Regardless, the OP site isn't the original source and the site itself is barely a year old, consisting entirely of stolen content. That site is also tied to another 4 day old website that consists entirely of stolen content: technewsspace.com - the sites share the same Google Adsense code: CA-pub-8819900454201426
Recently I discovered a YouTube channel relieving videos a matter of seconds apart consistently for months which appears to script video generation from stackoverflow articles.
Is there any hope of this meaningless content generation ever going to stop? I would l o v e for stackoverflow to litigate against some of these bodies, purely to stem the flow.
I've developed mod-bots for Reddit that are meant to combat garbage bot accounts and garbage youtube channels but it's an unending onslaught of garbage.
> Is there any hope of this meaningless content generation ever going to stop?
No, Google has few regiments worth of antifraud/antibot specialists, and they are all being consistently defeated.
It's just like drug running is never going to be defeated if demand is worth it, and somebody from a poor country can make a few dollars per hour running a bot farm.
In reality though, I heard that top tier ad fraud consistently makes a few dozen new USD millionaires a year just in that part of IT crowd in Russia which deals in the greyzone in between black, and white hat activity.
Cheers. I do this type of thing on Reddit constantly as it's an unending tide of garbage there. I saw someone posting a fake MSNBC clone site the other day and it was tied to a dozen other fake clone sites just like it, these fake-site networks are everywhere if you poke around a bit.
Driving this thing at 80 km/h in normal car traffic is, IMO, suicide.
The only thing that prevents me from riding an e-scooter to work every day is bad weather, so I would actually love if we aimed even lower for personal city mobility. Make the vehicle weigh around 120 kg or so. Make it go 30 km/h tops, that's still plenty. Make it have a single seat, a roof, windshield, two front wheels, one rear wheel and a 1-2kW wheel hub motor.
A vehicle like that that could use [some of] the bicycle infrastructure we already have and would be significantly cheaper and easier to operate and maintain than a full-size car, while still offering acceptable comfort for <1h commutes.
(I live and work in Prague, Czech Republic, Europe.)
If I was in a bike lane, I would not be interested in sharing it with a 120kg enclosed scooter. If you've got a roof you can go drive in the road with the other cars.
Those "mini cars" (Cantas) can only use bikepaths as long as they are registered as a mobility scooter.
There are other non-mobility scooter micro cars mentioned and there is animosity towards those and a possible ban outright on their usage of bike paths. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ly7JjqEb0 )
EUCs are great for mixed mode commute where you need to take a bus or a subway, or when you don't like keeping your expensive bike parked outside (you can roll it beside you like luggage). You can also ride it one way and Uber back, so that's convenient. Curbs, gravel, any sort of construction are a hassle - I can jump curbs just fine on my hardtail, but with EUCs you need to time the jump just right and if you mistime it you end up with the wheel rolling away and potentially a couple new scuffs on the case - not to mention the embarassment. Wrist protection is also mandatory. Knee stress also seems higher, especially with lots of curb jumping or on bad roads where you need to keep your knees bent to absorb impacts (newer suspension EUCs help with that, but they're also heavier and more expensive).
PS. oh, and it's much nicer than biking in hot weather, although I guess same is the case with e-bikes.
I bought one and rode it for a while. Honestly, it’s quite hard to learn, tiring on the legs, and I would say it felt strictly less fun, less safe, and less useful compared to the two wheel scooters.
I haven’t tried a “one wheel” but I think it may be better due to its “snowboard stance” rather than the ankle clench you have to use to ride a EUC.
As a novelty, sure, I’m glad I tried it, but ultimately I sold it and strongly prefer eBikes and eScooters.
EUC are good alternative to bicycles for commuting (or recreation). They're a bit heavy to carry, but can be rolled using handle like a travel bag with wheels.
Be aware of safety, helmet is must, many wear motorcycle gear. They are relatively easy to get started and go on very high speed. Look online for safety tips and crash videos to get a sense.
I have, I love them and there's a reason I don't ride one.
> 80km/h is very much reasonable
80 km/h is a speed at which people still die in modern full-size cars, and those have actual crumple zones and weigh about twice as much as the QQ.
> Nobody wants to drive at 30km/h
Not in a car, but most e-bikes and e-scooters go around 20-25 km/h and they're the mode of transport I was trying to enhance with my imaginary vehicle. I don't want a small car, because small cars have to share normal road infrastructure with big cars, even hellishly big cars (semis). I want a four-wheeled bicycle with a roof and a weak electric motor. I want it to share as much infrastructure as possible with bicycles (while endangering them as little as possible).
As someone who has ridden 125cc scooters a fair bit at that speed the car would probably be much safer than the scooter. At least it won't fall over if you hit a bit of oil on the road.
When I first saw this car (pre-internet), it was in the music video for Depeche Mode's "Never Let Me Down Again"... I refused to believe it was a real model that wasn't just made for the video. It just seemed so impractical.
I was quite disappointed that Car2Go didn't work out - it was a car rental service similar to e-scooters, park anywhere, pay by the minute. They used Smart cars, which were fine (they were owned by Daimler), but it would have been a great system even with cheaper cars and disallowing highway use.
Seeing cars like this makes me wish someone would try it again but with a different fleet.
Car2Go didn't work out because keeping their cars well-distributed throughout the city was an impossible problem to solve. Because of the "park anywhere" feature they would all naturally cluster at a few hotspots very early in the day and stay there. A by-the-minute car service is pointless if I have to take a taxi to get to the car.
In Vancouver we have a local service (evo) that was competing with car2go, but since car2go pulled out they seem to be doing quite well. I suspect the reason car2go "failed" was that it was more about pushing the smartcar into the north american market that was fairly reluctant to buy smaller cars, than it was about actually providing that service. When smartcars showed they weren't going to take off here, they had no reason to keep it going.
Yeah, I've heard the theory car2go was all an attempt to advertise Smart cars, which I thought was weird... I liked the car2go service but I would never want to buy one of those cars, they drove like crap. For the purpose of getting around they were fine, but nothing more.
Are Smart cars always that crappy, or were the models used for Car2go particularly inferior? I'm not sure what the transmission was, but it wasn't a normal automatic - you could feel it go into neutral (losing power) and then engage at a higher gear.
It was an automated manual transmission. You described exactly what it was happening. The car was disengaging the clutch, changing gears, after witch it would reengage the clutch.
I drove a Smart for a few years. One feature of the computer controlling the transmission was that it's supposed to "learn" your driving and adjust its shifting accordingly. Mine always ran pretty darn good. I could also put the gear shifter into manual mode where it would only shift when I told it to, and it was much faster on the shifts.
The mother-in-law also had one. Hers drove like crap, much like you're describing. It's annoying to ride with her no matter what she drives. We'd do the reset procedure on hers and it would behave a bit better for a couple weeks.
