[HighlandPete]

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/bes...turn-it-around

Thought provoking article, the crazy trend of overweight vehicles.

To me, it has been "the elephant in the room" for several years, even before the push towards EV. Shouldn't we be going the other way, if motoring is really aiming to be green and more sustainable?

[Ennoch]

Gordon Murray had it right but nobody listened. The old Smart roadster was a brilliant wee car. Light, nimble and if you avoided the stupidly wide Brabus rear wheels they were a delight to drive. But who wants that now? Everyone wants the most obese car possible. I can't think of a single road I drive on where something like the M3/4 etc is the appropriate size of car to have fun in. Even taking weight out of it, the size of cars now is mental. How many cars actually fit in parking bays properly and still let you get out easily without having to be super careful with your door against the neighbouring car? Families used to cram everything into an original mini yet now they spec the largest car they can find. I'm not suggesting an original mini is a family car, but there's a gulf between what people need and what people get. For me, I need a large car for trips away but the reality is that I don't need it all the time. It's why I went for the F31 over the L322, and even now I'm looking at going back to the latter, I still have that voice in mind saying 'it's too big most of the time'. And it is. It's a massively heavy truck that's totally overkill, but at least it's proportions aren't as huge as the later L405 and next gen. Size sells, especially in countries like the USA and the wealthy Middle East states and with cost savings from platform amalgamation I don't think we'll see manufacturers voluntarily reducing size and weight any time soon.

[Tengocity]

Yes of course we should, but as the writer points out it probably has to start with the legislation. There’s no incentive or benefit to manufacturers to reduce weight when cars have batteries. The electric component renders the CO2 calculation somewhat irrelevant, so the threshold as to where the value of reduced weight is worth paying for is therefore much higher. With an ICE powered car then the value of weight reduction on CO2 was meaningful.

Hence why a carbon fibre chassis as per i3 and i8 don’t actually make any sense for the current regulatory framework.

The manufacturers can’t control the infrastructure, and it is clear that range (anxiety) is a key driver of buyer decision making, so again it’s only to be expected that they’ll prioritise larger batteries.

On a side note, the argument on braking distances is pretty irrelevant as few accidents are genuinely caused by not being able to brake in really short stopping distances. They come from innattentiveness, and other driver errors.

The other factor is large cars mean larger prices, margins and profits, which is going to be the only way for car manufacturers to survive in the BEV era. Legislation is going to make small and cheap cars totally unaffordable to make at a price anyone is prepared to pay.

[isleaiw1]

I got fined for driving a Transit through the Rotherhithe tunnel recently.... I know, why was I in a Transit and why was I south of the river but I digress.... the fine was for driving an oversized vehicle of more than 2m high, 2m wide or over 2 tonnes..... I suspect they dont really monitor one or two of those restrictions as it would rule out a lot of cars these days!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Ennoch

Families used to cram everything into an original mini yet now they spec the largest car they can find. I'm not suggesting an original mini is a family car, but there's a gulf between what people need and what people get.

I remember those days. Amazing how a family could holiday from an original Mini. My wife and I used to go camping for two weeks from a two door Cortina Mk2, all the kit, including tent and stove, without a roof rack. Plus a small child and all his kit.

Most of us are now guilty of driving vehicles bigger than we really need. We've got so used to it, the move to SUV and crossovers, rather than the practical hatchback, hasn't helped us keep the weight and size down.

When my father used to run E23 7-series, I used to say they were way too big, compared to something like my Dolomite Sprint, (also less than 1,000kgs). I thought my first BMW E12 5-series was big, now I'm in a 5-series bigger than my father's Sevens.

[RhysoTDI]

Good article

As others have mentioned most cars now no longer fit in parking spaces or even on the roads themselves!! I don’t recall roads being widened to accommodate larger cars….it’s rather difficult when you have houses flanking either side!

My C7 A6 wouldn’t fit in my local Tesco car parking space…..the 330 just about does!

