- cross-posted to:
- fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Phones have gotten way bigger again
There was a very quick 180 on phone size when folks figured out they could be used for porn
I would agree, if the aspect ratio for those big phones was still 16:9, but its not. These long ass phones are made for doom scrolling.
Doom scrolling porn?
Or movies which usually aren’t in 16:9
Found the anamorphic porn fan.
Praise be!
Things we hold get smaller. Things we fit inside get bigger.
That sounds like a double entendre
Like your mum.
Except the inside of today’s monster cars is just as small as ever.
The Delta is occupied by the stupid proofing systems.
And we sure do need a lot of that since people stopped using their brains.
This is comparing a 3 series sedan with an SUV though. The closest modern analog to the E30 would be the 1 series, and while it’s larger and heavier it’s also more fuel efficient, faster, and safer.
It’s a perfectly fine comparison, because people are buying them for the exact same thing. Just because they’ve been sorted into different categories for other reasons doesn’t change that.
Lol any method of transportation is just a different category with this logic
No, because all methods of transportation are not used for “the exact same thing”. If it was a 7 seater SUV, it would be a bad comparison, because that’s for carrying more people and must be larger. Same for a motorcycle. But it’s not, it’s a five seater car with a moderate trunk that people are buying for the exact same use case.
You’re right, they’re not all used for transportation.
Yes I’m trolling a bit, one could argue a modern smart phone and the first cell phones are a bad comparison because they “aren’t used for the same thing” but that’s just needlessly pedantic.
In this case, I do think it’s fair to point out a crossover/suv being compared to a sedan is different enough to be a bad comparison, it’s not “Apples to Oranges” (why can’t fruit be compared?) but it is intentionally misleading for comparing cars of the same type when they’re not the same type and pointing at the size difference.
Yes it is very intentional, because the point is not to say, “look at this sedan and this suv”, the point is, “look at cars and how they are becoming bigger”, a major part of which is people unnecessarily buying bigger cars. It’s comparing the “average” car of the past to the “average” car today. In fact, if you were to compare sedans to sedans while trying to make that point, I say that would be disingenuous.
By example, if I was comparing computer storage though the ages, I wouldn’t compare magnetic tape to magnetic tape today, I’d compare it to ssds. And it wouldn’t be disingenuous because they’re different types of storage, because the point I’m making is about storage as a whole.
If SUVs are replacing sedans, I think it’s entirely fair to compare them.
I just had to tow a U-Haul trailer with all of my furniture packed inside. A five seater car would not be able to do this.
You decided to do that, you didn’t have to. Since the trailer was rented out, you could have just as well rented out a U-Haul truck.
You represent a minority
Especially a minority of their own time. Moving houses doesn’t happen every day.
What? Theywent from portable PC/phone to even more portable PC/phone. The same way they went from shit car for assholes to more shitty car for assholes.
That old e30(?) Is a badass car. Yes BMW are generally wankers, but don’t hate the Chariot.
Not only are modern cars huge, they’re fuckin’ ugly as well. I can’t stand the “aggressive” look every car, truck, and SUV has nowadays. Sorry, but Mom’s minivan does not need to look “aggressive”. That thing is lucky to even reach a high speed to warrant such a look. The shapes of cars nowadays look like hideous blobs, especially most SUVs. Taillights taking up the whole rear end, weird headlight placement (who the fuck designed the Nissan Juke?) and other design choices that make the car look uglier every generation.
I know it’s because of studies showing people like “aggressive” cars (because people are fucking stupid, it isn’t aggressive if every car is aggressive) and aerodynamics are why cars look like blobs, but I sure miss when cars actually looked like cars. That died out in the late 90s/early 2000s.
Aggressive is definitely the current trend. Rivian is an interesting exception, imo. The front end has a lot of rounded features even though they are on trucks and SUVs. I hated the headlights at first but they are growing on me. They are a tiny player of course, but they have a lot of buzz at the moment.
Have you seen the engines they put in minivans? They’re pulling upwards of 300 horsepower. When Mom wants to go she’s going to beat your crossover.
I was going to say, you can option almost any model minivan with 300 these days
In reallity we all want smaller phones though
Exactly the image I thought of.
Bless you, and all your generations to come, oh wide and sagacious one!
I’ve got big hands. Phones are great the size they’re at now.
