[HN Gopher] Chery QQ Ice Cream goes on sale in China - a modern ...
___________________________________________________________________
Chery QQ Ice Cream goes on sale in China - a modern electric car
for $4,600
Author : teleforce
Score : 82 points
Date : 2021-09-17 15:44 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gadgettendency.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gadgettendency.com)
| legerdemain wrote:
| QQ in Chinese means "squishy" or "gelatinous."
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| I'm not sure my car should be "gelatinous."
| slim wrote:
| Is it pronounced "sheshe" ?
| yuy910616 wrote:
| 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
| brnt wrote:
| Hope this is not reflective of this car's construction.
| gandalfian wrote:
| 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).
| p1mrx wrote:
| For comparison: Chery QQ: 20 kW / 700 kg = 29
| W/kg Chevrolet Bolt: 150 kW / 1600 kg = 94 W/kg
|
| So a typical American EV has >3X better power to weight ratio
| than this vehicle. LiFePO4 batteries tend not to burst into
| flames though...
| notJim wrote:
| Model 3 with LFP battery: 239 kW / 2139 kg = 111 W/kg
|
| Stats from here: https://ev-database.org/car/1320/Tesla-
| Model-3-Standard-Rang...
| llampx wrote:
| Sounds like a Tata Nano, which I've had the misfortune of
| driving. It could get up 100 kmh only downhill with a tailwind
| though. I tested it.
| mywittyname wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| mywittyname wrote:
| True, but AFAIK, only one propels the car without the
| ICE, the other is used in conjunction with the ICE to
| control the gearing for the ecvt.
| cure wrote:
| The "Chery QQ Ice Cream" has a curb weight of only 743 kg.
| The lightest Prius seems to be 1,390 kg.
| bserge wrote:
| Sounds good for city use. In fact I'd like a model twice as
| long (can be half as fast) for the extra cargo space.
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Just how fast do you need to race up those hills?? 27hp is
| fine, especially for a 1500 lb vehicle.
| throwaway89848b wrote:
| 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.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| 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!
|
| Cars are a racket!
| com2kid wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28499415
| mywittyname wrote:
| 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.
| dubya wrote:
| The Honda Fit is on its 4th generation and is still sold in
| the US. I think it's a hybrid now. Mine is a 2008.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Many Americans buy cars for status display, not for
| transport.
| kube-system wrote:
| That holds true for maybe one of the top fifteen best
| sellers: https://www.newsweek.com/15-best-selling-cars-
| us-2021-160697...
|
| The Camry isn't #1 because people are trying to look cool.
| com2kid wrote:
| > 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.
| madengr wrote:
| Get a used Nissan Leaf. It is cheap, roomy, reliable, zero
| maintenance, and safe (side air bags). With about 70 mile range
| it only good for around town, but that covers 99% of use. I got
| a two year old one with 19k miles for $8,500.
| xnx wrote:
| Like a peoples car. In german I think they would call this a
| volkswagen.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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).
| xnx wrote:
| Definitely. Volkswagen is very different now, but I believe
| it has its origins in producing basic cars that anyone
| could afford: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#1932
| %E2%80%931940:_...
| llampx wrote:
| VW is now an upmarket brand. Seat and Skoda are the
| downmarket sister brands.
| gmac wrote:
| 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).
| mchusma wrote:
| 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.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Even better to have a functioning bus and cycle network!
| downrightmike wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway89848b wrote:
| 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.
| clairity wrote:
| 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.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Would make everywhere so much quieter, less polluted, and
| more pleasant.
| clairity wrote:
| 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).
| llampx wrote:
| People love parking on the I-405 and would fight you if
| you took that away from them.
| bserge wrote:
| Electric tricycles, pretty damn good if your city has a well
| developed bike lane network.
|
| The prices though...
