- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
I often see a car in a crowded parking lot that is too wide or too long to fit in a parking spot, and I have to wonder if the person driving that vehicle is a complete idiot or a complete asshole.
How stupid are you that you chose a daily driver that doesn’t work? That you take up so much space that everyone else needs to actively avoid you and curse you because you are so bad at making choices?
Do you regret your choice? Do you constantly think “Fuck everyone else around me, I do what I want.”, or do you legitimately not notice how everyone else hates you?
Lol I don’t understand why people want wide cars. There are so many instances where having a narrow car saved me from some dinguses crossing the center line
Nothing wrong with public transport
In all honesty, the wideness of modern cars may actually be their downfall. I live in a suburban area (Not US, but that doesn’t matter it’s become everyone’s problem.) and the roads were designed for cars to be parked on either side and two, narrow lanes in the middle where people could, slowly, get past each other, with a certain amount of tolerance (i.e. space).
Then came an EPA ruling in the states (late 90’s I think) and trucks were immune to sensible laws and all the car companies made trucks that were immune to being too wide (among other things). They became objects of desire. Cars followed, because everyone wants a thick phallus I guess, or maybe needs to see the road when there’s a fat car next to them, or one with tinted windows, and I’m nowhere near to a legal solution in a global economy.
Practical upshot, local roads are only one lane wide because of fat cars parked on either side with no regard to practicality, add endless renovation because property development is the one true way to richness /s, even though rich people already own the good land, and control their local environment.
TLDR, fat cars break suburban roads.
Artist nailed it outlining people’s obsession with personal freedoms versus society’s rights as a whole.
I can tell this is a old meme because $119k is “a lot”. Lol
Not a cheap vehicle, but that’s a medium truck with presumably a pretty incredible tow rating. Not really a passenger vehicle.
…medium?
I’m guessing larger than medium are the ones that transport containers, trees, houses, and the like
To be fair that is the largest consumer model and essentially the most expensive OEM package you can get. And it is very powerful and capable tow vehicle, but the majority of people just use them as passenger vehicles and maybe tow their rv a few times a year(which can be done with was less of a truck).
If you know modded trucks, whether that’s purpose built towing or just mall crawler, there are way more trucks over $200k than you would realize. If you ever see a welding truck, big 4x4 lifted trucks with custom beds, those are an easy $250k. But they are being used. Those guys make a easy 6 figures while living in hotels with nothing else to spend it on.
This comment has been made before, and the feedback from people who actually drive them is nobody is driving a dually for fun, the suspension just isn’t set up to be driven empty. Also, they’re massive vehicles even by US standards.
People absolutely do drive duallys for fun, ask any mechanic.
Can confirm, am diesel mechanic.
Pff, car users dont need society to get around, everyone knows road and bridge and fuel infrastructure are natural parts of the word that are just there on their own already! /s
I don’t think anyone doubts how much time, money, and effort are put into road infrastructure. In fact, I think about it a lot when driving.
Simpsons did it. Canyon Aarow
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero!
And that was in 1998
Smells like a steak and seats 35!
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
It’s also literally the motto for the Pontiac Grand Prix.
“Wider is better”
American culture in general:
“Remember: There is no society - only YOU and the freedom to do whatever you want!”
… the chef’s kiss was in parking your monstrosity next to a Big Sad Box … a beautiful summary of the general North American society we’ve created. Millions of years of evolution to get to the point of selfish ignorantly following a life style to park next to a big sad box and buy an overpriced couch you can’t afford made by Vietnamese children.
And to boast that it’s the absolute Pinnacle of society. It’s the only version they’ve seen but they’re convinced there are zero improvements
Don’t give them any ideas
I hate this about newer car models. Many are unnecessarily wide. Lanes don’t get wider though.
It is “necessary” for them to be that wide.
CAFE standards are based on “footprint” which is basically the rectangle of the tire contact patches. If you’re a car manufacturer who can’t meet the NHTSA’s MPG requirements for the size of car you produce, you can increase the size of your cars, so they fit in a larger class that requires less of an MPG improvement.
The most effective way to increase the footprint is to widen a narrow car, increasing its footprint toward square.
Am I understanding you correctly? There is a standard somewhere that says you can’t have tires of a certain width on a car unless the car is also broad?
Why is that even a requirement? I thought broad tires were safer, why would the width of the car have anything to do with it?
No, you’re not understanding me correctly. Mostly because I misspoke, so that’s on me, not you.
The contact patches I was talking about are the corners of the rectangle. Everything between the wheels is the footprint.
The area of the footprint basically determines the minimum MPG you can have. (The more complicated point is that it is related to all the vehicles you produce rather than a specific minimum, but that overcomplicates the issue. The point is that CAFE standards provide strong incentives for manufacturers to increase the “footprints” of their vehicles. The larger the footprint they can claim, the less MPG improvement they need to make. So, longer and wider wheelbases.
And this is exactly why we don’t see small trucks like Rangers or Dakotas anymore. I don’t know if it’s because it’s impossible to make an engine that efficient or if manufacturers are just lazy, but the consequence is that they can avoid stricter efficiency requirements by simply making bigger (larger wheelbase) and heavier (body on frame vs. monocoque) vehicles.
Thanks for the explanation. It’s just infuriating
To be brief, some boneheads ages past decided to class vehicles based on footprint rather than simply weight.
I get it now. Not a chance that’s changing anytime soon I suppose, I can see how it’s not convenient for manufacturers
They’re wider and longer because the EPA uses the area under the tires to determine fuel economy requirements.
*NHTSA, but yes.
So… The car equivalent of adding those extra cucumber slices to the burger so it doesn’t count as a confectionery item?
😲😳 That explains so much…
I wonder if dissolving the EPA would lead to smaller cars in a roundabout sort of way.
It’s crazy to think that Humvees were designed with war in Europe in mind. They are pretty wide and may have been wider if they didn’t have to worry about train tunnels
They were designed so that the wheels would be the same width as the tracks on an Abrams tank.
Remember the times when Humvees were considered big and stupid to drive in civilian applications?
Always have been. H2s were the cybertrucks of their day
I like how the wing mirrors look like actual wings.
