17 ms·
Ever-growing cars: why they keep on getting wider
- ggoo 7y agotldr: regulations and people are getting fatter.
- exposay 7y agoRegardless of regulation and body size, I would still prefer wider cars than narrower cars.
- mhh__ 7y agoI don't mind a wide car as long as it's not one of these absolutely fuck-ugly SUVs. They're a plague. Go to any remotely rural place in the UK (especially if it's rich) and you'll see SUVs and 4x4 with no more than 2 people in them usually - basically just because there are some leaves on the ground, despite all the millions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds that have been spent on making normal cars safer, grip better and more efficient. Edit: I fully expect to be seeing some Tesla Cybertrucks assuming they come to mass market.
- riffraff 7y agoThere are SUV in freaking European _capitals_, with a single person on board. The day we start taxing asphalt occupation at near insanity level will always be too late.
- stagger87 7y agoIs it because there are leaves on the ground? Or because it is worth the extra price to occasionally have the ability to drive 6 people around or haul all your gear up to the mountain safely or to feel safer on the road?
- mhh__ 7y agoThe people I have in mind have multiple cars, and (where I have in mind) there are no mountains.
- jedberg 7y agoMy wife likes to drive an SUV because of the high vantage point of visibility for the driver, and because it's easer to put kids in a car seat when you don't have to bend over. There are reasons people like SUVs other than "leaves on the ground".
- dabeeeenster 7y agoAt the expense of literally everyone else on the road
- jedberg 7y agoHow so?
- flyingfences 7y agoTo begin with, your high vantage point means that everybody else driving reasonably-sized cars has trouble seeing around you.
- jedberg 7y agoIronically that's why we had to get one in the first place. However, in the US, SUVs and Pickups outnumber sedans, so the majority of people sit at the same vantage point.
- dabeeeenster 7y agoSUVs kill more people.
- jedberg 7y agoI don't think that's a casual relationship though. SUV drivers are probably more distracted because they are more likely to have kids in the back, they might just be worse drivers, etc. Too many factors to say if it's the SUV's fault.
- notJim 7y agoPeople complain about SUVs with a lot of apparently unnecessary capability (4x4, holding lots of people), but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have. I.e., maybe most of the time it's just you in the car, but you want to be able to haul you and your spouse and your parents around when they come to visit. Or you mostly commute to work, but want 4x4 for when you go skiing. This is why long term, we need to move away from car ownership and toward something like Zipcar for all. In that world, you would just rent whatever vehicle you needed when you needed it. Step one is making it not just possible, but preferable to not own a car.
- frenchyatwork 7y agoMost people don't need SUVs to go skiing, just good tires, chains, and a shovel. There's a good chance you'll need these things even if you have an SUV. Also mhh__ was talking about rural UK. They don't have ski hills there (at least not ones with snow). People complain about SUVs because 1. They are large and get in the way. 2. Their lights are high up, so they blind you when they tail-gate you at night. 3. They often have poor drivers, possibly because they have large blind spots, possibly other socio-economic reasons.
- r_klancer 7y ago4. They tend to hit pedestrians and cyclists above their center of gravity, so they knock you down under the wheels instead of up and over the windshield
- matt_the_bass 7y agoI feel the same way. I have a VW Atlas. It’s big but I often take advantage of its size including road trips with 4 adults, two kids in car seats, and luggage. I think I use the volume of it enough to justify a large vehicle versus renting one when needed. Unfortunately I can’t afford To also have a small car for the times I don’t need the volume. I definitely feel a little guilty when there are only 2 people in it.
- yellowapple 7y ago
- exposay 7y agoI have just upgraded to an SUV. Love it! I would not go back to anything smaller!
- toast0 7y agoI've got a narrower than average car, and it's nice to fit in garages, tight parking spaces, narrow ferry lanes, etc. The seats are a little narrow, but not too bad. For some reason they built it so the turning radius is worse than a mini-van though.
- thorwasdfasdf 7y agoThis! sometimes I think it would be nice if they produced a low cost small car like the 1960s mini. with today's productivity they could build a simple version for quite cost effective. But, regulations mean it's completely impossible and so the cost of cars and their size keeps going up.
