Hacker News Reader

Comment by agloe_dreams | Hacker News Reader

The Miata actually gives good context, that era was a 8.5s 0-60. The EV1 was ~7.7s.

However, if you were to run this race today with the 2023 Miata...well, the thing got a new sport, as it now has a 5.7s 0-60, utterly trashing both cars here.

Actually, our T5 Volvo XC40 does 0-60 in 6.3s, Toyota will sell you a camry that does it in 5.6s...but that's almost cheating as the thing makes freaking 300HP lol. Gas cars got fast out of nowhere because it moves units and CAD changed everything for engine design.

View on HN

Weirdly the massive increase in car performance has led me not to care about car performance anymore. I've been driving for a long time and now everything is freaking fast (by 40+ year old standards).

Today you can buy literally any car on the market and have way more acceleration, power and top speed than you need day-to-day. Take a really cheap car like the crappy $16k Nissan Versa which has 122hp in the base model. Compare to a 1970's Porsche 911 (125hp). They both weigh about the same too if that's what your thinking - modern materials are light!

Unless you're towing it's not practical to care about car performance anymore. You have a car? You likely have more power to weight than a sports car from 50 years ago.

Agreed. Even my daily driver from the 80's would get along just fine in today's traffic. Acceleration hasn't been a problem since 1980 unless you were driving something by Wartburg or so.

There were plenty of anemic diesels in the 80s with 0-60 times over 20 seconds.

Highway merges, especially in PA (with many short merge zones) could be white knuckle affairs in those underpowered cars.

Wrong. Most compact cars and midsized sedans from the 80s were downright awful. Sub 100 hp motors, with restrictive exhausts and poorly designed emissions systems. They were mostly garbage.

My family's Pontiac 6000 had a 2.5 liter 92 hp pile of hot garbage for an engine, and couldn't get out its own way.

Sub 100 hp is plenty for day to day traffic. 50 would be enough. A Pontiac is an overweight monstrosity, the fact that 92 HP isn't enough to move a personal car is proof positive of that.

We bought a Hyundai Ioniq 5 a few weeks ago. 330bhp, 0-60 in 4.5. If that’s what an EV grocery-getter gets me these days, I no longer care about performance, either, just like I don’t look at CPU clock speeds much anymore. I leave the thing in “eco” mode just so I don’t spin the treads off the tires (Hyundai really could use to mellow “normal” mode, IMO, and leave the neck-snapping for “sport”.)

But that’s what I love about modern cars versus the tuned-to-the-edge-of-reliability cars of old: I don’t have to put up with a stiff clutch and a lumpy camshaft for the 4% of the time I might actually use that performance. And I don’t make a bunch of noise doing it, either.

My 4.6 litre Range Rover from 1997 will do 0 to 60 in around 14 seconds, but it will do it just as quickly pulling another Range Rover on a trailer, or across a ploughed field.

Never really got the attraction of getting to 60mph as fast as possible. How often do you attempt that in real-world use?

I go 0-60 all out much more often than I pull range rovers

> Never really got the attraction of getting to 60mph as fast as possible. How often do you attempt that in real-world use?

When it can be done quietly, according to John Carmack speaking about driving his Tesla Roadster vs. past modded Ferraris, at practically every light.

Pretty much every single drive from my house since that involves a short freeway on-ramp...

How often do you tow a range rover with your range rover?

Every couple of months or so.

During the winter I regularly tow stuck vehicles out of the snow, biggest one so far was a fully-laden 28-tonne curtainsider.

Why not both?

Obligatory: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eYxwgmACJMY&t=1m26s

Hehe. Former CL 55 owner here, that was pretty predictable...

My real world use cases:

#1 Merging onto the freeway from a stop in LA, Atlanta, and other cities where you have fast drivers, traffic, and short freeway entrances or entrances with stop lights. Remember it’s your job to prevent the flow of traffic from yielding.

#2 Accelerate from danger/to safety. Misjudged your gap in a turn? Accelerate to safety. Person just ran the red? Accelerate from danger. Stuff happens and it’s nice to have the power available.

I can't think of a set of circumstances where either of those would happen, outside of bad driving.

Tractor trailer merging into your lane because they didn't see you and someone's behind you.

So in that situation you'd accelerate into the side of the truck, and not brake to avoid it?

So you'd slam on your brakes with someone behind you? Instead of accelerating forward?

Yes, absolutely. You are never going to out-accelerate the truck in front of you.

If someone hits the back of you, it's a them problem.

If you prefer to end up driving into the side of a truck and getting squashed, then I guess that's your decision.

I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

It is a two lane (same direction) road. The tractor trailer is to your right. There is a car behind you.

The tractor trailer begins to merge into your lane.

What do you do?

Brake, because if you accelerate you'll drive into the side of the truck.

I don't get what's hard to understand about this.

Have you ever driven a car? On public roads?

When I was in drivers Ed they told us that the accelerator pedal is the most overlooked tool for preventing accidents. I guess now I know why.

