And not sure where everyone lives, but where I am, at night there may be no local police and 1 state trooper patrol within 15 miles. If you run into some sort of road-rage situation, you're on your own.
Every society must of necessity dictate these things to some extent. We aren't all little islands free to do as we please---that is called anarchy IMO.
Zoning regulations for example, or safety standards for childrens' toys are just two quick examples of society telling people what they need and what they should be able to buy.
Question is not whether society has the right to dictate what you need or should buy, but rather when are the restrictions frivolous and not in fact to the greater good of society.
Personally I would be very happy to support special licenses for cars over 500 HP. I don't think most people are competent enough to own them.
In defense of that point of view, we have special licenses for heavy truck drivers for instance.
Sounds reasonable. More power or weight mean more potential consequences, and therefore great responsibility. Makes sense to test for and require greater responsibility.
Hell, a lot of jacked up large pickups should also require a special credential to operate. And then there's motorhomes and their ilk...but if you tried to regulate that mess, the psycho fundie right would start squawking about too much government etc
Well the regulations have to be good and fair. People submit to all kinds of regulations and they've gotten used to them. At first people will squawk, but if the rules are fairly applied and not draconian or purposely punitive, most people will go along.
*** Of course, the rules I don't like are ones that create a solution before there's a problem!
POWER: I personally have always valued quick reflexes and avoidance maneuvers over "more power" as a way out of danger. As the racing boys say "if you are a bad driver with 250HP, you are going to be a REAL BAD driver with 500!"
I don't understand how increasing your velocity, and thus your potential impact speed (mass X velocity) in a situation you don't control at the moment---how that is a wise move.
Someone said that when passing on a two lane road, the extra power is good because it gives you more margin of error if the person next to you speeds up or whatever.
That's a good theory, but what the extra power really does is move the danger band a little higher. You will still have to judge if there is enough room, and the other driver might still speed up. If you made these calculations as if you had 200 HP instead of 250, then the extra power would help you because you have more margin of error. But typically what happens is that you maintain the same level of risk, which means you pass when you have less time because now you have more power.
Very well driver's-educated teenage drivers tend to have the same accident rate as teenage drivers who haven't had drivers ed (after controlling for socio-economic factors) Study here.
These kids are better drivers, but they end up playing closer to the edge than the poorer drivers. This is why insurance companies give discounts based on GPA rather than driver's ed status: A kid's responsibility in other facets of life is a better measure of her ability to evaluate automotive risks than her level of driver's education.
Kids who know how to drive on the ice drive on the ice more aggressively until the risk they are undertaking is approximately the same as the risk an uneducated driver driving less aggressively is taking.
Same with passing--mostly likely, you'll end making passes with an equal level of risk after adding the additional power.
you: But typically what happens is that you maintain the same level of risk, which means you pass when you have less time because now you have more power.
me: No. Anyone who understands contingencies and reserves understands that you don't set your plans based on your total commitment of power. When I pass I don't plan on using 100% power; I want "more than adequate" power to pass, and still have a reserve. It is much safer to pass someone if you have 350hp and use 250hp, than someone with 200hp using 200hp. And bigger, multi-piston disk brakes are better than smaller, weaker ones. More braking is better than less braking. More handling is better than less handling. More capability and power is always better than less power and capability.
You: Anyone who understands contingencies and reserves understands that you don't set your plans based on your total commitment of power. When I pass I don't plan on using 100% power; I want "more than adequate" power to pass, and still have a reserve.
Me:
Consider two passing situations, both greatly simplified, but hopefully you'll see my point.
Situation A: Requires 100 hp to pass Situation B: Requires 200 hp to pass
You have a car with 110 hp. You can pass in situation A. It will be kinda close but you can indeed make it. Passing in situation B is out of the question.
You have a car with 210 hp. You can pass in situation A without a problem. In fact, passing in situation A is now much safer than it was before. You are absolutely right, situation A is now much, much safer than before.
However, you now have enough power to pass in situation B. If you consider 110 hp enough to pass in situation A, you will also consider 210 hp enough to pass in situation B.
Now, you might be one of the very few people who, with a X+10 hp car, would pass in the X=100 but not the X=200 situation. But for the vast majority of people, if their tolerance for risk is a margin of 10 hp, the value of X just does not matter.
On average, once the level of risk is at an acceptable level, people tend not to try to reduce it further. And if a technology comes along that reduces that risk for them (such as more power in their car or better drver training), they tend to increase their risky behavior so that the total risk in the system is back up to where it was. That's why side-airbags are less popular than entertainment systesm--people believe their risk factors are already sufficiently low.
This stands to reason and has been demonstrated in a wide-variety of situations, not just cars. There is a similar situation with investments: If one has $1000 in an investment with 2% risk, but returns 10%, and for whatever reason the risk declines to 1%, one tends to move her investment to something with a 2% risk but a higher rate of return, all else being equal.
you: On average, once the level of risk is at an acceptable level, people tend not to try to reduce it further.
me: So your basically arguing that people will keep their risk-level constant?? Maybe I agree, though I wouldn't want to generalize without data. But anyway if we do accept your theory that people drive at a constant risk-level, then it really makes no difference whether people have 150hp or 300hp, does it? If you want to look at this purely mathematically if I ave infinite power, I can make an infinitely quick pass of a 60mph vehicle, and lower my risk infinitely close to zero. The safest pass is the quickest pass!
I agree that the quickest past is USUALLY the safest pass.
But consider this: If you have a car with 400 HP and you need to pass someone, and you know you can do it quickly and safely using only 300 HP. Do you go with that or do you stomp on the pedal to utilize all 400 HP and hope that the tires don't break loose as you make the move around the vehicle? (perhaps there's sand or some stones to get the tires loose)
Or perhaps you do as you said...use the 300 HP to pass and then you notice that the other car is speeding up to prevent you from passing. You then stomp the pedal to finish the pass...only now you have crossed the border of safety and the tires break loose and send you out of control.
We're always going to find exceptions to rules of thumb. And if I may say so, I'm growing weary about hearing exceptions as if they were rebuttals. (mostly in the other speed thread)
I was thinking about passing in general, this morning. In my cars I've always had to plan them out well ahead of time, and I think that's made me a better driver. I was thinking that maybe everyone should start out in an low-power car. But then I realized that after learning to drive with 80hp, I treat the throttle as an on/off switch. So maybe that's not such a good idea.
