Incentivized arms race to build the heaviest, largest cars continues.

  • Thread starter Tornado
  • 99 comments
  • 12,610 views
40,537




Since the 2021 IIHS Top Safety Pick+ Toyota Camry and Honda Accord are both now in fact hopelessly unsafe starting in 2023 when you emulate crashing vehicles with significantly less regulation into them I can't wait to see the next Camry:

1659721100795.png


When it comes out in 2025. Thanks IIHS!
 
Last edited:
If the IIHS really cared about safety, they would assign a kinetic energy score to every vehicle and score them way way down the higher they get. Something like the Hummer EV shouldn't even be legal - just an abomination of gross excess in every way. Getting hit, in basically any vehicle, by a 9,000lb EV is not going to be survivable at highway speed differentials. That thing might honestly be more stupid and wasteful than the old H2.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that this was an outcome the auto industry lobbied heavily for.
Part of it has to do with regulations with what the EPA/NHTSA classifies as a ‘truck’ so that manufacturers can skirt around emissions standards more easily, creating a greater incentive to produce pickups/SUVs (which I’m close to certain was lobbied to be that way). And also because, well, customers want massive trucks/SUVs partially for the (false) sense of safety, so manufacturers want to meet that demand to remain profitable and are able to get away with selling them at exhorbitantly high MSRPs because people keep buying them.

Pedestrian safety needs to be taken more seriously too- with the current crop of trucks/SUVs, I have close to no chance of surviving an impact with one even at city speeds because the grilles just about reach my head.

Bigger vehicles (and it’s only going to get worse with their electrification like what @Eunos_Cosmo says due to the heavy batteries) combined with progressively worse drivers will be a recipe for disaster regardless of whether they’re driven in the city, country road, or the interstate.
 
Last edited:
If the IIHS really cared about safety, they would assign a kinetic energy score to every vehicle and score them way way down the higher they get. Something like the Hummer EV shouldn't even be legal - just an abomination of gross excess in every way. Getting hit, in basically any vehicle, by a 9,000lb EV is not going to be survivable at highway speed differentials. That thing might honestly be more stupid and wasteful than the old H2.
If the IIHS really cared about safety, they would be in the business of regulating training, not crash safety.

When's the last time you heard about crash safety standards for airplanes?

There's a reason for that. It's because the people flying the planes are sentient and educated.

What a wild concept, for the people operating the deadly machine to have some idea of what they're doing and how it works. For them to have some sense of responsibility over their destiny and that of others. And for the rules to be enforced in a way that actually nurtures further education rather than pushes bad behavior to when nobody is looking.
 
Last edited:
I was actually considering ranting about car weight. Not only are heavy vehicle safety and energy problems, they make infrastructure cost more:


I really really dislike America's obsession with SUV's. I don't want to tell people what to buy, or outright ban options, but I just can't see the appeal. Then of course there is an irony in that I'm sure some people want a huge vehicle for "safety" when it just contributes to the arms race mentioned in the title that no one can win. It brings me back to high school when I was writing a scholarship entry or something on light weight vehicles and, if I remember, a teacher reviewing it specifically told me not to mention safety, I assume because she was imagining a tiny vehicle being crushed by a truck. The point I wanted to make was that by reducing the mass of all components of traffic, you'd reduce the average kinetic energy in a crash.
 
I was actually considering ranting about car weight. Not only are heavy vehicle safety and energy problems, they make infrastructure cost more:
I was thinking along the same lines. Heavier cars increase the wear on the roads, therefore increasing the maintenance costs and need for construction (as if there isn't enough already). And tire wear will also increase. It might not be much, but it all adds up as we shift over to these tanks.
 
I was thinking along the same lines. Heavier cars increase the wear on the roads, therefore increasing the maintenance costs and need for construction (as if there isn't enough already). And tire wear will also increase. It might not be much, but it all adds up as we shift over to these tanks.
Yeah and the problem goes beyond cars to roads and city design. The Youtube channel NotJustBikes has a lot of videos explaining some of the problems with North American city design, and I think that's where I first saw the road damage chart I posted earlier. I agree with a lot of what is posted their partially because I used to live an area a lot more walkable than I do now. Rebuilding cities would be a long term goal though. Hopefully in the shorter term vehicle light-weighting can start to be pushed along with EV's (even though batteries are sort of at odds with at). Light weight really should have caught on in the late 70's and 80's, it comes with 99% of the benefits of more power plus extras, but people were trained to look at horsepower above all else and huge inefficient cars came back as fast as they could.
 
Well those are fine, that's a pickup after all...

OK sarcasm off, assuming that's in the parking lot (and in 2 spaces no less) for a completely routine grocery trip or something, that's the kind of thing I don't understand. I'm a car person and my thing happens to be fast cars with not exactly fuel efficiency orientated engines, but I don't take them shopping (or park in 2 spaces) or do donuts in empty lots to burn gas.
 
Well those are fine, that's a pickup after all...