- roflchoppa2 7y agodude have you been in a classic mini? its literally a coffin. that being said i like trying to drag race mustangs in my buddies one. Check out Kei Cars in Japan.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoA coffin that fits 4 adults and a German Shepherd in the estate bit. That's quite snug, but no worse than a Polo, Beetle, Fiesta or 2CV of similar era. But like most cars it spends most of its time carrying just one or two adults, maybe a bit of shopping, when it has ample room.
- ceejayoz 7y ago"Snug" tends to mean "limited crumple zones and side airbags", which tends to mean "death trap" in a significant accident.
- growlist 7y agoI personally know of someone that suffered permanent short-term memory loss from a terrible crash in an original mini. A woman pulled out in front of him without looking properly, his car was pretty much completely destroyed, and he was lucky to survive. It's all well and good to praise their size and practicality, but they come at a heavy price.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIn the same era few cars would see you better off. A Polo or Escort would be similarly totalled, a big Merc or Volvo would often happily demount the engine and punch it back into the cabin taking your legs with it...
- Goronmon 7y agoNot just fatter though, taller as well.
- souprock 7y agoIf you're having this issue, I recommend the Fiat 500L. It works for my 6'9" son, with room to wear a hat.
- _ph_ 7y agoI am driving a 2007 VW Golf. You could make it easily 15 cm smaller by cutting off the center console between the front seats without sacrificing any safety. Of course, the rear bench would be comfortable for 2 only, but that already applies to it as it is. So one could design nice 4 seated cars - especially if they are designed electric only, removing most of the need for the center console, as there is no gear shifting.
- microtherion 7y agoNot sure I buy the "getting fatter" part of the reasoning. I'm 6'2", 245lbs, and I can drive a Smart Fortwo quite comfortably.
- megablast 7y agoSure, but that car doesn't make you feel skinnier.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThe sad thing is an original Isigonis style 1980s mini estate gives more chance to put a full size dog in the back, with the rear seats up, than the current massive Mini Clubman estate that's cramped for a Yorkie with the back doors closed. It really is comical seeing original Mini and new next to each other -- the new one is not, by any stretch, "mini". I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...
- lostlogin 7y agoThe idea of loading up that suspension ‘system’ with batteries makes me twitchy, but it’s such a great car that the extra effort that would be required would definitely be worth it.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThat's true, so now it needs all new running gear, and becomes an insane labour of love like the Eagle E type. Still fancy a try though. :)
- jmull 7y agoI put a couple of greyhounds in my Mini (I think it's still the same basic size as the current gen). It is certainly much larger than the original, but smaller than a Clubman so I have to wonder what your Yorkie looks like ;-)
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoI've only seen a Clubman in the street from the outside, and the estate bit looked like 20cm or so with the seats up. Obviously that's at the windows line so there's probably a bit more room lower down... So with seats up less than a Shepherd (or greyhound) shoulder width. Seats down, sure...
- decebalus1 7y agoAs a driver, I would rather have larger crumple zones or places to put curtain airbags and such than space to be able to fit a full size dog in the back. Regulations aren't always bad or a burden on the industry (or for that matter on the dog owners). Having an EV 80's chassis would be a great idea for a hobby build or something to take out for a Sunday drive to the country. But I would'd drive that death trap daily.
- darren 7y agoAs a parent with 2 young kids the massive size of car seats forced us into a larger vehicle.
- jedberg 7y agoYeah this is a big one. You have to buy specialty car seats now if you want to go three across in a sedan. Admittedly, the seats are much safer (just like the wider cars), but it certainly is a problem.
- paulryanrogers 7y agoWider cars are often taller which isn't so safe for pedestrians or bicyclists.
- wernercd 7y ago"If you want to fit three across" Why is this limited to child seats? Not like Americans are getting thinner...
- bradenb 7y agoIt’s not. But 3 across is obviously important because your vehicle selection goes down significantly once you need to expand to a third row to grow your capacity.
