Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday November 27 2018, @12:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the dude-you're-getting-an-opal dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Vauxhall's GTX concept teases the future of mass-market EVs

Vauxhall and Opel, the Anglo-German car maker, joins a number of companies suddenly rushing to embrace electrification. As part of a wider shift away from gas-powered vehicles, it has built the GTX, an all-electric concept that serves as a mission statement for its EVs. You won't see this car popping up in showrooms, but this is the shape, broadly, of things to come.

[...] The GTX concept is an SUV, but built on to the chassis of a compact car, so while it has a high ride profile, its footprint is tiny. Measuring in at 13.3 feet (4.06 meters) by 6 feet (1.83 meters), it's built on the same platform that will underpin the 2019 Vauxhall Corsa, coming in both ICE and EV models. Adding to the look are four custom-made 17-inch tires with hubcaps designed to make them look much bigger.

[...] In place of wing-mirrors, the GTX has two (LG-made) LCD displays connected to cameras that pop out from the edge of the hood. The displays are mounted on the edges of the dashboard to match our instinct to look over when planning a turn. Expect to see more companies adopting this technology -- Audi already has them on the E-Tron SUV -- in the near future. No wing mirrors reduces drag and, perhaps more importantly, makes it easier to park in tighter spaces.

Vauxhall has also gone in hard on the use of LCD displays to cheat little flourishes on the car. On a Rolls Royce, the steering wheel and hubcap insignia remain level due to the inclusion of complex gyroscopic equipment. Here, Vauxhall used little screens to give the look of that (with gentle movement) without any complex engineering. There's also a small LCD battery indicator on the rear driver's-side door to let you know, as you approach the car, how charged it is.

The other big thing that the company is shouting about is the new Visor grille, which will be common across all new Vauxhalls. This five-sided grille will hold the LED headlights, turn signals, the automaker's light-up badge and, where available, the sensors for autonomous driving. Well, kinda -- the company says that it'll focus only on Level 3 self-driving for its production cars.

[...] These loose specs suggest the company is aiming for a range of around 200 miles for cars built on the same platform. The 2018 Nissan Leaf has a 40 kWh battery and has an EPA-rated range of 151 miles. The 2018 Chevy Bolt has a 60 kWh cell and is rated by the EPA for a range of 238 miles.

So, the future of Vauxhall is electricity, efficiency, weight reduction and an embrace of a more futuristic-looking design language. It'll be interesting to see how many of these concepts trickle down into its production models. And that will all start with next year's Corsa.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:35PM (10 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:35PM (#766913)

    Modern cars suck, quite frankly. They are heavy, complicated, expensive, designed cheaply, huge on the outside, tiny on the inside, poor visibility on the front and sides, and virtually no visibility from the rear anymore.

    The most striking example of the latter I remember is photos of the original "mini" next to one of the new ones, or the old fiat 500 against the new ones.

    For the outside increase in modern cars, I would have expected some more space inside, but apparently not. They instead went for acres of plastic dashboard and 4 inch wide door plastic.

    I can more comfortably fit in older (up to early 90s) cars than I ever could in a modern equivalent, unless I buy a SUV (not that I ever would), which may well be why they are so popular.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:59PM (9 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @01:59PM (#766917) Homepage Journal

    I couldn't agree more! Some, but not all, of the bloat is due to ever increasing safety measures, usually mandated by legislation. There's something wrong though when all those airbags (combined with the giant wheels and high hood line for pedestrian safety*) result in miniscule little windows, high up that you can barely peek out of. It's like they've added so much "safety" that it's starting to make the car more dangerous to drive again! Let's not forget that a bigger car is also a bigger target on the road, making the probability of it hitting an obstacle that much more likely. Also, heavier means greater momentum and more energy transfer in a collision. It's like the cars are evolving down a blind alley, due to conflicting needs--a bit like humans' large brains causing pain and injury for our females giving birth!

    Everyone takes a risk when they step into a car and everyone has their own personal tolerance for risk. There should be more choice for the consumer over what compromises should be made in the vehicle. It shouldn't be forced upon us across the board. It's lucky we can still have old cars and motorcycles, though there are plenty of people that want to legislate those out of existence also!

