Of course you're not comfortable driving faster than that in a Honda Fit. That's like saying you're not comfortable going faster than 30 in a golf cart.
In the right car and on the right roads, hitting 120 is as simple and easy as hitting 70 in typical econoboxes. And actually, I'm not even talking about a Porsche 911; more like, every German car, especially Audi/BMW/Merc and up. Effortless is the best word for it, like you push the pedal down and you don't even realize you're in the triple digits because it's so smooth.
But the big problem is the roads and the culture around speed. America doesn't have either of those things, and probably never will.
A culture of safety is not a "big problem" IMO. The "big problem" is that a vehicle at 120mph requires an insane stopping distance.
On dry asphalt:
* 60mph: 172 ft * 120mph: 688 ft
[1] http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-braking-distance-calcul...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-car-safety-p...
So, take a sporty car with twice the braking performance of a basic car, and you can go 1.44x as fast as the basic car while still having the same stopping distance.
I have a very light car that I use on the track, with an amazing amount of braking for its weight. Full deceleration happens at 2.5g, that's not pleasant. There are also comfort limits here.
https://fastestlaps.com/lists/top-quickest-stoppers-60mph
That's a pretty good performance (but it's a $100K car), but at 200 km/hr, the stopping distance of the M5 increase to 124m (which makes sense since a 200 km/h car has 4X the kinetic energy of a 100 km/h car)
Once out of the specialty racing cars, all of the cars "faster stoppers" list took about 27m-30m to stop from 100 km/h so that seems about the best that can be achieved today.
If you prefer starting from accident statistics, here are a variety of studies across a variety of locations that generally show a ~2% increase in accidents per 1 km/h of speed. [1]
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowle...
That means good road maintenance, no abrupt turns, properly protecting access (even from wild life, which can mean underpass for big animals), easy way out for people to go slow if they feel it won’t do it for them, frequent info panels in case anything happens.
Of course for all of that there needs to be an underlying safety culture.
Too bad no such roads exist, not even the Autobahn (warning, graphic photos):
http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2013/10/deer-disintegrates-on-...
And not even race tracks are guaranteed to be animal-free:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiano_da_Matta#Collision_w...
German cars are feel AMAZING at high speeds. They're not the only ones, but dollar for dollar its easier to take a German car to 120 than any other nationality. Why? Because they're made to be driven on the Autobahn. They are, all else equal, safer to drive at high speed than American or Japanese cars because Germany has a stronger culture and laws around allowing cars to drive fast.
As we add assistive tech, it becomes safer to take cars this fast. Of course, there's a lot of other things to solve; roads, adoption, etc. And we can't solve the physics of stopping and impact force. But the benefits might outweigh the costs.
But Volvo, if we take them at their word, is saying "we don't care. This is as fast as you can go. Enjoy."
And sure, maybe their speed limit is fast enough. But, really, this move is just posturing. The tangible effect that it will have on vehicle safety likely won't be large; at best, it might stop some dumb kids from taking their dad's car out for a joyride and driving it off a bridge at 130, but its not going to stop them from doing the exact same thing at 100, or even 60 (on some backroads that speed is just as deadly).
When they limit their top speed, what they're also quietly saying "these cars are only engineered to go this fast". That engineering is why German cars are so great to drive in the triple digits. Its not just the platform; Volvo has computerized assistive tech. Is it tested to actually work at triple digits? Probably. Now that they have a corporate-wide mandated speed limit, will they continue to develop and test it at triple digits? I don't know.
And that's the real disappointment. We're now just "alright" with the speed we've always been driving. Cars could become "personal bullet trains". With enough assistive tech, give certified models their own barriered lane and, if the weather conditions permit, let them go 140. But Volvo isn't interested in that future, and that's very sad indeed.
If so, I don't think automotive performance and lack of "smooth feel" at high speed are the things governing our speed limits.
We should be celebrating companies which push the limits of assistive technology to make high speeds safer; this can only be done by companies who optimize around high speeds and have cars on the road gathering data at high speed. This conclusion is evidenced by the fact that similarly priced German and Japanese/American cars drive totally differently at high speeds, because German cars are designed to run at high speeds. The environment and corporate policy matters, a lot.