Agreed. Even now the keyboard is about the size of my thumb. I hate typing on mobile.
Eh, speak for yourself please
I love how this comment serves no purpose but to announce that you’re kind of a difficult person. Can we be friends?
Can’t rn, too busy jacking off on my Nexus 6. Stereo front-facing speakers, baby.
The US has to fix the fuel efficiency laws so that small trucks don’t have huge environmental fees associated with them. So many contractors and others who need a truck but don’t want a modern behemoth would benefit.You mean like a Kei Truck?
I think they’re so cute. Like they are out of a Lightning McQueen manga.
deleted by creator
Is it emissions or is it safety? B/c a lot of them don’t have the power for highway roads and lack basic safety (like seatbelts).
If it is emissions, it’s probably because it’s category-wrecking. They probably get pitted against other cars in a similar weight or wheelbase, and it’s designed to be far more utilitarian than most vehicles in that class.
I’d totally drive a Kei truck, I bet the fuel economy is great too. The big appeal for a light truck for me though is putting a cap on the back and keeping tools equipment back there, or going camping in it. Would make a decent van life experience in a pinch too. I used to have a Mazda B2000 like in the picture back in the 90s, easy to keep running and decent with gas, nothing but happy memories with it.
I bet the fuel economy is great too.
IIRC they can get like 40mpg. Which isn’t great in comparison to some cars, but for a truck it’s pretty fuckin good.
YES PLEASE. You can even make it electric. I just want a small truck with a full size bed. I don’t need all the other shit these overpriced monstrosities come with.
But they’re essentially illegal. CAFE standards are based on vehicle footprint since the late 2000s (you know - when they suddenly quit making small trucks). As the standards get stricter they just make trucks bigger to keep from failing to meet CAFE.
Yes, that’s why I replied to a comment about the laws needing to change.
Though the benefit of the law is that the standard engine on the Ford Maverick is the hybrid, since having the ICE as the standard wouldn’t meet CAFE.
If the Maverick had been possible to obtain when my Colorado died last summer it’s definitely what I would have bought.
Instead I got an NV200 mini cargo van, and I’m pretty happy with it. Though the smash cargo vans just all got discontinued by all the manufacturers too because of CAFE.
Ok, besides comparing wrong things (for comedic effect no doubt), what tf is that laptop from … 1999?
Mac air was start of 2010s iirc
You are right.
Colby WalkMac is from 1986/1987.
First MacAir is from 2008.So it checks out in that sense.
Phones are old(er) even.
Just BMW is ‘newer’ (pre-facelift).
Oh, sweet summer child… No.
Im my sweet summers there were basically no commercial laptops.
I was trying to say that that laptop isnt just 25 years old. It just seems odd to even put 25 there, where 40 is used for the other two.I was going to mention that the laptop looks like a “tough-book” heavy duty type thing. The only reason it seems old is because of the video ports on the side. Military laptops for field use still look similar, admittedly a bit smaller
That thing has two power plugs.
But at least it has a mouse pad.Its from 1986, (Colby) WalkMac.
Wouldn’t knowledge about crumple zones and need for space for things like airbags, make cars bigger?
Not saying that is the main reason, but size reduction may not be a factor to focus on its own, right?No, vehicles have gotten larger because of the same problem as most of the issues in the United States: politics!
You see automobile manufacturers have to meet an average fuel economy across their entire fleet under the CAFE (Corporate average fuel economy) act of 1975. CAFE was a good idea as it forced the auto industry into actually improving on fuel economy year after year throughout their entire fleet or be met with steep fines for ever 0.1mpg off the target.
In 2011 CAFE was changed which directly caused the auto market we have today. See in 2011 the formula on how you’d calculate your fleet’s avarage MPG got changed to now factor in vehicle footprint as a variable which auto manufactures quickly caught on to mean the larger a vehicle is the smaller their entire fleet’s MPG has to be.
On top of that in 2012 “medium-duty trucks” was added as their own category with a lower MPG requirement meaning if your truck or SUV fell into that category then you would have a smaller MPG target for your entire fleet.
Now put yourself into the shoes of an early 2010s auto manufacture, would you rather design small and light vehicles that require you to meet a pretty high fuel economy level across your entire product range or would you inflate the size of your vehicles and move all R&D into finding ways to get your entire fleet classified as a medium-duty truck/SUV with a smaller MPG requirement? Of course you are going to take the latter.