I suspect the computer would have a helluva time guessing what to do next if there's a different driver every day.
It shifts like crap. We also have this transmission on an older Civic and I find myself giving up and switching to manual whenever I need to overtake or drive up a hill. Just give me a stick and a clutch or at least a sequential manual like the older convertible Smart has. My partner has developed bad urban driving practices such as accelerating and then immediately braking at a red light that could be clearley seen in order to compensate for the gearboxes' crappy behaviour. DSG double clutch is a dream to drive in compared to an automatic manual. I haven't used CVT but other drivers seem to have issues with that too.
I heard the diesel’s were better, but I can’t confirm that firsthand since all the car2go ones were gas. They rolled out some all-electric ones towards the end and those drove quite well with none of the jerking and rocking
It's basically a manual transmission that's automatically controlled. More efficient than a classic auto with a torque converter, but the shifts won't ever be as smooth (nor the acceleration from standstill.)
Assuming that a large part of the reason they 'stay there' early in the day is because people are at work, doesn't that mean that they'll naturally be distributed back to where they were when people return home?
Traditional rental car services seem to have figured out how to make it work, why can't pay-by-the-minute places do the same? Something like demand-based pricing seems like it would work well for this.
Most of these cars were used exactly for this purpose. In Seattle they would drive people from all over the city to Amazon's offices (in South Lake Union) in the morning, and back in the evening. However, the cars being used twice a day for 10-20 mins isn't exactly a winning business model for the company.
Evo in Vancouver&Victoria (https://evo.ca/) has the same model, but seems to work out. Up to now I was always able to find a car in 10min walking distance. But obviously there's some clusters of them at more frequent visited destinations.
> A by-the-minute car service is pointless if I have to take a taxi to get to the car.
I had the same problem when I was considering using Zipcar to visit Santa Cruz from San Francisco. I had no problem paying Zipcar's rate for the time it would take to travel. But Zipcar charges you for the time between when you take the car out of its designated parking spot and when you return it to the same designated parking spot, which completely defeats the purpose.
I used zipcar when I was in college, super convenient to have in providence without having to buy or take a car to school (esp for international students). Was much better to lock it in for days rather than by the interval they had (i think it was 30 min, but this was over a decade ago for me).
Though I can see how it would be less so if you only need to go from point a to b and not back to a.
It would be better if you could return it to any empty Zipcar stall, the same way rental bike work. The app could let you claim a spot ahead of time, so that it's not taken by someone else by the time you get there.
They killed themselves when they converted their fleet from Smart cars to full-sizes Mercedes. The new fleet was impossible to park. It was such an obvious mistake even at the time. Their users loved the smart cars.
Anecdotal, but I've used Car2Go extensively and HATED the smart cars. Always felt like they would fall apart the next time I accelerated.
Car2Go (Mercedes) merged with DriveNow (BMW) and are now called ShareNow. VW also runs a service called WeShare. Its somewhat successfull in Germany. I regularly use them in Berlin.
ShareNow also only uses VWs electric cara. Mostly last gen VW Golf-e but recently also some ID.3 cars.
Actually the Smart chasis is pretty well designed, like a roll cage with plastic panels. It would certainly not fall apart but feels that way because it's small, not very well sound proofed and they put the engine inside (!) the habitacle.
I was surprised when they shut down, because it seemed to work well in Denver. There was always a car within a couple blocks, and it was so much cheaper and nicer than Lyft IMO.
I once drove a car2go from downtown to my apartment near the university. This was after they started using Benz instead of Smart cars. I parked it outside and went and took a nap, had dinner, etc. About 6 hours later I left the apartment and noticed the car was still out front…running. I had put it in park and forgotten to turn it off. Customer service gave me a bit of a deal on the cost I’d racked up. I still laugh about it.
Without big regulatory changes around private ownership, cars like this one make me think that the idea of a massive shared fleet is doomed if self driving becomes a reality.
When cars become mostly about tech, tech will do what it always does - get cheaper and better. The total cost per trip will drop through the floor. People will buy more cars and urban sprawl will go crazy.
If I could send out my car without a driver to run errands for me, I would do it all the time. Lots of stores already have curbside delivery set up so it would be easy to adapt that for driverless cars.
There are other effects as well. For example, if accident rates plummet, car insurance will get cheap and that industry will implode.
The wear on a car costs about as much as paying someone to drive it. The costs can only go so low, and the cost of personal ownership is still going to be higher than a fleet because the car sits around more. And if they're so cheap I'd still expect to see instant rental/taxi fleets.
As for people buying more cars, so many people already have cars that I don't imagine that having a huge effect.
The wear on electric cars is significantly cheaper. No pistons, no oil, no gears, no transmission, no exaust system, no series of gaskets for the coolant to flow through the engine block. In fact, electric motors only have metal to metal contact at bearings, the actual forced produced is without metal to metal contact.
Fleet prices for electric cars today are already significantly cheaper. In the future, probably more so.
This doesn't invalidate your point, but the motors in electric cars are also liquid cooled just like ICEs. The system is a bit simpler since you're cooling a motor and not an engine, but ultimately it's a water cooling system and needs gaskets etc.
Yeah, people too often say things like "there's no gaskets" or "there's no gears or oil". There are gaskets, there are usually gears, there is usually a lubricant oil in the gearbox. But the temps and pressures on the cooling systems are much lower, the gearboxes are fixed gear ratios, and there's no waste carbons in the oil dirtying it. So the service intervals of all of these are much longer than any regular ICE vehicle.
Most electric cars still have a gear box with gear oil lubricating it. They're usually fixed gear ratios so the wear and tear is much lower (not sliding gears around but on cars it's not normally the motors directly connected to the wheels.
> so many people already have cars that I don't imagine that having a huge effect.
Instead of one car per adult, it'll be one car per person once the kids get to primary school age in suburban families.
There are a lot of elderly and disabled people would own cars if they were self-driving and a bit cheaper than they are now. Many people currently using public transport might switch, too. That group might use shared cars, but the others are unlikely to.
The effect might be bigger than one would think.
Edit: the effect on traffic volume and congestion will be bigger. Freed from the burden of driving, commuters will be able to live further away from their jobs. Empty cars will be a significant fraction of vehicles on the road.
> Instead of one car per adult, it'll be one car per person once the kids get to primary school age in suburban families.
I was actually thinking that it would reduce car ownership. If I could commute and then send the car to home so that my wife could commute to her workplace, I definitely would! It would require syncing on who uses the car when, but at a more granular level compared to now ("I'm taking the car today" vs "I'm taking the car between 8-9am").
I expect the opposite. With self-driving cars the cost of an Uber drops significantly. Instead of more cars we will end up with less cars at higher utilization. Why would you personally own a car when Uber is 10x cheaper for all use cases of a personal vehicle?