    The reason I hate SUVs by the way, is they're trying to be something they're not. They've basically replaced the family car and the station wagon, but they're pretending to also be a bit more like an off-roader. without having decent off-road capabilities, and a bit more like a sports car, without being one of those either. They're pretentious, stupid, bland, bloated, ugly, and they're everywhere!

    *Pedestrian safety is important, but if a driver hits a pedestrian, something has gone very, very wrong to begin with. I strongly suggest that is where the energy should be concentrated on improving safety, not on turning all the vehicles into rolling balls of squishy sponge!

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:02PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:02PM (#766918)

      Watch for human driven cars to be legislated out of existence. You won't have to worry about looking out of the tiny window!

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 27 2018, @06:23PM (2 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @06:23PM (#766979)

        I would hope that would mean big panoramic windows (because no crashes means less metal needed).
        I expect and fear that it will mean no windows at all.
        The future is people going around in enclosed tin cans with screens to keep them in a controlled and ever-recording virtual reality.

        • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:32AM (1 child)

          by Unixnut (5779) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @10:32AM (#767262)

          > I expect and fear that it will mean no windows at all.

          Most likely, after all, how would you make sure the occupants are watching the adverts if they can look outside? Think of it from a marketing perspective, you have the opportunity to have a captive audience for the entire trip, who have nothing to do but sit and wait to reach their destination.

          You can either give them windows so they can look outside, or you can make use of the captive eyeballs and only let them look at screens, which you can then sell time on to advertisers. You can also control the route of the trip, making it longer or shorter, so you could incentivise behaviour (e.g. make it so that the more adverts the occupants watch, the shorter the route to their destination the car will take).

          Which do you think is better and more profitable for all involved? (except for the passengers. However by accepting to be driven around in an autonomous car, they have volunteered to be nothing but cattle anyway, and nobody asks cattle for their opinions).

          I don't think they can legislate normal cars away. For one thing too many people enjoy driving, especially among the influential upper classes. Just look at the number of events round the world catering to rich car enthusiasts.

          As an example. the central government round my parts decided to restrict all old cars below a certain emissions standard from cities in order to reduce congestion and pollution. That upset the influential folk, who had a chat with the authorities, and then an exemption was made from all restrictions for registered classic cars.

          I mean, they haven't even managed to legislate horses away round my parts, and cars replaced horses 100+ years ago. People still use Horses, either for pleasure, or for business, and there are rules for sharing the roads between us.

          Plus, when we get a disruption of fuel supply, its quite useful to be able to hitch a ride to town on my neighbours horse and carriage :-)

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:27PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @05:27PM (#767365)

            > I don't think they can legislate normal cars away.

            - "People are less reliable than autonomous cars. Driving your own car will costs you many thousands per year in mandatory insurance fees." There, got rid of the annoying 99%ers blocking my fun drive! Another cigar?
            - But wait! I don't want to pay extra just to get rid of the plebs! I could just go to the track, then.
            - Don't worry, my congressman just made car insurance up to a percent of your income a tax write-off.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Tuesday November 27 2018, @05:41PM (4 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @05:41PM (#766963)

      Most definitely. I find it much harder to navigate with all the thick pillars and small windows. The rear window of my 2005 car is pretty much vestigial at this point, the only way to reverse and not hit anything is to blindly trust the parking sensors (and they have failed to alert me on multiple occasions, resulting in a lovely "crunch" as I hit something with the bumper). I have actually taken to reversing, stopping, getting out the car, seeing how much of a gap is between the car and the other surface, then getting back in, reversing a bit more, etc.... to avoid hitting things.

      It is even worse for things that are small, like cyclists and pedestrians, they can easily be completely blocked out by the pillars on the car, making it more likely I won't be able to see them until an impact occurs.

      Sure modern cars may be safer, but they have actually increased the chances of getting into an accident in the first place. And while they may be safer for pedestrians in case of an impact, I am sure said pedestrians would prefer it if I could see them, and not hit them at all (as a pedestrian I sure would prefer that).

