• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.

    Definitely agreed on weight.

    The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that’s like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

    • destructdisc@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times

      It is certainly cause for concern when heavier and larger moving objects that are able to reach high speeds quicker are being controlled by increasingly more irresponsible people.

        • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          0-20 times and 0-60 times are not necessarily closely correlated.

          Could argue that’s due to a reduction in manual vehicles, or a reduction in driver competence / medical status.

      • plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Something that’s twice the weight with twice the horsepower only accelerates the same speed. Double the weight and keep the horsepower and you’ll go half as fast.

        The graphs aren’t entirely 100% related to each other. The twice as fast acceleration average isn’t because of the double horsepower, that only works if the weight also isn’t doubles.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          EVs have massive torque from zero speed. Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque. A Model Y is both heavy and makes 500ftlbs torque immediately.

          • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Both are very limited comparability especially between drive types.

            Torque was normally measured ahead of the gearbox and that introduces a whole pile of extra messiness.

            Power is relevant once you’re into higher-speed regimes e.g. merging onto a fast road, overtaking, and climbing hills (especially if towing).

            Force-speed or acceleration-speed curves would be nice.

          • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque.

            I don’t really disagree with your earlier comment, and I agree that the shape of the torque curve matters a lot when it comes to the practicalities and experience of driving a vehicle, but, uhh, what you said here is just completely wrong.

            Force and speed (torque and RPM) are both components of power (horsepower is torque * RPM / 5253). Saying that the RPM, or time component, of that equation doesn’t matter is the same as saying it wouldn’t matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 years for a crane to lift a load at a construction site, since its lifting the same weight either way.

            To put it another way, with a long enough lever I can exert enough force to start a passenger train rolling down the tracks with just my own arms (and in fact, people do something similar using compound levers). But what that doesn’t let me do is move a passenger train at 200 MPH like high speed rail lines do. There is no arrangement of gears or mechanical linkages that will let a single human being power a high speed rail line like that, the human body does not have enough power output.

    • inverted_deflector@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know if these graphs, again, I don’t know what the source is, it’s not really provided, but I don’t think they’re meant to make a specific judgment one way or another.

      Well, except the note that cars have gotten bigger while also becoming more efficient.

    • grue@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that’s like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

      I want to see that chart (a) starting at 0 sq. ft., and (b) going all the way back to the '50s.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The acceleration of Teslas is one reason they have the highest crash rate of any brand. Fucking stupid to give the public more horsepower than a 70s formula one car.

    • Duallight@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      For most cars, higher acceleration I don’t think is an issue. However things like the Hummer EV weigh 9,000 pounds and goes from 0-60mph in a smidge over 3 seconds. The amount of damage that can do is insane