3 ms·

> We should aim for 500 kg cars. So you want a Tesla without batteries? A single battery cell weights approx. 200 lbs (90 kg). The Model 3 has four. The total

> We should aim for 500 kg cars. So you want a Tesla without batteries? A single battery cell weights approx. 200 lbs (90 kg). The Model 3 has four. The total weight of the batteries is thought to exceed 1000 lbs (inc. housing, harnesses) or about 500 kg. Then add on all the legally mandated safety technology a vehicle from 1957 wouldn't have (front airbags, seat belts, windshield defroster/washer, taller seats, and much higher crash absorption/roll support). You could absolutely build a 500 kg kit-car that has 1957 safety. But no commercial vendor can sell you a vehicle even in that ballpark.

davidzweig 8y ago
There would be less need for safety technology if everyone was driving around at 60kph, not 100kph. A lighter battery would last much further.. lower cost vehicles.. less environmental impact.. less noise around populated areas etc. It would take longer to cover long distances, but.. smell the roses, or take a train? Pipe dream obviously.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > There would be less need for safety technology if everyone was driving around at 60kph, not 100kph. That's like saying you don't need to wear a helmet while bicycling as long as you don't go faster than X. When in reality just falling over while standing still, can already give you quite a good knock on your head, depending on where you are landing with it. Just like you can't control the speed of other traffic participants. Even if you lowered the allowed speeds across the board, people would still end up speeding, probably even more so than they are doing already. In that context safety features should never be "optional extras" [0] because they usually are not "trade-offs" but straight up improvements. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-fe...
  - adrianN 8y ago
    There is very effective technology to prevent speeding. We just need to build more of it.
fulafel 8y ago
Just take the Renault Twizy (a production 2 seater 500 kg ev on market since 2012) and try harder in the same direction. The regulations allow it. To preempt some protests - You could put a trailer on it for occasionally transporting more stuff.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

davidzweig 8y ago

There would be less need for safety technology if everyone was driving around at 60kph, not 100kph. A lighter battery would last much further.. lower cost vehicles.. less environmental impact.. less noise around populated areas etc. It would take longer to cover long distances, but.. smell the roses, or take a train? Pipe dream obviously.

freeflight 8y ago
> There would be less need for safety technology if everyone was driving around at 60kph, not 100kph. That's like saying you don't need to wear a helmet while bicycling as long as you don't go faster than X. When in reality just falling over while standing still, can already give you quite a good knock on your head, depending on where you are landing with it. Just like you can't control the speed of other traffic participants. Even if you lowered the allowed speeds across the board, people would still end up speeding, probably even more so than they are doing already. In that context safety features should never be "optional extras" [0] because they usually are not "trade-offs" but straight up improvements. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-features-charge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/business/boeing-safety-fe...
- adrianN 8y ago
  There is very effective technology to prevent speeding. We just need to build more of it.

fulafel 8y ago

Just take the Renault Twizy (a production 2 seater 500 kg ev on market since 2012) and try harder in the same direction. The regulations allow it. To preempt some protests - You could put a trailer on it for occasionally transporting more stuff.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]