The Tesla Model 3 will have a 215 mile range. Zero to sixty in 6 seconds, in case you ever have to do that. Seats five adults. Five star safety rating. Uses supercharging (so, if supercharged, charges in something like the time it takes to fill up a gas car IF you also use the bathroom, pick up a candy bar, there's a few people in line ...).
It cost the same as a lot of cars a lot of people buy: $35,000.
It is 100% electric.
You can't have one yet, but if you really one one and work on it you might be able to get one by the end of the year. The first ones out will be distributed to their new owners Friday.
The question I have about these cars is whether they last. The jury is out. Consumer Reports gives them a low rating insofar as needing repairs.
If they need a lot of repairs, and if they have to be junked after 100k miles, they would not benefit owners more than conventional gas cars. The expense of having to replace them would negate any environmental benefit. That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy, with extra greenhouse gas emissions.
Uh, they have fewer working parts and are built from the same manufacturing process.
In what way would the default be that they don't last longer?
"If they need a lot of repairs"
They don't. Fewer moving parts, remember. Not forgetting that there isn't a very fast moving bit that has to deal with thermal shock of an explosion inside and a hot gas rushing around in it.
"and if they have to be junked after 100k miles,"
No more than cars do. And in a car the battery is the most recyclable bit and guess what a lot of the mass of an electric car is? That's right batteries.
"The expense of having to replace them "
Is the expense of having to replace them. Guess what: if you're buying a car in the Tesla S or 3 range, you're going to have an expense replacing them with the same level car.
"That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy,"
No, the expense isn't in any way connected to the further waste of materials and energy. Throw away an aluminum can and that's a shit-ton of energy thrown away for pennies. Throw away a plastic bottle and that's a dangerous waste for thrown away for pennies. Throwing away the original Mona Lisa is a massive expense to replace, but very little waste is generated.
#1 t marvell,
The maintenance costs and working life of an electric drivetrain makes it about 3 times as valuable as an ICE system. (My ballpark estimate.)
Given the same build quality, (if the body doesn't rust away around it), it will last much longer with very low "repair" costs.
For example: There is no transmission. Transmissions are a major cost in older cars. Lots of other stuff like that.
I have pointed out in the past that a major beneficiary of electric vehicles will be poor people, who will be able to get reliable transportation with much less possibility of being ripped off. The batteries would be the only issue, and they are consistently coming down in price and improving in lifetime.
And if each wheel is driven by a separate engine, guess what you don't need? The differential. Anyone want to guess at how to design the differential of a car? Anyone? No?
Add in that torque can be made independent of revs so you don't need a fast car for your "Oh, but if I'm near an accident, I need to be able to accelerate away out of trouble much quicker" excuse why you can't have a speed limiter. The peak speed of an EV could be 60 and incapable of going (much) faster, but accelerate up to that extremely fast.
A while ago I looked into the individual wheelmotor idea. It is an ideal design conceptually, but probably isn't going to be adopted any time soon, for various reasons.
I believe most manufacturers are going with two motors, front and rear, for now.
And no offense, but I would only accept a top speed of 85, not 60, here in the USA. Others would not like even that, because "freedom", of course, and because they don't understand about torque.
It's fairly common, zebra. Many older designs used the differential because they repurposed the same ICE design that had them.
Hybrids are also more likely to be repurposed ICEs with the differential.
But it's easy to make a smaller engine (cheaper) that if it fails manufacture test is just replaced, and it cuts a lot of the constraints on side torsion of the frame by needing a huge long T-shape driveshaft. And if you want battery replacement you can't have a long driveshaft. The battery has to come out underneath.
Nice cars. Here in Michigan our wonderful governor and hair minions passed an "anti Tesla" law that makes it illegal for them to sell cars directly to customers.
Uh, why 85? That's 25% higher speed therefore 50% greater power drain. And your limits there is 55. Indeed in the EU many lorries have limiters to 72mph.
Know why they overtake each other at +2mph over two miles of motorway? So that each gets the chance to make the most of drafting reducing the fuel used.
So why do you want 85 in a country with 55mph limits?
It's fairly common?? I've never heard of a passenger vehicle with 4 electric motors.