- souprock 7y agoI can say from experience that vehicle selection goes down much more once you need to expand to a fifth row. There were just two choices, one from Ford and one from GM. Fitting three car seats across is still difficult, despite enough car width to have a 4-wide bench in the rear. Putting car seats in the back rows makes them hard to get to, so they should go in the second row or in the third row seat nearest the door. That gives reasonably easy room for 3, but some states would have had me needing 5.
- 7y ago
- rjsw 7y agoI once got stuck behind a Lamborghini on a mountain road, it was too wide to get past any other cars.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI used to have a Lotus Elise. With cars that low you don’t see much if there is just some grass growing along the road. Makes it really hard to pass other cars or go fast with no visibility.
- taborj 7y agoYeah, but then you take a corner at 4 times the recommended speed, and it's all worth it... Got a chance to take an Elise around some good roads. What a blast.
- 762236 7y agoNah, those cars are too competent. Taking a corner at 4x the recommended speed in an e-Golf, or Crown Vic, is a blast.
- rconti 7y agoEvery time I'm in my low sports car: "I can't see through this damn SUV in front of me." Every time I'm in my SUV: "I can't see through this damn SUV in front of me."
- porknubbins 7y agoThis 10x when driving in Brooklyn(or similar big city). I used to think smaller would be less stressful but since I got rid of my truck and have been renting small zipcars its much harder to see around SUVs and delivery trucks. Its harder not only to predict the flow of traffic but also to see pedestrians or cyclists who may be obstructed from your vision. I’ve always been a car person but thinking my next one will be an SUV to compete in this stupid arms race.
- egberts1 7y agoWider center of gravity. Less incidence of rollover.
- willis936 7y agoThe roads aren’t getting any wider. I’m having trouble finding numbers, but I would be surprised to learn if the occurrence of lane departure accidents has gone down or stayed the same since cars have begun to get wider.
- matt_the_bass 7y agoI have a VW Atlas. It’s the biggest car I have ever had. It’s volume is great for road trips with multiple kids and a dog in a cage. I too worried about lane departures (even though of course I think I’m a better than average driver;). It has automatic lane assist which warns me if I’m on the lane line without putting on my blinker. I’m pleasantly surprised how infrequently it needs to remind me! However more importantly I think it’s safety features of lane assist, adaptive cruise control, front and rear assist (emergency breaking), and blind spot sensing with haptic feedback are fantastic! If every can had these, I’m certain driving would be safer even without autonomous driving.
- taborj 7y agoThe Atlas is on the short list for my wife's next vehicle. Nice to hear some good impressions!
- matt_the_bass 7y agoOther than its mileage efficiency, I love it! But that is a true critique of all Vehicles in its size and I knew it going into it. If we didn’t have a dog or require 3rd row, I’d get a Tiguan.
- willis936 7y agoAs strange (and low stakes) as it may sound: I worry most about city driving. I live in a city that gets a healthy dose of snow. The roads are barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other. Throw in a truck and all parties better be paying close attention.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI am always amazed when you see an old Mercedes S class on the road. This used to be a generously sized car and now it looks like an average compact.
- gambiting 7y agoThe difference being that the new one can survive a straight t-bone at 50-70km/h and everyone walks out unhurt, while that's not necessarily the case with the old one. Just look at the size of the door sills and the actual depth of the doors - there's at least twice the depth of doors from a 1980s S class for instance, a lot more crumpling to work with.
- robin_reala 7y agoI was going to bring up the Mazda MX-5 as an example of a car that shrunk in its latest generation, only to find out that the current model is the widest by a whole centimetre.
- wkjagt 7y agoThey did make it slightly shorter I think.
- robin_reala 7y agoYeah, it’s quite a bit smaller in every other dimension than the NC model.
- AWildC182 7y agoI used to barely fit in the NA but I can't squeeze into any of the later models without amputating my legs. I'm not sure how they did it because otherwise I'd be first in line to buy another.
- ndiscussion 7y agoI removed the driver-side door grab/armrest in my NA. Gives me about 3" extra room. Perhaps that's possible on newer models? I popped off a couple plastic panels, unscrewed the bolts, and it came right off. Then I attached a loop of cloth with a washer so I could close the door.
