←back to thread

A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, no screen

(www.theverge.com)
1329 points kwindla | 2 comments | 25 Apr 25 15:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.403s | source
Show context
aidenn0 ◴[25 Apr 25 16:56 UTC] No.43795946[source]▶
For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered pickup with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-sized pickup for being too fuel inefficient, despite likely getting much better mileage than an F-150 because, since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...

replies(9): >>43796306 #>>43796377 #>>43796399 #>>43797478 #>>43798561 #>>43798794 #>>43798925 #>>43799250 #>>43800495 #
zx10rse ◴[25 Apr 25 21:58 UTC] No.43798925[source]▶
Automotive industry is one of the biggest scams on planet earth. One of my favorite cases recently is how Suzuki Jimny is banned in Europe and US because of emission standards allegedly, so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km oh and surprise surprise Mercedes are going to release a smaller more affordable G-Class [1].

[1] - https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wa...

replies(4): >>43799296 #>>43799328 #>>43799626 #>>43801396 #
mft_ ◴[25 Apr 25 23:02 UTC] No.43799296[source]▶
Manufacturers must hit a level of CO2 emissions on average across their whole fleet. As such, Suzuki is choosing to discontinue the Jimny because of the tougher fleet average targets starting in 2025. Overall you’re right that it’s a bit of a fix; Mercedes ‘pools’ its emissions with other manufacturers/brands. It currently pools with Smart, but may also pool with Volvo/Polestar? [0] It’s such an obvious approach to ‘game’ the targets, it’s a wonder the EU didn’t see it coming when they introduced the scheme. [0] https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-to...
replies(6): >>43799702 #>>43800038 #>>43800463 #>>43800855 #>>43800976 #>>43801719 #
throw10920 ◴[26 Apr 25 04:06 UTC] No.43800855[source]▶
This is why its so important to be super careful with how you write regulation - because even if the intent was good, it's so hard to both anticipate unintended second- and third-order effects, and it's so difficult to update after you've pushed to production.

Just like code, regulation isn't intrinsically valuable - it's a means to an end, and piling lots of poorly-written stuff on top of each other has disasterous consequences for society. We have to make sure that the code and law that we write is carefully thought out and crafted to achieve its desired effect with minimal complexity, and formally verify and test it when possible.

(an example of testing law may be to get a few clever people into a room and red-team possible exploits in the proposed bill or regulation)

replies(2): >>43801084 #>>43803146 #
1. motorest ◴[26 Apr 25 05:03 UTC] No.43801084[source]▶
> This is why its so important to be super careful with how you write regulation - because even if the intent was good, it's so hard to both anticipate unintended second- and third-order effects, and it's so difficult to update after you've pushed to production.

It seems that the goal is to pressure automakers to improve the efficiency across their entire line instead of simply banning low-efficiency models altogether.

If an automaker discontinues a low-efficient model in order to have access to a market, isn't this an example of regulation working well?

replies(1): >>43802932 #
2. throw10920 ◴[26 Apr 25 12:16 UTC] No.43802932[source]▶
Did you read the parent comment?

> so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km

This is an example of a manufacturer discontinuing a more efficient vehicle while continuing to sell a larger vehicle that is significantly less efficient.

That's the opposite of what you want. So, no, this is not an example of regulation working well.