Oh, and isn/t it only 4wd evs that use front and rear? Two motors on the front, because FWD is the common design is the obvious choice for common car EVs.
Though I've known about two from Top Gear (of all places) that used 4 wheel drive for their cars. These were performance cars. Then again 0-62mph in 6 seconds is a performance car.
Tesla was also denied a dealership license in late 2016.
From The Detroit News, Sept. 16, 2016
State officials have officially denied Tesla Motors Inc. a dealership license to sell its all-electric vehicles in Michigan.
The license was denied because the company’s business model of selling its vehicles directly to consumers is illegal under Michigan law, according to a final decision and order released Thursday by state officials. The state requires a dealer to have a contract with an auto manufacturer — not act as both."
Yes, this civilization-damaging closing of the ranks started the moment Tesla started to sell cars years ago. The reason Tesla's model is illegal is because they saw it coming, saw the price of cars for everyone dropping by cutting out the con artists in the middle, and made it illegal.
The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe.
55 was in place for a few years a while ago, but mostly ignored.
I have driven at 72mph on well-built and maintained highways for decades, because that is the "safe" speed in terms of getting a speeding ticket. I am constantly being passed, often by someone talking on a cellphone.
But you do need to be able to hit at least 85 to get out of the way of trouble in that speed range.
Glad to hear they are trying out the wheelmotor design, but getting from there to a production vehicle is going to take some time, as I said. (The reference has a good discussion if anyone is interested in learning more.)
Front and rear motors each driving two wheels is actually a good compromise at this point, again for various reasons.
Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. It's not like an airplane where you can maintain stable flight on one engine.
They're not trying it out, zebra. It has been used for years.
There's already production vehicles using it. That link was the first one and it says that there's a new product out soon ***based on two previous designs that already are out there and being driven***.
Actually, no real need for RWD and FWD as two separate motors. About all having one motor between the two driven wheels has for it is you can put gearing in rather than use a differential (again, go look at how they're designed and what they're supposed to do, it's crazy that anyone thought it would be doable when you look into the idea and not the solutions found), having both forward and rear driven wheels is kinda pointless for the same reason as 4WD ICEs are. You don't need the extra grip, the extra weight is not worth it (though EV AWD will not have as big a weight penalty unless the total engine weight is higher) and that's just more expense.
Why do they do it? Maybe marketing. Higher range vehicles want more bling and ticking the AWD box is a bling point. And expense in the higher market is another bling point.
"Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. "
I think they can already see that. Don't you? It's not like a Harrier where in hover you lose one engine and no longer hover.
Lose one wheel and you can't power from that wheel. Then again if you lose one axle you can't power that axle. So moot, really.
And if you have two wheels linked to independent motors, lose the link or seize up and you're again at the "lost one wheel" option,
From my recollection, such motors fail in the "regenerative braking" form of failing, neither freewheeling nor max power out LoC. Which is safer than losing the differential.
There is another reason to avoid AWD. Brakes can be added to the rear for slow speed stopping. You have to have brakes anyway, and the brakes have to be strong enough to overcome the engine power (or the engine has to decouple only in a failure mode for electric engines, this is possible), so regenerative braking cannot be used for safety regulations. Add in that braking this way doesn't actually stop you because power drain depends on rotation, and you're nearly stopped when you're nearly but not quite still, so you can't stop. Only slow down.
So you need actual brakes. And if they're not attached to the same wheel as driving, you can avoid problems of the engine running and the brakes braking on the same wheel causing some local issues. And strengthen the wheel specifically to allow braking on the axle.
"The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe."
So is it only non-highway speed limit of 55?
Here's the thing about speed. Two things, really.
One, the UK has a limit of 70mph. But if I drive at the rate of the traffic, therefore (with the expected under-reporting from the speedo) being right on 70mph, I get 220 miles or so, including off motorway and roundabouts and piss breaks in about 3h 20min. Driving at 60-65mph it takes me a little over 3:35. I could waste that time taking another piss break. And the range on a full tank goes from less than 600miles to over 700.
Secondly when there was a petrol tank driver strike petrol was rationed and hard to get, so people drove slower. They found to their surprise that they got in at the same time as always but it was much less expensive and a little less stressful. EVERYONE noticed that (who drove to work, I cycled the 6 miles). But when the strike was off, everyone else saw everyone else passing them and sped up to not lose position and the price of the commute rose back up again, leaving them getting in no earlier anyway.