None of these scenarios include the other driver--a fatal miscalculation IMO.
The ONLY accident I ever had in my entire life was because I had the power to pass someone (MORE than enough).
What I think happens with more power is a sort of arrogance about what one can do---and I am as guilty of that as anyone---so in other words you UP your risks, not lower them, because you enter into riskier situations (overall, not just on one particular day of passing or using power).
"None of these scenarios include the other driver--a fatal miscalculation IMO."
That's impossible. Drivers are so different. Even the same driver can act in such a variety of ways. Basically, I think it's pointless to try.
And yeah, I agree that more confidence in a car (or in oneself) will lead to more aggressive behavior.
I think we try to keep a constant level of risk of completing the maneuver successfully. With more car, there are more maneuvers you can attempt with an equal chance of success. The consequences of failure are greater, but we don't tend to think about that.
In other words, if we think a maneuver is 95% possible, then we convince ourselves that we'll succeed for sure - so there's no point in thinking of the consequences. It's why we do things like climb ladders to fix a roof. Or migrate across icy plains. You die if something goes wrong, but it's a part of human nature that we'd be worse off without.
you: We're always going to find exceptions to rules of thumb. And if I may say so, I'm growing weary about hearing exceptions as if they were rebuttals.
me: Halleluah! Never were truer words spoken. I think many people here feel they are being clever and in some sort of contest to find scenarios that aren't true of what is general logic. Let me exemplify:
General Truth: 1) It is better to live longer: Clever rebuttals: a) Well not if you're unhappy. b) Life affter 80 is lousy because people generally have poor health then.
2) It is better to have more money. Clever rebuttal: a) Well I knew a man who had $10M and he committed suicide. b) Then you have to worry about investing the money, or losing it.
There you go. Do we all feel like geniuses? Let's all aspire to die at 70, never get rich, and drive 20 hp Isettas.
Halleluah! Never were truer words spoken. I think many people here feel they are being clever and in some sort of contest to find scenarios that aren't true of what is general logic.
Kinda like the two scenarios you stated earlier (quoted below)
I'll give you 2 reasons why I like more power, and the benefits in my drive.
1) Frequently I drive on roads where the lanes converge or reduce down - from 2 lanes to 1 lane. I like having the power to decide whether I will go first or 2nd relative to the car that may be next to me.
2) On those same rural highways, it is mostly 2 lane undivided, with the white dashed passing zones. The safest pass is the fastest pass, which is a function of power. I like to have power to pass safely, and if I miscalculate or the person that I'm passing speeds up, I prefer to have "more power" so as not to be left hanging out in the oncoming lane.
And how are these emergency maneuvers? (which is your original reason for needing the extra power)
"The exception PROOFS (that is, "tests") the rule"
So the idea is if you have too many exceptions maybe your rule isn't so good....
While the rule about money isn't "tested" or proofed by the suicide anecdote, the one about living past 80 is probably shakier if you tried to make it a rule that it's better to live as long as you can----, as is the one about more power making a car safer. You could probably find enough exceptions to assault the latter two statements----not because they may not be valid sometimes, but because they aren't valid enough to be rules....
you: And how are these emergency maneuvers? (which is your original reason for needing the extra power)
me: I didn't know I was limited to only 1 reason or category of reason. While those 2 reasons are not typically emergencies, they could become one on occasion because of my miscalculation or someone else's action on the road. It is thus better to have more options to maneuver, which may mean to accelerate faster still.
It is a fairly simple concept that when feasible that extra capability be built into things. I certainly don't want to cross bridges that have 100 vehicles on them and were designed and built to standup to only have 100 vehicles on it. And I don't want to live downstream from a dam that was designed to hold a normal water-level; I'd want it to still hold at the maximum water-level. And if we could build a system to deflect 1 mile wide asteroids from hitting the Earth, I would say build it, while I get the feeling some of you might argue that it makes no sense since it does nothing to protect us from bigger asteroids.
Nothing against Jimmy Olson, but I think it might be more useful to have Clark Kent around. You can never have enough power! You don't have to be obsessed about acquiring power, but certainly don't refuse it! Watch some Discovery Channel tonight and consider where man would be if he hadn't discovered, gained and used power - clubs, spears, and fire. It would be rather hard to create civilization with wolf-packs chasing us.
you: So the idea is if you have too many exceptions maybe your rule isn't so good....
me: So you think most people would find more exceptions to the More Power, Longer Life, and More Money, being preferable; than to Less Power, a Short Life, and Being Poor?
No, I think you miss the point that in many of these forums everytime a decent idea is put forward, someone wants to dismiss it because it is not a PERFECT or ABSOLUTE idea or thought. You probably couldn't get 100% of the people here to agree that freeing people from slavery was better than leaving them in slavery! Someone would point out that the murder rate was very low on plantations, and the slaves had plenty to eat, whereas these days their descendents are stuck in crime and drug-infested slums by the government.
Look, I'm tired of illogical nonsense in our society. It is not better to bench-press 100Lb instead of 300Lb, it is not better to be obese than athletic, it is not better to have $20 in the bank than $20M, and it is not better to have terminal cancer than to be healthy. It is better to be faster than slower, it is better to be more intelligent than denser, it is better to have more friends than enemies, and it is better to have more power than less.
you: the one about living past 80 is probably shakier if you tried to make it a rule that it's better to live as long as you can----,
me: so how many people do you know that are serious about only wanting to be 70, and then die? Maybe 1 or 2 exceptions but certainly not the majority. I really haven't heard much about the poisoned-KoolAid parties becoming popular at the retirement centers in Florida!
It is better to be faster than slower, it is better to be more intelligent than denser, it is better to have more friends than enemies, and it is better to have more power than less.
While I don't completely agree with you on the power part, I can understand the comfort it might bring to some people....maybe most. But There must be a point where more is too much. (think McDonalds... :-) )
And I would change "faster" to "quicker"....it is better to be quicker than slower. Anybody can go fast with enough highway in front of them. :-)
you: There must be a point where more is too much.
me: For a person that would be somewhere between Superman and the Creator. For a vehicle, I would desire a vehicle that not only travels on land, but could travel on/under water, and had the capability to fly. In theory why should I want less?
the point is that any rule, taken to an extreme, begins to make as little sense as the "exceptions" that so irritate us sometimes.