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| 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!
| mywittyname wrote:
| 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.
| maxsilver wrote:
| > 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.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > the Chevy Spark to date has never been an EV.
|
| Yes it has:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Spark_EV
|
| > Chevy's Bolt, their current closest to an entry model
| EV, still starts at $36,500.
|
| It starts at $31,000.
| kube-system wrote:
| Before the chip shortage, it was pretty easy to find a new
| Mitsubishi Mirage on dealers lots marked down to $9,999
| kcb wrote:
| 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.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| US states need to start regulating the sizes of trucks
| again.
| kube-system wrote:
| Many lifted pickups already violate regulations in most
| places, they're just not enforced.
| handrous wrote:
| We 100% do, but there'd be an actual revolt. People'd
| die. I'm not joking. Folks who love their giant trucks
| _really love_ their giant trucks.
| mywittyname wrote:
| People die already because these regulations are not
| enforced.
| handrous wrote:
| 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.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > 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.
| giardini wrote:
| But in many cities an e-bike is a prelude to a deadly
| accident. In my big city, drivers routinely run over cyclists
| (usually hit-and-run).
| llampx wrote:
| 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.
| kiba wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway89848b wrote:
| 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.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| 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.
|
| Funny enough I found a used, road-legal electric 'golf-cart'
| car for sale for 8K:
| https://boulder.craigslist.org/cto/d/boulder-citecar/7373397...
| llampx wrote:
| > 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.
| bserge wrote:
| Not if you do it yourself. E.g. $900 for a diesel pump
| change vs $200 + a Saturday. But that's always been the
| case.
| [deleted]
| lgleason wrote:
| 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.
| asdff wrote:
| It doesn't have to be a car. Give me a viable ebike that
| doesnt' cost at least $1000. It doesn't exist in the market
| right now.
| psychometry wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway89848b wrote:
| That's the story, but it doesn't hold up in the general case.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21167942
|
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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.
| maxsilver wrote:
| 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".
| throwaway89848b wrote:
| 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."
| lostlogin wrote:
| > How many miles do you drive each year?
|
| Maybe the OP bought it with 190k on the clock, but surely
| the answer is going to be close to 200k/10?
| masterof0 wrote:
| 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.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| 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.
| coenhyde wrote:
| 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.
| wil421 wrote:
| 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.
| TheSmiddy wrote:
| 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.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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).
| ycombigator wrote:
| You usually get what you pay for...
| bserge wrote:
| Probably better than a bicycle. Good enough tbh, but maybe not
| for the US.
| zip1234 wrote:
| 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.
| wil421 wrote:
| We need more light rail options instead of lower speeds. It's
| hard to go fast in most city centers anyway.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| This. The answer to congestion isn't more cars that are
| smaller and slower, it's better public transit.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > 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.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Instead of more cars, why not optimize for more public
| transport, bicycles and pedestrians? Cars suck in cities.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.
| uselesscynicism wrote:
| 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
| com2kid wrote:
| > 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.
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_e
| conomy...)
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_e
| conomy...)
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.)
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Given that situation, it makes sense that families
| would want larger (safer) vehicles.
|
| This will protect them from the large, dangerous vehicles
| out there.
|
| It starts to look like an arms race quite quickly.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.
| el_nahual wrote:
| 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.
| wyager wrote:
| 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.
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| autoliteInline wrote:
| You do have to wonder how people drove around when
| scarcely any vehicle was AWD/4WD.
|
| Having said that, good snow tires are magic.
| germ wrote:
| 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
| murderfs wrote:
| > 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.
| com2kid wrote:
| 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.
| autoliteInline wrote:
| It would be interesting to know just how many cars ever
| have their back seats used.
|
| You can argue that the average car should either be a 2wd
| Tacoma or a Miata.
| lallysingh wrote:
| 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.
| gorbachev wrote:
| 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.
| handrous wrote:
| > 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.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| You buy for the times you will need the capacity?
|
| 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.
| yboris wrote:
| 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).
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447
| knodi123 wrote:
| 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.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| Yep. It would be fine to ban them on controlled-access
| highways, but this would be great for in-town driving.
| eptcyka wrote:
| I wonder how many non-mutilated adults could it fit?
| p1mrx wrote:
| That depends; can we assume that these adults graduated from
| clown school?
| londons_explore wrote:
| Food for thought... This costs about $6 per kg. That is about the
| price of a meat.
|
| This mechanical horse may not be so different than a classic
| horse...
| ianbicking wrote:
| 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.
| cmckn wrote:
| 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.
| asdff wrote:
| They had those at my uni, and during football games people
| would get drunk and flip them onto their roof or push them into
| the lake
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| 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.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 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.
