4 ms·
...and aren't allowed on a highway or freeway. They're useless for most consumers.
by zdragnar 3y ago
...and aren't allowed on a highway or freeway.
They're useless for most consumers.
- greggsy 3y agoI would argue that this form factor could absolutely replace the vast majority of trucks use for delivery and contractor duties in many cities and towns in the US. Edit: flat bed pickup trucks that is, not lorries.
- waiseristy 3y agoThey already have the form factor, it’s called a Toyota Tacoma and Ford Ranger. They are bigger than Kei trucks because they have actual safety features.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoThey are bigger because they need to house 200HP+ engines, which are, in most cases, unnecessary.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y agoCars and trucks 25 years ago had 200HP+ engines with much smaller bodies.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoCars nowadays are larger for improved comfort, not because of safety features. Larger cars aren't inherently safer. Modern safety features, such as airbags, crumple zones, etc., have been around for over twenty years now, but cars have gotten larger. Regardless, the comparison was between Kei trucks and pickup trucks.
- avar 3y agoCars are in fact larger partially due to advanced safety features, in particular doors, pillars etc. have gotten a lot thicker over the last 25 years. > Larger cars aren't inherently safer. Yes they are, you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into. Newton matters.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago> Cars are in fact larger partially due to advanced safety features, in particular doors, pillars etc. have gotten a lot thicker over the last 25 years. I would like to see a citation on this. Car doors have gotten larger partly because there is so much more stuff going on there than 20-30 years ago, mostly a bunch of new electronics. They are also larger because, well, the cars are larger. > ... you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into. This is obviously not a fair comparison. I would be safer in a tank as well. Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150.
- avar 3y ago> I would like to see a citation on this. E.g. [1] has a decent overview of the side impact saga for the Euro NCAP since 1997. I'm less familiar with how the American version has kept up. In any case most mass market American cars target the Euro NCAP's safety tests, so it affects car design across the pond too. > [...]mostly a bunch of new electronics. I can't think of any electronics in doors than weren't there in 1995. Powered windows have gotten more common, but if it weren't for safety considerations the thickness of doors should have reduced since then, as all the electronics involved are smaller now. > Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150. Probably, but some quick internet searching reveals that if you add the weight of one person to the modern Camry it's probably heavier than the 2000s F-150, or thereabouts. What I was referring to is that crash safety tests don't account for crashes between differently sized vehicles. That's probably intentional, as regulators don't want to cause an arms race towards ever bigger cars. 1. https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/53189/19-0278-the-development-of-a-euro-ncap-far-side-occupant-test-and-assessment.pdf https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/53189/19-0278-the-development...
- tshaddox 3y agoAlso automobile engines tend to have vastly more horsepower for their size now than they did 25 years ago.
- everdrive 3y agoMy Ford Ranger has 143 HP, thank you very much.
- 8note 3y agoThe size being the safety feature, and thus a danger to other vehicles on the road