[andyt]

REally? Your argument is that a vehicle going over say 140 kph gets better fuel economy? You may want to check the physics on that.

$1:

While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 50 mph.

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 50 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.3

Observing the speed limit is also safer.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

[Unsound]

Andy's right. no one needs a car like that. Also, very few people need a 3/4 ton truck, or a 2000 sq. foot house. Or an 80 inch tv. Or a snowblower instead of a shovel. Or remote start. Or a koi pond. Or...

[andyt]

None of those wreak havoc when used as intended. It's really the same as the gun argument, except there are even less good arguments for it, since with guns you get the self-protection and hunting argument. But we restrict the types of guns you can own (should restrict it more), so no reason not to do it to cars. Or as I say, just build in governors that limit top speed, maybe also, as the video shows, acceleration that is greater than the tires can handle. Ie that would be traction control that can't be defeated.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

REally? Your argument is that a vehicle going over say 140 kph gets better fuel economy? You may want to check the physics on that.

$1:

While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 50 mph.

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 50 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.3

Observing the speed limit is also safer.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

The most efficient speed for every vehicle varies according to the vehicle.

The 1972 Ford LTD I used to own (with a 429ci CobraJet V8) sucked up gas around town and made about 15mpg city. At freeway speeds of 60-65 mph it did about 24mpg. At 55mpg it was 18mpg.

It was mostly about the torque and the RPM of the engine. The slower speed was less efficient due to the transmission gear ratios.

My 1993 Volvo 850 GLT (straight 5 cylinder) actually managed to get worse mileage than my LTD but it had the saving grace of better mileage in town. It did 18/21.

My current car, a 2007 Volvo S80 (6 cyl), manages 18 to 20 around town and it's most efficient highway speed is 62mph - where the onboard computer shows it getting 32mpg. It only does around 27mpg at 55mph. This is because the car was designed for cruising efficiently.

But the very best car I ever had was my manual shift 1986 Mercury Topaz (4cyl). After I replaced the OEM air filter assembly with a street legal K&N filter assembly it got a remarkable 42mpg at 55mph. At 60mph it did somewhat worse. But the speed limit back then was 55mph so the car was most efficient at a legal speed.

Like I said, it varies by vehicle.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

None of those wreak havoc when used as intended. It's really the same as the gun argument, except there are even less good arguments for it, since with guns you get the self-protection and hunting argument. But we restrict the types of guns you can own (should restrict it more), so no reason not to do it to cars. Or as I say, just build in governors that limit top speed, maybe also, as the video shows, acceleration that is greater than the tires can handle. Ie that would be traction control that can't be defeated.

The only gun restrictions I approve of are for restricting them for felons and for those who oppose gun rights.

If you oppose gun rights then you should not be allowed to own a gun.

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Stupid cars to own in the first place. No reason to allow cars like that on the road.

Au contraire! Supercars and hypercars can be one of the best cars for the perfectionist to drive. There is nothing illegal about pushing it to a limit of 0 - 100 in 2.5 seconds, so long as you do it in a 100 zone! You'd never be able to push a car like that to your limits unless you were on a track. And I've seen many people who have, and pushed them past the limits. And some cars got badly badly hurt. But the people walked away, and no one else was in danger.

It's the idiots who think they can handle a car like that, with no experience and on public roads, that make them dangerous.

That's the problem with the damn things. They're meant to be driven with someone with some kind of self-discipline, like a professional driver. Instead these days they're usually being bought and driven by someone with the mentality, personality, and maturity of Justin Beiber. Pretty much the same thing as buying a can of gas and a brand new Zippo lighter for a convicted arsonist.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

REally? Your argument is that a vehicle going over say 140 kph gets better fuel economy? You may want to check the physics on that.

$1:

While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 50 mph.

You can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 50 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.3

Observing the speed limit is also safer.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.jsp

The most efficient speed for every vehicle varies according to the vehicle.

The 1972 Ford LTD I used to own (with a 429ci CobraJet V8) sucked up gas around town and made about 15mpg city. At freeway speeds of 60-65 mph it did about 24mpg. At 55mpg it was 18mpg.

It was mostly about the torque and the RPM of the engine. The slower speed was less efficient due to the transmission gear ratios.

My 1993 Volvo 850 GLT (straight 5 cylinder) actually managed to get worse mileage than my LTD but it had the saving grace of better mileage in town. It did 18/21.

My current car, a 2007 Volvo S80 (6 cyl), manages 18 to 20 around town and it's most efficient highway speed is 62mph - where the onboard computer shows it getting 32mpg. It only does around 27mpg at 55mph. This is because the car was designed for cruising efficiently.

But the very best car I ever had was my manual shift 1986 Mercury Topaz (4cyl). After I replaced the OEM air filter assembly with a street legal K&N filter assembly it got a remarkable 42mpg at 55mph. At 60mph it did somewhat worse. But the speed limit back then was 55mph so the car was most efficient at a legal speed.

Like I said, it varies by vehicle.

That ^^

If you do the simple calculation, a cube van (or any other poorly aerodynamic vehicle) will get the best fuel economy at 90km/h or 55mph. Aerodynamics increases that value, and having a more powerful engine that can maintain that speed at lower revs in higher gear ratios also increases that efficiency.

Limiting revs and limiting speed will reduce the point at which the vehicle is most efficient. If you can't do highways speed at low revs, you aren't efficient.

But hey! Let's blame the gun for murders, the cutlery for obesity, and the car for the bad driving.

[peck420]

So...if we are banning theses types of vehicles due to their ability to overcome their available traction quickly...when do we start banning everything?

Oh, whoops, I guess a certain somebody didn't think their analysis through very well...lol.

You would have to ban any truck with a larger displacement than 3.0l (gas size, diesel would have to be smaller due to increase in torque) or so.

Any car with a displacement above 2.6l (gas size, diesel would have to be smaller due to increase in torque) or so.

Any and all motorbikes, trikes, etc.

All of those listed above have enough power to overcome their factory issued traction quickly.

As for that lambo video that andyt posted...I made a far bigger mess with a fiero...at least he lucked out and went between the oncoming traffic.

[peck420]

Thanos Thanos:

That's the problem with the damn things. They're meant to be driven with someone with some kind of self-discipline, like a professional driver. Instead these days they're usually being bought and driven by someone with the mentality, personality, and maturity of Justin Beiber. Pretty much the same thing as buying a can of gas and a brand new Zippo lighter for a convicted arsonist.

A $30,000 mustang would be even worse. And is infinitely more attainable.

Not only can it easily out power it's factory traction, it can reach in excess of any road speed in Canada...it also weighs considerably more and is not designed nearly as well as a supercar for impact protection.

[peck420]

I fail to see the point in 'banning' any specific consumer vehicle.

There is no such thing as a 'safe' vehicle, just safe drivers.

I say that because the 'safest' vehicles are are going to be 2,000lb+ missiles capable of traveling in excess of 60 kph...easily more than enough force to kill.

[Newsbot]

Title: Vancouver cops mock speeding Lamborghini driver by impounding $275K car, posting it on Twitter | National Post
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: kitty
Date: 2014-12-03 16:14:49
Canadian

[Hyack]

Lamborghini - $275K.
Excessive speeding ticket - $368.
Watching your sports car get towed for 7 days - Priceless......

[DrCaleb]

Hyack Hyack:

Watching your sports car get towed for 7 days - Priceless......

The kicker was - it's wasn't the drivers! It was on a test drive!