246
Ugly car rule (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by Hope@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hmmm. Almost as if i specified

design

for a reason.

[-] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Bold to assume the design isn't embedded in the culture, technology, and economics in which it is built. If you tried to take a modern shape and build it in the 40s, you'd get a shitty car by design. If you tried to buy an electric car in rural America with no electric car infrastructure, it would be a bad investment based on its design. If the classic jeep wasn't a staple of WWII, or if the 50-70s era mustangs weren't in so many action movies, those designs wouldn't have the popularity they have now.

This goofy Fiat is a joke, but the cybertruck is offensive. Trucks are very useful for moving stuff with fewer trips in rural America, but the cybertruck sucks at hauling, and isn't in an area with abundant charging infrastructure. Some of the trunk space would permanently go to keeping a charger on hand if you tried to use it in rural areas. It's larger and bulkier than necessary for cities, meaning it would be better as a sedan or compact. It's expensive and poorly made, but unlike the multipla, it's impractical anywhere but wealthy suburbs at a fundamental level. At least the multipla has typical Fiat usefulness.

[-] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

My fault for being unclear—i'm only talking about the aesthetics.

this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
246 points (92.4% liked)

196

16601 readers
2155 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS