"We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient"
the concept is having freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want, whether you're young and healthy or old and frail, whether it's day or night, rain or snow
Having cars as the primary and often sole viable method of transportation, under any circumstances, be it for a soda craved in the middle of the night, vacationing in a different state or daily commute, and having all the cities and the country designed for them is totally a ridiculous concept.
and until we get star trek tech, the only alternative to cars in a city is getting on a meatwagon and having your day enriched by drunks, junkies, crazies and numerous other vibrant urban characters
and outside the cities, would you have buses run around the clock between little towns in the middle of nowhere on the off-chance that someone from a farm might need a ride in the middle of the night?
If I lived in a perfect world with universal bike lanes and drivers that were actually mindful of cyclists and gave them space, I'd gladly do most of my errands with a cargo ebike. Sadly we do not live in that world. Cycling on public streets with real traffic is signing up for a lot of stress and a not insignificant chance of bodily harm. Until that's fixed with infrastructure changes on par with what they have in the Netherlands, I make my peace with using a 2T machine.
It was both. The Netherlands had relatively high bike usage before "the cycling revolution" in the 70s, but either way it's kind of a moot point.
Either way, if you're trying to insinuate that you first need the bikes and then the infrastructure, you're going to have a hard time finding good arguments.
is there a case for electric bikes? I enjoy electric bikes. It seems to add significant functionality (and I find it super fun), without changing much of the characteristics of a bicycle, biking itself (except maybe slightly more risky) and infra to charge bikes would be much more scalable.
Automakers started making ultra-heavy flagship EVs as a way to make electric cars cool and attractive.
But then it feels inertia took over and now we're getting all of these unreasonably heavy and powerful EVs in some sort of magazine specifications arms race.
Some of these gigantic EVs are approaching 10,000 lbs. I'm not excited to have random drivers piloting their 9,000 lb electric SUVs with 1000 HP doing 0-60 in the 3-4 second range. That's an unbelievable amount of kinetic energy that someone can deploy in a matter of seconds while surrounded by cars weighing 1/3 as much.
This feels a bit like cherry picking? I mean, the heaviest EV is the Hummer EV at 9000lbs compared to the original Hummer at 8000lbs. Most other EVs are of course heavier but not garishly so (e.g. Tesla Model 3 coming at around 4000 lbs, which is about the same as a BMW M3).
The point about the acceleration being stronger is fair, but I don't think this means overall EVs are much more dangerous than ICE cars.
But the acceleration that you are concerned about here is the acceleration (or deceleration) of a car from it's current speed to the speed after the crash. That's the acceleration that has an impact on humans.
A more accurate equation to look at would be kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2. More energy a car has in hitting something the worse the outcome will be.
Now you can say that cars with greater acceleration may be more likely to be driving faster, but it's not a direct correlation of acceleration of a car to the force of impact of the car.
it's kinetic energy that matter at the impact.
def: E=mv^2/2
assuming car 2 is 2x heavier than car 1, to have the same kinetic energy, their respective velocities should be:
m2 = 2 * m1
2m1 v2^2/2 = m1 * v1^2/2
2 * v2^2 = v1^2
v2 = v1/sqrt(2) ~ 0.7
another word 2000lbs car driving at 100mph has the same kinetic energy as 4000lbs driving at 70mph
Honestly, I feel like the submission title is overly editorialized. The part about the auto industry supposedly moving in the wrong direction is barely a paragraph all the way to the end. This is mostly about Newey's career.
He also never says that electric is not the right direction.
Here's the quote:
> “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”
To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so), not electric cars.
I'm not a car expert by any means, but I just did a quick look through the Euro NCAP database, and apparently there are some models with 5-star ratings that are below 1.5 metric tons. I don't disagree that safety features don't incur additional weight, but it stands to reason that not all the weight gains are caused by additional safety features.