I'd be more worried about what happens when all cars are controlled by 2 massive tech companies.
At least in the US, people generally aren't all that price sensitive about their car. They spend a lot more money on cars than they strictly need to and I don't expect that to change. There are exceptions though (NYC is a big one).
If anything, the kinds of personalization you will be able to do with something like the car in the article are pretty big. I could see people buying them like they buy their phones. Pay $200 / month and get a new car every two years.
> Why would you personally own a car
For me, it's because shared cars are usually nasty inside. Plus, the pandemic has me thinking about the safety of shared spaces. My car is an extension of my home and I feel safe in it.
> what happens when all cars are controlled by 2 massive tech companies
Why would the car companies even sell cars for shared use? Setting up a company like Uber has never been easier and it's getting more easy all the time. Why wouldn't the car companies create their own car share services?
Automated driving will also prompt new, more agile forms of package delivery (imagine a package being shepherded from the Amazon warehouse shelf to your door with zero human participation) which will undoubtedly result in more vehicles on the road.
I am a car owner, but I'd seriously consider eliminating it if other options were convenient and cost effective. I've had my car for just about 15 years now. I am waiting for an electric option that will be a suitable replacement.
Car2Go pulled out of Minneapolis-St. Paul because the state classified them as rental cars and therefore charged really high rental tax rates intended for gouging travelers that rent cars at the airport.
I don't understand smart cars. My friend had one and I said something to the effect of "at least it gets good gas mileage". I was shocked to find out he was getting roughly the same gas mileage as my old Honda Civic. What is the point if it doesn't even get good gas mileage?
It's mentioned in one of the follow up articles to that one, and I don't recall which, but the the second generation of the Changli went way more "actual car" in styling and looks extremely similar to the QQ today: https://www.changliev.com/
(ETA: I've also loved following the Changli chronicles on Jalopnik, and people don't believe me when I say that the car industry needs to be keeping an eye on Chinese EV companies because they are doing really interesting things in the low end of the cost spectrum that could catch other manufacturers by surprise.)
What are the safety measures on these things? Last time I saw pics of Chinese low cost EVs they were what we would call golf carts in the US. Golf carts with a shell.
America needs to embrace more cars like these and lower speeds in cities. Lower speeds==less safety measures needed. Not only that but less noise, less pollution, safer for everyone around.
America is trapped in a tragedy of the commons that states stopped regulating vehicle size and marketers capitalized on selling "bigger vehicle size = safer" despite that being a tautology caused by that very tragedy of the commons: bigger vehicle size is less safe to other vehicles on the road (and pedestrians/bicyclists!) therefore to compete for relative safety more people feel the need for bigger vehicle sizes to improve their safety with respect to others' big vehicle purchases. It's gross on so many levels.
One of my favorite philosophy papers: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak. Author argues that because of the high crash incompatibility of SUVs, they are immoral - imposing needless harm on others (and based on data, ironically, with on average no benefit to those who drive them -- because of higher rollover risks).
The position "it is better to be harmed than to harm, if you have to choose between the two" is certainly worth discussing, but it would be such an uphill battle that Sisyphus would probably prefer to return to his boulder.
Ironic, given that it's one of the oldest philosophical positions. E.g. Socrates in Plato's Gorgias:
"We must either refute this argument and show that it’s not the possession of justice and self-control that makes happy people happy and the possession of badness that makes miserable people miserable, or else, if this is true, we must consider what the consequences are. These consequences are all those previous things, Callicles, the ones about which you asked me whether I was speaking in earnest when I said that a man should be his own accuser, or his son’s or his friend’s, if he’s done anything unjust, and should use oratory for that purpose. ... I deny, Callicles, that being knocked on the jaw unjustly is the most shameful thing, or that having my body or my purse cut is, and I affirm that to knock or cut me or my possessions unjustly is both more shameful and worse, and at the same time that to rob or enslave me or to break into my house or, to sum up, to commit any unjust act at all against me and my possessions is both worse and more shameful for the one who does these unjust acts than it is for me, the one who suffers them."
I'm picturing a bruised and bloodied mugging victim at the police station filing a report, and a detective reassures him, "Could be worse! Spare a thought for the vastly worse-off mugger, who had to actually do all those horrible things to you!"
Except there are so many commercial vehicles on the road that actually require substantial size (package delivery, carpenters, etc.), not to mention all the 18-wheel trucks.
Given that situation, it makes sense that families would want larger (safer) vehicles.
Most of America doesn't live in a 2-person highrise apartment.
18-wheel trucks require Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs) with stricter requirements, enforced regulation, and stricter safety oversight. Originally, so did package delivery vans and trucks in many states. It was deregulated by most states so that CDLs were no longer required for several classes of large trucks and vans, and it is those same deregulations that have allowed many "residential" vehicles to grow in size to fit those older categories that used to be classed solely for commercial vehicles (with stricter licensing standards and safety oversight).
The safety problem isn't and never has been commercial vehicles, it has been that America has let the definition of commercial vehicle erode to the point that many Americans believe that exorbitantly sized commercial vehicles make decent residential vehicles.
Yes, those commercial vehicles are on the road but they don't have to be on the road at the same time most people are on the road.
The idea that most Americans live in some sort of farm is actually wrong. Over 80% of Americans live somewhere urban. And yes, trucks, deliveries, etc should not be allowed to drive in urban areas except at night and in the early morning: for traffic and safety.
This should be regulated in Manhattan as well as Des Moines, and even in cities like Houston where the interstate is used for local trips. Driving a truck? Take the detour that skips Houston entirely during the day.
Thing is you don't see many commercial vehicles (eg delivery/repair vans) being involved in crashes on urban or suburban streets because they either have a class B license or are carefully screened. This is not to say it never happens of course, but in my experience commercial drivers are alert because driving is key to their ability to make a living, and patient because they want to get to their next job safely. They generally mindful of rules of the road and give way at pedestrian crossing or wherever. On freeways, most semi-truck drivers are similarly responsible.
The drivers who make me nervous tend to be in SUVs or lifted pickups/crossovers, followed by sports cars. IME people who pick a big car to feel safe tend to be poor drivers. I went from liking Volvos to ride in to being scared of them when I got a motorcycle.
This applies to mostly any other country in the world as I can't think of anywere where they regulate vehicle sizes. Yet you don't see nearly the same ammount of SUV in the roads. And in fact I think an SUV makes more sense in the third world: road maintenance is generally much worse with potholes everywhere; traffic enforcent much less effective, so speed bump everywhere too; a big truck is probably safer than a small car if you're about to get robbed in the street... the real "tragedy" of the US is people being too rich and things people worry about in other places like gas and financing being so cheap.
