3 ms·

> there are a lot more uses for it than you might otherwise think This looks like a solution in search of a problem. People are buying stuff they don't need th

> there are a lot more uses for it than you might otherwise think This looks like a solution in search of a problem. People are buying stuff they don't need then finding a good justification for it (from their perspective). But almost anything can be justified this way. Even driving an 18-wheeler will have advantages you never thought about but this doesn't negate the downsides. Mainly that you carry around 4000-5000lbs (over 2000Kg) of metal mainly just to move 1 or 2 people and nothing more. This is a lot of wasted fuel and a lot of space taken in the street. Coal also has advantages but few people would dare defend it with this argument.

jiofih 7y ago
No wasted “fuel” for an electric car, especially if it comes from 100% solar power...
- pauletienney 7y ago
  Moving a total of 2600kg with only 150kg of "useful load" (2 people) is a waste of energy.
  - jiofih 7y ago
    Sun shining on your roof is also a waste of energy.
  - learc83 7y ago
    The top end model S weighs about 2300kg, so it's not really much of a difference.
    - close04 7y ago
      That doesn't make it better. Moving around by yourself (like most drivers out there) in a 2300Km vehicle is not efficient. It's just better by comparison because at least it's an EV. But you still use a lot of (not so clean in the majority of cases) electricity to move a lot of weight just so one person gets from point A to point B. People want one car to be the jack of all trades. Big enough for 7 people and carry a house's worth of furniture in one go while towing a boat, and travel 800Km on a charge. So it ends up being truck sized, 2500+Kg, to carry 1 person on their 5Km commute to work 99% of the time.
      - learc83 7y ago
        It's all relative. You could build something that weighed 100kg, so anything heavier is a waste of energy if we only look at ability to go from point A to point B. But it would be a death trap to drive around other 2000kg vehicles, and it wouldn't be comfortable. >5Km commute Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
        close04 7y ago
        99% of the people could do with a sub-compact 99% of the time as seen everywhere else in the world. Are the only 2 options you see a 100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile? It's like saying you can't have electric cars because how far can they go on 2 AA batteries. If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate should they ever decide to go out on the streets? Is that normal? > Almost no one in the US has a commute that short. It's all relative. You just multiply that (avoidable) waste. Do you really need to drive a "tank" just to survive? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767
        learc83 7y ago
        I'm sure more people could live with a subcompact car than currently do, but it's nowhere near 99%. I can drive a subcompact but they aren't made for tall drivers and anything more than 20 minutes or so hurts my knee. People with families who regularly take them out aren't going to fit in a subcompact particularly if anyone is tall or there are car seats. You could design a very lightweight car that could hold 4-5 people comfortably with 1 or 2 carseats and fit tall drivers. But no one does--it's not really an option. You could buy and maintain multiple vehicles for different purposes, but it's expensive especially when you consider the additional insurance. >100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile? No obviously not, I'm saying that 2600kg vs 2300kg is basically irrelevant. And that when you say 2300kg is a waste of energy that statement only makes sense in the context of specific design goals. >If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate No but motorcycles have an almost 30x higher fatality rate per mile driven than cars do, so I'd call that a death trap. It's a prisoners dilemma. Everyone else is driving 2000kg+ cars. To make very lightweight vehicles that are safe around those huge vehicles it's very expensive. The solution is regulation, not begging individuals to drive smaller cars.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    See how fast you can go 250 miles on foot power.

jiofih 7y ago

No wasted “fuel” for an electric car, especially if it comes from 100% solar power...

pauletienney 7y ago
Moving a total of 2600kg with only 150kg of "useful load" (2 people) is a waste of energy.
- jiofih 7y ago
  Sun shining on your roof is also a waste of energy.
- learc83 7y ago
  The top end model S weighs about 2300kg, so it's not really much of a difference.
  - close04 7y ago
    That doesn't make it better. Moving around by yourself (like most drivers out there) in a 2300Km vehicle is not efficient. It's just better by comparison because at least it's an EV. But you still use a lot of (not so clean in the majority of cases) electricity to move a lot of weight just so one person gets from point A to point B. People want one car to be the jack of all trades. Big enough for 7 people and carry a house's worth of furniture in one go while towing a boat, and travel 800Km on a charge. So it ends up being truck sized, 2500+Kg, to carry 1 person on their 5Km commute to work 99% of the time.
    - learc83 7y ago
      It's all relative. You could build something that weighed 100kg, so anything heavier is a waste of energy if we only look at ability to go from point A to point B. But it would be a death trap to drive around other 2000kg vehicles, and it wouldn't be comfortable. >5Km commute Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
      - close04 7y ago
        99% of the people could do with a sub-compact 99% of the time as seen everywhere else in the world. Are the only 2 options you see a 100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile? It's like saying you can't have electric cars because how far can they go on 2 AA batteries. If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate should they ever decide to go out on the streets? Is that normal? > Almost no one in the US has a commute that short. It's all relative. You just multiply that (avoidable) waste. Do you really need to drive a "tank" just to survive? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767
        learc83 7y ago
        I'm sure more people could live with a subcompact car than currently do, but it's nowhere near 99%. I can drive a subcompact but they aren't made for tall drivers and anything more than 20 minutes or so hurts my knee. People with families who regularly take them out aren't going to fit in a subcompact particularly if anyone is tall or there are car seats. You could design a very lightweight car that could hold 4-5 people comfortably with 1 or 2 carseats and fit tall drivers. But no one does--it's not really an option. You could buy and maintain multiple vehicles for different purposes, but it's expensive especially when you consider the additional insurance. >100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile? No obviously not, I'm saying that 2600kg vs 2300kg is basically irrelevant. And that when you say 2300kg is a waste of energy that statement only makes sense in the context of specific design goals. >If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate No but motorcycles have an almost 30x higher fatality rate per mile driven than cars do, so I'd call that a death trap. It's a prisoners dilemma. Everyone else is driving 2000kg+ cars. To make very lightweight vehicles that are safe around those huge vehicles it's very expensive. The solution is regulation, not begging individuals to drive smaller cars.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  See how fast you can go 250 miles on foot power.