• dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yeah well let’s quit making 7000 pound consumer vehicles. Small EVs would be more efficient and better for the environment because they need less materials to build and and less energy to recharge.

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Judging by the general trend I don’t think this is happening anytime soon. The overall car industry is obsessed with even bigger cars.

      And even in Europe it is sickening to see those half buses on our roads. And this is especially true for big cities, where parking space is very limited and usually those cars occupy park space for 1.5-2 cars.

      And knowing that the fertility rate is really going down I wonder what justifies those cars.

      • realitista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s because the USA subsidizes bigger trucks as “work vehicles”. This practice needs to stop and they need to be taxed more than smaller vehicles.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s because the USA subsidizes bigger trucks as “work vehicles”.

          Can you cite this? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that if it’s actually a work vehicle you probably get some tax credits/breaks, but I highly doubt many consumers are getting these breaks for buying large vehicles.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I watched most of the video, it’s primarily about safety. It’s says the growth is mainly due to the regulations not applying the same to light trucks, which SUVs are classified as. This seems to contradict the claim that I was asking about.

              If there is something about the state subsidizing the vehicles and I missed it, I would appreciate a time stamp. Noone needs to convince me that suvs are unsafe and an environmental disaster.

              • BoscoBear@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                In the US it is called the 179 deduction. For trucks over 6, 000 lb gross vehicle weight you can deduct the top price for the year the truck is put in service.

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            In Australia it breaks down thusly. (for reference average wage is about $80k per annum).

            If you buy a vehicle for $50k, you’re entitled to claim a tax deduction for that cost, usually spread over a number of years.

            However, if you buy a vehicle for $100k, you’re only entitled to claim a tax deduction for the first ~$56k (changes each year), unless the vehicle has a large enough carrying capacity that it can be considered to have been designed for the purpose of carrying stuff rather than people.

            This rule is designed to disallow deductions for wanky vehicles. Like why should someone be allowed a deduction for driving a wanky mercedes SLK when a cheap and chearful toyota camry can perform the same task of moving a taxpayer from point A to point B. Of course, if someone buys a $300k prime mover (tractor?) designed for hauling 90 tonnes of wheat from a farm to a port, it’s just not possible to do that with a toyota camry so you should be entitled to claim the entire cost.

            Suppose you have 2 vehicles, both costing $100k, one is a regular sized Toyota truck, and the other is a ridiculous RAM truck or something. Suppose you plan to sell whichever you buy, after 8 years or so, when it’s value is $50k.

            On the Toyota you can only claim a tax deduction on the $6k difference between the $56k notional purchase price and the $50k sale price, which if your tax rate is about a third then you save yourself $2k in tax, so the vehicle cost you $48k to own for 8 years.

            On the RAM you can claim a tax deduction on the entire $50k difference between the $100k purchase price and the $50k sale price. A third of that is ~$16k, so it only cost you $34k to own that vehicle for 8 years.

        • nothead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m guessing you don’t actually pay attention to the tax law, then. Annual vehicle registration (aka, a vehicle ownership tax) is more expensive as the weight on the vehicle goes up. Vehicles over a certain weight limit require more complex and strict drivers license classes (granted, class B starts at 26,001 lbs which is way higher than even today’s heaviest consumer cars), and any vehicle used for work has higher insurance and regulatory costs, regardless of the size.

          Buying an F350 (a truck that really only has a place in very specific situations anyway) requires so much extra work and almost always requires a class B license because of the kind of work being done with it. People who choose to get something like that because of small-dick syndrome are idiots. And that’s coming from a person who used to drive 18-wheelers and still has a compact SUV as my daily driver.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah because emission standards are based on size and weight. So why spend the money making environmentally effective equipment when you can just make everything bigger and still rake in money?

    • labsin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Small PHEV’s would be ideal for the current generation. Battery advances will come, but we should always try to optimize with the current technology and 10 cars with a 10th the battery of a Tesla would be better for the future.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I do want to see more efficient, smaller EVs, but no one wants an EV that only gets 50 miles per charge. They aren’t worth producing from the manufacturer’s perspective.

    • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      My 2016 Nissan Leaf is 4400lbs, which is more than my larger (but still not that big) 2016 Mazda CX-5 at ~3500lbs. Both manage to fit my family of 5, but the Leaf is far less accommodating and it weighs a good deal more. Small EVs are still pretty substantial. A Kia EV6 which is roughly the same size as my CX-5 weighs 5500lbs. You add a lot to a vehicle when you add an EV battery.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If you are unable to find a charging station at some point halfway across the state you’re either being too picky, or blind. I live in the middle of nowhere Maine and I can still find at least one electric vehicle charger per major town. Hell there is three of them in the town next over and it’s not even considered one of our highly populated towns. I thought the same that you did until I actually looked up where charging stations are located I was pleasantly surprized

        • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I live in Wyoming, having been to Maine, yall have an amazing and beautiful state but your definition of bumfuck no where is lacking. I checked the EV map again the ENTIRE QUATER of the state I live in that doesn’t have a single charger is where my family lives. I down south near Colorado for reasons I don’t want to get into right now but I want to be able to actually visit my family without having to take a plane between the two airports in Wyoming.

          • Pika@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            yea looking at wyoming I can see there is defo a lack of EV stations, it looks like for southern wyoming the longest stretch is between rock springs and Lareme, but that’s mostly if you lack the ability to use super chargers. I can see how it would be a pain to use an EV in that case, doable but it would stretch it a little further than i would be comfortable with as well. That being said you would never catch me driving 3 hours one way to visit someone anyway lmao

      • dan1101@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Lighter vehicles should be able to have the same range as larger ones, just have to find the right battery/weight/range combination.

      • Harvey656@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Without doxing myself, from my hometown the nearest charging station is 30 miles away, that’s not end of the world far its definitely feasible but its not good enough. Especially when there’s gas stations everywhere. Charging stations need to be in way more places outside cities before they become appealing to folks living outside built up areas.