this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
422 points (91.4% liked)

Technology

60012 readers
2165 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 157 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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 51 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] kronarbob 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There was once a legend about vehicle's size and ... Well...

5654842_700b-2152166632

[–] afraid_of_zombies -1 points 9 months ago

I would pay money to have this physically mailed to everyone. I have money because I have an economy car.

[–] realitista 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

State vehicle registration where I'm at is based on vehicle weight. Costs about $400 to renew the registration on my daily driver and $600 to renew for a larger truck. Motorcycles are only like $80 to renew.

Consumers are being taxed more for larger vehicles, it's the manufacturers trying to avoid safety regulations that are seeing the cost benefits.

[–] realitista 2 points 9 months ago

This article summarizes the subsidies I'm talking about. Here's an excerpt:

For now, the important point is that trucks generally are more profitable than cars thanks to two big government incentives, both of them historical footnotes.

The first is the so-called chicken tax, a 25 percent tariff imposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 on foreign-built work vehicles as part of a chicken-related trade war with Europe. If you’re making a pickup or cargo van in the United States, profits should be higher, because foreign factories can’t come close to undercutting you on price.

The second incentive lies in the fine print of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards adopted in 1975, Gerald Ford’s reluctant response to a crippling Middle East oil embargo that sent gas prices soaring. To protect American commerce, work trucks and light trucks were subject to less-strict CAFE standards than family sedans. Trucks are also exempt from the 1978 gas guzzler tax, which adds $1,000 to $7,700 to the price of sedans that get 22.5 or fewer miles to the gallon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Terces 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?feature=shared

Not op, but I really liked this video, as it explains quite a bit. It is of course a biased video, but still...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/jN7mSXMruEo?feature=shared

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thanks for the citation, I'll look into it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 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.

[–] realitista 1 points 9 months ago

See my post above with citation.

[–] nothead -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] realitista 1 points 9 months ago

See my post above in the thread where I show the laws I am talking about and cite source.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 12 points 9 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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The EPA under the Obama admistration enabled this. I was surprised to learn this. It needs to change. I think trains need to change too.

https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=koJhe84uaGDsrLue

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/azI3nqrHEXM?si=koJhe84uaGDsrLue

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

Congratulations, the fossil fuel industry just put a hit on you

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NikkiDimes 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 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.

[–] afraid_of_zombies -2 points 9 months ago

The article has a link to EVs by weight all but two of them were under the threshold.