The sad thing is an original Isigonis style 1980s mini estate gives more chance to put a full size dog in the back, with the rear seats up, than the current massive Mini Clubman estate that's cramped for a Yorkie with the back doors closed. It really is comical seeing original Mini and new next to each other -- the new one is not, by any stretch, "mini".
I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...
Draconian safety laws for manufacturers mean less visibility with narrow windows on the front, barely back window (backup cams required), and huge a-pillars.
So apparently we get safer cars but can see anything infront of us.
As a driver, I would rather have larger crumple zones or places to put curtain airbags and such than space to be able to fit a full size dog in the back. Regulations aren't always bad or a burden on the industry (or for that matter on the dog owners). Having an EV 80's chassis would be a great idea for a hobby build or something to take out for a Sunday drive to the country. But I would'd drive that death trap daily.
I put a couple of greyhounds in my Mini (I think it's still the same basic size as the current gen). It is certainly much larger than the original, but smaller than a Clubman so I have to wonder what your Yorkie looks like ;-)
The idea of loading up that suspension ‘system’ with batteries makes me twitchy, but it’s such a great car that the extra effort that would be required would definitely be worth it.
The difference being that the new one can survive a straight t-bone at 50-70km/h and everyone walks out unhurt, while that's not necessarily the case with the old one. Just look at the size of the door sills and the actual depth of the doors - there's at least twice the depth of doors from a 1980s S class for instance, a lot more crumpling to work with.
I was in San Francisco last week, and the car rental agency "upgraded" me from the compact I had requested to a full size SUV.
Fortunately we weren't staying in the city, but that thing was definitely no fun headed up Hwy 1...
I regularly drive ambulances and fire trucks, so I'm used to "aggressively" driving large vehicles, but that was a whole new level of stressful. California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
Same thing happened to me. I got a Toyota sequoia instead of a smaller car I reserved for a family trip down hwy 1.
Width aside it was just clumsy and rolled a lot. Had to go pretty slow to have people in the car not throw up. I’m a bit of a car enthusiast and enjoy canyon carving, but this was definitely not a fun drive.
> California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
Taking the opposite view, mandating narrower roads (or, refusing to widen existing narrow roads) has worked great for opposing the problem of car growth in some countries. If you watch a busy intersection in Japan you see a ton of incredibly tiny cars go by, and it's no coincidence that backstreets in major Japanese cities are often nightmarishly narrow alleyways, sometimes without sidewalks so you even have pedestrians sharing the already-tiny road.
You can see people walking right along the road. An average person would not feel comfortable driving with a big car, nor driving aggressively nor at a high speed, on this road. Taken combined, this is what makes these roads safe and pedestrian-friendly, even though at face value a road without sidewalks might seem the opposite.
A recent trip to Europe and the cars, trucks, highways, roads, etc.. everything feels smaller. Parking garages are the worst, so narrow you can barely see if you're going to scrape a wall or car. You really have to use the force.
I'm glad to hear this perspective and know it's not just me. I live in Europe and parking in a garage here always raises my heart rate. I don't think I'd make it without parking sensors. Some people I know just slam their car in there in one quick swoop. I don't know how they do it. Even driving past parked cars makes me feel like not hitting side mirrors is just an act of faith.
I wonder how much of this is due to safety, and if size expansion is due to safety, whether it’s a matter of trying to be in a bigger car than the other guy. Is there an ideal car size or will cars grow forever?
I dont think it makes sense that wider cars are an attempt to be bigger than the other guy.
Height, yes absolutely, but wider cars are safer because they have more room to crumple and space for airbags and reinforcement in the sides. The thickness of car doors today vs cars from 20 years ago is pretty drastic.
I was going to bring up the Mazda MX-5 as an example of a car that shrunk in its latest generation, only to find out that the current model is the widest by a whole centimetre.
I used to barely fit in the NA but I can't squeeze into any of the later models without amputating my legs. I'm not sure how they did it because otherwise I'd be first in line to buy another.