- SandunGunn 7y agoThe golf mk8 is 10 mm narrower and 29 mm longer, mostly to reduce drag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk8
- yingw787 7y agoI wonder how much of this is due to safety, and if size expansion is due to safety, whether it’s a matter of trying to be in a bigger car than the other guy. Is there an ideal car size or will cars grow forever?
- crooked-v 7y agoI think of 'Red Barchetta' and its two-lane-wide ultra-safe futurecars.
- notatoad 7y agoI dont think it makes sense that wider cars are an attempt to be bigger than the other guy. Height, yes absolutely, but wider cars are safer because they have more room to crumple and space for airbags and reinforcement in the sides. The thickness of car doors today vs cars from 20 years ago is pretty drastic.
- AWildC182 7y agoThe layout of these cars also plays an important role. Sedans have been getting bigger because the internal space is wasted in every possible way and manufacturers have been struggling to sell the smaller ones given how useless they are. That market segment has been completely dominated by the new generation of small hatchbacks like the Honda Fit/Scion XD/Toyota Yaris etc.
- Paperweight 7y agoWhat about the perverse regulations that punitively tax and restrict the production of smaller cars, because they use more fuel per unit weight?
- HungSu 7y agoDo you have a source for these regulations?
- Paperweight 7y agoUS CAFE standards are well-known to have resulted in the switch from station wagons to minivans and SUVs, resulting in a great overall increase in emissions than what would have otherwise occurred. The new (2020/2021) European regulations allow approximately 1 g/km of extra CO2 emissions per kg of extra curb weight for passenger cars. [1] It's actually less emissions per unit mass, so I was wrong on that fact, but the point of perverse incentives to make cars bigger to be allowed more emissions still stands (I think?) Also, diesel vehicles are basically banned in most places unless they're coal-rollers - even though they have way less CO2 emissions than their gasoline counterparts. In my opinion, if the North American and European governments had truly wanted to reduce absolute levels of emissions, instead of just following existing technology and trying to take the credit for it (like they do for NOx emissions, and probably will for electric cars), and making complex rules that favour certain manufacturers at the expense of others, then they'd have just have made a Kei car category. [2] [1] https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/european-emission-regulations-will-stringent-emission-regulations-choke-automotive-industry-or-will-oems-find-their-way-out/ https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/european-emission-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
- sharadov 7y agoPeople are getting bigger! I know a few people who are on the heavy side and bought SUVs for this reason.
- allovernow 7y agoIs this really a modern trend, or just cherry picked data? This article needs a more thorough statistical analysis of car width through time. I'm hesitant to take it at face value because, for example, to my knowledge the classic American land barges of the 60s and 70s (many of which are quite beautiful in an aggressive, almost obnoxious way) were quite wide - a 1969 Dodge charger is just a couple inches narrower than a 1990 Ford F150/Bronco, for example.
- avianlyric 7y agoWorth pointing out this is a UK site talking about cars found in Europe. We’ve never had US style land barges, they simply wouldn’t work on our roads.
- metaphor 7y ago> We’ve never had US style land barges, they simply wouldn’t work on our roads. Land Rover, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, Aston Martin: all iconically British and not known for their compact offerings.
- starpilot 7y agoThe Toyota Tacoma is a US-only car and is well-known in truck circles for starting out as a "compact" pickup and becoming midsize. Per Google, the 2000 model was 67" wide, the 2020 is 75". An 8" increase is in line with what the article describes. I don't think compact pickups exist today.
- ken 7y agoNot in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
- toast0 7y agoThe vehicles mentioned (sprinter vans, and Ford Transit) are classified as light trucks, but most people would call them commercial vans or panel vans. Pickup trucks were never commonly imported from Europe, and most of the Japanese makes moved assembly to the US. While the 80s was really the peak of compact pickups, they were still some made into the 2010s, although a 2011 Ranger is a lot bigger than a Ranger from the 80s. I don't think the 2019 Ranger comes in a regular cab either.
- trixie_ 7y agoA recent trip to Europe and the cars, trucks, highways, roads, etc.. everything feels smaller. Parking garages are the worst, so narrow you can barely see if you're going to scrape a wall or car. You really have to use the force.