The reason our speed limits in America are generally low isn't really because of road feel or reliability at speed or any of that. Its more complex. But one step in a positive direction is definitely having more cars on the road with companies behind them who say "the cameras on this thing? they can detect a stopped car 300 meters out and take progressive action without any human intervention." Over time, we might see change. Or not. But that's a necessary factor.
On the other hand, Volvo is saying "don't drive faster than 112mph! that's dangerous, no one should ever do that and we'll never support it on our consumer cars" which is regressive. We can do better; we just need people and companies to Want to.
German drivers are simply not like American drivers. American drivers have almost no training at all, and certainly don't have the training or discipline necessary to drive at Autobahn speeds. American drivers can't even practice proper lane etiquette (staying right except to pass), and really don't understand it.
The last thing American roads need is any assumption that American drivers are remotely like German drivers in ability.
Remember, in America, almost everyone drives because there's no public transit in most places, and even where it exists, it's kinda lousy at best. In Germany, it's perfectly possible to get around without a car, unless you're going to small villages or towns or rural places. Because of this, not all Germans drive! It costs a lot of money to get the private training required to obtain a license there, and driver testing is strict. None of this is true in America.
Finally, if you want bullet trains, build bullet trains. Bullet trains are very safe at speed because they're on rails, and are maintained by professionals on a strict schedule. You don't get that with privately-owned vehicles. And cars are horrifically bad for pollution and fuel economy compared to trains when operating at high speeds. We're spewing way too much carbon into the atmosphere as it is. If you want to move people around faster, you need to build the proper infrastructure for this, like the Japanese have with the Shinkansen.
I've driven 180-200 km/h on the German autobahns (in a car that could handle it) and I could tell I was driving at the edge or slightly beyond my vision and reaction time. It was freaking scary. I don't know if every driver out there could tell when they were hitting that limit. The golf cart analogy doesn't apply here IMO.
That said, I don't think speeding is even close to the number 1 killer these days... Cell phones seem to be the leading cause of accidents these days. Maybe they should detect motion over 5mph and turn off display of messaging apps, only bluetooth voice interactions allowed.
But even if it didn't cause the accident, accidents at reasonable speeds (<30km/h for car-pedestrian, <120km/h for car-car) are usually survivable. At higher speeds, fatalities increase dramatically.
https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
I prefer to use the term "collision" because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.
I would be willing to bet money that at least 90% of crashes are caused by at least 1 driver doing something stupid. Using their phone while driving, not adequately looking before changing lanes, ignoring signs or traffic lights, driving drunk, etc. Calling these types of crashes "accidents" lessens the responsibility on the person that caused it. When you're in control of a 2,000+ hunk of steel, there's no room for carelessness.
Like, there's no such thing as a gun accident. If someone ever accidentally gets shot, it means someone wasn't following one of the prime rules of gun safety.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/06/investigates/sig-sau...
But as long as you always treat your firearms as loaded and never point it at something you're not willing to kill or destroy, you shouldn't have any "accidents".
I don't see the point of a vehicle like this unless you drag race it on a regular basis. It has limited utility, is larger than an Abrams tank, guzzles fuel like it's 1998 and couldn't make it around a slalom cone course even with a skilled driver. It's a make a lot of noise and go really fast in a straight line car. That's what it does (nothing wrong with that).
entertainment has value to some people
I don’t have the 392, but a 345, and no other car hits those same bullet points.
In town driving I get around 19mpg average... by contrast, the last 4cyl car I had got around 24mpg in town, and was horrible to drive.
I also prefer the looks, and sit very comfortably compared to smaller cars (I'm big and tall). I don't sit comfortably in any other coupe.
Of course this is based off one car so I could be totally wrong.
The speedo on my Miata goes to 150, except in 6th gear you hit the rev limiter at 136. I'd rather them make the top end more reasonable and make the scale s bigger.
I don't know why electronic display isn't more of a thing. My 13 year old Toyota displays the number using LED lights, it's far easier to read.
Of course, a lot of new cars can do both. ;-)
Of course, newer cars have HUD speedometers which project your speed onto your windshield glass.