It appears to me that it's more about perceived safety, which leads to an arms race: If everyone around you is driving a 3-ton SUV, you'd be less inclined to choose a Smart ForTwo, even if it's sufficient for your mobility needs and more economical, because you fear what happens when one of the SUV monsters crashes into your car.
There are some ways to fix this: banning SUVs (e.g. by capping vehicle weight for individually-owned cars), providing better public transit options, disincentivizing car ownership in urban areas (e.g. by reducing parking spaces), etc. Obviously none of those policy proposals are going to be popular.
> To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so)
By "SUV" are you referring exclusively to archetypical American models like the Escalade and Expedition? Or do you include somewhat more "polite" vehicles like the Range Rover and Honda CR-V? How would you categorize larger crossover models like the the Model X which Tesla always refers to as an "SUV" despite its shorter wheelbase and noticeably less rear-pax legroom (and doesn't even have seatback pockets...)
I'm mostly talking about the ones that you wouldn't see in a European city, those that consume more than 10L / 100km basically. Anything that their owner would call "my truck" even though it's a car.
I'm not defending my post, you make fair points. I kinda expected pushback from HN.
I should have found a tweet or smaller article that was just about the section where Newey talks about the auto industry. Or others articles that explore this angle.
Anyway there has to be an element of truth in the legendary engineer's comments -- or at least it is a different viewpoint to the popular narrative these days about EV and auto-industry. So I immediately thought the HN community might be interested in exploring this angle -- which other commenters did explore.
I will definitely be more careful when posting next time.
PS: I would think there are engineer fans of the sport that admire Newey as Elon is admired, sorta celeb engineer.
I would like to buy an electric car. Small (flat/low drag), no useless electrical consumers (no power steering, always-online, TV, coffee machine, ...). As a second car, obviously, for the weeked joyride. I can reach work by bike effortlessly.
But all that is being built is all SUV, SUV, and more SUVs.
Maybe, one day. Miata electric? Will probably be full of electronic toys. Electric Boxter/Cayman? Useless fluffy interior. Also, probably bloated electronics, too. Maybe Lotus, like the original Tesla, except with more modern battery/drive train. 2026?
As a Miata owner/enthusiast (first-generation), I'm worried about electrification. I just can't see how they can pull it off without adding 500+ lbs to the curb weight, at which point it's no longer a Miata but a GR86 without a roof. The current generation is remarkably close to my car's weight (2300 vs 2100 lbs), which is quite an achievement given modern safety requirements.
> “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size.
Agree
> All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy.
Well, that's the way it is. Safety has a weight penalty. Not everything is an F1 car
Adrian Newey is the chief technical officer for Red Bull Racing. His achievements are truly mindboggling, he has designed 10 championship winning cars!
I found his autobiography "How to Build a Car: The Autobiography of the World’s Greatest Formula 1 Designer" to be very enjoyable, describing his career in motor racing and the challenges he faced. It feels a bit similar to iWoz in that it very frankly chronicles the experience of an engineering genius. I can highly recommend it:
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/35657708-how-to-build...
36 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 89.5 ms ] thread"We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient"
You can turn it the way you want, the issue is the concept itself.
A bus is more logical, a bike is more logical, a train is more logical, even a commercial plane is more logical.
The article talks about massive cars with lots of weight - 1500kg is on the light side of the story.
The base-model manual-transmission 2022 Civic comes in at 2877lbs, so is actually under 1.5 short tons.
very controversial, I know
and outside the cities, would you have buses run around the clock between little towns in the middle of nowhere on the off-chance that someone from a farm might need a ride in the middle of the night?
Your perspective is way too American. Visit Europe and maybe you'll understand.
Either way, if you're trying to insinuate that you first need the bikes and then the infrastructure, you're going to have a hard time finding good arguments.
But then it feels inertia took over and now we're getting all of these unreasonably heavy and powerful EVs in some sort of magazine specifications arms race.
