this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1538 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
58108 readers
4981 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure what parent is after exactly.
Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it's far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck...)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don't thing there's causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We'd need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles...
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn't enough...
The maverick and ridgeline are both unibodies, but the colorado has a frame.
That said, cafe seems to encourage larger footprints. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#:~:text=CAFE%20footprint%20requirements%20are%20set,vehicle%20with%20a%20smaller%20footprint.
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.