Yes it is better to have $100,000 than $20...no problem...but what do you mean by better? What if you kill for that money?
Is a rifle that fires 600 rounds a minute better in a battle than one that fires 300? Not if it jams....
Back to cars, more power is NOT better a priori, because many people can't even drive a 100 HP properly.
The problem I see with your statements is that they don't allow for a "real world" scenario---they strike me as too theoretical and don't "play out" in the real world.
For instance, you cannot ever prove that a poorer man is any less happy than a rich one (the correlation between money and happiness is v-ery slim) ...but you can prove that a rich one lives in a nicer house and/or has more money in the bank and owns nicer things, clothes, etc.
Can a 400HP car pass at 60 mph faster than a 100HP car?
Yes!
Does this make it better/safer?
Not in my opinion...i would have to answer: "it all depends".
you: Is a rifle that fires 600 rounds a minute better in a battle than one that fires 300? Not if it jams....
me: This is just the same type of endless exception arguments made on these forums. Out of the 3 choices of worse, same, better of jamming, you decide it would be worse. Why? You have not stated anything in that example that would lead me to believe that would be true. Given that information, we'll assume the jamming is equal, and yes 600 rounds a minute is then better.
you: Not in my opinion...i would have to answer: "it all depends".
me: Yes if you want to look at all other variables of real-world driving, you can think of exceptions where more power is not better. But, do you think these exceptions are greater than 50% of the scenarios?
If you contemplate questions such as I mentioned with the answer "it all depends", I don't see how you ever draw and conclusions or make any decisions. It sounds like you would be entering eternal-procrastination.
The way I think and I hope most people think is to set the other variables in any of these situations/scenarios to what is "most probable", based on history and expereience. For instance in this case of debating More vs. Same power, I'm assuming that the history of better chassis, brakes, traction and stability control, and tires will continue. I'm also assuming that since we're not jumping to 5,000hp tomorrow that people will become accustomed to driving more powerful vehicles.
Again - I would hope that we all realize that better means more beneficial > 50% of the time, and does not necessarily have to be more beneficial absolutely, just because you create a scenario where a deranged drunk, in a bald-tire, super-charged Excursion w/pushbars destroy a town.
Okay then, fair enough, no waffling---I personally think the exceptions to the "more power is better" rule are in fact greater than 50%, or 75% for that matter. Why? Because "better" is totally dependent on time--if you wait two minutes, you can pass that car without the extra power. So power can be totally supplanted by skill and patience, and is therefore not better....more power only makes you faster in a given moment in time, which is 99% of the time in no way critical.
I'd have to say (and I'd like to hear from others on this) that more power beyond the necessary and toward the excessive, let us say 250HP, WHILE GREAT FUN, is actually worse---that should be the rule, with the "I was able to pass on the mountain road" the exception.
Anecdotal: Went on a big car rallye today (Sunday--the "anti-football run")...in lots of rain....two cars cracked up (nobody hurt), both higher HP than 95% of the cars on the rallye...Porsche Boxster S, Corvette C5.
It seems to me that what kerns is missing in his claims is the qualifier, "All else being equal". I would agree that more power is better, all else being equal.
The problem is that all else is never equal, and that extra power creates other complications, in reaction time, in traction and numerous other scenarios.
So since the power of all categories of vehicles have been going up quite a bit since the late 70's, and if this extra power causes complications, I guess we should see that the injury and fatality rate per mile have increased? Or do you think we're only entering that period now?
When does a vehicle have too much power? If too much power is a problem aren't the auto manufacturers and the SEMA suppliers going to have a large liability problem? I know if I have an accident, my lawyer's going to be all over Magnaflow. If this problem is so obvious and dangerous I guess the government (NHTSA?) is working on putting a limit on engine power? No? I wonder how come?
It just doesn't seem that many people recognize this too much power problem.
it would be very hard for any company to lower the horsepower on any new model and survive. Yes some people have a romantic idea that a sub 100 hp light weight car is a good idea but we are enthusiasts here and we not only drive cars we read about them. The illusion of speed might sound good in theory but not when you get slalom, 0-60, skid pad and 1/4 mile times from Autoweek and any other number of car mags.
think about what happens when a new Accord comes out? remember the old Accord? Remember how small it was? Now try and think about what would happen if Honda tried to sell the 2007 Accord with 95 HP? Not likely is it?
I agree, 95 hp wouldn't do it in the current environment. Now I know I'm in the minority, but I wouldn't be too upset if Honda deleted the V6 option for the Accord, and made the 2.4 I-4 the top non-hybrid engine, with the base engine being a high mpg ~140 hp 2.0 I-4. The range topper could then be a 2.4 hybrid. I know, I know, most readers will disagree with this.
So since the power of all categories of vehicles have been going up quite a bit since the late 70's, and if this extra power causes complications, I guess we should see that the injury and fatality rate per mile have increased?
Gallileo:
All else being equal, yes. But not all else is equal.
Remember the post about how people tend to keep their risk level constant? In those times, there has been a number of safety innovations, ABS, traction control, stability control, to name just a few.
Those innovations decrease the amount of risk a given maneouver requires. ABS brakes were going to cause a dramatic decrease in accidents. But again, rather than causing a dramatic decrease in accidents, drivers tended to adapt in such a way as to keep their risk relatively constant.
The extra power would be quite unmanageable for many people without the electronic nannies.
Same with the big power increases. Driver adapted in ways that make their risk relatively constant, or perhaps slightly lower.
shifty... jmo. 250 hp is enough for our roads. i had a 2000 expedition which had 260 hp. it did not feel underpowered. it weighed 5500-5600 lbs, which is close to the max of what is out there, other than larger trucks. my focus has less than 140 hp, but can climb any hill i drive on with 4 in the car at 75 mph, without a downshift.
I think this is an excellent topic and hope it continues with much interest and support. As with any question that can have a variety of answers, each of us will look at it differently if even only slightly. I own a 2004 Cadillac Deville with a V8, 275HP and 300lbs of Torque. I think the power is about right given the weight of the car and driving conditions in general. I get around 29 MPG in highway driving which is fairly good fuel economy for a car of this size. The combination of power and fuel economy is satisfactory to me. Each of us will have our own set of preferences. The 400 HP in the Chrysler 300 SRT is probably a little more than I would need for my driving habits. I also feel that the 239HP in the Lincoln Town Car is a little low in that the Lincoln is a few hundred pounds heavier than the Deville. I have thought of a Toyota Prius as a second car but am not sure I'm ready for the very different characteristics that the car would have compared to the Deville.