Some of these gigantic EVs are approaching 10,000 lbs. I'm not excited to have random drivers piloting their 9,000 lb electric SUVs with 1000 HP doing 0-60 in the 3-4 second range. That's an unbelievable amount of kinetic energy that someone can deploy in a matter of seconds while surrounded by cars weighing 1/3 as much.
The point about the acceleration being stronger is fair, but I don't think this means overall EVs are much more dangerous than ICE cars.
A more accurate equation to look at would be kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2. More energy a car has in hitting something the worse the outcome will be.
Now you can say that cars with greater acceleration may be more likely to be driving faster, but it's not a direct correlation of acceleration of a car to the force of impact of the car.
worse it will be for who, for people in the car or for the something?
assuming car 2 is 2x heavier than car 1, to have the same kinetic energy, their respective velocities should be: m2 = 2 * m1 2m1 v2^2/2 = m1 * v1^2/2 2 * v2^2 = v1^2 v2 = v1/sqrt(2) ~ 0.7
another word 2000lbs car driving at 100mph has the same kinetic energy as 4000lbs driving at 70mph
Here's the quote:
> “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”
To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so), not electric cars.
Safety features make the car heavier ---> weight increases collision force ---> need more safety features.
In a way it's a self-reinforcing loop where you end up with a 2-ton vehicle to ferry around 1 person, which is a bit ridiculous if you think about it.
It appears to me that it's more about perceived safety, which leads to an arms race: If everyone around you is driving a 3-ton SUV, you'd be less inclined to choose a Smart ForTwo, even if it's sufficient for your mobility needs and more economical, because you fear what happens when one of the SUV monsters crashes into your car.
There are some ways to fix this: banning SUVs (e.g. by capping vehicle weight for individually-owned cars), providing better public transit options, disincentivizing car ownership in urban areas (e.g. by reducing parking spaces), etc. Obviously none of those policy proposals are going to be popular.
By "SUV" are you referring exclusively to archetypical American models like the Escalade and Expedition? Or do you include somewhat more "polite" vehicles like the Range Rover and Honda CR-V? How would you categorize larger crossover models like the the Model X which Tesla always refers to as an "SUV" despite its shorter wheelbase and noticeably less rear-pax legroom (and doesn't even have seatback pockets...)
Honestly curious, thanks!
And I wasn't able to edit the URL (nor delete my post nor add as description), so I posted the highlighted url as the first comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31671139
I'm not defending my post, you make fair points. I kinda expected pushback from HN.
I should have found a tweet or smaller article that was just about the section where Newey talks about the auto industry. Or others articles that explore this angle.
Anyway there has to be an element of truth in the legendary engineer's comments -- or at least it is a different viewpoint to the popular narrative these days about EV and auto-industry. So I immediately thought the HN community might be interested in exploring this angle -- which other commenters did explore.
I will definitely be more careful when posting next time.
PS: I would think there are engineer fans of the sport that admire Newey as Elon is admired, sorta celeb engineer.
I would like to buy an electric car. Small (flat/low drag), no useless electrical consumers (no power steering, always-online, TV, coffee machine, ...). As a second car, obviously, for the weeked joyride. I can reach work by bike effortlessly.
But all that is being built is all SUV, SUV, and more SUVs.
Maybe, one day. Miata electric? Will probably be full of electronic toys. Electric Boxter/Cayman? Useless fluffy interior. Also, probably bloated electronics, too. Maybe Lotus, like the original Tesla, except with more modern battery/drive train. 2026?
> “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size.
Agree
> All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy.
Well, that's the way it is. Safety has a weight penalty. Not everything is an F1 car
There aren't many ways of making motorbikes safer. But cars/SUVs are more dangerous to everything around them than the bikes.
I found his autobiography "How to Build a Car: The Autobiography of the World’s Greatest Formula 1 Designer" to be very enjoyable, describing his career in motor racing and the challenges he faced. It feels a bit similar to iWoz in that it very frankly chronicles the experience of an engineering genius. I can highly recommend it: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/35657708-how-to-build...