There are plenty of circumstances where you can accelerate out of danger. If you intend to continue driving you would do well to consider this fact. Start with low speed situations like parking lots, and move up from there.

Physics. Increasing speed (rapidly) increases kinetic (impact) energy. Braking reduces it. Slow down to 35 and if the truck hits your car it will be damaged. Try to race ahead and hit the truck at 80 mph and you will die (or worse).

Obviously things aren’t so clear cut but your argument is nonsense.

Please think about how long a semi truck is. If you are near the back, obviously it is safer to slow down. If you are near the front, it might well save your life to accelerate.

Edit: I’m sure a bit of calculus on the physics of it would reveal the location on the truck where acceleration was more likely to prevent a crash.

This thread. >.<

The kinetic energy in an accident between two vehicles is their relative speed, not their absolute speed.

If you are doing 80 mph and hit a truck doing 70 mph, there's not 80 mph * vehicle mass worth of impact energy.

And that's not even breaking things into directional vectors and calculating the fraction of velocity in the direction of impact.

Vectors and stuff. Maybe throw a tensor or two in there? Or the Lagranian and Hamiltonian and get it right. Given the choice of two small metal boxes in a field of nearby similarly massive and much more massive objects with positive and negative relative velocities, you really choose the one with the greater velocity as “safer”? Right after you bounce off that truck your next hit may well be one going in the other direction. Or something concrete. Seems pretty clear cut to me (and is backed up by decades and millions of deaths over the last 100 years).

There are never any circumstances where you can accelerate out of danger, unless you put yourself in danger in the first place.

Given that you use the phrase "driver's ed" I suspect you may be American, in which case you live in a country with one of the worst standards of driving in the world.

Not reflected in stats? US traffic accidents per capita per year is nowhere near the top. Maybe about average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

I’ll give you a real life example proving you 100% wrong.

My BIL was waiting to turn left on a two-lane road with 55-65 MPH traffic. He looked in his mirror and saw a car coming at him and clearly not slowing down. He floored it, and got rear ended with a speed differential of probably 35MPH rather than 60MPH.

Edit: Here’s another I just remembered. My father was driving 70 on a divided highway. Looked in his mirror and saw somebody coming up fast, so he accelerated, trying to get out of the way. (There was no space to get over.) The driver behind continued coming apparently in a big hurry, and my dad realized too late that he wasn’t going to slow down. Even having accelerated he got rear ended, but the speed differential was not bad, and it meant my dad didn’t lose control in heavy, high speed traffic. (The other driver had fallen asleep.)

In neither case is there an example of putting yourself in danger. Just proper driving. In both cases pressing the accelerator was the single most important safety action taken.

> There are never any circumstances where you can accelerate out of danger, unless you put yourself in danger in the first place.

I don't know how to parse that, so I'm going to go with your base belief around acceleration.

For an average sedan these days, we're talking ~3,500 lbs. Say 175 hp. 0.05 hp / lb.

Now, let's say your average loaded semi runs about 50,000 lbs.

Do you think semis have 2,500 hp engines?

(Generalizing hp/torque as correlated)

I think you're grossly underestimating how long it'll take you to overtake a lorry if it starts to pull into your lane.

It sounds like you don't drive much.

You are really on those ad homs, aren't you?

> You are never going to out-accelerate the truck in front of you.

Trucks are quite slow though, if you have a reasonably fast car you can absolutely get ahead of them before they close out your lane. Especially if you are alongside them to start with and not behind them.

That's actually crazy, since my Subaru Forester does 0-60 in 6.8. Normal cars did get fast.

This kind of comparison seems disingenuous to me due to the EV max torque at rest. Of course the EV will do well. Pretty much every other property of these cars would be more interesting to compare.

Did you not see that three ICE cars had faster 0-60 times? The EV1 was not a Tesla. 137 horsepower, 110 lbft of torque. (Depending on the trim level, a Model S can do up to 825 horsepower and 960 lbft)

A Toyota Tundra truck from 2020 can do 7.4s, just saying.

>Gas cars got fast out of nowhere because it moves units and CAD changed everything for engine design.

Gas cars got fast because sufficiently high quality computer control matured to the point where making a high power for its size/weight engine that both met emissions standards and reliability expectations and did so at a reasonable price point was doable.

The ability to actually build the hardware has preceded the ability to run it in a reliable and emissions compatible manner ever since we've had emissions rules. Having better FEA software so some engineer could shave a gram off a piston, get his bonus for achieving his KPI and ensure half a million engines start knocking at 120k on the dot was never the bottleneck.

It doesn't help that modern engines can't use leaded gas like the days of old. Leaded gas acted as a crutch for many years

I think everyone trying to name a single first order reason for more power is wrong. I think many little innovations occurred and became possible for various reasons.

1. better computer control 2. advances in variable cam timing mechanisms 3. direct injection 4. coil on plug ignition systems 5. improvements in sensors (knock sensors, mass air, oxygen, etc) 6. improvements in machining/forging etc leading to tighter tolerances 7. improvements in engine oils

probably dozens of other things

Computer modelling also helped in optimising airflow in and out of the combustion chamber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com