5 ms·

Good. The Bolt is a great form factor. We need to stop this never-ending race to get the biggest and heaviest cars for no reason in the US. We already have peop

Good. The Bolt is a great form factor. We need to stop this never-ending race to get the biggest and heaviest cars for no reason in the US. We already have people driving trucks around lifted beyond belief with beds that never get used. The excess weight and size not only makes them harder to control but also much more dangerous when they collide with people or other cars and more damaging to our roads leading to more need for constant construction and bad effects on our climate due to the pollution created to maintain roads.

gruez 3y ago
>Good. The Bolt is a great form factor. We need to stop this never-ending race to get the biggest and heaviest cars for no reason in the US. This is basically a fringe position. According to wikipedia the Bolt is classed as a "subcompact" car. In the late 2010s basically every car manufacturer exited out of the subcompact segment[1] because of lackluster sales. At least in North America, almost nobody wants subcompact cars. >We already have people driving trucks around lifted beyond belief with beds that never get used. Every time this sort of conversation comes up, pickup trucks are always brought up as the problem. Yet, if you look at sales data[2], their market share only rose modestly. Arguably they're just returning to historical trends after fuel prices came back down in the late 2010s. The fastest growing segment is actually crossovers. They come with much of the same concerns you raised about pickup trucks, but I suppose they're way harder to demonize so nobody really talks about them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcompact_car#2000s_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcompact_car#2000s_to_presen... [2] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-the-crossover-the-segment-thats-really-driving-the-auto-industrys-sales/ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th...
- legitster 3y ago
  People try to sell this as a manufacturer decision, but they were really brought kicking and screaming into the current market. They all dumped huge amounts of money into developing updated small car platforms in the mid-2000s only to have them all wither on the vine. And companies that didn't offer SUVs or crossovers in their lineup got hammered.
- b59831 3y ago
  > pickup trucks are always brought up as the problem Don't you know the outgroup is bad and the cause of our problems? /s And they wonder why people in flyover states dislike them.
- dangus 3y ago
  > They come with much of the same concerns you raised about pickup trucks I disagree strongly with that. these are very different vehicles. Crossovers are regulated like cars, built like cars, and anre often are roughly the same size as equivalent cars. They’re just lifted slightly off the ground (in some cases barely) and given a hatchback. As an example, compare dimensions of a Toyota Camry to a Toyota RAV4. Most of the exterior dimensions are almost identical. The RAV4 is notably a little bit longer outside of the wheelbase and only about 200 pounds heavier.
  - giobox 3y ago
    I think the distinction people are grasping at here are monocoque constructed vehicles (the vast majority of cars/crossovers/SUVs on sale today) and ladder-frame/body on frame construction - most trucks and some really big SUVs/offroaders. It's the body on frame vehicles that end up being heavy and compromised much of the time - its a way of manufacturing a vehicle that stretches back practically to the stone age. I also agree crossovers do not deserve to be compared to body-on-frame construction. In interests of not upsetting anyone - I also agree there are some limited usecases body on frame is better! But for most private passenger transport, a monocoque construction will have advantages - size, weight, fuel economy (function of weight reduction), driving dynamics, pedestrian safety etc. Body on frame can also make it easier for a commercial vehicle to offer bed customization options, given the car structurally is just a pair of rails on wheels that can be extended or shortened as application demands. A monocoque generally can't change its length as easily. There are new pickups flirting with monocoque construction - the Honda Ridgeline, Ford Maverick, Hyundai Santa Cruz, famously the Tesla Cybertruck...
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      Trucks need to haul and tow. You need a real steel frame to do that.
      - giobox 3y ago
        The cybertruck will manage 14,000lbs on a monocoque. Just because traditionally this hasn't been the case doesn't mean you can't make a monocoque that can tow. The truck industry has had little incentive to innovate here until very recently as for 40 years vintage body-on-frame architectures have sold and sold. As I said - I'm not disagreeing that body on frame does have some legitimate use cases today - it's just that with modern construction techniques it's much more rarely going to be private transport.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  What about the bolt EUV? It’s not a large car by any means but it is the size of a very small SUV meaning it is just on the edge of the smallest car a US consumer will willingly buy.
sdflhasjd 3y ago
Whereas Ford replaced the much-loved, and best-selling Fiesta with their fugly SUV Puma.