If you're NEARLY at your destination, I can see you wanting to speed up a bit to get out and finish the drive when you've been driving several hours. Though that's the least safe time to do so. But apart from that, no reason to go faster.
"Freedom" doesn't cut it, because there are other people on or near that road.
Despite being about 1.5 miles from the motorway, with the window open, even at 3am, the motorway traffic is loud enough to keep me from sleeping. I'm up on a hill so there's not much in the way of my window and the motorway for 2 miles or so.
Freedom to sleep in comfort? Not for those wanting freedom to drive at 70mph...
The Volvo AWD EV uses an electric motor and automatic ICE.The electric motor drives the rear wheels (IIRC) and the engine drives the front. The "first gear" uses the EV motor the "second gear" only uses the ICE if it's still accelerating at the changeover. This means stop-and-go traffic is EV and regenerative, as is parking and starting off in the snow. As well as hill starts. The engine is set to add ICE for higher levels of speed and the EV then only regenerates the battery as its part to help brake the car in normal traffic.
Not to cast nasturtiums, but I'd come up with something very similar for a hybrid design myself a few months earlier. But I was just idly speculating. I can't help but think engineers need longer than a year to come up with a design, so even if they'd heard it from someone who heard it from someone who.... all the way back to me, I sincerely doubt I had a novel idea they used. It's just kinda obvious if you think about the pros and cons of current engine tech.
At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base).
I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15, but I suspect you could figure it out for yourself if you did a little organized research.
Most of it is incorrect, if I understand what you are saying correctly.
AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because...snow. And I can tell you from experience that it makes a big difference.
Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor-- think about it.
No idea what you are talking about with mechanical brakes working against motors, unless you are one of those two-foot drivers?
#13 and #22,
And some people here get on my case when I say "let's have a (real) free market".
What the Republicans call a "free market" is as close to Fascistic Oligopoly as you can get without dressing up in brown shirts.
"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”.
Yes, the modern right has a habit for valuing things (the Constitution, Reagan, rights, decency, the market, science, pretty much everything) as they imagine them instead of what they are.
"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”."
And this is relevant to Greg saying that Tesla is not in a free market because of the businesses lobbying government to pass laws to make the middleman relevant how?
"I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15"
But you would prefer to pretend that would happen rather than indicate it.
"AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because…snow. "
No, it's because you've been sold the idea it works. Let me tell you about farmers here in the UK. They buy clapped out ford fiestas and similar FWD cars because they frequently have to drive through slurry and mud and the use of a 4WD or AWD really doesn't help them much at all, this getting nearly as frequently as stuck as the cheaper and lighter FWD cars they buy.
Moreover, being lighter, they can, if they get really stuck, easily tow the car out with their tractor for the very rare cases they need it.
And if it gets muddy/scratched/dented/abandoned, it's cheap enough to not matter at all.
AWD doesn't make a lick of difference. You'll see plenty of AWD/4WD cars sticking their arse out of the roadside in winter because the heavier car, when it loses it, loses it much worse. And the reason to lose it is down to the driver more than anything else. The miniscule bit of traction you get from a second set of wheels only matters when you're running slowly over deep ruts, deep and tough enough to make your car balance on them in the middle of the wheelbase.
You've been sold AWD because it's a blingspot. And it makes more profit for the dealer. No different from underseal.
"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit."
You whined about the credit and now you're deadpanning it not being available as if it were some dismal failure and problem.
"Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price."
Oh, car dealers upsell additions?!?!?! OH NOES!!! WORLD IS ENDINGINGINGINGN!!!! How dare car dealers upsell! BASTARDS!
"Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor– think about it."
You can't stop it with regenerative braking. Go ask a diesel electric train engineer.
"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base)."
MikeN, first, this is a $50 car of the future for the price of a normal car (not a normal cheap car, just a normal car, like Prius or a Subaru Forester, etc.)
Secon, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this car goes to $50 once you ad things. That's absurd. No car has ever done that. Also, many of the ad-ons regular cars often have (a few thousand here, a few thousand there) have to do with drive train features that simply are not needed on an electric car, or other features that are standard on this car.
