To which I can only reply: seriously, who asked you to decide what i want or do not want?
Do you have a case to make against the argument that isn’t already being discussed in another thread, or is your objection that societies should not restrict personal liberties, or..?
As long as I cause you no harm by my actions, you has no business restricting them.
Speed differentials are hazardous because of limits of human attention.
Consider the simple case of an urban crosswalk: The rate of vehicles vs. pedestrians has an attention hazard for both: there's a speed beyond which the pedestrian can not safely judge a crossing because the vehicle will pass in a duration shorter than the attention span of the ped. Similarly there's a speed at which the operator can not react to appearance of ped.
Simple V differences are a well known hazard of surprise. EVs create another hazard which arise from relatively high delta-V dynamics. The vehicles can accelerate at surprising rates and therefore appear in places that operators don't expect them to be. For example, merging requires anticipation that the surveyed gap will be maintained during the crossing. Surrounding vehicles operating with disproportionate V or high dV upset the balance of the gap.
Surprise can have cascading effects, where surprised operators lose attention which in turn causes further hazards.
We might suspect that given the surprising power of EVs, their saving grace is that their operation in urban traffic tends towards operator passivity. But this tendency obviates power: the proper power level is that which permits the vehicle to operate fluidly with traffic.
Regardless of attention spans for operators, the simple mechanical comfort of occupants places very low limits on vehicle dynamics.
Vehicle power was already becoming well balanced before EVs, and EV development should be further refining the balance in favor of safety, comfort, efficiency, and wear.
But there's always an edge of fascination with performance limits.
constantcrying•4mo ago
This is straight up delusional.
The cars increased weight increases grip, making it safer in the corners and less prone to oscillate. Potholes are less disturbing at higher unsprung masses and faster speeds, as the wheel dips into the hole less.
They are totally mangling car physics to make what point exactly? Cars accelerate too fast?
olyjohn•4mo ago
Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
We had big huge heavy cars in the 60s and 70s. They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
constantcrying•4mo ago
Adding weight increases stopping distance under most circumstances. Who said anything about that? Corning "worse" is a dumb metric, this is not about performance in a sports car, but about the characteristics of a consumer vehicle. They are designed for comfort, not to corner fast, obviously.
>Less weight makes everything function better.
Completely false. A heavy car is generally more comfortable.
Why you are brining up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Obviously the engineering tradeoffs for speed on a track and a desirable consumer car are radically different. Sports car reduce weight for track performance, applying the same principle to a family SUV would be lunacy.
>Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
Wrong explanation. The weight of the unsprung mass makes the difference. Higher unsprung mass means moving slower into the pothole.
>They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
Sure. Engineering tradeoff.
altairprime•4mo ago
Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid.
There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two.
(Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
constantcrying•4mo ago
No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable.
I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong.
What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
altairprime•4mo ago
> If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
I didn’t think it was a particularly shocking revelation, I’m just disproving the “Every” claim above. I see now that we’re in agreement on the invalidity of it — I assume a “Porsche 911” is a sports car to you, as it is to me? — so I’ve nothing further to add.