In addition, EPA rules made it impossible to build sedans and wagons with the performance desired by consumers, which is what caused the death of the station wagon and the birth of the SUV, which according to the EPA is a light truck and is subject to different emissions rules.
Now everybody with three or more kids is practically required to buy a van or SUV because you can almost never fit three car seats in the backseat of an EPA approved sedan.
So families buy larger vehicles, which have the problem described above, and the EPA doesn't even succeed at regulating the market
> In addition, EPA rules made it impossible to build sedans and wagons with the performance desired by consumers,
To elaborate, current CAFE standards have a gap where station wagons used to be, that basically makes it impossible to make a modern station wagon. By declaring SUVs as light trucks, they aren't impacted by the same rules as a station wagon would be.
tl;dr light weight high volume cars are literally not legal to make[0] and [1] unless tiny little baby engines are put in which would put these cars down market.
I'm hoping moving to EVs resolve this entire issue.
I'm also hoping that EVs encourage a bigger reinvestment in alternative form factors like the station wagon/estate car/shooting brake. So far most of the manufacturers of EVs are sticking to existing truck/SUV trends playing it safe, but now that enough of the major manufacturers are using standardized platforms where they can easily play with the form factor above the "skateboard" core we'll start seeing more EV diversity than ever before sooner rather than later.
(VW Group has an EV station wagon Porsche now [a variant of the Taycan EV], and that's probably wildly out of most family's budgets, but if VW Group is playing with that on the MEB at the luxury end, hopefully that means they are already considering how to play with that on the low end as well.)
90% of the people I know with big cars use them because they have jobs, hobbies, or interests that require the transportation of materials and equipment that would be difficult or impossible to transport in a small car, or because they live somewhere that requires a vehicle robust against difficult driving conditions. I don’t think “big=safe” is a super popular reason to get a big car, especially given the cost difference vs a commuter car or whatever.
Anecdata for anecdata, I've never seen 90% of big cars on the roads around ever regularly carry more than one passenger at a time to/from a desk job (or a meal commute) that doesn't need any large hauling ever.
"Big=safe" may not be smart reason to get a big car, but it's absolutely a common ("popular") one in the US today. Just looking at how cars are advertised, there's basically two main marketing pushes "just look how safe it keeps your family" and "just look at the hobbies it could let you do that you probably won't actually do but think you will", and yes that second one is a pretty equally common reason people buy them, but both messages get about equal air time in the US and seem common in reasons people buy them.
I realize I'm very dismissive of people buying them for "hobbies/interests", but over-buying capacity based on "perceived need that doesn't actually exist" is a trap that also makes the roads less safe and should be regulated.
> but over-buying capacity based on "perceived need that doesn't actually exist" is a trap that also makes the roads less safe and should be regulated
This kind of thinking (all expenditures to account for tail-risk demand scenarios is an evil source of inefficiency that must be eliminated) is making society perilously fragile.
Buying optionality is a great idea and people don’t do it enough.
Am I hauling crap from Home Depot every day? No. But two or three times a month I need to move a bunch of stuff, be it lumber, mulch, or doors. So I have a vehicle that can do that, because not having that capability would cost more per month in rental or delivery fees than having that capability costs me.
If more people had to rely on rentals for those types of projects the demand would be higher and the rental costs/delivery fees cheaper. It's a different but related tragedy of the commons that many "common services" such as delivery services from hardware stores got worse as more people did it themselves.
Obviously everyone's needs are different and everyone thinks their own needs are special, so there's not an easy immediate fix and it would need to be a culture change.
> I don’t think “big=safe” is a super popular reason to get a big car, especially given the cost difference vs a commuter car or whatever.
Counter-anecdote: that's exactly the reason given by a lot of people I know who like SUVs, especially. Maybe alongside "it can carry lots of stuff", but sometimes all on its own.
Nah, they mean it. FWIW (maybe nothing?) I'm pretty sure it's only ever been women who've told me this—but then, men I know all drive trucks if they are into that kind of thing, and I've never heard one name safety as what sold them on trucks. Maybe if I knew men who drove SUVs they'd say the same thing.
Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't. I'm tired of being menaced by extremely clean and pristine pickups that never seem to be loaded with anything more challenging than laundry or groceries.
Now and again I spot an old style pickup (when they were a similar height to a sedan) and they're conspicuous by how petite they look relative to the current offerings (while still having abundant bed space).
> Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't.
I buy things specifically so I don’t have to compete with other people during times of scarcity, such as the last 18 months that just happened.
Renting sucks if you do anything regularly or like to put work into improving anything (like your car or house).
I don’t want to live a life of peonage where I don’t own anything and am at the mercy of other people’s resource allocation decisions whenever I want to do anything.
You're taking this weirdly personally, and ignoring the contextual point about large numbers of pickups that are never used for any kind of work, as well as the other point about older pickups having equivalent amounts of bed space without being so massive.
I’m speaking from the first person, not taking it personally. I’m just explaining why ownership is often superior to rentership. Otoh, your comment seemed very personal and emotive:
> Maybe rent a big vehicle when you need it and use a regular size on when you don't. I'm tired of being menaced by extremely clean and pristine pickups
This sounds like you feel persecuted by truck drivers.
I’m not sure the observation about bed space is really true, except maybe insofar as modern safety regulations require more empty crumple space in the front of the car.
I don't feel persecuted by truck drivers, I just have an unpleasant number of close encounters with such vehicles as a pedestrian. Far from thinking they're persecuting me, I think they are simply not paying attention.
Is this unique to truck drivers? In my experience, the worst and most unsafe drivers usually drive cheap commuters, not pickups.
Also, to preempt a repeat, last time there was a thread on HN about saving pedestrians by banning pickup trucks, I ran the numbers and a very optimistic estimate for number of pedestrian lives saved by replacing every single pickup with a commuter car was like 200 people per year.
By no means, SUV drivers and boy racers are also serial hazards where I live. What's a bit different with those is it's easier to make eye contact with drivers in SUVs and sedans. Many modern pickups tend to be elevated to the same height as vans (especially if the suspension is lifted), but unlike vans and minibuses they still have a long front hood, which offsets any benefit from the increased elevation while still making it hard for pedestrians to make eye contact with the driver.
This is a worry factor for people with kids, walking a dog etc., because while the pickup driver may well notice people of adult height, anything below shoulder level is effectively invisible in close-up situations. Most unpleasant close encounters don't come from a speeding vehicle but going in a straight line, but drivers turning right on red or at a stop sign and focused on traffic coming to their left, while ignoring the existence of people trying to cross the street to their right (and sometimes to their left too, because they're gazing into the middle distance and literally overlooking people nearby even though the pedestrians have the right of way).
200 pedestrian lives a year seems like a lot to me, even 100 seems like an excess loss. If you factor in cyclists (though many cyclists are their own worst enemies) I think the number might swell.