The layout of these cars also plays an important role. Sedans have been getting bigger because the internal space is wasted in every possible way and manufacturers have been struggling to sell the smaller ones given how useless they are. That market segment has been completely dominated by the new generation of small hatchbacks like the Honda Fit/Scion XD/Toyota Yaris etc.
My RV is 102 inches wide not including the mirrors. Apparently that's the max allowed federally by the US although technically in some states it may not be on smaller roads and might be the old standard of 96" though never heard of that being enforced. Most Semis and box trucks are 102" wide.
I believe the max allowed length is 65 feet, my RV is 32ft plus I tow a jeep, probably close to 50ft total. Height is under 13 ft.
Interstate driving is no problem it gets pretty interesting driving around in the city, but surprising where you can fit it. Both the width and height cause the most issues.
Normal cars and trucks still have room to grow within the federal limits, I don't believe any are 102" wide, full size dual rear wheel pickups are only 96" and the Ford Raptor is 86" and a Lambo is 80".
Driving my RV feels like driving a room down the road, there is about 3 feet between me and passenger.
I used to have a Lotus Elise. With cars that low you don’t see much if there is just some grass growing along the road. Makes it really hard to pass other cars or go fast with no visibility.
There is some interesting related research being done by the DLR (German Space Agency). They have developed a low-weight chassis for small light-weight vehicles (the european L7e vehicle class, i.e. up to 450kg (1000lbs) without battery) that achieves good crash test results: https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light-commute...
Just switching to electric cars will not save the planets resources. We have to use less resources by using smaller, lighter vehicles instead of heavy SUVs.
Doesn't matter what kind of black magic you put into a tiny car, a big heavy SUV will destroy it in an impact and barely take a scratch. People buy big SUVs because they "feel safer", and they're going to keep doing that without some intervention. If I were a national regulator I would pass a law adding a pollution rating and a 3rd party danger rating to the vehicle registration plate.
I reckon small cars pose less risk to others. Pedestrians and cyclists can easily see over them. Stopping distances are probably better. Ending up on the hood/bonnet of a small vehicle rather than under a large one with it's very high front end (often with an attached bullbar) is almost certainly preferable. Finally, consider that large vehicles likely do much more damage to other vehicles in a crash.
All in all I find ownership of a large vehicle to be a fair proxy for an inconsiderate personality (bear in mind, I don't live in the US where large vehicles seem to be the defacto choice).
Center consoles used to be seen only on large trucks. Now most cars have them. That's width not used by the occupants. Even the Tesla Model 3 has a huge center console, despite not having a driveshaft to hide.
Most modern cars are also unibody, so the center console interior design element isn't entirely without merit.
The axial bulge that would normally be concealed by a center console acts as structural support in vehicles without driveshafts. Furthermore, if it exists, the cavity will also serve as exhaust midpipe routing to the rear for improved underbody aero performance. Some manufacturers also offer an AWD variant of a chassis primarily sold as FWD--e.g. Acura TL, Mazda3--so design reuse is another path to consider.
The Model 3 doesn't appear to fit this generalization, but a center console still makes sense. It's a 5-passenger vehicle by design, so rear seating arrangement will drive width constraint. You can't put a 6th seat in the front-center position for obvious safety reasons, while leaving it empty would miss the mark when compared to competing luxury vehicles around the same price point (something about how America loves cupholders comes to mind), so filling it in with a sleek and generous center console strikes me as the natural direction to steer towards; it's cheap, serves a functional purpose, fills a void and flows with the overall interior aesthetic. Besides, a closed luxury cabin whose volumetric efficiency approaches 100% is a luxury vehicle that simply won't appeal to the masses.
