[HN Gopher] DeLorean considering all-electric reboot
___________________________________________________________________
DeLorean considering all-electric reboot
Author : evo_9
Score : 128 points
Date : 2021-01-21 20:52 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newdelorean.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newdelorean.com)
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Despite the time machine nostalgia, I have heard DeLoreans are
| not very good cars to own.
|
| Low availability and high cost of replacement parts, not many
| mechanics are familiar with them, need to avoid scratching them
| in any way because you don't paint them...
|
| Not to mention gas consumption, safety, etc.
| pinewurst wrote:
| Did they conference in John Z on a Ouija-Zoom gateway?
| m-i-l wrote:
| From 2011: "So far, said [James] Espey, the company has
| retrofitted one car with an electric motor. If all goes well, he
| said, the company would start selling built-to-order electric
| DeLoreans around 2013."[0] Original article also mentions "...an
| EV DeLorean - as we displayed at the 2012 New York International
| Auto Show...".
|
| [0] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/back-future-delorean-
| plans...
| reitzensteinm wrote:
| In 2011 it was pretty difficult to build a BEV. In 2021 you
| just call up Magna and use their stock platform, like the
| Fisker Ocean is doing.
|
| Maybe they are full of shit and always have been. But I could
| see a good team with limited resources realizing how in over
| their heads they are 10 years ago, only to circle back today
| and be able to pull it off.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| TBH I'm surprised Musk hasn't bought them out yet and "released"
| a limited edition Model 3 with a DeLorian body kit for like
| $500,000... if Cyan can release a Volvo P1800 for 500K and you
| usually need to provide the 50 year old P1800 for them to convert
| and tune there clearly is a market for these things.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| The year Tesla started manufacturing Model 3s got Elon back to
| the ground from dreaming about special cars, like the new
| Roadster: to get to a huge company and deliver on
| sustainability, they have to focus on cheap cars in huge
| volume, and can't afford many fun projects (except things like
| Tesla Tequila, that they can mostly outsource :) )
| bitwize wrote:
| TIL that Tesla Tequila is an actual thing, and it's somehow
| even more ridiculous than Tres Comas.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Tesla Tequila is a spoof off of Tres Comas (was priced at
| $250, limit two, as a nod to their imminent inclusion in
| the S&P500), and honestly it's pretty good tequila for a
| marketing spoof.
| orange_tee wrote:
| Are you sure about that? Why would Tesla want to compete with
| Toyota and VW to produce the bottom tier of cars? When at
| that point they are competing with the best of the best at
| making the most affordable cars at the largest volumes?
|
| They could also maintain their brand image and sell their mid
| range luxury models achieving less volume at a higher
| profitability margin.
| zaroth wrote:
| I think your definition of "best of the best" needs
| updating.
|
| Show me where Toyota has casting machines anywhere near the
| scale of what Tesla is using in Model Y, or board design,
| or AI chips, or even things like buying experience.
|
| Fundamentally "best" can be reduced to _margins_ because
| everything else shakes out in a competitive market. Tesla
| has the best margins, and they will bring that margin
| advantage down to the $25k price point and Toyota won't
| stop them.
|
| The other big number you can look at is depreciation and
| operating costs. Tesla has the lowest depreciation and
| operating costs per mile at its price point, making it
| substantially cheaper to own a $45k Tesla than a $45k ICE.
|
| A $25k Tesla with the same fundamentals could be had for
| perhaps $200/month with $0 down and would essentially
| obliterate any passenger car competition in any consumer
| environment where it's possible to charge it.
|
| I would not expect Tesla to have any compunction of selling
| a $25k vehicle under the Tesla brand. I don't think their
| S/3/X/Y cachet would be hurt by a smaller sibling.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Why? Because they want to help wih climate change. And that
| means voluke production of affordable cars. Not everything
| is about profit.
| andoriyu wrote:
| Well, lookup how many brands that make only top tier cars
| exist independently. Companies that make low volume high
| price models are almost always one generation of a model
| away from bankruptcy.