The changes to CAFE in the 2010s killed small vehicles as we knew it. Ensured light duty trucks stayed dead domestically built or chicken tax be dammed. Caused the explosion of crossover SUVs to flood the market. All while making vehicles more dangerous and worse for the environment.
Thank you.
I am not from North America. I’m in India.
Here, the average car has generally increased in size a bit, but doesn’t seem to be going too big. There are larger cars and they are indeed increasing in number, but due to our mixed traffic and high traffic density it is not that popular.They are also comparing the smallest BMW of the nineties with the biggest current one.
See in 2011 the formula on how you’d calculate your fleet’s avarage MPG got changed to now factor in vehicle footprint as a variable
I was wondering why every new car I see is too long and wide
Nah, we still make compact cars similar in size with the same safety features to econoboxes from 40 years ago. Like houses, people want more room in their vehicles than they had with the smaller cars plus some other misinformed choices like thinking bigger and taller means safer.
Plus along with the older small cars we also had the giant boats that got single digit mpg. It wasn’t like they were all small in the past.
“with the same safety features”
Eh, no, cars from 40 years ago wouldn’t pass current safety tests
Cars of the same size weight a lot more now than they used to back in the day and safety features is one of the main reasons.
Here is the same thing I posted, but reworded slightly to be more clear.
We make some cars now with modern safety feature that are big and some that are just as small as the econoboxes from 40 years ago. A Honda Fit for example is just as small, but with modern safety features.
I said nothing about weight.
In 1984 the smallest Volkswagen was the Polo, weighing 685 kg. Now it is the Up, weighing 991 kg. That’s 45% more weight. Now you specifically didn’t mention weight, but all that weight has to go somewhere, especially considering most materials mostly got lighter.
deleted by creator
Pretty stupid to compare a sedan and an SUV. Not a good way to get people to see your point.
Many normal car models are now SUVs though, at least in Europe.
OP could just compare the E30 3-series and the G20 3-series and there would already be a size difference. Of course, much of it stems from safety features taking up extra space (hello crumple zones, airbags, etc) and there’s also simply a little bit of more space in a modern car.
To truly make a point here, you might want to compare a pickup truck from the 80s or 90s vs the 2010s or 2020s. Those have gotten unnecessarily big with no excuse.
Dumb phone vs. smartphone.
They ahould have uaed the original Mini and the BMW Mini as a comparison
But SUVs and trucks are increasingly the cars that most people own.
Aren’t modern vehicles more fuel efficient though, despite being bigger? Imagine if we kept them the same size and still improved their efficiency.
Imagine if we kept them the same size and still improved their efficiency
Well, we did! In Europe.
Depends, many oversized SUVs here in Germany unfortunately.
Yes, but Europe also had plenty of small and efficient cars which are not exported to the US. And people love their BMW 3 Series still!
And I’m pretty sure the selection of compact BMWs has only grown in those years.
More fuel efficient in the sense that they use the same amount of fuel to move more weight around.
Want safety features in your car? That’s the price to pay, it will be heavier than a tin can from the 80s.
Euh, no. Used to have a renault clio, which was a lot safer than a car from the 80’s like, lets say, a vw beetle. Lighter too, as back then cars were mostly made of steel, while its a combination of steel, aluminium and plastic now.
Same size of car too, so size doesnt matter either.1990 Clio 930kg vs 2020 Clio 1090kg
1985 Polo 730kg vs 2020 Polo 1181kg vs 2020 Lupo 975kg (the Lupo is actually smaller)
1980s Corolla 940kg vs 2020 Corolla 1395kg
Need me to go on?
We make a 2 ton metal box, cruising at 70mph, and driven by basically anyone. The only way to do this while having a reasonable level of safety is to cram it full of features that make it heavy and expensive. This is fundamentally terrible.
People’s needs for transportation will never cease to exist and there will always be some people that will need individual transportation so even in a world where only those who need a vehicle have one, I think it’s only fair that they should be as safe as possible in it.
That’s fine; there’s always special accommodations needed. Can we stop making it the default?
Ahhh yes, because the 2 series doesn’t exist.