For a good idea of just how inconvenient not having a decent center console can be, look no further than the ND Miata. Anecdotally, mine is a weekend solo/track toy so not a deal breaker, but it's one of those things that can be easily taken for granted until you don't have one anymore: fitting a pair of sunglasses in the laughably small center compartment is like working a puzzle piece, the large rear-center storage compartment can't be conveniently accessed while seated unless you're a human pretzel, some smartphones won't fit in the cubby hole designed to hold one, and retaining non-bottled drinks with a passenger seated is a spill accident just waiting to happen.
Cars keep getting heavier too. With electric cars and energy use it would be good if there was a weight limit. It is normally safer in a collision if you sit in a heavier car. But this length and weight race make cars heavier.
I guess one factor is car test where they measure trunk capacity in liters/ back seat leg room. Cars with more space usually get better reviews.
For global warming we need ultra light cars which are energy efficient or no cars at all bikes.
the Golf was essentially replaced by Polo nowadays. people are getting richer so obviously the well known models are also getting bigger and fancier than they were in past and if you want comparable model with the one from past you must go one class lower
same thing applies with phones and display size/specs, it's the easiest way to show customer the progress by offering him bigger display, sadly with smartphones you don't really have small options anymore like with cars where you just choose appropriate model
I am driving a 2007 VW Golf. You could make it easily 15 cm smaller by cutting off the center console between the front seats without sacrificing any safety. Of course, the rear bench would be comfortable for 2 only, but that already applies to it as it is. So one could design nice 4 seated cars - especially if they are designed electric only, removing most of the need for the center console, as there is no gear shifting.
This! sometimes I think it would be nice if they produced a low cost small car like the 1960s mini. with today's productivity they could build a simple version for quite cost effective. But, regulations mean it's completely impossible and so the cost of cars and their size keeps going up.
The roads aren’t getting any wider. I’m having trouble finding numbers, but I would be surprised to learn if the occurrence of lane departure accidents has gone down or stayed the same since cars have begun to get wider.
[+] [-] darren|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|6 years ago|reply
I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...
[+] [-] 0xDEEPFAC|6 years ago|reply
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoqu...
https://www.diariomotor.com/2010/05/09/el-morris-mini-minor-...
Draconian safety laws for manufacturers mean less visibility with narrow windows on the front, barely back window (backup cams required), and huge a-pillars.
So apparently we get safer cars but can see anything infront of us.
https://www.wardsauto.com/news-analysis/new-pillars-enhance-...
Video of child not being seen by new car (he is unharmed though) https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9p7iH_1570391082
[+] [-] nmeofthestate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] decebalus1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanmgreen|6 years ago|reply
I don't see myself selling my 2018 Fiesta because I doubt any other new car could replace it - objectively speaking based on specifications.
[+] [-] jmull|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostlogin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwightgunning|6 years ago|reply
It’ll be interesting to see if converting classics will become more common. Here’s hoping.
[+] [-] Ididntdothis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gambiting|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Paperweight|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HungSu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JshWright|6 years ago|reply
Fortunately we weren't staying in the city, but that thing was definitely no fun headed up Hwy 1...
I regularly drive ambulances and fire trucks, so I'm used to "aggressively" driving large vehicles, but that was a whole new level of stressful. California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
[+] [-] yibg|6 years ago|reply
Width aside it was just clumsy and rolled a lot. Had to go pretty slow to have people in the car not throw up. I’m a bit of a car enthusiast and enjoy canyon carving, but this was definitely not a fun drive.
[+] [-] helen___keller|6 years ago|reply
Taking the opposite view, mandating narrower roads (or, refusing to widen existing narrow roads) has worked great for opposing the problem of car growth in some countries. If you watch a busy intersection in Japan you see a ton of incredibly tiny cars go by, and it's no coincidence that backstreets in major Japanese cities are often nightmarishly narrow alleyways, sometimes without sidewalks so you even have pedestrians sharing the already-tiny road.
For example consider this side street near a touristy zone of Kyoto: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0010412,135.7662851,3a,75y,2...
You can see people walking right along the road. An average person would not feel comfortable driving with a big car, nor driving aggressively nor at a high speed, on this road. Taken combined, this is what makes these roads safe and pedestrian-friendly, even though at face value a road without sidewalks might seem the opposite.