My dad had one of the very first VW Polo’s and we had no problem getting us into the car with associated luggage

The knock on effect is that traffic slows to a crawl because people have no idea exactly how big their vehicle is; even people in ‘small’ cars are as guilty as this

Then you have the increased wear and tear to the roads and infrastructure……relaying them isn’t exactly environmentally friendly……

[Wills2]

Cars are very wide these days even the mid sized ones, they seem to keep them the same width just make them shorter, the moorland b roads round here are a constant "near miss" situation doesn't help that people lock on to the white line with their offside tyre and cut corners as a matter of course.

[Techno 9000]

Indeed, width is a primary issue for me (and not just my waistline).

Navigating down a B road in a ‘mid sized’ modern car leaves barely any room ( scant inches) to alter your line through a corner (whilst remaining on your side of the white line) rather contrary to my learning.

We’ve recently gone for an S1 that is a better fit for the country roads around my way and a complete hoot to drive. (It still weighs too much though).

[Grant_7]

There are many factors in (road) vehicle design & development that are causing weights to increase.

One of the big factors is the ever changing and ever increasing safety targets. Increased mass of large items such as batteries has increased the energy that needs to be dissipated in a crash. This in turn means a vehicles' body structure needs to increase in section to absorb this extra energy (this is very simplified and can be partially countered by more advanced material properties). However this increase in section - which will encroach into cabin space, unless you go the other way and make the car wider instead - also increases the total material surface area and thus weight.

Also, legislative groups such an ENCAP and IIHS are constantly evolving their crash targets and criteria. IIHS introduced the SORB (Small Offset Rigid Barrier) test which is an absolute killer; it is a frontal crash test at 40mph which is absorbed outside of the cars' primary frontal crash structure, instead being focused on just 25% of the cars' front end. Energy management in this type of crash is extremely difficult to manage, and is countered by further strengthening parts of the structure outboard of the primary crash structure. Thus you're creating a secondary crash structure which, you guessed it, adds yet further weight.

And then adding weight to the body structure means the whole vehicle mass increases, which necessitates beefing up the suspension and braking system etc. A vicious circle!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Grant_7

...And then adding weight to the body structure means the whole vehicle mass increases, which necessitates beefing up the suspension and braking system etc. A vicious circle!

And that's the problem.

The motoring industry is huge and there is very little which is revolutionary, coming out of it at present.

EV... it is not new, we had EV over 100-years ago, still the same issues as back then. Energy density and a weight penalty. What's happened to the hydrogen economy?

Plus how we use vehicles is a strange mix. Many vehicles are one user only, why such big vehicles? The "just in case" thinking, we may carry a passenger or two. Then the range part, why the 400 miles plus issue? When most trips are only short.

I suggest we need some radical thinking? Complex I know, but we do seem to be going the wrong way.

[Nibbles]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

I suggest we need some radical thinking? Complex I know, but we do seem to be going the wrong way.

Your next car?

https://microlino-car.com/en/microlino

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Nibbles

Your next car?

https://microlino-car.com/en/microlino

A modern "bubble" car!

We did have a BMW Isetta "bubble" car in the family over 50-years ago. I remember three of us 'adults' going out for a drive.

The problem for small cars like that, is the safety issue, so vulnerable out on the open road.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I got fined for driving a Transit through the Rotherhithe tunnel recently.... I know, why was I in a Transit and why was I south of the river but I digress.... the fine was for driving an oversized vehicle of more than 2m high, 2m wide or over 2 tonnes..... I suspect they dont really monitor one or two of those restrictions as it would rule out a lot of cars these days!

My Discovery failed all three if in the right drive mode! And the Tesla one.

[JustChris]

BMW...the forum we are all on, I don't think they make an 'M' car under 1800kg now do they?

Ouch

[MashinBenzin]

Big cars. Have you seen the size of shoes today compared with 40 years ago (was going to say 30 but realised MC Hammer etc. were already promoting big shoes by then). And the size of suitcases to carry them and our larger wardrobes. And the size of a pushchair versus what most of us were pushed around in.

That needs big luggage compartments, inside the aforementioned crash structures.

Everything has a consequence, it’s not just about car manufacturers being lazy and not having a Chapman-esque mindset.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

My Discovery failed all three if in the right drive mode! And the Tesla one.

I think technically the iPace is two depending on how you measure width. The Transit must have failed on the height. It cant have failed on width as I got between the bollards (amazingly!)