Geez my Porsche only had 250HP and it could do 0-60 in about 6.5 seconds and go 150 mph. And it wasn't exactly a "ballerina" in the weight department(928 model).
The reason HP is increasing is because of all the accessories and all the weight on modern cars.
95HP in the "right" car would be more than enough.
Unfortunately very light BUT very safe cars would not be cheap to make. Americans like BIG MACS and manhole slabs of beef---it looks like "value". Buying something small and paying a lot for it (like a race car) is a hard sell to the average consumer.
RE: Will higher HP cars lead to liability lawsuits?
DEFINITELY---watch for it, it's just around the corner. First time some kid mows down the first three rows of the Meadows Retirement Center with a 500HP Vette.....(god forbid my even joking about it, but you get the point).
I wonder if escalating insurance costs aren't going to put a damper on the spiral of ever-increasing HP, esp. when combined with gas prices the way they are...
I mean the current Corvettes must cost *a lot* to insure I'd imagine, and I've heard the Mitsu EVO rally cars are almost uninsurable these days. And what ever became of the Neon SRT-4...a cheap super-performer targeted at the age group least likely to be able to afford crushing insurance premiums?
Minimum weight was the main thrust of Lotus cars under Colin Chapman. He took the 'as light as possible' philosophy to the limit (and beyond!) but the 7, Elite, etc were very fast cars and successful on the track.
Lotuses also killed a lot of drivers with stuff breaking off, but oh well...racing was a lot more dangerous back then....
But yeah, Chapman had the right idea....like when he visited the Indy 500 one year---he looked at the cars and said "These things are monsters...I could beat them easily with a lighter, lower HP car".
And he was right and he did beat them two years later...and changed the Indy racecar configuration forever.
do I EVER wish I lived in a place where ever-lightening cars were appreciated as much as the ever-increasing horsepower we do have. Imagine if they shaved 100 pounds off a model and preserved its size, and boasted about that as they raised the price on the latest models!
I would be into that. I was in a '93 Corolla today: 105 hp and 117 lb-ft torque, curb weight of around 2300 pounds give or take, and that thing was plenty fast. Certainly faster than lots of mainstream cars today like 4-cyl Camrys and V-6 Explorers.
"105 hp? Surely you jest" you say. But indeed, I do not. The horsepower race is completely out of control. (and I especially condemn the Germans here, as they have totally escalated that particular battle these last few years...or maybe it was always them escalating it?)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
From someone who drove less power for all but 4 of the last 40+ years I can say it was ok. But, with four years in a Corvette, it is a lot more fun, that's for sure. People aren't buying HP because it is a goal but it ends up being some fun. Sorry about the cars that got banged on the anti-football run but at Laguna Seca that same day it was an Elise that crunched a fender first doing car control in the rain. As I noted the GT2 was one of the other victims of over driving the conditions, not that it was light or underpowered. The guy with 650HP in a supercharged Vette was fairly slow given that he just about couldn't touch his gas peddle. Then again having the wrong tool for any job is a problem and my runflats, while all season, were pretty hard to get any grip.
The theory that weight or accessories are driving HP seems also to be a little bit of a far reach since it seems to be just a marketing war that consumers are willing to bid higher than we have currently. Did I mention fun?
The ability of people to take cars on race tracks, at least in this area is so open compared to a few years ago that some think it is a driving school. There was a lady in a minivan at one of the last street schools up at the SCCA Thunderhill track last year and the instructor was pumped when he got her to pass somebody else. Seems she did have fun too, I'm not sure about the person she passed!
I'll leave the social commentary about efficent use of resources to somebody else.
I often get the feeling that if you added 100lbs to a car, you could market it as a good thing!
I remember my first thought when I test drove an '04 Civic Si: "ew, it feels like a vault."
Common comment on new cars in Town Hall: "I love it! It feels like a vault!"
Weight for safety IS a compromise I will make in a daily driver, to a point. But I don't get the importance of rigidity. There have been good, light cars that weren't floppy. Maybe they weren't rigid by modern standards, but have modern standards in rigidity really benefited us? I'd be happy with a car that's only moderately stiff.
On the other hand I am happy that 105hp is about the minimum you can get in a current new car. We live in a world with hills, passengers, and cargo, and two-digit power doesn't cut it in those cases (for the car in question, and for those behind it).
On the flip side, there are diminishing returns on high power. When traction control goes on with the slightest touch of the throttle, you really do have a pointless amount of power. (The SL65 AMG is close. The most powerful FWD Alfa Romeos are close too.)
you: When traction control goes on with the slightest touch of the throttle, you really do have a pointless amount of power.
me: So there are 2 answers for this: 1) these vehicles go to AWD, and have limited slip differentials; and 2) if power is increased beyond the ability of 4 wheels to handle the power, then the driver can only use the extra power once at speed. It's fairly hard to spin the wheels, if you're already at 85mph? or 100mph? I don't want to start another debate on Should Speed Limits be Repealed, but I think you can guess my opinion at least in limited cases.
Also my ideal car has the engine power to takeoff like a Harrier. I could sell tons of them to the wealthy in any urban area, while most people sat in jams in their 4 cyl. foreign sedans.
Yeah, I suppose the Veyron gets full use of its power in the higher gears.
For better or for worse, power does come at the expense of affordability (that's the big one), environmental impact, maybe noise (in the case of the Saturn V), etc. So supercars will still be sharing the road with 100hp cars in the next few decades. That would keep speed limits down a bit (that was the original topic of this thread, I think).
While I'd love to have a Harrier (and I used to think we'd all have one by 2005...), I'd leave room in my dream garage for something like a Miata. No turbo on it, either.
is kinda hilarious. Where do you people live that you could ever employ ANY of this power? "take off like a Harrier"????????? For a 100-mile radius all around me, that would last one second, followed by FLOORING the brake pedal. And so would go all my routine driving. Talk about an exercise in frustration.
