Magiccupcake @ Magiccupcake @startrek.website

Posts

4

Comments

108

Joined

2 yr. ago

Half of that is probably the 2.5kwhr battery, seems like 1kwhr would be a more reasonable range, 180km seems more than needed for most people.

Bedrooms do have to have windows or a door to the outside to be legally a bedroom.

I'm not ignorant of rural life, I've lived in rural areas, suburbs, and visiting cities a lot.

There are a lot of reasons why american cities suck, high crime, decrepit buildings, not unique to cities either.

Enjoy your life, and be safe. Try not to put others in danger.

I don't know why I care so much, but someone in my area died in a car accident a few months ago. I didn't know her, but i was very close at the time it happened.

A drunk driver hit them and everyone blames them alone, and yeah its their fault. But the road leading up to it is too easy to go fast leading into a shopping center. I don't want to live a culture that just accepts car deaths. I want the county and government to fix unsafe roads. And I'd like something to be done to stop the arms race between cars on the road, in the end your not that much safer, while people outside the car die in greater numbers.

I'm sorry that the area you live in has decided that transportation can carry a serious risk of death. Roads can be desinged in a safer manner, even when people are drunk.

Transit options are workable even in rural areas when designed correctly.

Well I bike to work, so take that how you will.

Personally I'd rather advacote for safer roads for everyone, and transit options that doesn't turn into an arms race, like buses, trains and biking where possible.

Also get hit by a semi, tell me how you win that arms race.

I hate it cause its lethal, wasteful, and stupid.

My bother in law has a Juiced Rip Current S, with the performance upgrade it does 30mph on throttle, it'll probably go faster with pedal assist. I can test it later if you want.

I'll need to check what model it is, but it's probably the highest power one.

Technically not street legal, but nobody is going enforce that. Probably.

To guarantee the range you'd probably need a spare battery.

You can also put a rack on it to carry stuff and the spare battery.

The average car age is 12.5 years, so many of them are likely approaching 20

Yeah and that's why I'm not advocating for 100 year cars.

I'd be pretty happy with 20 years to, but 10 just feels like planned obsolescence.

I also messed around with the math very loosly, and only accounting for crashes that total a car, they could be expected to go 20 years or more on average.

And that's now with all the terrible driving that happens, especially at night. With slight deacrease in accident frequncy that number can increase a lot.

So maybe 30 is a bit much for now, but I'd still like an ev that would claim to last 20 yeara.

So far most ev batteries do much better than cell phones, as long as they have cooling.

But you still have it backwards.

We could very easily design and build a car that lasts 30 years. But we don't, because manufacturers don't want them to last that long.

Evs don't have transmissions, or complicated engines, and the wear on brakes is much less with regenerative braking.

Other things like air conditioning and interior coverings could be easily servicable

Why should the life of an ev by limited by its battery?

Because lemmy search sucks. Its very specific, and usually the most relavant stuff is buried by tangetially related things.

In the Netherlands they use bike lanes.

A two way bike lane is wide enough for emergency vehicles like an ambulance, and bikers get out of the way.

Do really need need 4?

If you cant get by on 2, you might have less power, but you can get better efficiency. With better efficiency you can have a smaller battery for the same range and reduce some of your increased cost that way.

If you're gonna go through all this trouble, why not put motors directly into the wheels? Then you can bypass the drivetrain all together and directly power the wheels.

The newer technology at that time was cars and roads, and many European countries did try the American system of roads and suburbs.

Its just that most of them realized it wad a bad idea around 20 years ago and started rethinking their cities.

Many city centers were even turned into parking lots like American ones.

Again cities arent supposed to be static, and normally they grow denser, rather than sprawling.

The problem with American cities is partly zoning, and partly nimbyism, where people don't want their places to change.

And sprawl sucks for pretty much everyone. Less arable land for farming, poorer anmeties, longer travel times, and finally huge transportation costs. Cars are by far the most costly method of travel, both personally and for governments.

The stupid thing is that fixing it isn't even that hard.

Step one Get rid stupid zoning laws like single family housing and reduce parking minimums.

Step 2 Modify existing roads piece by piece to include alternative transit methods. Add bike lanes, if you can't slow down roads and people will bike.

Actually run decent buses where peoole want to go, not oversized 50 person buses on 3 routes that nobody uses becasue it doesn't go anywhere, and has an hour between the next bus.

That's it, the market will build more housing in areas that need it if its profitable, then use that new tax money to drive transit infrastructure.

There's a lot of fine details, but we're bankrupting cities with cars right now.

It's a good point that cities aren't built anymore, and that's part of the problem. Our population has grown drastically, but we don't build hardly any new infrastructure for them outside of roads. So traffic is terrible despite enormous amounts of money from both government and people.

Cities aren't supposed to be static, they're supposed to grow and adapt to the needs of those that live there. There is a large need for non-car transport that is either ignored or sidelined for cars.

I'm not talking about 90% empty land, that's not where people are.

When the car was invented, governments had little issue buildozing entire neighborhoods for highways, but now that some places are realizing that's a bad decision, its really hard to undo.

There are places that would be wonderfully served by trains, but just aren't.

Cars are best in rural areas, but by far the majority of peoole live in cities where cars are the worst, yet we still build them for cars.

How so? Is it because they're switching to electric vs hydraulic?