/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

it's b/c trains r better than cars, electric or not electric

next question please

You are still caught up in a liberal mentality. Limiting personal vehicles in favor of public transport like in Berlin or Moscow was actually a good thing.

eagerly awaiting for my bus stop in bum fuck nowhere comrades

>>1816112
But why didn’t they even have streetcars or cable cars to bring them from the outskirts to the train station?

>>1816111
Copying the West
Next question

>>1816133
Ideally, it should be all of the above, rather than one or the other.
But even then, the Soviets still went through the trouble of building cars and roads, but didn’t incorporate electric cars that could connect to rails.

>>1816111
I get why people are disappointed about the disintegration of rail infrastructure, trust me I feel your pain, but at this point some of the hostility towards wheeled electric vehicles seems purely narrativized view of why technology is used. May as well wonder why wheeled artillery is used more than war trains.
Still, I have a lot of tire dust in my lungs and I've always hated being surrounded by hot asphalt and highways. A whole new way of life needs to be built to get rid of these things and that requires planned public investment not predatory private investment. I saw one construction woman doing work that should have been done by five people this morning.

Because electricity is bourgeois.

>>1816193
But communism is Soviet power plus electrification

>>1816111
did you watch the WTYP episode?

>>1816112
Being able to hook a car up to the line or disconnect it to drive independently where the line doesn't run is actually a really good idea at least in theory. It might be hard to make it work safely in practice.

>>1816161

> May as well wonder why wheeled artillery is used more than war trains
I didn’t even know war trains were supposed to be a thing.
Anyways, here’s footage of how rails and cars were built to the same proportions. But nobody used them correctly or anything we’d consider to be orderly traffic behavior, lol.
https://youtu.be/sHkc83XA2d
If you live in the city, it wouldn’t spare you all of the tire debris, break dust and asphalt. But at least it would have cut off the tailpipe farts.
You’d really have to move to the country or at least suburbs.
I mean asphalt jungle is gonna asphalt jungle, just like it always has. But it wouldn’t be catastrophic.

Maybe because nobody has made a practical battery technology for a vehicle to this day still. No supression needed.

The tech simply doesn't exist and we can't say it is really possible until someone discovers the tech that makes it so.

>>1816111
>commie clown cars
>Lada
<Still consuming the capitalist Cool-Aid about "muh Soviet junk cars"
People seem to forget that until recently most things we take for default like seat-belts A/C and heating, etc. were OPTIONAL on American cars and you had to pay MORE to have them installed in cars you bought. More importantly only the USA and some high-end private European companies indulged in big, fancy high-end vehicles, most cars being produced in Europe, including the USSR, were cars suited for common, civilian use. The USSR was one of the biggest exporters of buses, trucks and cars in the world, with millions of vehicles exported, Soviet trucks were renowned for their excellent off-road capability and reliability as well as easy maintenence.

As for electric cars and what not, the USSR pioneered and actively used hydrogen cell vehicles and electric vehicles, it simply wasn't as mass produced as regulate combustion engines, because the latter was easier to make en masse and cost-efficiency was important for such personal property.

See the /auto thread for detailed effortposts I wrote on the subject of Soviet cars >>>/hobby/18737 ]>>>/hobby/19755
>>>/hobby/20449

>>1816222
>seatbelts recently mandatory
>In the U.S. it became mandatory in 1966 for all manufacturers to fit their new cars with seatbelts.
Why you gotta lie?

>>1816222
>>1816225
Seatbelts are for pussies anyways.

>>1816225
In 1966 yes, and even then to this day it's not really mandatory to wear them, only to have them in cars, and you only get fined for it if you're stopped by a cop for some other reason and THEN cited for not wearing it as an additional charge to whatever fee you may get. And again A/C, ABS, power-steering, powered-windows , powered seats, air-bags, cruise-control etc. were optional. I know because I've driven many old cars and as a kid I loved to fuck around with mechanics and shit, going to the shops and learning from people there.

>>1816242
I thought the cops wouldn't stop me for just the seatbelt thing but they did. They just wanted to run my warrants and search my car and they let me go without a ticket but they stopped me for it.

>>1816245
They can stop you for it, but as you said, it was an excuse to check you and search your car, on its own the seatbelt is not an actually enforced law most of the time, most Drivers Ed schools will tell you the same thing, hell most cops I know have said that, including State Police.

>>1816221
That's why people ITT say electric cars should be able to connect to rails.

>>1816263
I don't think an autopia infrastructure makes sense. I think you need public trabsit or personal vehicle. A hybrid doesn't make sense. As for rail vs cars, obviously rail is a lot harder to make then roads so obviously you will use roads where you can't rail and you will need non-hooked up cars for those.

Lithium-ion batteries didn't exist in USSR days, lead-acid batteries are have shit energy density. /thread

>>1816111
>But I’m curious why the Soviets chose to go with the commie clown cars, like the Lada, when they could have built a more efficient EV infrastructure
They had trains and trams you dumb fuck. That was far more efficient than making a bunch of 1-4 person clown trams.

Path dependency and opportunity cost, the world had already developed more expertise in gasoline cars by the time the USSR ventured seriously into civilian automotives. The cost of developing a "lost" technology from nothing again is greater than adopting an already working solution. Further more, developing a new technology means the initial products are typically inferior and it takes even more investment and time before new tech becomes superior to old tech. The USSR had limited resources so it went with the low-risk known solution.

electric cars have their uses, but batteries will never be able to compete with hydrocarbons on energy density or specific energy. electric motors being more efficient helps a bit but it's not enough