      Compare to my 80s car, that is basically a greenhouse on wheels. Thin frames surrounded by large pieces of glass, I find it so easy to see around me and drive, and even reverse. I actually never hit anything with it (alas, others have hit into it when parked, presumably because they could not see where they were going through the porthole-type windows of their new cars).

      Sure, I understand that if the car lands on its roof, the thin pillars are more likely to buckle, but the statistical chance of me getting involved in an accident so bad it flips the car over (but somehow doesn't injure me, save for the roof collapsing) is so minute that it seems silly that everyone had to trundle around in such car bodies on the off chance they flip the car.

      Likewise airbags. Unless you are in a head on collision at 70+ mph, the airbags going off are likely to do more damage to you than the initial accident would.

      Doctors have told me as much, so much so that if you are in an accident in a car without airbags, they are less worried about you than if you were in a car with airbags (that went off). Most people have minor dings, some have a medium level smash, where they may end up with concussion, torn ligaments and whiplash, but relatively few people have the kind of major accidents where an airbag can mean life or death.

      So to save those in serious crashes, the rest of us tolerate worse injuries from the airbags themselves in minor crashes.

      Also, all this adds weight, which makes cars worse. Heavy cars use more fuel, they need bigger brakes to stop the mass, they are less maneuverable. My 80s car has about the same consumption as my 2005, primarily because it is lighter, so needs less fuel to accelerate. People ask why car fuel consumption hasn't really changed much, and the reason is as engines got more efficient, cars got heavier.

      To flip analogies around, its like Microsoft and PCs. As PC's got more powerful, MS Windows got more bloated, with the result that the new PC feels just as fast as the one it replaced, despite being far more powerful and energy efficient. Same deal with cars. If you kept 80s or 90s safety levels, but allowed for modern engines and drive trains, we would have far more efficient cars already.

      Not to mention all the nanny features, the poor visibility, the heft, and the expense of computerised parts, etc... means that modern cars are no fun to drive, and horribly expensive to maintain. It does not surprise me that new generations have little to no interest in car usage, or even ownership. When all they have experienced is modern cars.

      Had I not had the fortune to drive a classic car when I was young, I never would have known how much fun it was to drive, and probably would never have bothered to get a licence, like most of the rest of generation I know.

      • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday November 27 2018, @06:45PM (3 children)

        by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @06:45PM (#766987)

        As for the SUV's, I dislike them for a few simple reasons:

        • They were nothing more than a marketing exercise. Car manufacturers had saturated the market with all standard car types, so invented a whole new subcatagory, the "SUV", that is basically a lowered 4x4 (which was the rage in the car modding scene for a while). It really wasn't needed as a production subcategory (you could have just made "lower my 4x4 till its useless off road" a factory option), and marketed it to be fashionable for the sake of it. It is the utmost in wasteful consumerism.
        • Its impractical. A jack of all trades, master of none. It is too big to be a city car, too small to be good for carrying goods like an estate/shooting-brake/station-wagon, too low to be a decent off roader, too high to have good handling and stability, too much fuel consumption to be a good "cheap runner" due to its weight and complex 4x4 system, yet not enough power to haul anything much compared to normal cars. Even the term "SUV", "Sports Utility Vehicle" is a misnomer. Its utility is diminished, its sportiniess is also diminished, you would be better off with a 4x4/family car and a sports car instead.
        • The kind of people who buy them are obnoxious. From my experience, you can break them down into the following groups:
          • The "It's fashionable" crowd, who throw money at gimmicks and must have whatever is "in", just to rub it in others faces, no matter how stupid it is.
          • Those who like to pretend they are "country bred" city folk, and need a combined "city car and 4x4" to "visit the homestead".
          • Those who feel inferior in their life, so like to buy a car that lets them sit "above" others in traffic, to make them feel better about themselves.
          • Those who want to deny they are middle aged with a family, but didn't make it well enough in life to have a family car and something sporty to show off, so think they can get both "in one" cheaply.
          • The helicopter mums who insist they need a 7 seater SUV to ferry one kid to/from school a block away. they are the ones most likely to clog the street by parking all over the place "just for a minute" and seem to be unable to drive well enough to not keep hitting into things/people.