|
| Companies that make high volume low price models...well
| they shower in money.
| duxup wrote:
| For a big car maker volume and the efficiencies you get from
| that is a big deal right?
|
| That would seem at odds with a one off limited edition.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| One of the advantages of using bent stainless rather than
| pressed & painted steel is that it can be done efficiently
| and cheaply in low volumes. A modern paint shop costs about a
| half billion; the forms & presses for pressing steel are also
| quite expensive.
|
| 750,000 preorders means that these low-volume production
| advantages are mostly moot, but perhaps Tesla will still take
| advantage of this to create some low volume variants.
|
| Which is the only way you're going to see variants -- the
| unibody design of the Cybertruck means that coach-builders
| can't use a cutaway base.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Tesla and DeLorean have common roots. The DeLorean was largely
| engineered by Lotus based on technology from the Lotus Esprit.
| The original Tesla Roadster was based on the Lotus Elise.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Lotus Esprit is an absolute classic. They've made some great
| cars.
| buzzert wrote:
| If Tesla just made a sedan version of the Cybertruck, it would
| look just like a DeLorean.
| bredren wrote:
| My impression was Cybertruck is heavily influenced by the
| DeLorean design. It would be great to be able to get a
| DMC-1200 by Tesla.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| From what I've seen, there are technical reasons for the
| design of the Cybertruck. Tesla wanted to use stiff
| stainless steel for their "tough" vehicle. The use of
| stainless steel for the SpaceX BFR (aka Starship) may have
| also been a factor.
|
| Problem is that the usual techniques for making nice curved
| shapes don't work on such a material, so they used folded
| metal sheet instead, resulting in that "low poly" look.
|
| Considering that the DeLorean is also made of stainless
| steel and also has a rather angular shape, you are bound to
| make the comparison. The necessarily noticed it at Tesla
| and I am not sure what they intend to do with that. The
| DeLorean is iconic and (back to the) futuristic, it also
| had the reputation of a terrible car and was a commercial
| failure.
| jamestimmins wrote:
| This sounds like an ideal partnership with a company like Canoo
| (https://www.canoo.com/), which is focused on creating the
| "skateboard" of EVs. If people don't truly care about the
| authenticity of their DeLorean, seems like building on someone
| else's platform is the obvious path.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Speaking of, Is it ok to own a stainless steel vehicle near the
| ocean? Should I advise my friend to avoid the cybertruck? (Or
| Delorean)
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Stainless steel will rust when exposed to salt water / sea
| spray and sunlight. _Some_ grades of stainless steel are
| resistant but I doubt they made DeLoreans with marine grade
| alloys.
| jandrese wrote:
| That said, I can't recall ever seeing a spot of rust on a
| DeLorean body panel, even after 40 years. Certainly some were
| parked near the ocean in England or California. You probably
| don't need full up marine grade alloys for something that
| only has to deal with salt spray. It's not like you park the
| thing underwater every day.
|
| I would expect the frame and engine/transmission to be more
| of a concern. I'd be doubly suspect of the electrical
| components, since it's a 20th century British car.
| jayd16 wrote:
| A quick google image search doesn't bring up any rusted
| DeLoreans either.
| elihu wrote:
| Why would that be an issue?
| mrfusion wrote:
| Rusting
| flyingfences wrote:
| That's why they call it "stainless" -- it doesn't rust.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| The skin of the DMC-12 was stainless; the Colin Chapman-
| designed frame was regular old tubular steel. which can
| and does rust.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| It doesn't rust _as much_. It very definitely does rust.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Can confirm - my stainless steel dishwasher has rust
| spots on it, albeit, tiny, they are there. WRT to the
| delorean, your mileage may vary :-D
| mhb wrote:
| That's what they mean by "less".
| Daho0n wrote:
| But Less isn't the same as Not At All.
| soheil wrote:
| Tesla should have bought this brand and maybe used it for their
| high-end models (plaid, roadster) similar to Toyota with Lexus.
| sedatk wrote:
| It makes sense. Cybertruck seems to be inspired by DeLorean a
| lot: a steel body and a design with sharp lines.
| postit wrote:
| There's a huge opportunity for the manufacturer that could
| streamline an hypothetical chassis with integrated electronics
| and batteries.
|
| We could be looking for a future resembling what we have today in
| some formula categories that are basically a power unit paired
| with a dallara or lolla chassis.
| taitems wrote:
| Lots of EV manufacturers are investigating the "skateboard"
| model where you drop a chassis on a unified battery platform.
|
| VW has invested monumental amounts in this but I imagine will
| keep it all locked down to the VAG family. Perhaps they're open
| to licensing opportunities. Canoo ($GOEV) on the other hand is
| in the news for their skateboard platform being adopted by
| Hyundai/Kia and potentially being the base of the new Apple
| car.
|
| In theory DMC could build upon a Canoo skateboard, or license
| another EV startups skateboard.
| callahanrts wrote:
| Some fans couldn't wait! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6yTNvl-
| s-Y
| mikestew wrote:
| Why would I want an electric version of a fat, slow, heavy car?
| Oh, right, because _Back to the Future_. And gull-wing doors, let
| 's be honest.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Because an electric version with a modern lightweight chassis
| would be anything but fat, slow and heavy. It would be fun and
| retro-cool.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Exactly my thoughts. It's a neat-looking design, but besides
| being an iconic movie prop the car did not particularly excel
| at anything. If DeLorean had continued production and iterated
| on the design it could have been a lot better.
| core-questions wrote:
| I've driven one, and honestly, it wasn't that fat/slow/heavy.
| It could have used more power, but it was fairly fun to drive.
| Not everything needs "five hunnert horsepower" to be
| interesting.
| jandrese wrote:
| It was slow compared to similarly priced luxury sport
| vehicles of the day. Compared to ordinary sedans and the like
| it was perfectly fine, although obviously far more expensive.
|
| They definitely needed to iterate on the design a few times.
| The gull wing doors were super cool, but also highly failure
| prone. The engine desperately needed a turbocharger which was
| in the works when DMC folded. The electrics were typical
| British 80s fire hazards. One good thing is that unlike many
| cars of the era it is not plagued with blistering or peeling
| paint.
| blackrock wrote:
| It only needs to hit 88 mph before it hits the wall, for
| things to be interesting.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| Yes, let's be honest. The leather seats are cool, the gullwing
| doors are cool and the stainless steel body is even more cool.
| It's just an iconic car with some history.
|
| So what if it doesn't have crazy horsepower? It's a plaything
| like any other sports car but more emphasis on style.
|
| What are you gonna do in bumper to bumper traffic anyway other
| than look good?
| runarberg wrote:
| I like this attitude. Teslas are boring, in my opinion it is
| a waste of an expensive car. If you are going to buy a car
| that is out of the price range of normal people it better be
| something like the DeLorean.
| pengaru wrote:
| The 20B 3-rotor Delorean looked pretty fun and quick enough, if
| electric could deliver a similar power:weight without the smog
| of a wankel, sounds like a win to me.
| chrisgd wrote:
| Probably via a SPAC and promoted by WSB memes. $10T TAM
| identified
| pengaru wrote:
| I'm eagerly waiting for mazda to announce the electric miata with
| knobs, levers, and no autonomous bullshit.
| elihu wrote:
| > National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
| completed a regulation permitting low volume motor vehicle
| manufacturers to begin selling replica cars that resemble
| vehicles produced at least 25 years ago. Congress enacted a
| DeLorean Motor Company-backed bill backed by the Specialty
| Equipment Market Association (SEMA) DeLorean Motor Company, and
| others into law in 2015, which streamlined requirements for small
| automakers, but implementation was delayed while awaiting the
| NHTSA regulations. Companies like DeLorean will now be able to
| apply for authorization to produce and sell vehicles under this
| program.
|
| I assume this means they waive certain modern safety regulations
| in order to allow companies to make new cars (in low volume) that
| resemble old cars?