[+] [-] jmkni|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staticautomatic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trixie_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] try_again|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yingw787|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notatoad|6 years ago|reply
Height, yes absolutely, but wider cars are safer because they have more room to crumple and space for airbags and reinforcement in the sides. The thickness of car doors today vs cars from 20 years ago is pretty drastic.
[+] [-] crooked-v|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robin_reala|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SandunGunn|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk8
[+] [-] AWildC182|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wkjagt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AWildC182|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SigmundA|6 years ago|reply
I believe the max allowed length is 65 feet, my RV is 32ft plus I tow a jeep, probably close to 50ft total. Height is under 13 ft.
Interstate driving is no problem it gets pretty interesting driving around in the city, but surprising where you can fit it. Both the width and height cause the most issues.
Normal cars and trucks still have room to grow within the federal limits, I don't believe any are 102" wide, full size dual rear wheel pickups are only 96" and the Ford Raptor is 86" and a Lambo is 80".
Driving my RV feels like driving a room down the road, there is about 3 feet between me and passenger.
[+] [-] rjsw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ididntdothis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tepix|6 years ago|reply
Just switching to electric cars will not save the planets resources. We have to use less resources by using smaller, lighter vehicles instead of heavy SUVs.
[+] [-] akadruid1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmnvix|6 years ago|reply
All in all I find ownership of a large vehicle to be a fair proxy for an inconsiderate personality (bear in mind, I don't live in the US where large vehicles seem to be the defacto choice).
[+] [-] Animats|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaphor|6 years ago|reply
The axial bulge that would normally be concealed by a center console acts as structural support in vehicles without driveshafts. Furthermore, if it exists, the cavity will also serve as exhaust midpipe routing to the rear for improved underbody aero performance. Some manufacturers also offer an AWD variant of a chassis primarily sold as FWD--e.g. Acura TL, Mazda3--so design reuse is another path to consider.
The Model 3 doesn't appear to fit this generalization, but a center console still makes sense. It's a 5-passenger vehicle by design, so rear seating arrangement will drive width constraint. You can't put a 6th seat in the front-center position for obvious safety reasons, while leaving it empty would miss the mark when compared to competing luxury vehicles around the same price point (something about how America loves cupholders comes to mind), so filling it in with a sleek and generous center console strikes me as the natural direction to steer towards; it's cheap, serves a functional purpose, fills a void and flows with the overall interior aesthetic. Besides, a closed luxury cabin whose volumetric efficiency approaches 100% is a luxury vehicle that simply won't appeal to the masses.
For a good idea of just how inconvenient not having a decent center console can be, look no further than the ND Miata. Anecdotally, mine is a weekend solo/track toy so not a deal breaker, but it's one of those things that can be easily taken for granted until you don't have one anymore: fitting a pair of sunglasses in the laughably small center compartment is like working a puzzle piece, the large rear-center storage compartment can't be conveniently accessed while seated unless you're a human pretzel, some smartphones won't fit in the cubby hole designed to hold one, and retaining non-bottled drinks with a passenger seated is a spill accident just waiting to happen.
[+] [-] acd|6 years ago|reply
I guess one factor is car test where they measure trunk capacity in liters/ back seat leg room. Cars with more space usually get better reviews.
For global warming we need ultra light cars which are energy efficient or no cars at all bikes.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Markoff|6 years ago|reply
the Golf was essentially replaced by Polo nowadays. people are getting richer so obviously the well known models are also getting bigger and fancier than they were in past and if you want comparable model with the one from past you must go one class lower
same thing applies with phones and display size/specs, it's the easiest way to show customer the progress by offering him bigger display, sadly with smartphones you don't really have small options anymore like with cars where you just choose appropriate model
[+] [-] sharadov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggoo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ph_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thorwasdfasdf|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goronmon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exposay|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egberts1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willis936|6 years ago|reply