- try_again 7y agoI'm glad to hear this perspective and know it's not just me. I live in Europe and parking in a garage here always raises my heart rate. I don't think I'd make it without parking sensors. Some people I know just slam their car in there in one quick swoop. I don't know how they do it. Even driving past parked cars makes me feel like not hitting side mirrors is just an act of faith.
- JshWright 7y agoI was in San Francisco last week, and the car rental agency "upgraded" me from the compact I had requested to a full size SUV. Fortunately we weren't staying in the city, but that thing was definitely no fun headed up Hwy 1... I regularly drive ambulances and fire trucks, so I'm used to "aggressively" driving large vehicles, but that was a whole new level of stressful. California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
- staticautomatic 7y agoWith the cyclists on Hwy 1 it's hard enough driving a Civic.
- yibg 7y agoSame thing happened to me. I got a Toyota sequoia instead of a smaller car I reserved for a family trip down hwy 1. Width aside it was just clumsy and rolled a lot. Had to go pretty slow to have people in the car not throw up. I’m a bit of a car enthusiast and enjoy canyon carving, but this was definitely not a fun drive.
- jmkni 7y agoI had a similar experience in London recently. I wanted a small car because, well, it's London. They "upgraded" me to a big SUV thing.
- switch007 7y agoIt’s their fleet. They have an awful lot of crossovers and SUVs (presumably because that’s what is popular with our market) but they continue to misrepresent their fleet in their booking engines (it’s been years now).
- helen___keller 7y ago> California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...) Taking the opposite view, mandating narrower roads (or, refusing to widen existing narrow roads) has worked great for opposing the problem of car growth in some countries. If you watch a busy intersection in Japan you see a ton of incredibly tiny cars go by, and it's no coincidence that backstreets in major Japanese cities are often nightmarishly narrow alleyways, sometimes without sidewalks so you even have pedestrians sharing the already-tiny road. For example consider this side street near a touristy zone of Kyoto: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0010412,135.7662851,3a,75y,202.16h,58.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8_LbqTQ65DZcGd6l8ruLjA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0010412,135.7662851,3a,75y,2... You can see people walking right along the road. An average person would not feel comfortable driving with a big car, nor driving aggressively nor at a high speed, on this road. Taken combined, this is what makes these roads safe and pedestrian-friendly, even though at face value a road without sidewalks might seem the opposite.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Animats 7y agoCenter consoles used to be seen only on large trucks. Now most cars have them. That's width not used by the occupants. Even the Tesla Model 3 has a huge center console, despite not having a driveshaft to hide.
- metaphor 7y agoMost modern cars are also unibody, so the center console interior design element isn't entirely without merit. The axial bulge that would normally be concealed by a center console acts as structural support in vehicles without driveshafts. Furthermore, if it exists, the cavity will also serve as exhaust midpipe routing to the rear for improved underbody aero performance. Some manufacturers also offer an AWD variant of a chassis primarily sold as FWD--e.g. Acura TL, Mazda3--so design reuse is another path to consider. The Model 3 doesn't appear to fit this generalization, but a center console still makes sense. It's a 5-passenger vehicle by design, so rear seating arrangement will drive width constraint. You can't put a 6th seat in the front-center position for obvious safety reasons, while leaving it empty would miss the mark when compared to competing luxury vehicles around the same price point (something about how America loves cupholders comes to mind), so filling it in with a sleek and generous center console strikes me as the natural direction to steer towards; it's cheap, serves a functional purpose, fills a void and flows with the overall interior aesthetic. Besides, a closed luxury cabin whose volumetric efficiency approaches 100% is a luxury vehicle that simply won't appeal to the masses. For a good idea of just how inconvenient not having a decent center console can be, look no further than the ND Miata. Anecdotally, mine is a weekend solo/track toy so not a deal breaker, but it's one of those things that can be easily taken for granted until you don't have one anymore: fitting a pair of sunglasses in the laughably small center compartment is like working a puzzle piece, the large rear-center storage compartment can't be conveniently accessed while seated unless you're a human pretzel, some smartphones won't fit in the cubby hole designed to hold one, and retaining non-bottled drinks with a passenger seated is a spill accident just waiting to happen.