|
| > That said, with EV's becoming more mainstream, we've been
| considering switching to an all-electric as the future. It
| certainly makes for an easier path through emissions maze which
| still looms large over any internal combustion engine.
|
| That makes sense. If ever there was a car that looks like it
| should be an EV, it's the Delorean. They could even do a
| stickshift EV if they wanted to, though most car companies seem
| to not think it's worth the complexity/maintenance, and I get the
| impression that electric motors are hard on transmissions.
| Armisael16 wrote:
| > They could even do a stickshift EV if they wanted to, though
| most car companies seem to not think it's worth the
| complexity/maintenance, and I get the impression that electric
| motors are hard on transmissions.
|
| Electric motors have a wider power band, so there's less need
| for gear shifting. They could get more efficiency with multiple
| gears, but it's be a smaller benefit than in an ICE vehicle.
|
| One of the big early problems was that the amount of instant
| torque that an electric vehicle puts out just shreds a gearbox.
| You could limit the initial torque in software, but that'd kill
| the joy of the EV. I'm sure someone has managed to work this by
| now.
|
| On the other hand, different axles don't have to use the same
| gearing ratio. That's how dual motor Teslas work - the front
| wheels are geared for higher speeds, and more power is shifted
| towards those as you go faster. No gear-shifting required.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| is there some type of clutch that allows the rear wheels to
| free-spin at higher speeds?
| stetrain wrote:
| On Tesla cars both motors are physically connected to the
| gearbox/axles with no clutch. They are doing careful tuning
| of the motor inverter controls to minimize energy use from
| motors that aren't under active load. Tesla refers to this
| as "Torque Sleep"
|
| I imagine the process is basically tuning for the inverter
| output that minimizes power consumed as well as drag on the
| axle when the motor is not supplying active torque, or at
| least supplying less active torque than the other axle.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Offtopic but you seem to know a lot. I've been wondering
| do Tesla's just have one regenerative braking force when
| you let off the gas?
|
| Doesn't this leave a lot on the table?
|
| Wouldn't you get more energy by having say gentle braking
| regen and harder braking regen?
| [deleted]
| stetrain wrote:
| You have analog control over the regen braking with the
| accelerator pedal. Push down to accelerate, lift up a
| little to maintain current speed, lift up a little more
| to start slowing down, lift off all the way for maximum
| regen.
|
| It takes a week or two to unlearn the habit of "popping"
| your foot off the accelerator anytime you want to coast
| without necessarily slowing down, but after that it
| basically feels like your right foot is directly
| connected to the speedometer in both directions.
| cure wrote:
| > On the other hand, different axles don't have to use the
| same gearing ratio. That's how dual motor Teslas work - the
| front wheels are geared for higher speeds, and more power is
| shifted towards those as you go faster. No gear-shifting
| required.
|
| Yep. Alternatively, the Porsche Taycan has an 2-speed
| transmission gearbox (cf.
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a28903274/porsche-
| taycan-t...). I don't think gearboxes are going to become
| mainstream in EVs, with the exception of performance vehicles
| like this one.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Do the Tesla's still have differentials then? It would be
| cool to eliminate those two but then you'd need a motor for
| each wheel I guess.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| They do for all the models currently on the road.
|
| In the future the Roadster and the Cybertruck both have 3
| motors. The rear wheels both have one each, so presumably
| they can avoid the differential there.
| chaboud wrote:
| Rivian has an independent 4-motor setup. It's a
| compelling case of extra parts allowing for simplicity.
|
| It also allows for the ever-entertaining tank turn:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzwM8KE2L3I
| mrfusion wrote:
| Doesn't the taycan have some kind of gears?
| mtw wrote:
| > instant torque that an electric vehicle puts out just
| shreds a gearbox
|
| Doesn't the Porsche Taycan have 2 gears? and it actually
| beats Tesla Model S in 0-60 times
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| For anything that isn't a car you're gonna want gears for the
| same reason electric drills have gears. Think of it like low
| range.
