He also never says that electric is not the right direction.

Here's the quote:

> “We now have electric SUVs – huge 4x4s with electric! Ludicrous. It just makes no sense whatsoever. It would just be nice to see cars getting a bit more efficient – whatever the propulsion unit might be, but in terms of the aero, weights, engine size. All these government organisations pat themselves on the back for the improved safety regulations but just like in F1 it makes the car very heavy. Also things like on the combustion engine having such low emissions from a cold start – again that puts weight into the car. The regulators don’t seem to think about that. They want utopia, a car with no emissions and is very efficient.”

To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so), not electric cars.

> To me he's saying that SUVs make no sense (rightfully so)

By "SUV" are you referring exclusively to archetypical American models like the Escalade and Expedition? Or do you include somewhat more "polite" vehicles like the Range Rover and Honda CR-V? How would you categorize larger crossover models like the the Model X which Tesla always refers to as an "SUV" despite its shorter wheelbase and noticeably less rear-pax legroom (and doesn't even have seatback pockets...)

Honestly curious, thanks!

I'm mostly talking about the ones that you wouldn't see in a European city, those that consume more than 10L / 100km basically. Anything that their owner would call "my truck" even though it's a car.

Some of it makes sense.

Safety features make the car heavier ---> weight increases collision force ---> need more safety features.

In a way it's a self-reinforcing loop where you end up with a 2-ton vehicle to ferry around 1 person, which is a bit ridiculous if you think about it.

I'm not a car expert by any means, but I just did a quick look through the Euro NCAP database, and apparently there are some models with 5-star ratings that are below 1.5 metric tons. I don't disagree that safety features don't incur additional weight, but it stands to reason that not all the weight gains are caused by additional safety features.

It appears to me that it's more about perceived safety, which leads to an arms race: If everyone around you is driving a 3-ton SUV, you'd be less inclined to choose a Smart ForTwo, even if it's sufficient for your mobility needs and more economical, because you fear what happens when one of the SUV monsters crashes into your car.

There are some ways to fix this: banning SUVs (e.g. by capping vehicle weight for individually-owned cars), providing better public transit options, disincentivizing car ownership in urban areas (e.g. by reducing parking spaces), etc. Obviously none of those policy proposals are going to be popular.

I tried to link it to the direct section -- but somehow the url was auto edited by HN to drop the text highlight or I didn't paste the right link...

And I wasn't able to edit the URL (nor delete my post nor add as description), so I posted the highlighted url as the first comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31671139

I'm not defending my post, you make fair points. I kinda expected pushback from HN.

I should have found a tweet or smaller article that was just about the section where Newey talks about the auto industry. Or others articles that explore this angle.

Anyway there has to be an element of truth in the legendary engineer's comments -- or at least it is a different viewpoint to the popular narrative these days about EV and auto-industry. So I immediately thought the HN community might be interested in exploring this angle -- which other commenters did explore.

I will definitely be more careful when posting next time.

PS: I would think there are engineer fans of the sport that admire Newey as Elon is admired, sorta celeb engineer.

btw @strongpigeon your recent trending HN post was cool, that I recognized your handle.