I think its mainly down to analog giving you feedback as to whether you're increasing or decreasing in speed. If I'm approaching a speed camera in a 30mph zone, a glance at an analog speedo, and peripheral vision to confirm it isn't increasing is enough. Digital I need at least 2 full readings.
Plus you have a spacial element to analog speedos. I know where 30mph is, I don't need to read 30mph.
My wife’s car has an analog speedometer in the left and a center digital display between the speedometer and the tach which can show many things, one of which is a nice big digital speed indicator.
When the digital display is showing something else it takes me 2x-3x as much time to ascertain the current speed from the speedometer.
I think the studies are possibly being influenced by people’s familiarity with speedometers in cars. If you asked someone to tell you the temperature in the room and gave them an analog gauge and a digital display, which one would be faster?
Once you acclimate to the digital display I’ve found I can read it faster and more precisely.
It may be possible to see “under 60” on the gauge faster than read “57” on the display, but I doubt even that. And when I’m trying to check or set my speed to be exactly 9 over the limit, the digital is much, much faster.
It’s facilitated if you mentaly divide in quadrants: you can identify the first bold tick above the horizontal middle line as 60 for instance, and it becomes extremely quick to know if you’re under, at, or above 60, at one two units of error at most.
You’ll also only need to remember two or three relevant positions.
I tbink digital is fine, I’d just see optimisations when on analog in this specific use case (but it needs to be center and big and clear, a small dial on the side is bothersome)
For your answer, take a look at this modern Ferrari speedo:
https://www.straight.com/files/v3/styles/gs_large/public/ima...
If the link doesn't work, the key thing is: the bottom right quadrant of the speedo is just blank. Top speed is indicated at three o'clock on the face of the speedo. You'll see a similar layout on some of their modern tachometers.
This is by no means universal but it's more popular nowadays. The idea is that when you're travelling at high speed you've minimized the amount of time and effort involved in looking at the instruments. You can sort-of, kind-of rely on your peripheral vision, but that's harder to do as the needle moves further and further downward, away from the road and closer to the center of the steering wheel.
With collectible sports cars with traditional instruments, you can often see examples of this that involve having rotated the speedo, or more likely just the tachometer, to a position where it's most easily readable when the redline is reached. That invovles getting the needle vertical and/or putting it where it's not obscured by the steering wheel, also an important factor.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/2...
It's also becoming common to see replacement faces for those old instruments available for sale, so they look a little less goofy when rotated ninety degrees (or whatever) counterclockwise.
With a subcompact car that isn't super fast, these visibility purposes can be served but the owner can also sort of feel like their car is a lot faster than it actually is if the speed numbers keep increasing down and to the right. That part is stupid, but it actually does make the speedo more readable most of the time.
It used to be that car companies would simply put the same speedometer in every vehicle to cut costs and make production easier. So that's why you could see a minivan and a race car with the same speedometer. Car companies cut weird corners.
It's likely way easier to flip a switch on the spedometer, then swap out the faceplate than you think.
It's why on MPH cars the MPG dial counts down, whereas the litres/100km counts up on metric cars (which makes more sense)
I agree that either way it's easier to use a single speedometer with a different overlay.
It's a standard dial they stick in all models / engines
I'm an amateur race car driver (Champcar). Our Honda Civic is fitted with a professional roll cage, hans device and fire suppression system (not to mention the fireproof suit and helmet). I'd be nervous in any vehicle over 100mph without these added protections.
At least, in Formula 1 that's what it is.
Is there particular energy threshold for impact they were looking at? I am not sure that speed is survivable in any front end or offset crash with current technology but a crash where the car spins of control and doesn't impact anything won't much care unless the speed they picked is at the threshold for the average car to lose total control at.
My assumption is that they used the tires' speed rating. "S" rated tires are intended for a maximum speed of 112 MPH, while "H" rated tires are intended for a maximum speed of 130 MPH.
Presumably if the speedo only went to 112mph, it would be impossible to go faster (that's how it works, right?), so you'd know what speed you were doing anyway.
Exactly -- it would be hard to discriminate between 120 and 140 on a log scale speedometer, but when you're going that fast, does the speed really matter?