| etskinner wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| kennywinker wrote:
| 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.
| ianbicking wrote:
| 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.
| zubiaur wrote:
| 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.
|
| It was crap.
| lima wrote:
| Car2Go is still around in some European cities!
| criddell wrote:
| 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.
| Sevii wrote:
| 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.
| criddell wrote:
| 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?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 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.
|
| So overall I disagree with your conclusions.
| tuatoru wrote:
| > 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.
| bialpio wrote:
| > 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").
| slackstation wrote:
| 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.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://www.geekwire.com/2017/car2go-dropping-smart-cars-sea...
| mschild wrote:
| 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.
| llampx wrote:
| I also use ShareNow in Berlin. Another competitor is
| getaround, formerly Drivy, which is an Airbnb for rental
| cars.
| flemhans wrote:
| In Denmark, ShareNow's fleet is mostly BMW i3.
| zwieback wrote:
| I've been enjoying the writeups about the cheap Changli Jalopnik
| has been running:
|
| https://jalopnik.com/the-changli-at-one-how-the-cheapest-new...
|
| The QQ looks a lot nicer, like an actual car.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Wow, had not seen that before--$1200 for a new car is
| incredible.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| 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.)
| siva7 wrote:
| A decent e-bike costs that much. Somehow pricing in mobility is
| really confusing
| vondur wrote:
| Hell, Specialized has an electric assisted mountain bike that
| goes for $15k.
| [deleted]
| bserge wrote:
| 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
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| 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.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| 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.
| lnanek2 wrote:
| I've never had an issue with my $200 used bike for commuting
| 45 minutes to work, honestly. Those multi-thousand dollar
| carbon fiber things are just for racers and status symbols
| and minor improvements, basically. There are people at my
| company who use their bike for the Malibu Triathlon, etc. but
| if you are cost conscious, it's not actually necessary to pay
| so much.
| sva_ wrote:
| Perhaps a duopoly. Shimano and Sram probably run the high-end
| mass market for most bike components. And in the case of
| e-bikes, the batteries are pretty pricey.
|
| It's an industry that could use some disruption. Maybe it's
| too old-school a business though, and the margins are too low
| for today's entrepreneurs.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The batteries really aren't that pricey. Most ebike have
| 100-200$ worth of cells and BMS electronics in them.
|
| The batteries are sold at a massive markup.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| Start a job search for factory workers and let me know how
| that works out for you.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Economies of scale and diminishing returns. You can definitely
| build an excellent ebike for 1000 USD.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| the bike industry is dominated by gearheads same as the auto
| industry
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > A decent e-bike costs that much
|
| 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).
| Toutouxc wrote:
| 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.)
| ajay-b wrote:
| Like an Aptera?
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22358355/aptera-ev-three-w...
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Yes I would love this, almost like an electric tuktuk[0] with
| the two wheels in front.
|
| [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_rickshaw
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The only thing that prevents me from riding an e-scooter to
| work every day is bad weather
|
| In the Chinese context, riding an e-scooter to work every day
| is presumably fairly common, though much less common than
| riding an unpowered bicycle.
|
| Bad weather is dealt with by wearing bike ponchos.
| rosege wrote:
| What you describe is in use in the Netherlands. Although when I
| lived there I was never a fan of mixing motorised and
| unmotorised on the bike paths.
| xqcgrek2 wrote:
| You want the Carver Electric https://carver.earth/en/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_(automotive_company)
| makapuf wrote:
| Maybe you know about renault twizy
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy ?
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| Any fans of EUCs? I'm considering getting one, not sure how
| long it will take until it becomes a practical commuting
| medium. [1]
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGOvSBJq-Bg
| avasylev wrote:
| 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.
| mschild wrote:
| Would something like the BMW C1 suit your needs? [0]
|
| Its old but maybe you can find a cheap used one.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1
| jareklupinski wrote:
| After seeing this design in Funny Face, I wonder why we ever
| lost it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VELAM
|
| You get in from the front!
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXiQMozHkM
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| People didn't like their legs being part of the car's crumple
| zone: https://carbuzz.com/news/famously-unsafe-bmw-isetta
| techrat wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-17 23:01 UTC)