The 2 series is now ~180 inches long (about the same as the first generation bmw x3) and ~3900 pounds
(significantly heavier than the first generation x3)(about the same as the first generation bmw x3).Now do crash safety results.
And gas mileage. A lot of the older cars had less power and consumed more fuel.
Yep I finally upgraded my 2003 Renault Kangoo for a station wagon that’s bigger, carries more, probably heavier (don’t actually know) but uses much less fuel. It has a tiny 1L ecoboost engine that still packs a punch when needed and barely uses any more fuel than our much smaller hybrid hatchback with the way I drive it, which admittedly I do drive in a particularly fuel conscious manner.
The modern unloaded base 2 is 3400lbs and the first Gen X3 started at 4k and you could load it up when features to 5k. This 3 series in its poverty trim weighs 3k (and functionally represents a different class of vehicle today) Nice try playing fast and lose with loaded vs base vehicles. Also let’s not pretend the 3 series EVER had a short wheel base. In 1990 it was 175.5 inches. My accord from that era is 179, 1 inch shorter than my 2021 outback.
I will admit that I am fully biased against the absurd weight of the new 2 series. I’ll update the post to reflect what I found instead - the new 2 series is of comparable curb weight, powertrain to powertrain, to the first generation x3, not significantly heavier:
2L AWD: 3640 vs 3650 3L AWD: 3870 vs 3900
The 5k weight listed for the x3 seems to be the gross weight (i.e. car + max rated cargo capacity), which wouldn’t be comparable to the 2 series, having no such rated capacity.
I think this is more referring to the trend of larger vehicles becoming more popular and not any specific car model.
Or 1 series for that matter
I would say the 1 is closer in spirit to the old 2 vs the 3. Either way this is a comparison designed to exaggerate the difference.
The penis got smaller in the last one. /s
So it’s useful and does not suffer from overconsumption, got it!
If anything, it suffers from underconsumption.
What I’m about to type might come as a nitpick and missing the point so let me say this upfront: This post is very much true. Cars have gotten way too big and the loopholes in government laws and environmental regulations that allow this shit to happen need to be closed. Consumers should also be smarter and more diligent with their purchases.
With that said, there’s a small disparity with the car example. The car on the left (BMW 3 Series E30, I think) would be classified as a sedan. The car on the right (BMW X series, don’t know which specifically) would classified as an SUV, more specifically the (abysmal) crossover category.
They are the typical cat that sells in the time it’s build. The phones are technically a dumb phone Vs a smart phone and no-one said anything
Because there are still a lot of cars being made and sold. They’re a big part of every manufacturer’s product line. How many new dumb phones were released in the past 2 years?
Man, I want that chunky laptop.
not only does it have a larger battery… it also uses up that battery 10 times faster while doing 100 times less work :')
I would really like to have modern laptops at like double/triple the size for more battery space though, why can’t we have a normal laptop that lasts like a week on a charge?
I would really like to have modern laptops at like double/triple the size for more battery space though
Mainly because that would violate airplane regulations. You aren’t meant to go over 100 Wh because of what most Li-Ion cells do when damaged, overheated, and ruptured.
why can’t we have a normal laptop that lasts like a week on a charge?
Maybe because that’s impossible without using some really low power parts. Do you like having a black and white screen running at maybe 30 FPS with no brightness to speak off? That’s what you would end up with. Okay actually with modern eInk and transreflective LCDs we can do limited colour, but it will cost a fortune.
Even with triple the energy you are going to struggle powering a modern fast machine with a modern display for that long. Higher resolutions, better colours, brightness, and frame rate all demand more power.
My MacBook lasts a week or more already. I’ve had it for almost 3 years and put less than 100 cycles on it.
Is that actually on and working for an entire week or in sleep mode? Obviously sleep mode uses less power. No one is disputing the fact that you can have long stand by times, even if modern laptops have actually gotten worse in this regard.
If it can manage 8 hours of screen on time everyday for a week that would be closer to what I mean and probably what the original commenter meant.
Definitely not 40 hours use, but I get about 20 out of it, unless I’m doing something particularly heavy. Like, I tested BG3 on it for shits and giggles, and got better performance than my 2070 machine, but it drained my battery by over 50% in Les than an hour
I don’t know where they found that laptop, but a 1999 powerbook was really like this:
Build a cyberdeck.