Imagine a compact sedan around the price of a Corolla, with a weight of around 2000 pounds and the 130 hp engine it already has. Not only would it probably do 45 mpg without batting an eyelash, it would naturally have much better handling and would outrun a lot of fairly fast cars. The Lotus with that much weight and 190 hp outruns almost everything out there on the track, including icons like Corvette and Boxster.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"The Lotus with that much weight and 190 hp outruns almost everything out there on the track, including icons like Corvette and Boxster."
Wishful thinking at best. The Lotus on a full road track at 2000/190 Lb/HP on street tires and a Corvette coupe at 3250/350 is going to depend on driver and set up with the advantage to the Corvette due to straights. The Lotus will eat up the Vette on a tight autocross course but not at a road course, in the dry I pass them regularly. Now the past couple days in the wet were another story. The Boxster is not even close in stock form while the C5 Z06 is in a higher class yet at 3170/405 Lb/HP. The Elise is good, very good, first if you can fit in one, I can't, but not the best tool for every job, just like everything else.
As to where people live that they can use any of the power over 100HP, I live in the SF Bay Area and put the pedal down all the way every so often. 0-60 on freeway on-ramps is not illegal, sort of fruitless at 4-6pm on the 680 nouth bound M-F through the Tri-Valley, but hey I'm not usually going that direction. Got a great commute, 5 miles to the train and almost no back ups. Just because somebody else can figure it out and have some fun, don't be surprised.
The Lotus 7 is a great track car but there are some HPDE organizations that don't consider its light fenders to qualify as being a closed fender car. I don't think I've seen one on the street but I'd guess it might be possible. In SUV land it wouldn't attract my interest in saving gas, but then again I quit motorcycles about 35 years ago too. Lotus is the guru of going light and that is good, to a point, and the Elise might be a pretty low limit on the street.
Street 7s are quite available: I have seen a number on the road. They have a jaunty, sassy appearance and their size sheds a whole new light on what a 'small car' is.
You can order a new street or race 7 from Caterham here in the USA.
you: Where do you people live that you could ever employ ANY of this power?
me: I live in the northeast. Now while traffic is usually heavy on highways like I-95, 90, and 84; other interstates don't enter urban areas often. I-89 thru Vermont, I-80 across the country and many other interstates could handle volume-wise, high left-lane speeds. Because of speed limits written for a 90 year-old driving an '88 Tempo, you legally can't. Again though, I don't care if I don't regularly use power. The reason I like power (of any sort) is to be prepared for the unexpected. Pickup the paper any given day and you'll read about people killed or injured because they did not have sufficient power to control what was happening to them. Now you can never know what will happen, nor can you always have the power you need. But in general it is stupid not to acquire as much power (or knowledge) as you can to minimize your risk. That is the basis of my argument. Personally I would like to be able to lift 10,000+ Lb, I want to be able to swim across the Atlantic, and if I could fly ... I also would take those attributes in my vehicle.
And again I'm not saying that you have to have a 5,000 Lb vehicle and have 1,000hp. I like an Elise too. I think they should have as much power as possible. How much is enough? Well if it could out accelerate a Viper on a straightaway and take off like a Harrier that would be a start. Maybe that physicist will remember how he got cold-fusion to work that 1 time a few years back, and build us a light, powerful motor?
Comments
Zoning regulations for example, or safety standards for childrens' toys are just two quick examples of society telling people what they need and what they should be able to buy.
Question is not whether society has the right to dictate what you need or should buy, but rather when are the restrictions frivolous and not in fact to the greater good of society.
Personally I would be very happy to support special licenses for cars over 500 HP. I don't think most people are competent enough to own them.
In defense of that point of view, we have special licenses for heavy truck drivers for instance.
*** Of course, the rules I don't like are ones that create a solution before there's a problem!
POWER: I personally have always valued quick reflexes and avoidance maneuvers over "more power" as a way out of danger. As the racing boys say "if you are a bad driver with 250HP, you are going to be a REAL BAD driver with 500!"
I don't understand how increasing your velocity, and thus your potential impact speed (mass X velocity) in a situation you don't control at the moment---how that is a wise move.
That's a good theory, but what the extra power really does is move the danger band a little higher. You will still have to judge if there is enough room, and the other driver might still speed up. If you made these calculations as if you had 200 HP instead of 250, then the extra power would help you because you have more margin of error. But typically what happens is that you maintain the same level of risk, which means you pass when you have less time because now you have more power.
Very well driver's-educated teenage drivers tend to have the same accident rate as teenage drivers who haven't had drivers ed (after controlling for socio-economic factors) Study here.
These kids are better drivers, but they end up playing closer to the edge than the poorer drivers. This is why insurance companies give discounts based on GPA rather than driver's ed status: A kid's responsibility in other facets of life is a better measure of her ability to evaluate automotive risks than her level of driver's education.
Kids who know how to drive on the ice drive on the ice more aggressively until the risk they are undertaking is approximately the same as the risk an uneducated driver driving less aggressively is taking.
Same with passing--mostly likely, you'll end making passes with an equal level of risk after adding the additional power.
me: No. Anyone who understands contingencies and reserves understands that you don't set your plans based on your total commitment of power. When I pass I don't plan on using 100% power; I want "more than adequate" power to pass, and still have a reserve.
It is much safer to pass someone if you have 350hp and use 250hp, than someone with 200hp using 200hp. And bigger, multi-piston disk brakes are better than smaller, weaker ones. More braking is better than less braking. More handling is better than less handling. More capability and power is always better than less power and capability.
Me:
Consider two passing situations, both greatly simplified, but hopefully you'll see my point.
Situation A: Requires 100 hp to pass
Situation B: Requires 200 hp to pass
You have a car with 110 hp. You can pass in situation A. It will be kinda close but you can indeed make it. Passing in situation B is out of the question.
You have a car with 210 hp. You can pass in situation A without a problem. In fact, passing in situation A is now much safer than it was before. You are absolutely right, situation A is now much, much safer than before.
However, you now have enough power to pass in situation B. If you consider 110 hp enough to pass in situation A, you will also consider 210 hp enough to pass in situation B.
Now, you might be one of the very few people who, with a X+10 hp car, would pass in the X=100 but not the X=200 situation. But for the vast majority of people, if their tolerance for risk is a margin of 10 hp, the value of X just does not matter.