- Tepix 7y agoThere is some interesting related research being done by the DLR (German Space Agency). They have developed a low-weight chassis for small light-weight vehicles (the european L7e vehicle class, i.e. up to 450kg (1000lbs) without battery) that achieves good crash test results: https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light-commuter-car-a-765541/ https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light-commute... Just switching to electric cars will not save the planets resources. We have to use less resources by using smaller, lighter vehicles instead of heavy SUVs.
- akadruid1 7y agoDoesn't matter what kind of black magic you put into a tiny car, a big heavy SUV will destroy it in an impact and barely take a scratch. People buy big SUVs because they "feel safer", and they're going to keep doing that without some intervention. If I were a national regulator I would pass a law adding a pollution rating and a 3rd party danger rating to the vehicle registration plate.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoIt's an irrational "feel safer" though. Despite no legislated requirement for mixed size impact tests, enough have been done to see that tiny cars do surprisingly well. Whether the microscopic Smart Car against an max size old Volvo estate, or super mini against a Range Rover. They are categorically NOT destroyed in an impact with the SUV barely taking a scratch. I mostly agree with the rest though. :) My solution would be to copy the Scandinavians with a yearly car tax derived from a combination of weight over say 500kg and emissions.
- akadruid1 7y agoThis is a myth. There have been massive improvements in safety design and some tiny cars do surprisingly well in some tests against old cars of any size - but modern SUVs are much safer than a modern tiny car, and improvements to the strength of the safety cage in large vehicles have offset the improvements in smaller vehicles. Relative vehicle weight is still the biggest predictor of occupant injury, and the types of impacts that kill occupants (small overlap and side impacts) favour higher ride heights. There is no trick engineering that can protect the occupant of a tiny car from a 2 ton SUV going through the side window. You can see this in the data for average death rates (https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...) - the death rate per million registered vehicle years for mini cars is more than double the rate of SUVs. Some work has been done to study this, you can find some links to papers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6698/are-big-cars-and-suvs-safer-than-small-cars-or-do-they-just-feel-safer https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6698/are-big-ca...
- tmnvix 7y agoI reckon small cars pose less risk to others. Pedestrians and cyclists can easily see over them. Stopping distances are probably better. Ending up on the hood/bonnet of a small vehicle rather than under a large one with it's very high front end (often with an attached bullbar) is almost certainly preferable. Finally, consider that large vehicles likely do much more damage to other vehicles in a crash. All in all I find ownership of a large vehicle to be a fair proxy for an inconsiderate personality (bear in mind, I don't live in the US where large vehicles seem to be the defacto choice).
- Markoff 7y agothe article doesn't make sense the Golf was essentially replaced by Polo nowadays. people are getting richer so obviously the well known models are also getting bigger and fancier than they were in past and if you want comparable model with the one from past you must go one class lower same thing applies with phones and display size/specs, it's the easiest way to show customer the progress by offering him bigger display, sadly with smartphones you don't really have small options anymore like with cars where you just choose appropriate model
- SigmundA 7y agoMy RV is 102 inches wide not including the mirrors. Apparently that's the max allowed federally by the US although technically in some states it may not be on smaller roads and might be the old standard of 96" though never heard of that being enforced. Most Semis and box trucks are 102" wide. I believe the max allowed length is 65 feet, my RV is 32ft plus I tow a jeep, probably close to 50ft total. Height is under 13 ft. Interstate driving is no problem it gets pretty interesting driving around in the city, but surprising where you can fit it. Both the width and height cause the most issues. Normal cars and trucks still have room to grow within the federal limits, I don't believe any are 102" wide, full size dual rear wheel pickups are only 96" and the Ford Raptor is 86" and a Lambo is 80". Driving my RV feels like driving a room down the road, there is about 3 feet between me and passenger.
- acd 7y agoCars keep getting heavier too. With electric cars and energy use it would be good if there was a weight limit. It is normally safer in a collision if you sit in a heavier car. But this length and weight race make cars heavier. I guess one factor is car test where they measure trunk capacity in liters/ back seat leg room. Cars with more space usually get better reviews. For global warming we need ultra light cars which are energy efficient or no cars at all bikes.