4 ms·

At a rate proportional to the fourth power of the weight per-axle[1]. So considering how much more EVs weigh compared to their ICE counterparts, we can only hop

by uoaei 2y ago

At a rate proportional to the fourth power of the weight per-axle[1]. So considering how much more EVs weigh compared to their ICE counterparts, we can only hope that compact and lightweight EVs become more prominent. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
EVs don't weigh that much more than ICE cars, e.g. Tesla Model 3 weighs around the same as a Ford Taurus. Moreover, EV or not is the irrelevant part of the equation. Model Y is ~4300 lbs, Ford Explorer is ~4500, Ford Excursion is ~7000, so which one do you want your neighbors driving? "Everyone should ride a 100 lb motorcycle" is the sort of hypothetical alternative that the people currently driving a big SUV are just going to scoff at and vote out anyone who attempts to force it. You'd be much more likely to succeed by e.g. trying to find a different tire composition that reduces particulates.
- redwall_hp 2y ago
  I drive a 3000lb Honda Fit. A 2002 Camry, which is a perfectly reasonable family sedan, tops out at about 3300lb. The 2024 is up to a beefy 3600. The answer is none of your options, emphatically. I want to see extreme taxation (to the tune of the fourth-power of axle weight) and increases in liability for operating a vehicle over 3999lb.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Then all the cars will weigh exactly 3999 lbs, which is about what they do right now (average new car is within 100 lbs of that), and everything will cost more because your tax will hit all the small businesses that use light trucks for legitimate needs instead of grocery runs. Also, it's a de facto ban on long-range EVs (EV battery weight is proportional to range), which seems counterproductive if you care anything about climate change, because then the vehicles that see the highest number of miles continue to run on petroleum. Stop trying to regulate random indirect metrics and concentrate on the actual problems. Is it traffic and too many vehicle miles? Then build higher density housing and subways. Is it air quality? Then address particulate emissions using general rules rather than specific ones -- regulate rate at which car tires can expel particulates. If they have to reduce the weight of the car to reduce the cost, fine, but if they can find another way, that's good too. If you don't like the status quo, identify why and address that, don't just pick some isolated aspect of it and try to ban it without contemplating what incentives the rules are going to create. That's how we got into this mess.
Filligree 2y ago
Would it be unreasonable to put a third axle on?

by uoaei 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

EVs don't weigh that much more than ICE cars, e.g. Tesla Model 3 weighs around the same as a Ford Taurus. Moreover, EV or not is the irrelevant part of the equation. Model Y is ~4300 lbs, Ford Explorer is ~4500, Ford Excursion is ~7000, so which one do you want your neighbors driving? "Everyone should ride a 100 lb motorcycle" is the sort of hypothetical alternative that the people currently driving a big SUV are just going to scoff at and vote out anyone who attempts to force it. You'd be much more likely to succeed by e.g. trying to find a different tire composition that reduces particulates.

redwall_hp 2y ago
I drive a 3000lb Honda Fit. A 2002 Camry, which is a perfectly reasonable family sedan, tops out at about 3300lb. The 2024 is up to a beefy 3600. The answer is none of your options, emphatically. I want to see extreme taxation (to the tune of the fourth-power of axle weight) and increases in liability for operating a vehicle over 3999lb.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Then all the cars will weigh exactly 3999 lbs, which is about what they do right now (average new car is within 100 lbs of that), and everything will cost more because your tax will hit all the small businesses that use light trucks for legitimate needs instead of grocery runs. Also, it's a de facto ban on long-range EVs (EV battery weight is proportional to range), which seems counterproductive if you care anything about climate change, because then the vehicles that see the highest number of miles continue to run on petroleum. Stop trying to regulate random indirect metrics and concentrate on the actual problems. Is it traffic and too many vehicle miles? Then build higher density housing and subways. Is it air quality? Then address particulate emissions using general rules rather than specific ones -- regulate rate at which car tires can expel particulates. If they have to reduce the weight of the car to reduce the cost, fine, but if they can find another way, that's good too. If you don't like the status quo, identify why and address that, don't just pick some isolated aspect of it and try to ban it without contemplating what incentives the rules are going to create. That's how we got into this mess.

Filligree 2y ago

Would it be unreasonable to put a third axle on?