You should come and see my kid's school during drop off and pick up.
The number of soccer moms driving Escalades and other oversized SUVs in their high heels would heal your misconceptions about large car ownership in the US.
It's not big as much as tall. Going from my truck to a rental car is a vulnerable change! My truck is inefficient and big, but we keep it because it can carry both our kids and our dog.
I've lived in areas with serious snowfall and icy road conditions that you have to deal with 4-5 months out of the year, most of my life. These small, lightweight, weak EVs are a bad joke in that context, they'd be useless.
NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Denver, Detroit, etc. have some terrible Winter weather for example. You can't safely, effectively navigate Winter weather in NYC in a vehicle like the Chery QQ Ice Cream. At best it'd be good ~2/3 of the year.
> These small, lightweight, weak EVs are a bad joke in that context, they'd be useless.
[citation needed]
Power is not the limiting factor in icy road conditions, traction is. While a heavier car is easier to get moving due to increased normal force, it's equally harder to stop. The actual difference makers are snow tires so you have more traction, and electronic stability control/antilock brakes so you never lose traction.
From what I understand, upgrading a 2 wheel drive EV to a 4 wheel EV isn't a horribly hard thing to do.
Driving on snow/iced doesn't require power, it requires good tires and an understanding of how to drive on snow and ice.
I do wonder if the engine in it could get up Seattle hills though, my family's old Geo Metro had problems, so something with a fraction of the power could prove problematic.
This. Regulating seasonal snow tire/chain usage in areas with lots of snow/ice is imperative to reducing collisions and improving safety. That and decent infrastructure for clearing snow in a fairly timely manner.
All seasons can't and _wont_ cut it in some areas, and having tires that only work 3/4s of the year for traction is dicey at best.
Source: I drive a Miata in winter up in Saskatchewan
Even with back-seats being used, bring back the station-wagon:
The 90s Buick Estate (a behemoth of a wagon) was 9 inches shorter than the Kia Telluride (one of the smaller 3-row vehicles in the US) and seated 8 (though it would be 7 today because front-row bench seats appear to be disallowed except in pickups).
The Estate's contemporary Ford Taurus Wagon could also seat 7 (though two adults in the 3rd row is not comfortable, it worked for short drives in a pinch) was almost 20 inches!! shorter than a Suburban/Escalade.
> America needs to embrace more cars like these and lower speeds in cities. Lower speeds==less safety measures needed. Not only that but less noise, less pollution, safer for everyone around.
I don't think these cars are very safe even in, or actually especially in, China. It is just that China tolerates a lot more auto accident related deaths than the USA does.
I took a look at the statistics on Wikipedia and they're pretty staggering... per-capita road accidents are roughly 1.5x the US, but per-vehicle is almost 10x.
From a US perspective it would be truly insane to drive one of these on a Chinese highway but you go there and see little three wheeled trucks hauling a dining table zipping alongside 18-wheelers. Truly a different standard.
Most US cities currently have highways that go through them, and the majority of people who drive in those cities live in the suburbs. For those living in cities, the public transit is a much better solution nearly in every way, compared to personal transportation devices that evade safety regulations.
The golf cart tuk tuks are usually relegated to the slow lane (25km/hr, usually seperated from main traffic with a median strip, shared with bicycles and ebikes alike) they're also really uncommon in cities, primarily seen in rural areas.
This car looks like it's about halfway between those and a smart car so the safety features are going to be pretty critical if it's sharing the road with full size cars full time.
China's traffic is generally slow and always feels dangerous, moving much more like water compared to Australia and the US where it's fast and feels safe all the time until it's suddenly fatal. Due to the nature of traffic the safety profile requirements there don't quite match those in the west.
China's traffic feels more dangerous because it is: they have 50% more auto accident related deaths than the USA does (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...). My Hunanese wife's dad was killed by one of those loosely regulated and very dangerous blue trucks (if you live in China, you know what I mean). I've seen someone die in a traffic accident before in Beijing (this person was biking across the street (dongzhimen wai) against a red light, and got hit by a taxi cab trying to beat the light before it turned red the other way). You can never really get that image/sound out of your head (and things slow down when you see it, to be fair, the cyclist was clearly at fault, but the taxi driver was also speeding).
Wikipedia: The Chery QQ Ice Cream is powered by a 27 hp Chery TZ160XFDM13A electric motor, which uses a lithium iron phosphate battery pack. The car has an electric range of about 175 km (109 mi) and a top speed of 100 km (62 mi).
For reference, the Prius electric motor is slightly more powerful than that (depending on year) and it's incredibly sluggish when accelerating without the gasoline motor. I'm sure part of that is Toyota doesn't give the electric motor full juice without the ICE, but the other part of it is that 23kw/30hp is not a lot.
I suspect the 0-30 (!) would be in the 13 second range and hitting 60 would take like two minutes and few miles of straight, flat road with no headwind.
Every Prius has at least 2 electric motors. In the typical Prius, it's the larger of those two, MG2 that drives the wheels. But the power that the battery system can deliver is pretty wimpy in most hybrids, because you can run the engine to generate additional electricity when you need it.
That's pretty cool to know. The Tata Nano is likely a fair bit lighter though, to the extent that when 4 adults were sitting in it, you really felt it.
A mostly flat city without Winter weather. I doubt this thing - at 27hp - would climb the hills of San Francisco or Pittsburgh very well with two adult passengers in it.
This is not a decent car. You are comparing an e-bike that is likely going to be bought by someone rich with a car that is likely going to be bought by someone poor. Also, China has plenty of e-bikes that are really cheap (and finding a decent one for $4k is really hard, it will probably cost $8k over there).
Yes and Leica sells a black and white digital camera for $6,000. There are a lot of dentists and doctors out there looking to spend surplus money, they may as well capture that.
Bikes in general are a ripoff. I wonder if it's because they sell poorly so the prices must be high or it's just some sort of monopoly (perhaps tied in with the bike theft mafia) :D
I've never had an issue with my $200 used bike for commuting 45 minutes to work, honestly. Those multi-thousand dollar carbon fiber things are just for racers and status symbols and minor improvements, basically. There are people at my company who use their bike for the Malibu Triathlon, etc. but if you are cost conscious, it's not actually necessary to pay so much.
Really? I wouldn't have said so. Yes, if bikes had the scale and vertical integration that automobiles do, they could be somewhat cheaper, but the price point has never felt unreasonable to me.
Particularly given the fairly smooth ramp from Walmart special ($100-200) through to entry level "good" bike at a sporting goods store ($300-600) to an actually-good specialty bike store bike and ultimately pro-am ($800-$2000+). And across all these tiers, there's typically a robust second-hand market in most places, though at the higher levels you'll find it via local riding club forums and so on rather than FB Marketplace.