THIS is the one that is supposed to be the revolutionary one, and it is. The next one, that can be a revolutionary one too.
Or did I misinterpret what
You have to accept reality....Haters are gonna hate.
What's fascinating is how this
supports the point about the direct sales model-- so many of the buyers really know what they are getting into, far from what happens when you walk into a dealership.
But I guess other companies are providing cars with self-driving capacity at no extra charge.
It isn't surprising that the thirty elites that get to buy the first cars are willing to buy extraordinarily expensive options.
Perhaps I should have noted in the post that this is a new and dynamic situation so you can't just go out and buy one yet.
Oh wait, I did!
Greg, I'd respond, but I'm not sure what you are objecting to in my post. The $35k becomes $50k with options or more. This is not unusual in the car industry. I was pointing out that the base model buyers are likely missing out on the tax credit because the people who made deposits will get their cars based on order of price.
a) I had assumed you were being facetious with the 50k, but since you hadn't said that in your defence here, you must have been serious. So go ahead, show the extras you'll buy to bump it up by 60%. We'll wait. If your nest post isn't that, we'll consider the post voided.
b) You're complaining that this car isn't the next one and greg is pointing out that this is what they goddamned say it was in the fist place, yet you whine about it like it's some vast scam.
Look at the reference I gave #29. The information is there.
For example, getting what appears to be a high level of autonomous driving would add $8K. So it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.
What you should be asking is: "What's your point?"
My point to Greg was that unlike dealing with the traditional dealer, people know upfront what is going on, or they will when more detailed prices get published. You actually know what the markup is and what it is for.
This is a standard EV-bashing argument about cost-- there's supposed to be some "correct" price for electric vehicles, but not for ICE.
The evidence for what? 35+8=50?
You can buy a Ford Focus for about £16k. That would be the 1.6L. You could pay £30k but that would be the 2.4L Which would be a different car.
The evidence that it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.
Nope, that isn't in there. What is in there is they're preparing to pay about 50k.
reread #35. For an EV getting the bigger battery is like getting a bigger engine for an ICE.
Read also "mike"'s post.
Tesla has produced 47,000 cars the first six months of this year. They have about 300,000 on the Model 3 waiting list. Wouldn't they be fulfilling this waiting list instead of "if you really one one and work on it you might be able to get one by the end of the year."? https://www.recode.net/2017/7/3/15916730/tesla-delivery-goals-second-qu…
If they're not fulfilling their waiting list then no, they wouldn't be fulfilling their waiting list.
""“The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe.”
So is it only non-highway speed limit of 55?"
Interstate Freeway speeds are as high as 80 mph in parts of Nevada and Montana, so a top speed of 85 mph would just get you up to the flow-of-traffic speed.
Two-lane highways have speed limits as high as 65 mph in some western states, with traffic routinely traveling 70-75 mph.
A top speed of 65 mph is really only practical for cars in urban areas in the West.
I take it it WAS universally 55 in the 70s, then, but it was increased by constant complaining.
But there's really no difference going 65 or 70, though maybe some of the huge straight highways in the USA might give SOME difference. Because you spend so much time taking lane, overtaking and pulling back in, looking ahead to the traffic to control your speed and slowing down or speeding up for corners, roundabouts, exits and on-ramps that you really don't see any difference between the two. And going faster meas you have to take more time to plan ahead or you're spending a lot of time riding either the brake or the accellerator just to keep at top speed.
Urban roads there's no reason to go 65. Or 55. Or 45. 30mph is plenty fast enough in a built up area, with cars or not. And to be honest, most city centers you have little use for 20mph because you're trying to get the right lane for the parking or the ongoing road turning. If you know where you're going and nobody else is there, sure, you could up the speed. And you'd be risking something unexpected turning up.
You're mostly looking 10-20m ahead in city driving and that's only one second at 30mph You mostly only look further ahead briefly to plan your lane change or count the turnings to the one you want.
So I really don't see how 65mph speed limit is impractical for cars in urban areas.
Yeah, the "sweet spot" for greatest distance is no longer 55mph because of more streamlining, but it's not much over that today, and really 65 is enough above it that there's some notable difference in fuel consumption.
