Do you know what halving means? It's not a stock split and it's not a value halving.

Reasonable footprint, but still a very short bed and 4 door cab. Don't get me wrong, I like the Maverick and expect to buy a 5 year old model in 5 years, but that's because I'll probably still be neck deep in home projects while still trying to commute. It does have great features in the bed and is known to have perfectly acceptable capability hauling full 4x8 sheets with the tailgate tilt. But most of the market is locked away in fullsize crew cabs with 6ft beds at best. 8ft beds typically require utility trims, so you can't get a smaller-footprint nice pickup with full capacity.

I've had a 99 ranger regular cab 7ft bed for about 2 months. It works great for me, but I can barely get a nicer home reno/commuter vehicle. I can go 10 years newer, but not much nicer comparatively speaking from 2024.

I still forget how to tell white dwarfs from neutron stars. Both can charge you, but I think it's white dwarfs that have 1/4 the jet range for like 1/2 the boost. Basically a deadly waste of time. But I don't really go far. I have an icy Dolphin that can park in the normal star scoop zone and stay cool indefinitely, so the boost benefit isn't worth it to me. But I do enjoy that empty dread of the vastness of space and the inconceivable size of celestial bodies.

And of course the dread from the excellent sound design surrounding the Thargoids, the alien enemies you can seek out. But that's normal dread.

You ever land on mitterand hollow? Or rather, you ever let the moon known as mitterand hollow land on you? That's an experience. It's actually incredibly safe due to the spatial reframing, but good luck convincing your brain

Was that the Urahraptor? Discovered in 1993, estimated 5-6ft tall and 16-20ft long according to wiki

The 3rd gen Suzuki Grand Vitara had full time 4WD with low range, a center LSD, and a center locker

Yeah, that's why it's mildlyinteresting. The general trend is change for the sake of change. This one didn't.

Why change for the sake of change? Because marketing analytics says they need to be the face of new-new. Why risk breaking automation? Because that's a you-problem. Google does not care about you, the user. They want you, the ad target. Things break all the time for meaningless changes

That was a popular distinction maybe 20 years ago, but the line is fuzzed and functionally, the term "crossover (CUV) is dead. But, like all terms automotive, it's just marketing." Crossover" seemed friendlier to women to get them to drive tall cars. Now everything is classed as a [size] suv. Some classic suv examples were always unibody like the jeep Cherokee. Edit: I see now your other comment touches on offroad capability. So does a 2wd "suv" (by your definition) then get declassified? Does a body-on-frame tall wagon with viscous coupling awd get declassified?

And no (takes a deep breath to survive an emotional down vote onslaught), there is no legal difference between 4x4, 4wd, or awd. A manufacturer can choose any term to apply to any type of 4-wheel locomotion. Every definitive trait has some counter example that still counts because people "feel" it's good enough.

Is this on a single charge? Any measurable change in output?

So they want to change their identity based on the feelings and bend existing geo roles to match?

There's 2 significant inaccuracies in the article and 1 large oversight in the official video.

1. Differentials are not one wheel drive. They can seem to drive only one wheel when spinning the wheels as one let's loose and the other stays still, but it's not driving one wheel. It's still driving both. The problem is the free wheel is spinning at twice the speed indicated on the speedometer and the other is at 0. The driveshaft puts in a certain number of turns, the wheels, together, must add up to an equal output (multiplied by the gear ratio). If the car is going straight with full traction, then they turn the same. If you floor it in snow, one is probably spinning 40% over it's share and the other 40% under. This is not unique to rwd either as fwd cars still very much have a functioning differential. To throw some numbers at it to help clarify the function, let's say the engine is asking the wheels to spin at 30rpm each in a straight line. In a left turn, the right wheel travels further and needs to spin at 35rpm while the inner spins at 25rpm. It still adds up to 60rpm, same as a straight line. Mash it in the snow and it might be 60rpm in the left and 0nin the right or 0 in the left and 60 in the left. It could be 5/55, 40/20, or any other combo as long as it totals 60.

PS: differentials are irrelevant when the wheels aren't connected to each other. Individual-motor wheels, as shown in the video, don't need a diff. The non-drive wheels in a 2-wheel drive vehicle do not have a differential on the non-drive axle.