Perhaps a duopoly. Shimano and Sram probably run the high-end mass market for most bike components. And in the case of e-bikes, the batteries are pretty pricey.
It's an industry that could use some disruption. Maybe it's too old-school a business though, and the margins are too low for today's entrepreneurs.
I think e-scooters will shake it up a bit. I chose a scooter over an e-bike because it was a third of the price, half the weight to carry up stars when I get to the office, and didn't need peddling.
I also find standing up for my 15 minute commute far more comfortable that the hard saddles that seem to be in fashion on bikes these days.
I tried to buy an electric car on Alibaba a few months back. I could never get a clear answer about getting it through customs. It isn't clear if it would clear emissions. But, is that necessary if i promised I would only drive it in my driveway? The company said lots of people own them in the US.
Anyone here have success purchasing one of these Chinese electric cars and importing it into the US?
Does this have a full fledged BLDC motor and regen braking?
Early China low-cost EV's were simple brushed DC motors. In today's world, brush less ought to be cheaper and better. All the fancy features like traction control, regen, burst acceleration, etc become entirely software features, so cost nothing if enough units are sold.
In some sense "squishy" is a good description of how we design cars, you want the car to squish in a collision to avoid rattling the people around too forcefully.
QQ is actually just pronounced like QQ in English. If I remember correctly, it was first popularized by a type of candy - call QQ candy, which I think is where the soft and squishy meaning the OP referred to came from.
Next was QQ the software, I think inspired by the name ICQ, developed by WeChat's developer, Tencent. Prior to smart phones and wechat - QQ was the dominating platform
27 horsepower! That's less than 1/3 of a smart car. The form factor makes sense for a commuter car, but I don't think this thing has enough "go" for stop and go traffic.
Even before having been involved in a car accident two years ago, I have always been annoyed with the car industry, and looked on incredulously at the kind of racket that people are suckered into dealing with. Buying a car is like being forced to consume a lifestyle brand, being the result of what amounts to light collusion from automakers to offer nothing else. Since the accident, forced to have dealt with a process that I had been able to avoid up to that point by sticking with my past purchase and staving off the temptation for anything newer and shinier (which wasn't really very tempting at all, given the status quo in the car industry), I have become only more convinced of the need for a reliable $5000 "Costco car". It's a special source of despair knowing that low-income people get ensnared under the current regime that ends with them thinking that the the best option is to pour so much money into $10–20–30k cars that end up being junk, or else risk gambling on something in a lower price range.
Musk professes to have a mission of weaning it off its addiction to fossil fuels, but at Tesla's luxury car prices for what are luxury products, it's not going to make much of a dent, at least not very quickly. The availability of a no-frills EV with reasonable (i.e. next to zero recurring) maintenance costs would almost certainly contribute more to humanity than all the work so far that's gone into SpaceX and Tesla combined.
Cars are a hidden drain on society. In part because, like you said, its a $10k-$30k admission ticket just to participate in society. In fact its worse than that, because people don't see the hidden costs. When you pay for an Uber or a train ticket, the full price of your transit is up front. When someone gets in their car, they aren't thinking about all the effective price of owning the car per day. They just see the immediate marginal price of things like gas and tolls. As a result, they have extremely skewed view and make deeply irrational choices. Eg people see the sticker price of using Uber and think its "obviously" more expensive than driving yourself. In truth, if there are public transit options most of the time but you would still sometimes be stranded without a car, taking an Uber up to 3 times per week is cheaper than owning it yourself.
Say you own a $36,500 car for 10 years. I'd call that a bit more pricey than normal, but also a bit longer than normal. You can buy cheaper but the lower quality won't last as long so let's just use these numbers for now. When you work it out, owning such a car will cost $10 per day just to have the privilege of letting it sit in your drive way. Tack on insurance price per day ($4.50 per day by some quote I looked up) and effective maintenance costs ($? per day) and you've already spent over $15 each day before even leaving your garage. Even in your costco card example, say you treat it well and made a $5000 car last for 3 years. That's still about $4.50 per day just for the privilege of having it plus the insurance (maybe a bit cheaper for the cheap car?). The "costco car" option is still more expensive per day than taking the metro, and that's before you even left your driveway!
Sad this is down voted, IIAOPSW has a great point.
We as a society pay a lot to support a car infrastructure. From crappy land usage for parking lots, which necessitates increased property taxes on everyone else, to land that could be used for housing/businesses instead being used for roads.
Add on top of that the number of injuries, and how much time we have to spend in cars because we live in a society designed around cars, personal vehicles are a huge dead weight cost.
I'm not saying everyone needs to give up their cars, but families having more cars than people is insane.
> We as a society pay a lot to support a car infrastructure.
With a large part of the world having had lockdowns, I’ve been surprised at the readiness to go back to normal where cars are concerned.
As someone currently locked down, the silence is amazing. I hear the odd power tool, or pet, lots of bird song and maybe some noisey human. I hear push bikes coming down the hill, long before they pass me.
The typical city noise of cars, engines, tyres, horns etc is so very very obnoxious, quite apart from the points raised above.
There was an interesting thread here on HN recently on a link between road noise and dementia.
You are right, few people are aware how high the costs of just owning a car are. Fortunately, here in Europe, a car isn't mandatory everywhere. While there are remote locations in the countryside where you really want a car, a large part of the population can get by quite well with public transport. And once you got rid of your car, you save so much money that you can easily afford to occasionally call a taxi, if a car is absolutely needed.
A car that sells new for the price of the Chery is not going to have good safety measures and will be a death trap in an accident. Cars today can last a long time if you take care of them. New they cost a lot, but after about 10 years most are in a much more affordable price range. Sure you may have to spend a little more on maintenance, but still.
The key with all of this is spending the time to maintain them mechanically and physically. I have always done that which is why I am still driving a 20 and 17 year old cars (along with a newer Chevy Volt). Most people think they look close to being like new.
Sure it takes some time to wash them myself, add protective sealants/polishes to the outside, protectant in the inside, leather preservers to the seats, keep up on the repairs etc., but the reduced insurance costs and overall running costs make it an easy thing to do.
In the US most people do not take care of their cars, mechanically and physically they often start to look really bad after about 10-15 years (even in the milder southern and western climates) and people just junk them and buy new. In some other countries people take care of them and you see the net result of people with cars over 20 years old in good condition still being driven.
My car (at 200,000+ miles at the time of the accident) was exactly such a case of "take care of it, and all will be well", which is why I was able to avoid dealing with the nightmare that is the auto industry today. (It's also why I still think of that one as "my car," while the others I own today do not.) Again, being well-aware of the worth of a car that is well taken care of by experiencing it firsthand and having spent some time looking for something that would allow me to replicate the previous 10+ years of car ownership, you're not really teaching me anything. Because at the end of the day, it comes down to the affordances offered to you by the market, and the market deals in junk.