On average, once the level of risk is at an acceptable level, people tend not to try to reduce it further. And if a technology comes along that reduces that risk for them (such as more power in their car or better drver training), they tend to increase their risky behavior so that the total risk in the system is back up to where it was. That's why side-airbags are less popular than entertainment systesm--people believe their risk factors are already sufficiently low.
This stands to reason and has been demonstrated in a wide-variety of situations, not just cars. There is a similar situation with investments: If one has $1000 in an investment with 2% risk, but returns 10%, and for whatever reason the risk declines to 1%, one tends to move her investment to something with a 2% risk but a higher rate of return, all else being equal.
me: So your basically arguing that people will keep their risk-level constant?? Maybe I agree, though I wouldn't want to generalize without data.
But anyway if we do accept your theory that people drive at a constant risk-level, then it really makes no difference whether people have 150hp or 300hp, does it?
If you want to look at this purely mathematically if I ave infinite power, I can make an infinitely quick pass of a 60mph vehicle, and lower my risk infinitely close to zero. The safest pass is the quickest pass!
But consider this:
If you have a car with 400 HP and you need to pass someone, and you know you can do it quickly and safely using only 300 HP. Do you go with that or do you stomp on the pedal to utilize all 400 HP and hope that the tires don't break loose as you make the move around the vehicle? (perhaps there's sand or some stones to get the tires loose)
Or perhaps you do as you said...use the 300 HP to pass and then you notice that the other car is speeding up to prevent you from passing. You then stomp the pedal to finish the pass...only now you have crossed the border of safety and the tires break loose and send you out of control.
Is quickest still the safest?
I was thinking about passing in general, this morning. In my cars I've always had to plan them out well ahead of time, and I think that's made me a better driver. I was thinking that maybe everyone should start out in an low-power car. But then I realized that after learning to drive with 80hp, I treat the throttle as an on/off switch. So maybe that's not such a good idea.
The ONLY accident I ever had in my entire life was because I had the power to pass someone (MORE than enough).
What I think happens with more power is a sort of arrogance about what one can do---and I am as guilty of that as anyone---so in other words you UP your risks, not lower them, because you enter into riskier situations (overall, not just on one particular day of passing or using power).
That's impossible. Drivers are so different. Even the same driver can act in such a variety of ways. Basically, I think it's pointless to try.
And yeah, I agree that more confidence in a car (or in oneself) will lead to more aggressive behavior.
I think we try to keep a constant level of risk of completing the maneuver successfully. With more car, there are more maneuvers you can attempt with an equal chance of success. The consequences of failure are greater, but we don't tend to think about that.
In other words, if we think a maneuver is 95% possible, then we convince ourselves that we'll succeed for sure - so there's no point in thinking of the consequences. It's why we do things like climb ladders to fix a roof. Or migrate across icy plains. You die if something goes wrong, but it's a part of human nature that we'd be worse off without.
me: Halleluah! Never were truer words spoken. I think many people here feel they are being clever and in some sort of contest to find scenarios that aren't true of what is general logic. Let me exemplify:
General Truth:
1) It is better to live longer:
Clever rebuttals: a) Well not if you're unhappy. b) Life affter 80 is lousy because people generally have poor health then.
2) It is better to have more money.
Clever rebuttal: a) Well I knew a man who had $10M and he committed suicide. b) Then you have to worry about investing the money, or losing it.
There you go. Do we all feel like geniuses? Let's all aspire to die at 70, never get rich, and drive 20 hp Isettas.
Actually you're wrong, because there was this one time...
Kinda like the two scenarios you stated earlier (quoted below)
I'll give you 2 reasons why I like more power, and the benefits in my drive.
1) Frequently I drive on roads where the lanes converge or reduce down - from 2 lanes to 1 lane. I like having the power to decide whether I will go first or 2nd relative to the car that may be next to me.
2) On those same rural highways, it is mostly 2 lane undivided, with the white dashed passing zones. The safest pass is the fastest pass, which is a function of power. I like to have power to pass safely, and if I miscalculate or the person that I'm passing speeds up, I prefer to have "more power" so as not to be left hanging out in the oncoming lane.
And how are these emergency maneuvers? (which is your original reason for needing the extra power)
most people say: The exception PROVES the rule
(which makes no sense)
The original expression was:
"The exception PROOFS (that is, "tests") the rule"
So the idea is if you have too many exceptions maybe your rule isn't so good....
While the rule about money isn't "tested" or proofed by the suicide anecdote, the one about living past 80 is probably shakier if you tried to make it a rule that it's better to live as long as you can----, as is the one about more power making a car safer. You could probably find enough exceptions to assault the latter two statements----not because they may not be valid sometimes, but because they aren't valid enough to be rules....
me: I didn't know I was limited to only 1 reason or category of reason.
It is a fairly simple concept that when feasible that extra capability be built into things. I certainly don't want to cross bridges that have 100 vehicles on them and were designed and built to standup to only have 100 vehicles on it. And I don't want to live downstream from a dam that was designed to hold a normal water-level; I'd want it to still hold at the maximum water-level. And if we could build a system to deflect 1 mile wide asteroids from hitting the Earth, I would say build it, while I get the feeling some of you might argue that it makes no sense since it does nothing to protect us from bigger asteroids.
Nothing against Jimmy Olson, but I think it might be more useful to have Clark Kent around.
me: So you think most people would find more exceptions to the More Power, Longer Life, and More Money, being preferable; than to Less Power, a Short Life, and Being Poor?
No, I think you miss the point that in many of these forums everytime a decent idea is put forward, someone wants to dismiss it because it is not a PERFECT or ABSOLUTE idea or thought. You probably couldn't get 100% of the people here to agree that freeing people from slavery was better than leaving them in slavery! Someone would point out that the murder rate was very low on plantations, and the slaves had plenty to eat, whereas these days their descendents are stuck in crime and drug-infested slums by the government.
Look, I'm tired of illogical nonsense in our society. It is not better to bench-press 100Lb instead of 300Lb, it is not better to be obese than athletic, it is not better to have $20 in the bank than $20M, and it is not better to have terminal cancer than to be healthy. It is better to be faster than slower, it is better to be more intelligent than denser, it is better to have more friends than enemies, and it is better to have more power than less.
you: the one about living past 80 is probably shakier if you tried to make it a rule that it's better to live as long as you can----,
me: so how many people do you know that are serious about only wanting to be 70, and then die? Maybe 1 or 2 exceptions but certainly not the majority. I really haven't heard much about the poisoned-KoolAid parties becoming popular at the retirement centers in Florida!