OK sarcasm off, assuming that's in the parking lot (and in 2 spaces no less) for a completely routine grocery trip or something, that's the kind of thing I don't understand. I'm a car person and my thing happens to be fast cars with not exactly fuel efficiency orientated engines, but I don't take them shopping (or park in 2 spaces) or do donuts in empty lots to burn gas.
I was recently in LA, and I noticed that the brodozer scourge that runs through parts of Colorado is much reduced, almost non-existent, in LA. I think it's because of the parking garages. In LA, if you have a brodozer, you simply cannot park it.
 
I was recently in LA, and I noticed that the brodozer scourge that runs through parts of Colorado is much reduced, almost non-existent, in LA. I think it's because of the parking garages. In LA, if you have a brodozer, you simply cannot park it.
Yeah, that's one of the ideas being tossed around to force people into smaller cars, or no cars at all. Just make it too hard to park. I'm all for less car oriented cities, but I don't really like the idea of cities being anti-car. It might take pretty drastic measures to get people to downsize in the US though.
 
Yeah, that's one of the ideas being tossed around to force people into smaller cars, or no cars at all. Just make it too hard to park. I'm all for less car oriented cities, but I don't really like the idea of cities being anti-car. It might take pretty drastic measures to get people to downsize in the US though.
I've seen a handful of truly dedicated bro-dozer owners in San Francisco. Some people will put themselves through unbelievable trials to be obnoxious.
 
Again,
I have a sneaking suspicion that this was an outcome the auto industry lobbied heavily for.
It’s really that simple. Profit margins are significantly greater for big SUVs and trucks compared to sedans or really just smaller vehicles in general. Yes, there have been modest declines in sales for many sedans and smaller cars, but that’s not enough on its own to warrant extinction of the entire segment. Though, IIHS/NHTSA prejudicially deeming that these types of cars are literally deadly could be the final nail in the coffin.
 
Reminds me a bit of when Euro NCAP slapped a 0-star rating on the Punto a few years ago, simply because it didn't have autonomous braking and lane departure warning system. Not to say it did well in the actual crashes by modern standards - because of course it wouldn't - but it did lead to everyone panicking and models that were a bit long in the tooth suddenly gained this new tech as standard, even if their usefulness was somewhat debatable.
 
Last edited:
And now for an exciting but most likely farcical idea, Citroen CEO claims that the rise of EVs will kill the SUV. "The world of the SUV is done", says Vincent Cobee. Why? SUVs are naturally bigger and heavier than sedan and hatchback counterparts, they will be less aerodynamic, which can have severe consequences in terms of range, thus requiring larger batteries, which cause weight gain and well, inefficiency. An electric SUV is just not worth all of the extra costs, weight, and cumbersomeness, and will eventually be regulated out of the market, at least in Europe. Instead, the focus should be more expansive charging infrastructure, rather than larger batteries for larger cars.

Not exactly sure I agree with this assessment though. It doesn't account for the main reasons buyers want SUVs, which are higher ground clearance/driving position, and increased safety, both real and perceived. The most likely reason SUVs would decline would be a change in consumer tastes- enough people feeling as if they are "uncool" like minivans and wagons years ago- which is implausible given that there is no reasonable competitor to the SUV that isn't a sedan. In the US at least, there's not a flying chance that big, brawny electric SUVs will be regulated out of the market- if anything, regulations are shifting in favor towards them. Just look at the GMC Hummer EV for example.

 
Last edited:
Geez, what theoretical vehicle has 500 pounds of cement blocks attached to the front or it? I feel like that's some sort of weird collision that compares hitting a Jersey barrier that fell off a truck or perhaps hitting a fully-loaded Fotomat.

I read his argument as more that they will not fall out of fashion but be effectively regulated out of existence. Perhaps in Europe, but that's an extremely unlikely outcome in the USA.
If anything, SUVs are increasing popularity, and the EV shift in sales is exacerbating that trend. They deal with the size and weight to store that massive battery and electric motor system, and spread it out across the center of gravity better, along with praising a 300+ mile range and impressive acceleration (at the expense of each other, naturally). And until that next great breakthrough in range comes around, these vehicles are just going to get bigger to store a more massive battery pack, rather than getting lighter or smaller.

There's also the inverse wuss factor of keeping them as large boxcars instead of the compact-sized nerdbuggies that everyone expected EV vehicles would all become (using a hypothetical Nissan Leaf/Peel P50 as the advertising strawman). It's a cruel irony that the next generation of the EV actually has helped force out the smaller and more energy-efficient end of the market. Sure, people buy what they want, and that dictates the market. But...EV2,Brute?
 
Last edited:
Geez, what theoretical vehicle has 500 pounds of cement blocks attached to the front or it? I feel like that's some sort of weird collision that compares hitting a Jersey barrier that fell off a truck or perhaps hitting a fully-loaded Fotomat.
This thing.

 
Those things are real? I always thought FH3-4-5 were just taking the piss/going for the memes. :lol:
 
Those things are real? I always thought FH3-4-5 were just taking the piss/going for the memes. :lol:
Indeed, they are real. Theyre not Bull bars for charging like a Bull. :lol::sly:;) These are roo bars for protecting the car from damage due to cattle and roo collisions. Should see the semis with these.
1674195798205.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Back