I don't know what you are expecting. A 200k mile car that lasted ten years before an accident is something I would consider as "well built".
How many miles do you drive each year? What kind of car did you expect to get, and how many miles+years would you expect it to operate at to be considered "well built".
You have misunderstood something. Yes, that car was worth the price. It is the benchmark against which I am measuring newer cars. "Cars today", which is what we are talking about, give an experience that is unlike that one. (Including the Chevy Bolt @ $14k that you mention in your other comment, which is more like a Walmart car than a Costco car, and nowhere close to the price point I mentioned or the cost/value ratio of the reference car.) That that car lasted 200k, and would have been on its way to last another 100k at least, underscores my point, not undermines it.
For the reason above, the question is not "What kind of car did you expect?" It's "What kind of car do you expect to get?" And the answer is, "Considering the opportunity we have had to make technological progress, I would expect that I should be able to find a car today that is at least as good as that one. I should definitely not expect to be disappointed to find that as a general rule what's available is so much worse."
> My car (at 200,000+ miles at the time of the accident) was exactly such a case of "take care of it, and all will be well"
Bargain priced domestic-market cars in China have a reputation for needing major repairs within the first couple years of ownership.
We had vehicles like this in the US in the 70s -- it is possible to build vehicles very cheaply with the use of cheap materials. But today, even the cheapest cars in the US make extensive use of anticorrosive coatings, ultra-high-strength steel, and have extensive active and passive safety systems.
That car would be a death trap in the U.S. because most Americans feel the need to choose their personal vehicle as if it's some sort of urban tank. It would get crushed by even a small SUV or truck.
I'd love to live in a world where it's safe to be on the road driving a scooter, moped, smartcar, etc., without worrying if Karen in her Humvee is going to flatten me because she literally can't see the street within 20ft of her bumper.
I like your "Costco car" phrase! When I read the article, I saw a car under $5000 that fits the needs of many US citizens automotive needs and thought "why can't we have that over here?"... instead we're pushed $50,000 pickup trucks and cars capable of reaching 150+ mph with price tags to match. We need the "Costco car" you speak of!
> why can't we have that over here?" (snip) We need the "Costco car" you speak of!
We already have them. A "Costco Car" built to meet all minimum US safety standards is how you get stuff like the 2021 Chevy Spark (retail out-the-door price of about $14,000 brand new - https://www.chevrolet.com/cars/spark . It's cheap enough that a working fresh graduate could buy one brand new, off-the-lot. (approx $240/month or so on a 60 month loan)
Most people don't like "Costco Cars". Stuff like the Chevy Spark, or Mitsubishi Mirage, or the Nissan Versa -- they generally aren't as comfortable in seats or interior trim or interior features, they aren't as fun to drive, they tend to be louder and lighter which can make them feel unsafe (even though they aren't), they aren't very big or roomy, they generally won't impress anybody, etc.
But you can buy a "Costco Car" from any Chevy dealership anywhere in the US today, if you really want one.
The above commenter was saying we needed a "Costco Car" that was actually an EV to increase EV sales. Despite it's EV sounding name the Chevy Spark to date has never been an EV.
Chevy's Bolt, their current closest to an entry model EV, still starts at $36,500.
According to your link that was a limited production run from 2013 to 2016 and $31,000 is a far cry from the Chery QQ's $5000 price tag.
You may be technically correct about the previous poster's claims, but that says nothing to the fact that we simply don't have a low cost, low expectation electric vehicle in the USA.
One reason unfortunately is you have to share the road with those $50k pickup trucks and I would not want to be in a $5000 box anywhere near those things. I've seen a video once of a lifted pickup hitting a small economy hatchback. It was horrific.
Absolutely, but successfully enacting such measures would mean political violence, which is a whole different thing from traffic deaths, and even attempting it would probably lead to a wave of elections going toward the party promising not to do it (and likely to do a bunch of other things that are the governance equivalent of punching yourself in the face—god, our politics are dumb in this country). You think people get upset about any hint of gun regulation, look out if you go after big trucks. No-one's going to be crazy enough to try it, though yes, we definitely should take measures to drastically reduce the number of large personal vehicles on the road, in an ideal world.
Nobody in the USA will buy it. Anyone who claims they will, and doesn't own a Mitsubishi Mirage or first-gen Nissan Versa is lying. These cars stayed under $10k new for a while, and yet never really sold well in the USA. It was even possible to get a Ford Fiesta for <$10k new after discounts up until they stopped selling them in the USA. They seriously sat on lots for 2-3 years before being auctioned off (and probably sold at used car dealerships for more than they sold for new).
Americans don't buy cheap new cars, and it's not because they don't exist. Manufactures would love to get Americans buying cheap new cars, but Americans stubbornly refuse to. They claim to want cheap new cars, but they take one look at an actually cheap car and decide that a 10 year old <nice car> is a better buy.
Honestly, I don't think our auto industry is the result of soft collusion at all. I think it's 95% due to market forces (and 5% regulation that basically gives companies a break for producing what the market wants).
The car market naturally bifurcated itself such that wealthier individuals buy new cars, that they trade in on a frequent timeline, and are sold used to lower income buyers.
The reason I believe this is because there have been tons of great, small, cheap cars sold in the US, and they have never succeeded. The quintessential example would be the Honda Fit or Scion xB. Both were very cheap cars, with a relatively large, usable interior, and rock solid reliability. None of these cars lasted in the USA for more than two generations. And the second gen xB is basically a totally different car from the first gen.
For better or worse, the majority of low cost car buyers believe in, "Why buy a new <cheap car> when you could get a five year old <nice car> for the same price?" I honestly thinks that the majority of buyers have been brainwashed to think that used cars are always a better deal, because it's not uncommon for lightly used cars to cost more after two years than they did new. That really only makes sense if used car shoppers aren't even bothering to price new cars.
Another point of reference: the best selling vehicles in the USA are all full sized pickup trucks. In their financial statements, Ford reports the number of F150s sold for >$50k.
> None of these cars lasted in the USA for more than two generations. And the second gen xB is basically a totally different car from the first gen.
The 2nd gen xB had none of the charm of the first generation, and then it wasn't updated for ages, then it vanished.
Then Kia came along with the Soul and basically proved the market for a box car was still there, it just had to be a good value.
IMHO Kia has gone down the same road with the Soul that Toyota did with the xB, the new souls are larger and more expensive, and they don't have as much personality.
I would say Musk 100% agrees with the need to lower costs here, and they are aggressively trying to get there.
However, much better than low cost cars would be robo-taxis, as the utilization rate on cars for people is low that this dramatically changes the economics. Musk and others realize this, which is why they are pursuing it so vigorously.
