7 ms·

From what I've ridden in the newer models it seems like internal cabin space remains the same or is genuinely getting smaller, but crumple zones keep increasing

From what I've ridden in the newer models it seems like internal cabin space remains the same or is genuinely getting smaller, but crumple zones keep increasing in size. There has to be some kind of ever increasing safety bar that keeps rising every year and this is the malicious compliance they're getting in response. In 2100 every car will have a total of 1 person of internal space, span the size of a city block and will be made entirely of cotton balls to achieve a 4 star safety rating. For the 5 star rating you also have to make sure the driver is immortal so they can't die of old age.

MSKJ 3mo ago
There is no malicious compliance, just compliance. Who would they be malicious to? There is enough competition, it would only hurt their bottom line
- moffkalast 3mo ago
  To the consumers who hate big bloated cars? It's not like people can or would say they want less safety in exchange for something smaller. There are arbitrary metrics to hit and that's all people look at. The more people say "this car looks absurd" the more it hurts their bottom line.
  - wolvoleo 3mo ago
    Also the business model will definitely shift more to services. A car will be not just the matter of buying it, but renting services on it like FSD, paying by data collection (which pays for 30%+ of the actual cost of current gen TVs etc). And in cars they make it much harder to disable data collection. For safety of course.
    - MSKJ 3mo ago
      Agreed on this point, everyone wants a subscription
  - MSKJ 3mo ago
    The thing is bigger car are proportionally safer. And the market likes bigger cars, so the consumers are voting for bigger cars. In the markets where consumers prefer or need smaller cars, they are offered. E.g. Japan
bobthepanda 3mo ago
part of the problem, at least in the US, is that the SUVs destroy other cars, so it is quickly becoming a weird safety arms race.
- xnx 3mo ago
  Came here to say this. I like that a small car is easy to park and safer in isolation (better stopping and handling), but do not like how they hold up against drunk/distracted drivers in 6000 lbs. SUVs.

MSKJ 3mo ago

There is no malicious compliance, just compliance. Who would they be malicious to? There is enough competition, it would only hurt their bottom line

moffkalast 3mo ago
To the consumers who hate big bloated cars? It's not like people can or would say they want less safety in exchange for something smaller. There are arbitrary metrics to hit and that's all people look at. The more people say "this car looks absurd" the more it hurts their bottom line.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Also the business model will definitely shift more to services. A car will be not just the matter of buying it, but renting services on it like FSD, paying by data collection (which pays for 30%+ of the actual cost of current gen TVs etc). And in cars they make it much harder to disable data collection. For safety of course.
  - MSKJ 3mo ago
    Agreed on this point, everyone wants a subscription
- MSKJ 3mo ago
  The thing is bigger car are proportionally safer. And the market likes bigger cars, so the consumers are voting for bigger cars. In the markets where consumers prefer or need smaller cars, they are offered. E.g. Japan

bobthepanda 3mo ago

part of the problem, at least in the US, is that the SUVs destroy other cars, so it is quickly becoming a weird safety arms race.

xnx 3mo ago
Came here to say this. I like that a small car is easy to park and safer in isolation (better stopping and handling), but do not like how they hold up against drunk/distracted drivers in 6000 lbs. SUVs.