While I don't completely agree with you on the power part, I can understand the comfort it might bring to some people....maybe most. But There must be a point where more is too much. (think McDonalds... :-) )
And I would change "faster" to "quicker"....it is better to be quicker than slower. Anybody can go fast with enough highway in front of them.
:-)
me: For a person that would be somewhere between Superman and the Creator. For a vehicle, I would desire a vehicle that not only travels on land, but could travel on/under water, and had the capability to fly. In theory why should I want less?
Yes it is better to have $100,000 than $20...no problem...but what do you mean by better? What if you kill for that money?
Is a rifle that fires 600 rounds a minute better in a battle than one that fires 300? Not if it jams....
Back to cars, more power is NOT better a priori, because many people can't even drive a 100 HP properly.
The problem I see with your statements is that they don't allow for a "real world" scenario---they strike me as too theoretical and don't "play out" in the real world.
For instance, you cannot ever prove that a poorer man is any less happy than a rich one (the correlation between money and happiness is v-ery slim) ...but you can prove that a rich one lives in a nicer house and/or has more money in the bank and owns nicer things, clothes, etc.
Can a 400HP car pass at 60 mph faster than a 100HP car?
Yes!
Does this make it better/safer?
Not in my opinion...i would have to answer: "it all depends".
me: This is just the same type of endless exception arguments made on these forums. Out of the 3 choices of worse, same, better of jamming, you decide it would be worse. Why? You have not stated anything in that example that would lead me to believe that would be true. Given that information, we'll assume the jamming is equal, and yes 600 rounds a minute is then better.
you: Not in my opinion...i would have to answer: "it all depends".
me: Yes if you want to look at all other variables of real-world driving, you can think of exceptions where more power is not better. But, do you think these exceptions are greater than 50% of the scenarios?
If you contemplate questions such as I mentioned with the answer "it all depends", I don't see how you ever draw and conclusions or make any decisions. It sounds like you would be entering eternal-procrastination.
The way I think and I hope most people think is to set the other variables in any of these situations/scenarios to what is "most probable", based on history and expereience. For instance in this case of debating More vs. Same power, I'm assuming that the history of better chassis, brakes, traction and stability control, and tires will continue. I'm also assuming that since we're not jumping to 5,000hp tomorrow that people will become accustomed to driving more powerful vehicles.
Again - I would hope that we all realize that better means more beneficial > 50% of the time, and does not necessarily have to be more beneficial absolutely, just because you create a scenario where a deranged drunk, in a bald-tire, super-charged Excursion w/pushbars destroy a town.
I'd have to say (and I'd like to hear from others on this) that more power beyond the necessary and toward the excessive, let us say 250HP, WHILE GREAT FUN, is actually worse---that should be the rule, with the "I was able to pass on the mountain road" the exception.
Anecdotal: Went on a big car rallye today (Sunday--the "anti-football run")...in lots of rain....two cars cracked up (nobody hurt), both higher HP than 95% of the cars on the rallye...Porsche Boxster S, Corvette C5.
First off, best wishes for a healthy and rerwarding New Year, everyone!
Now, on this power/safety discussion, while I understand Kernick's arguments, I agree 100% with the logic of your comments, Shifty.
Yeah, Happy New Year everyone. You're a great group!
The problem is that all else is never equal, and that extra power creates other complications, in reaction time, in traction and numerous other scenarios.
When does a vehicle have too much power? If too much power is a problem aren't the auto manufacturers and the SEMA suppliers going to have a large liability problem? I know if I have an accident, my lawyer's going to be all over Magnaflow.
It just doesn't seem that many people recognize this too much power problem.
think about what happens when a new Accord comes out? remember the old Accord? Remember how small it was? Now try and think about what would happen if Honda tried to sell the 2007 Accord with 95 HP? Not likely is it?
So since the power of all categories of vehicles have been going up quite a bit since the late 70's, and if this extra power causes complications, I guess we should see that the injury and fatality rate per mile have increased?
Gallileo:
All else being equal, yes. But not all else is equal.
Remember the post about how people tend to keep their risk level constant? In those times, there has been a number of safety innovations, ABS, traction control, stability control, to name just a few.
Those innovations decrease the amount of risk a given maneouver requires. ABS brakes were going to cause a dramatic decrease in accidents. But again, rather than causing a dramatic decrease in accidents, drivers tended to adapt in such a way as to keep their risk relatively constant.
The extra power would be quite unmanageable for many people without the electronic nannies.
Same with the big power increases. Driver adapted in ways that make their risk relatively constant, or perhaps slightly lower.
my focus has less than 140 hp, but can climb any hill i drive on with 4 in the car at 75 mph, without a downshift.
is probably a little more than I would need for my driving habits. I also feel that the 239HP in the Lincoln Town Car
is a little low in that the Lincoln is a few hundred pounds heavier than the Deville. I have thought of a Toyota Prius as a second car but am not sure I'm ready for the very different characteristics that the car would have compared to the Deville.
The reason HP is increasing is because of all the accessories and all the weight on modern cars.
95HP in the "right" car would be more than enough.
Unfortunately very light BUT very safe cars would not be cheap to make. Americans like BIG MACS and manhole slabs of beef---it looks like "value". Buying something small and paying a lot for it (like a race car) is a hard sell to the average consumer.
RE: Will higher HP cars lead to liability lawsuits?
DEFINITELY---watch for it, it's just around the corner. First time some kid mows down the first three rows of the Meadows Retirement Center with a 500HP Vette.....(god forbid my even joking about it, but you get the point).
I mean the current Corvettes must cost *a lot* to insure I'd imagine, and I've heard the Mitsu EVO rally cars are almost uninsurable these days. And what ever became of the Neon SRT-4...a cheap super-performer targeted at the age group least likely to be able to afford crushing insurance premiums?
Minimum weight was the main thrust of Lotus cars under Colin Chapman. He took the 'as light as possible' philosophy to the limit (and beyond!) but the 7, Elite, etc were very fast cars and successful on the track.
But yeah, Chapman had the right idea....like when he visited the Indy 500 one year---he looked at the cars and said "These things are monsters...I could beat them easily with a lighter, lower HP car".
And he was right and he did beat them two years later...and changed the Indy racecar configuration forever.