Its much better for the poor and for the environment to have a fleet of $30k cars @ 70% utilization than a bunch of $10k cars at 5% utilization.
VW may be on the path to delivering such a "Costco EV car" in the near future, but haven't hit it today. Their ID.3 is the current closest, isn't sold in America, and starts at 33.900 Euros (roughly USD$39,700 at today's exchange rate).
I think the modern replacement of VW in this respect might be Dacia. They are selling bare minimum cars at an affordable price. They just introduced the "Spring" which is a small 4-seated electric car starting below 20k€, after subsidies you can get it in Germany for less than 10k€.
Interesting. Dacia is in the Renault family. I enjoy seeing what Renault have been doing in Europe, though as an American it is mostly watching with envy. Their closest relative in the US is Nissan America and they are just awful and extremely out of touch. (They barely sell the Leaf and still haven't really brought any other of Nissan's EV efforts to the US market, and certainly don't have anything like the Renault Zoe much less a Dacia type low end model.)
What's nice about that is that if you're not sucked in by the lifestyle branding you can get what's basically a VW — VW, SEAT and Skoda share engines, gearboxes, even most of the knobs and UI — for quite a lot cheaper. SEAT and Skoda list prices are somewhat lower, and dealers will knock more off too, in my experience (we got a new SEAT at about 1/3rd off).
China has about twice the purchasing power of the US. So the Chery QQ would be like buying a $8k car in the US accounting for PPP. Outside of the current pandemic used car market, $8K will buy a pretty great used car and will be more practical than the Chery QQ. e.g. I can buy a 2003 Honda Pilot 4WD for $5,600 which probably has a good 200k miles left.
People buy expensive cars because they want expensive stuff and don't know any better. As long as these people exist the cheap vehicle market will be fulfilled by used vehicles. It would be hard to make a new vehicle compete with a slightly used one at the same price because newer vehicles are subject to higher taxes and emissions standards.
That said we certainly need cheap electric vehicles which means we need enough new EVs so that the used EV market grows. The Cherry QQ only has a range of ~120 miles and top speed of 60mph. I just looked and I can get a used 2015 Nissan Leaf S for $12K which is a much better value overall.
> e.g. I can buy a 2003 Honda Pilot 4WD for $5,600 which probably has a good 200k miles left.
I frankly would not take that bet. There are many catastrophic (costing more than the purchase price) repairs that can come up between 100k and 200k. If its survived that long it probably has more left in it, but a lot depends on how its been driven and maintained.
> China has about twice the purchasing power of the US. So the Chery QQ would be like buying a $8k car in the US accounting for PPP. Outside of the current pandemic used car market, $8K will buy a pretty great used car and will be more practical than the Chery QQ. e.g. I can buy a 2003 Honda Pilot 4WD for $5,600 which probably has a good 200k miles left.
Except China doesn't have used cars. All cars have to be scrapped after 8 years, and can be pulled from the road much earlier by any arbitrarily imposed new safety, or emissions regulation.
> I have become only more convinced of the need for a reliable $5000 "Costco car".
As a person who hates cars and think they are ludicrously expensive, I agree. My next car will be an e-bike if I can get away with it, because that's probably the closest thing there is to a $5000 reliable car.
I fully agree. And this obsession with shiny delicate paint everywhere, so that even the slightest smudge shows up making the car look worn and dirty and old. On top of that, the slightest dent can't be popped or hammered out, and it just encourages the viewing of cars as lifestyle items rather than utilitarian ones.
We need a kind of bike type of car, everyone can get one fairly easy and they are durable and last almost forever if you take some care. In reality, we need to go back to walkable neighborhoods with shops and cafes within a few minutes walk and light rail to connect everything further.
regular and electric bikes. let’s replace parking on major urban streets with dedicated, protected bike lanes. along with dedicated bus lanes with synchronized lights, we could replace a lot of car trips with just these two changes in how we use our existing streets.
LA, where i live, is so perfect for these two changes (given the mostly mild year-round weather and relative flatness) that it pains me every day looking at how poorly we’re using our limited land and air resources (including the relative dearth of dense mixed-use along major corridors).
After my accident, for a while I blew so much money on Lyft to travel to the office and back, which was a fairly straightforward 10-mile trip one-way.
Later, after the pandemic started, I watched the movie 1922 (although I don't really recommend). Having been through the previous ordeal, the simplicity of the family's unassuming farm truck was not unnoticed. For all the money I spent on Lyft, I would have much more happily dropped it on a car similar to the one from the movie, even if it meant open-air cooling (no AC) and a top speed of 35mph.
If the best part is no part, than we have to ask ourselves if we truly need a car for daily living or that we could transform society in such a way that don't require cars for daily living.
What do we need a car for? To transport heavy objects or people over distance longer than a bicycle or a human in a reasonable amount of time in a manner more flexible than a bus or a train.
I agree with this in principle, and would have agreed even prior to the accident, but in reality, after the period where I was forced into a "no car" lifestyle, yes, you actually do need a car in the meantime, at least while waiting for society to transform itself.
I don't buy on billionaires dreams, if Elon wanted to help humanity, he would focus on making Teslas more affordable and/or other projects that impact more closely the environment/people's life. Obviously, everyone spend their money in the way they want, but the non ending hypocrisy coming from those people is truly disgusting.
Tesla is focused on making more affordable cars. But they need to get to a level of scale which will enable cheaper cars. There are basic economics related to battery production which prevent a really affordable car atm. This the problem they are solving right now. The Model 2 is expected to be announced in 2023. That will be their $25k car. And I would imagine later in the decade they will be able to release a car sub $20k.
Tesla doesn’t have to be the one that makes the cheap car (even though indications are that they will, at least for the Asian markets) — making electric cars that are cool and capable and prove that it can be done it still immensely valuable.
And there are plenty of electric cars in the same rough segment as the Model 3 — but not many much cheaper. Which should probably tell you something about how easy/feasible it is. Tesla nor anyone else has a magic wand here.
This website has the same content word for word in English, likely just put through Google Translate: https://www.worldstockmarket.net/a-modern-electric-car-for-4... but properly cites the Russian blog.
I was able to find the original source by reverse-searching the images used. IXBT cites another Russian blog as the source https://newsyou.info/chery-predstavil-neobychnyj-elektromobi... but altered the wording. That blog in turn cites another Russian blog with different wording: https://avtodream.org/vse-novosti/novinki/40708-chery-predst... which cites yet another Russian blog incorrectly and the trail is lost.
Regardless, the OP site isn't the original source and the site itself is barely a year old, consisting entirely of stolen content. That site is also tied to another 4 day old website that consists entirely of stolen content: technewsspace.com - the sites share the same Google Adsense code: CA-pub-8819900454201426
This post is plain spam.