they would fail modern crash tests but even that is relative: If everyone is driving a slow "deathtrap" your chances of getting into a high speed crash with a fast moving tank are pretty low.
- justin66 10y ago
  Do you know how a modern ICE works? If so, consider how not having a fuel pump effects the engineering of everything that comes after it.
  - Roboprog 10y ago
    2 stroke. Don't need it. (dirty as sin, though) The engine is just a scaled up version of the motorcycles my brothers and I drove as kids in the late 70s / early 80s. Of course, 500cc is a little bigger than 250, 100 or 80 cc :-)
    - justin66 10y ago
      Well, right, the engine arrangement is pretty much out of the question for a variety of reasons. I was just trying to go with the parent comment. I don't discount the elegance of the solution in its own context. The comment If not for the antiquated 2-stroke engine and lack of exhaust filters, it could still be an example for very good, cost efficient and environment friendly engineering. is quite mad, however.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. You literally seem to have no idea how any of this works Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one, why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. Sure, you can drop bells and whistles like electric windshields, infotaiment and the like.

Apart from being a deathtrap and making you deaf. Dial back your econonsense, please. I was made like it was because East Germany was broke as hell and could not produce much of anything...

noir_lord 10y ago

An example of something doesn't necessarily mean an exact example. As an example of working within the constraints of the time while preserving the core functions of a car it was a good example, yes from the point of view of western equivalents of the same era they are laughable but western cars didn't have the same constraints. I'd personally like to see what a modern car would look like if you went in the same direction, given the constraints of it must be a functional car and must pass crash test/emission standards whats the most pared back/reliable car we can build. Not because anyone would buy them but because it would be interesting engineering. I grew up in the 80's in the UK, back then cars very very rarely had AC, Electric Windows, Heated Seats etc, you wound the window down and if you where posh opened the sunroof, same with automatic gearboxes (though they are still very rare here, they simply never caught on).

eveningcoffee 10y ago
I get your point from the engineering perspective. Just as side note. The constraints the soviets had were all self made, as the article also mentions. They had all the elements from the periodic table at their disposal, large reserves of oil and natural gas, endless fields of nutrient rich soil. Dacia is probably a car you want to investigate as a more car like specimen. But Smart, or even Renault Elektro is following the spirit of Trabant more closely.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I was looking at it and thought of Smart as a candidate. The Nissan Verso undercuts it, selling in the US for $13,000 (including delivery fees and such). Manual trans, crank windows, with AC. It's also considerably more spacious without sacrificing too much fuel mileage.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    Smart indeed works as a minimal car. It has become quite popular as a secondary car where I live (EU) when an additional parking place is a concern, but it definitely is not appealing as a primary car. Manual transmission is the norm here anyway and crank windows are just an annoyance, but AC is possibly better for your health than open windows when used carefully.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Oh I was just saying that the Verso is probably closer to simplest. It's more utilitarian than Smart and costs less (in the US at least).

jlg23 10y ago

I'm not sure whether the eco in econonsense refers to economy or ecology but in both possible meanings I would like to hear your math behind the "nonsense". * gravity costs less than a fuel pump and it rarely breaks so does not need replacement * recycled material usually costs less than new material, esp. when you consider garbage disposal costs * less moving parts and parts than can be repaired by amateurs mean less parts overall which means less costs and waste I don't doubt that they would fail modern crash tests but even that is relative: If everyone is driving a slow "deathtrap" your chances of getting into a high speed crash with a fast moving tank are pretty low.

justin66 10y ago
Do you know how a modern ICE works? If so, consider how not having a fuel pump effects the engineering of everything that comes after it.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  2 stroke. Don't need it. (dirty as sin, though) The engine is just a scaled up version of the motorcycles my brothers and I drove as kids in the late 70s / early 80s. Of course, 500cc is a little bigger than 250, 100 or 80 cc :-)
  - justin66 10y ago
    Well, right, the engine arrangement is pretty much out of the question for a variety of reasons. I was just trying to go with the parent comment. I don't discount the elegance of the solution in its own context. The comment If not for the antiquated 2-stroke engine and lack of exhaust filters, it could still be an example for very good, cost efficient and environment friendly engineering. is quite mad, however.
emp_zealoth 10y ago
Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. You literally seem to have no idea how any of this works Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one, why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. Sure, you can drop bells and whistles like electric windshields, infotaiment and the like.