        The only logical arguments I was ever given for SUVs were that they are needed to deal with potholes in the cities, but that didn't really pass muster, because (a) Most of the potholes are caused by the big heavy SUVs in the first place, (b) SUV's 4x4 system does not help you at all in that situation, and (c) the ride height of the SUV is pretty much the same as a normal car, so you don't get improved clearance either.

        Another argument I have been given is that for those who live in the city, but want to go on "country roads" for the odd weekend need something that can handle both.

        I don't know what they think the "countryside" is, but generally countryside road infrastructure is pretty much binary. You either have roads which cars can go on, or you have roads only proper 4x4's, quad bikes and tractors can go on. A SUV won't help you there one bit.

        Running joke round my area is the city tourists who visit for the weekend all show up in SUVs, while the locals are in normal cars, or low slung sports cars (because you know, we keep cars on the roads, and use a proper 4x4 when needed). Farmers seem to love classic and sports cars, almost everyone round here has something special tucked away in a barn somewhere for those lovely summer days.

        Saying that, while I can sit here and mock the stupidity of it all, I can't deny it is a resounding success. Every time I go to the city it is chock full of SUVs, and they are seriously profitable for the companies who make them. Then again, I also said nobody would ever accept (let alone willingly pay) to have an always on spying device in their home, yet that Amazon echo crap is one of the most popular purchases on cyber Monday (assuming Amazon isn't lying of course).

        Moral of the story? If I think something is a crap idea, it will make millions, if I think its a great idea, it will fall flat on its face.

        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday November 27 2018, @09:44PM

          by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday November 27 2018, @09:44PM (#767056) Homepage Journal

          Yes. Could it be a sign of the dumbing down of consumer products and services? Flashy marketing now dominating the product's very design, where function used to be of prime importance and marketing was more of an afterthought? I suppose it's just too easy to underestimate how much of the population does fit into those categories of the obnoxious that you identified. Maybe the jack-of-all-trades / wannabe factor is higher due to people being less likely to afford more than one vehicle these days compared to the past. I think it's also a case of manufacturers cutting back their ranges as a cost saving exercise, often also using a common platform for different models and even badge engineering of one vehicle across different car companies. If one vehicle is just about good enough to sell to two or three groups of people that previously wanted different models, I guess they go with it. The manufacturer wins on their profit margin and the consumer loses on choice and winds up driving a compromise.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:42AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28 2018, @03:42AM (#767182)

          This much is completely obvious -- you do not have kids.
          SUVs and minivans make modern life possible for those of us with kids, especially if they do sports, have friends, go to parties and do the occasional science project at school.

          The added safety of a bigger, heavier car matters to us parents too. It's just another kind of insurance. One we're more than willing to pay for.

          So go outside and grow up a little. It's a big and wonderful world Wilbur. You might be surprised how little you really understand about it.

          • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:57AM

            by Unixnut (5779) on Wednesday November 28 2018, @09:57AM (#767259)

            What do SUVs have to do with kids? More to the point, following your logic, how did people manage to have kids before SUV's existed? They are a relatively recent invention.

            Hint, there are entire classes of vehicles for people with kids. From the small family hatchbacks, to the standard family car with 5 seats, to 7 seater estates/station wagon for the larger brood, or mpv's if you need a bit more space too. Then there are proper 4x4s with ample seating and carrying capacity, with actual off road ability too.

            Bigger and heavier != safer. In fact the extra weight and poorer visibility make SUVs harder to handle and more likely to hit something in the first place.
            Their kinetic energy is much higher (it's proportional to mass of vehicle), so they require more power to stop/change direction, and their braking distance is longer. They are more likely to skid, and more dangerous when they do, and if things go really bad their higher centre of gravity mean they are far more likely to roll over and injure/trap the occupants. So, not only more dangerous, but more likely to get into an accident in the first place.

            Modern cars are very safe, even your normal family car has multiple airbags and strong reinforced passenger cages. Any kind of accident which cannot protect your kids in a normal car, will not be able to protect them in a SUV either, so that is a red herring.

            Sorry, but your arguments don't hold water at all.