|
| "muh instant 0rpm torque" is absolutely nothing compared to
| the inertia of a clutch dump.
| madhadron wrote:
| > I get the impression that electric motors are hard on
| transmissions.
|
| Rather, electric motors don't need transmissions. Transmissions
| are a workaround for the failings of the internal combustion
| engine.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| My electric drill begs to differ. Well so long as I don't
| want to let the magic smoke out it does.
|
| Your commuter car can get away with a simple single gear
| reduction drive system. Electric work vehicles are going to
| need at least a couple gears for the same reason modern truck
| transmissions have stupid low 1st gears and 4x4s have low
| range.
| leetcrew wrote:
| they don't need a clutch because they can't stall. but, like
| ICEs, they cannot make peak power at 0 RPM. unless the
| vehicle is already traction limited (quite possible), it
| could accelerate faster with a shorter first gear. my guess
| is in reality it's usually cheaper to just overbuild the
| motors than to add lower gears to hit your desired 0-60 time,
| but this isn't a law of nature.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| What about those new gear boxes that are gradual instead of
| stepped?
| mrfusion wrote:
| I wonder what torque looks like at 0 rpm. I thought that
| was peak?
|
| But If it's bad maybe a torque converter would be useful?
| Cerium wrote:
| Peak torque is at zero, but peak power is not.
| dharmab wrote:
| * at any speed you would want to drive on a public road.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| They do if you want a car that performs optimally at a wide
| enough speed range, like a supercar. But that is an edge
| case, and eventually even that might not require one.
| jandrese wrote:
| Electric motors don't need a transmission. Adding a stick shift
| is just adding complexity for no benefit. It's more stuff to
| maintain and more parts to break and is going to make the car
| slower due to parasitic losses and inefficiencies.
|
| If you're shooting for 200kph+ speeds there might be a time
| where a simple high/low transmission may be helpful, but that's
| supercar territory.
|
| Interestingly, Formula E cars have a 5 speed gearbox, but
| mostly because the rules says they have to.
| mywittyname wrote:
| >Interestingly, Formula E cars have a 5 speed gearbox, but
| mostly because the rules says they have to.
|
| This is no longer required. A few teams stuck with the five
| speed, but most have dropped to three or four speeds.
|
| The Formula E cars still need gearboxes because there isn't a
| single gear ratio that can provide optimal acceleration
| between 0 and 175mph with an 18,000 RPM redline. The massive
| powerband of the motors means that they don't benefit from as
| many gears as piston engines do, but there is still a benefit
| to having more than one gear.
|
| The next generation cars will go dual-motor, presumably each
| with different final drive ratios: a shorter gear on the
| front motor for low-speed power, and a taller rear end gear
| for top speed, but this is speculation on my part.
| Rumudiez wrote:
| > they waive certain modern safety regulations
|
| That's not how replica cars work. It's not like anyone in
| Nascar actually races a stock Toyota Camry -- those are just
| silhouettes and that's how replicas turn out as well. Visually
| similar, but completely gutted as soon as you open it up.
| eliseumds wrote:
| "Error establishing a database connection"
| blackrock wrote:
| That would be fun.
|
| Maybe it can also be powered by Mr. Fusion.
| grenoire wrote:
| > The DeLorean was memorably featured in the Back to the Future
| movie trilogy (1985, 1989, and 1990) as the model of car made
| into a time machine by eccentric scientist Doc Brown, although
| the company had closed down before the first movie was made.
|
| Woah! Can you imagine what the cars today would look like if they
| hadn't and became a _huge_ hit following the movie 's status!?
|
| Truly iconic.
| dharmab wrote:
| The DeLorean story is insane. Mr. DeLorean tried to finance the
| company with literal briefcases of cocaine in hotel rooms.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeLorean#Arrest_and_trial
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCwKEnu5xSk
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > Can you imagine what the cars today would look like if they
| hadn't and became a huge hit following the movie's status!?
|
| What cars today are you talking about?
| grenoire wrote:
| Well, in general! Had other automakers copied similarly
| futuristic and overly-stylish cars, we would've ended up with
| a completely different design philosophy perhaps?