2. Cv joints are not specific to fwd as nearly all modern rwd cars with independent rear suspensions have CV joints. I don't know of any trucks still using U-joints either since big trucks are solid axle. Cv joints function the same as U joints. The difference is C.V. joints output constant velocity whereas U-joints (what you'll see often under trucks on the driveshaft, two square C shaft ends with an X link between) have lopey output that gets worse with greater deflection angle. If you own a u-joint bit for your socket wrench, I invite you to play with it. Instead of a solid pinned X between the U ends, CVs have free-rolling balls that can roll inboard and outboard to maintain the link between the shaft's cup and the wheel's cone.

3. The article is inaccurate but the video ignores this part, so I don't fault The writer. The CV joints are said to be a poor design, yet, it ignores the part where the video reinstalls them at 4:20 and 5:10 for the front wheels. This mechanism does not allow angular deflection between the motor and hub, as it's shown, without a CV joint. Lateral displacement, yes, but not angular - as in it can't steer. This may be an overall improvement by reducing how often it needs to bend (only when steering), but it doesn't eliminate it. And even then, the rear suspension is still designed to change camber as it changes ride height. Camber is the angle of the wheel as measured top to bottom, as in what you see from looking at the wheels from the front of the car. It keeps the wheels flat on the ground as you lean the car in a corner. You may see an overloaded car's rear wheels look like /---\ as viewed from the rear or ---/ when hanging free on a lift.

Look, I'm not an engineer at Hyundai (or even a competitor) but this doesn't quite pass the sniff test. Cool idea for sure, but it smells a little like marketing is clamoring for something edgy to display. Even as displayed, the motors and original reduces were already very compact and in close proximity to the wheels compared to a normal engine. The slightly reduced footprint of this uni wheel and slightly increased friction of a bunch of additional gears makes me think this is a fractional improvement in practice rather than a revolutionary improvement.

That's the neat thing. The speed of light is constant. It doesn't change. It's always 1c whether you're traveling at +1c, - 1c, or 0c. Buckle up for some relativity. The wavelength can compress or expand, but it always travels at 1c.

Let's say you're on a ship capable of moving at any speed between 0c and 1c. You're passing a particular star and want to travel to a planet 1ly away. You have a powerful laser and the other planet has a powerful telescope to detect it. There are calibrated timers on both the planet and on your ship that are synced to each other. .

T minus zero. You flash the laser at the planet as you fly at 0.5c, or 1/2 lightyear per year. The light travels at 1c, or 1ly per year.

1 year after the flash, the planet sees the flash. It traveled 1ly in 1 year. 2 years after the flash, the planet sees your ship arrive. All is normal so far.

From the ship, you know the light traveled at 1c away from you. You arrive at the planet 1 year after the flash, according to your on board timer. One. The light took half as long as you.

Time is not constant, c is constant. The faster you go, the slower time passes. In 1 year of fast travel, you arrive 2 years later, according to the stationary planet. So all of the light physics apply the same, no matter the speed. Time dilates to make up the logical difference. If you reach 1c, time effectively stops and you arrive instantaneously, from your perspective. When we look up at the Andromeda galaxy, some 2.5 million lightyears away, the light we see was emmited 2.5 million years ago - from our perspective. If we see a star go supernova in Andromeda, it happened 2.5 million years ago. But those photons of light, created by a star that died 2.5 million years ago, experience no time passage at all. They instantaneously go from the star to your retina, from their perspective.

That's basically why lightspeed travel is effectively impossible within our current models. Traveling faster is out of the question because none of it makes sense. It's not a simple matter of making a new model or believing scientists are idiots. There are many experiments that hold true to the model (such as the atomic clocks used on a plane to test the effect of speed and gravity on time dilation) as well as satellites using the current model to maintain time accuracy. The energy required to get to those speeds is not even remotely feasible. The fastest man made object at 450,000+mph, the Parker solar probe, is still in the 0.0005c range. We tried our best and it's still just a tiny fraction of 1c. And that's by using some gravity slingshots and spiraling down into the sun's gravity well, nothing about leaving the solar system. The Voyager probes that slingshotted out of the sun's gravity well are down to under 40,000mph.