gruez 3y ago

>Good. The Bolt is a great form factor. We need to stop this never-ending race to get the biggest and heaviest cars for no reason in the US. This is basically a fringe position. According to wikipedia the Bolt is classed as a "subcompact" car. In the late 2010s basically every car manufacturer exited out of the subcompact segment[1] because of lackluster sales. At least in North America, almost nobody wants subcompact cars. >We already have people driving trucks around lifted beyond belief with beds that never get used. Every time this sort of conversation comes up, pickup trucks are always brought up as the problem. Yet, if you look at sales data[2], their market share only rose modestly. Arguably they're just returning to historical trends after fuel prices came back down in the late 2010s. The fastest growing segment is actually crossovers. They come with much of the same concerns you raised about pickup trucks, but I suppose they're way harder to demonize so nobody really talks about them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcompact_car#2000s_to_present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcompact_car#2000s_to_presen... [2] https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-the-crossover-the-segment-thats-really-driving-the-auto-industrys-sales/ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/the-rise-of-th...

legitster 3y ago
People try to sell this as a manufacturer decision, but they were really brought kicking and screaming into the current market. They all dumped huge amounts of money into developing updated small car platforms in the mid-2000s only to have them all wither on the vine. And companies that didn't offer SUVs or crossovers in their lineup got hammered.
b59831 3y ago
> pickup trucks are always brought up as the problem Don't you know the outgroup is bad and the cause of our problems? /s And they wonder why people in flyover states dislike them.
dangus 3y ago
> They come with much of the same concerns you raised about pickup trucks I disagree strongly with that. these are very different vehicles. Crossovers are regulated like cars, built like cars, and anre often are roughly the same size as equivalent cars. They’re just lifted slightly off the ground (in some cases barely) and given a hatchback. As an example, compare dimensions of a Toyota Camry to a Toyota RAV4. Most of the exterior dimensions are almost identical. The RAV4 is notably a little bit longer outside of the wheelbase and only about 200 pounds heavier.
- giobox 3y ago
  I think the distinction people are grasping at here are monocoque constructed vehicles (the vast majority of cars/crossovers/SUVs on sale today) and ladder-frame/body on frame construction - most trucks and some really big SUVs/offroaders. It's the body on frame vehicles that end up being heavy and compromised much of the time - its a way of manufacturing a vehicle that stretches back practically to the stone age. I also agree crossovers do not deserve to be compared to body-on-frame construction. In interests of not upsetting anyone - I also agree there are some limited usecases body on frame is better! But for most private passenger transport, a monocoque construction will have advantages - size, weight, fuel economy (function of weight reduction), driving dynamics, pedestrian safety etc. Body on frame can also make it easier for a commercial vehicle to offer bed customization options, given the car structurally is just a pair of rails on wheels that can be extended or shortened as application demands. A monocoque generally can't change its length as easily. There are new pickups flirting with monocoque construction - the Honda Ridgeline, Ford Maverick, Hyundai Santa Cruz, famously the Tesla Cybertruck...
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    Trucks need to haul and tow. You need a real steel frame to do that.
    - giobox 3y ago
      The cybertruck will manage 14,000lbs on a monocoque. Just because traditionally this hasn't been the case doesn't mean you can't make a monocoque that can tow. The truck industry has had little incentive to innovate here until very recently as for 40 years vintage body-on-frame architectures have sold and sold. As I said - I'm not disagreeing that body on frame does have some legitimate use cases today - it's just that with modern construction techniques it's much more rarely going to be private transport.
Shawnj2 3y ago
What about the bolt EUV? It’s not a large car by any means but it is the size of a very small SUV meaning it is just on the edge of the smallest car a US consumer will willingly buy.

sdflhasjd 3y ago

Whereas Ford replaced the much-loved, and best-selling Fiesta with their fugly SUV Puma.