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| You know, modern cars, which all feature straight edged
| unpainted stainless steel.
| netsharc wrote:
| This needs a "(201x)" at the end, they've been having these plans
| for maaaany years.
|
| Yes I know strictly speaking it's a blog post from today.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| As a fun replica car in a limited run it makes sense. You
| wouldn't want a DMC-12 (even as an EV, where the lack of
| acceleration and power could be addressed) for a daily driver.
| The ergonomics of the design are terrible. It's a cool-looking
| car, but supremely uncomfortable to drive or ride in.
|
| I suppose that if you like attention it could be a "win". Driving
| one gets you a lot of attention, even 30+ years after "Back to
| the Future" came out. The appeal of those movies made that car
| immortal.
| jrossi94 wrote:
| I don't know. I have one and while its performance is awful its
| certainly the most comfortable car I've ever owned.
| newdude116 wrote:
| Don't know. It looks cool but then again, it is history. An
| having been in twoseater cars, I am less than impressed.
|
| But, in regards to new cars, I might be interested in this:
| https://ineosgrenadier.com/
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| My father has one (restored) that I've driven a fair amount.
| I really like the car, but I just can't see it as a daily
| driver. (For a taste comparison, my '99 Nissan Maxima was
| probably my most comfortable car, both for passenger comfort,
| and for the driving experience.)
|
| The DMC-12 is a hotbox in the summer and the stock AC just
| can't keep up. That's my biggest memory. Rolling the window
| down would be fine, except that the portion that can roll
| down is tiny. You get no airflow to speak of. If the doors
| were redesigned so a larger portion of the window rolls down
| it would help tremendously.
|
| It may just be my body shape, but I can't get comfortable in
| the seats. I wouldn't want to ride in it for a long time. re:
| driving - It's probably also the lack of performance, too. If
| I'm in that more reclined "sporty" driving position I expect
| some response when I mash the accelerator. As an EV the
| performance could be radically enhanced. That would
| definitely be neat.
|
| I felt that visibility was bad. The high window sills,
| gigantic A pillars, and sloped windowshield always made me
| feel like I had to second-guess what was going on around the
| car. The hood is deceptively long, too.
|
| It would be a neat conversation piece to have one, for sure.
| As an EV it could be made wickedly performant. I think it
| would still feel like riding in a low-slung box that you are
| just peeking out over the top of, though.
| [deleted]
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Even if they do something totally new and original, I think the
| DeLorian name would be enough to bring in sales.
|
| Sure, it's never going to be BMW, but I don't think it wants to
| be.
|
| Basically whatever they produce will end up being a collectors
| item of some sort.
| oscb wrote:
| They have been saying this for over a decade. I do think it is a
| good idea, if at least for a niche collector's market, but so far
| the leadership of the new delorean co seems to just be throwing
| promises every year to see if something sticks. ... I mean... I
| guess it lives up to its name.
| perardi wrote:
| Some useful backstory on the government regulation to allow low-
| volume cars like this on the road:
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a34673012/where-is-the...
|
| And some history on DeLorean overall:
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15352382/back-to-the-futu...
|
| ...and it's a pretty wild history.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| John DeLorean background - I don't much care for Alec Baldwin,
| and I can't speak to the historical accuracy of the film, but
| the 2019 "Framing John DeLorean"[1] was a fun watch.
|
| [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6256978/
| linksnapzz wrote:
| John Z's autobiography "On a Clear Day, You Can See General
| Motors" is an enormously fun read, both for what it says
| about GM in the 50s-70s, and what it doesn't say. My
| recollection is that most people writing an autobiography
| might use it as a way to acknowledge things they did wrong,
| or people they may have upset...not John Z.