I would be into that. I was in a '93 Corolla today: 105 hp and 117 lb-ft torque, curb weight of around 2300 pounds give or take, and that thing was plenty fast. Certainly faster than lots of mainstream cars today like 4-cyl Camrys and V-6 Explorers.
"105 hp? Surely you jest" you say. But indeed, I do not. The horsepower race is completely out of control. (and I especially condemn the Germans here, as they have totally escalated that particular battle these last few years...or maybe it was always them escalating it?)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sorry about the cars that got banged on the anti-football run but at Laguna Seca that same day it was an Elise that crunched a fender first doing car control in the rain. As I noted the GT2 was one of the other victims of over driving the conditions, not that it was light or underpowered. The guy with 650HP in a supercharged Vette was fairly slow given that he just about couldn't touch his gas peddle. Then again having the wrong tool for any job is a problem and my runflats, while all season, were pretty hard to get any grip.
The theory that weight or accessories are driving HP seems also to be a little bit of a far reach since it seems to be just a marketing war that consumers are willing to bid higher than we have currently. Did I mention fun?
The ability of people to take cars on race tracks, at least in this area is so open compared to a few years ago that some think it is a driving school. There was a lady in a minivan at one of the last street schools up at the SCCA Thunderhill track last year and the instructor was pumped when he got her to pass somebody else. Seems she did have fun too, I'm not sure about the person she passed!
I'll leave the social commentary about efficent use of resources to somebody else.
I remember my first thought when I test drove an '04 Civic Si: "ew, it feels like a vault."
Common comment on new cars in Town Hall: "I love it! It feels like a vault!"
Weight for safety IS a compromise I will make in a daily driver, to a point. But I don't get the importance of rigidity. There have been good, light cars that weren't floppy. Maybe they weren't rigid by modern standards, but have modern standards in rigidity really benefited us? I'd be happy with a car that's only moderately stiff.
On the other hand I am happy that 105hp is about the minimum you can get in a current new car. We live in a world with hills, passengers, and cargo, and two-digit power doesn't cut it in those cases (for the car in question, and for those behind it).
On the flip side, there are diminishing returns on high power. When traction control goes on with the slightest touch of the throttle, you really do have a pointless amount of power. (The SL65 AMG is close. The most powerful FWD Alfa Romeos are close too.)
me: So there are 2 answers for this: 1) these vehicles go to AWD, and have limited slip differentials; and 2) if power is increased beyond the ability of 4 wheels to handle the power, then the driver can only use the extra power once at speed. It's fairly hard to spin the wheels, if you're already at 85mph? or 100mph? I don't want to start another debate on Should Speed Limits be Repealed, but I think you can guess my opinion at least in limited cases.
Also my ideal car has the engine power to takeoff like a Harrier. I could sell tons of them to the wealthy in any urban area, while most people sat in jams in their 4 cyl. foreign sedans.
For better or for worse, power does come at the expense of affordability (that's the big one), environmental impact, maybe noise (in the case of the Saturn V), etc. So supercars will still be sharing the road with 100hp cars in the next few decades. That would keep speed limits down a bit (that was the original topic of this thread, I think).
While I'd love to have a Harrier (and I used to think we'd all have one by 2005...), I'd leave room in my dream garage for something like a Miata. No turbo on it, either.
Imagine a compact sedan around the price of a Corolla, with a weight of around 2000 pounds and the 130 hp engine it already has. Not only would it probably do 45 mpg without batting an eyelash, it would naturally have much better handling and would outrun a lot of fairly fast cars. The Lotus with that much weight and 190 hp outruns almost everything out there on the track, including icons like Corvette and Boxster.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And a Veyron would be great for those SF -> LA trips.
Going over the grapevine in a fully laden Corolla isn't as effortless as it should be.
Some Lotus 7s (originals/replicas) weigh only 1,100-1,200 pounds. These cars accelerate like rockets with 120 HP. The handling is exceptional too.
The agility of a Lotus 7 may help avoid many accidents. In a crash there isn't a lot of protection in a 7 or replica thereof!
Wishful thinking at best. The Lotus on a full road track at 2000/190 Lb/HP on street tires and a Corvette coupe at 3250/350 is going to depend on driver and set up with the advantage to the Corvette due to straights. The Lotus will eat up the Vette on a tight autocross course but not at a road course, in the dry I pass them regularly. Now the past couple days in the wet were another story. The Boxster is not even close in stock form while the C5 Z06 is in a higher class yet at 3170/405 Lb/HP. The Elise is good, very good, first if you can fit in one, I can't, but not the best tool for every job, just like everything else.
As to where people live that they can use any of the power over 100HP, I live in the SF Bay Area and put the pedal down all the way every so often. 0-60 on freeway on-ramps is not illegal, sort of fruitless at 4-6pm on the 680 nouth bound M-F through the Tri-Valley, but hey I'm not usually going that direction. Got a great commute, 5 miles to the train and almost no back ups. Just because somebody else can figure it out and have some fun, don't be surprised.
You can order a new street or race 7 from Caterham here in the USA.
Info at their website http://www.uscaterham.com/home.html
me: I live in the northeast. Now while traffic is usually heavy on highways like I-95, 90, and 84; other interstates don't enter urban areas often. I-89 thru Vermont, I-80 across the country and many other interstates could handle volume-wise, high left-lane speeds. Because of speed limits written for a 90 year-old driving an '88 Tempo, you legally can't.
Again though, I don't care if I don't regularly use power. The reason I like power (of any sort) is to be prepared for the unexpected. Pickup the paper any given day and you'll read about people killed or injured because they did not have sufficient power to control what was happening to them. Now you can never know what will happen, nor can you always have the power you need. But in general it is stupid not to acquire as much power (or knowledge) as you can to minimize your risk. That is the basis of my argument.
Personally I would like to be able to lift 10,000+ Lb, I want to be able to swim across the Atlantic, and if I could fly ... I also would take those attributes in my vehicle.
And again I'm not saying that you have to have a 5,000 Lb vehicle and have 1,000hp. I like an Elise too. I think they should have as much power as possible. How much is enough? Well if it could out accelerate a Viper on a straightaway and take off like a Harrier that would be a start. Maybe that physicist will remember how he got cold-fusion to work that 1 time a few years back, and build us a light, powerful motor?