| Daho0n wrote:
| Maybe I'm missing something or I'm too stupid to understand the
| article but I don't see why anyone should be allowed to sell a
| _new_ car with _old_ safety standards for road use? I 'm not
| from the US so maybe it is yet "Another US Thing I Don't
| Understand" (sorry). Where I'm at (in Scandinavia) not only
| would this not be allowed on the roads but even if I buy an old
| car and want to _upgrade it_ (modern brakes?) it wouldn 't be
| allowed without a car inspection and it would no longer have a
| cheaper vintage car insurance, registration fees, etc. etc. It
| would be very costly if at all possible. AFAIK this is equally
| so in all of the EU.
|
| Seems to me this is a giant loophole. Like as if Coca Cola re-
| released an old recipe with real coke in it and everyone just
| went "Sure! It's authentic!"
|
| Could someone enlighten me?
| dm319 wrote:
| I guess in most countries, you can renovate an old antique
| car from the 1920s and that's ok for people to drive around
| in. It's only a small step from that to saying that someone
| can upgrade an old car with a new engine and sell them.
|
| From a government perspective, as long as these cars are
| niche, they probably don't mind so much. I can go and buy a
| 1955 Morris Minor fairly easily and it won't have seatbelts,
| but the assumption is that I would be aware the car doesnt
| meet modern safety standards.
| dharmab wrote:
| In the US we find your road safety laws insane as well. It
| costs 3x as much to DIY fix your own can there as it does
| here due to needing "approved parts" and an inspection of
| every repair. Things that are easy, safe and affordable DIY
| fixes in the US are impossible there.
|
| Your laws are not EU-wide, by the way. Most of the EU doesn't
| require the approved parts to pass inspection, and only
| requires the inspection at regular intervals, not after every
| repair.
| trhway wrote:
| >Seems to me this is a giant loophole.
|
| the key for those loopholes is low volume and similar limits.
| It allows to start making cars, like Tesla had with original
| Roadster which otherwise wouldn't be let on the public roads.
| I think it is a great approach in US to have those limited
| loopholes in various domains which allow to start making
| things - such loopholes are absent in for example Russia (my
| old country) and through the Europe and that affects the
| entrepreneurship and innovation.
| Daho0n wrote:
| >that affects the entrepreneurship and innovation.
|
| It very likely does but it also saves a lot of peoples
| lives each day. I mean, not only niche cars, but not having
| good basic safety in general on the roads. Road fatalities
| per one billion vehicle km is at 7.3 in the US according to
| Wikipedia. The worst Scandinavian country is Denmark with
| 3.9. I guess it comes down to if you want Freedom To Do
| Stupid Things (like no helmets on a motorcycle).
|
| That said, I don't think you can compare a Tesla Roadster
| to a 1981 car in safety. I agree there should be some
| allowance for niche cars but 40 year old safety being sold
| as new?
| trhway wrote:
| >Freedom To Do Stupid Things
|
| something like this. Though those stupid things aren't
| niche cars or any other innovations. It is plain old
| stupidity - US has 10K/year DUI related deaths, Denmark -
| 75/year, 2x less per capita. Also bigger cars popular in
| US like trucks - while fully public road certified, they
| are conceptually and engineering wise are relatively
| behind the curve - resulting in more deadly accidents.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Currently they're just planning to build cars from the spare
| parts inventory they bought. Technically they won't be new.
| onenightnine wrote:
| i think it would be widely successful, i'd buy one
| grecy wrote:
| It's 2021 now, and any vehicle on the drawing board won't go into
| production until ~2024.
|
| Many jurisdictions around the world are already banning the sale
| of new ICE vehicles from about 2030
|
| I would be _shocked_ if _any_ company _anywhere_ is sinking R &D
| money into designing new ICE motors, and I believe we're seeing
| the last evolution that will ever come. They'll keep building
| what they've already designed, but they're not going to sink
| billions into designing new ones.
|
| Yes, yes, tractors and transport trucks and whatever will
| persist, but I think for mass produced passenger vehicles, we'll
| never see another big ICE R&D breakthrough like Variable valve
| timing or variable vane turbos or overhead camshafts. It's over.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-21 23:00 UTC)