And, yes, I've driven 700 miles in a day (in Australia), and I only noticed some benefit from going at the speed limit near the end when I was getting close to where I could stop for the night. Otherwise I was happier and less stressed sitting far enough down from the speed limit I didn't have to do anything other than listen to the engine speed and occasionally check that perception. Somewhere between 60 and 65. I was still able to cruise in top gear (except up hills or down steep hills) and never found myself straying either so low I would be in other drivers' way or so high I was in danger of speeding. Sitting at 70mph for an hour is tiring when you could get a ticket at any time there.
The oil embargo was the reason Nixon adopted a 55 MPH national speed limit. Later the limit was not eliminated for reasons of 'safety'. When Republicans took over Congress in 1995, they passed repeal over the safety objections what previously leadership would never bring up for a vote, and since then states have been free to set their own rules on speed limits. For some years before that, Montana made the penalty $5 payable immediately.
Better than 50k is 60% higher than 35k.
Why the discussion of speed limits? The Model 3 can go very fast right?
"The oil embargo was the reason Nixon adopted a 55 MPH national speed limit."
That's what I'd learned years ago. I never thought it had been voided except on certain highways. I didn't know it was void on all.
"Better than 50k is 60% higher than 35k."
1.6*35=56. Pretty close. It was 7ths and I couldn't be arsed to work decimals from that so rounded.
So, no, you're more wrong than both of us, "mike".
"Why the discussion of speed limits?"
Why must the speed of the Tesla be definition of the US speed limits?
" Later the limit was not eliminated for reasons of ‘safety’. "
The danger of a collision goes as the energy which is velocity squared.
55 vs 70 goes as 1 to 1.6. 60% more dangerous.
'course with all your whining about how the deaths from cars are not worried about in the race to ban yer gerns, you'd be all for lowering the speed limit and be vehemently against in every way this horrendous risk of public health by cars.
Wow - I give you permission to drive whatever speed you want.
In America, we each get that choice (even if we risk getting a speeding ticket).
Ah, so any tickets and fines I get you will pay, yes? You'll need to give me the bank account details so I can pay via your bank's direct payment service. I'll also need to get your address and full name so I can get you to appear for the court appearance and take the jail time.
Oh, "mike", you'll need to berate dick here for risking the lives of a vast number of people heartlessly.
You were dead set against this sort of thing, remember.
In America, each person has to take responsibility for their own actions.
Be careful to drive on the "right" side of the road.
And your action is to claim YOU gave me permission. Therefore you take on the consequences for me. That is what you did, and your latest post is saying you will live up to that claim.
You're not wimping out of your act, are you dick?
215 mile range; 0 - 60 in 6 seconds;seats five adults; 5 star safety rating; supercharging; $35K.
Yup, breakthrough technology. Hopefully in a decade, we'll have even better cars (300m range; 10 - 80% supercharge in 15 min) for ~$20K.
Here's the weird shit with that range thing.
300 miles at 60mph average is 5 hours straight. During which time you should have stopped twice. For at least 20 minutes each time.
>1.6*35=56. Pretty close. It was 7ths and I couldn’t be arsed to work decimals from that so rounded.
And 40% more is 49k, the same level of decimals.
During which time you should have stopped twice. For at least 20 minutes each time.
Yes, I like the way that road safety best practice fits neatly with charging breaks. Although I suppose as driverless vehicles become the norm it will matter less and less. But even so, one should get off one's arse every two hours and walk about. Good for the peripheral circulation and lower lumbar.
"And 40% more is 49k"
And 15 more is exactly 50k.
What you complained about me getting wrong was not "40% more", was it you retard.
And where is your concern for the deaths from vehicles, "mike"? You were so very concerned about them that you whined about everyone else and even made shit up about the figures to try and shame people into ignoring gun deaths.
Yet here you are, desperately avoiding the increased risks to people dying in a car related accident.
EXACTLY as if the concern you voiced so vehemently was 100% fake. Say it isn't so, "mike"!
This is for t marvell again:
Note the comment by the owner about the condition of the vehicle.
Also, consider what will happen with battery replacement prices once there are enough EV out there to support a robust aftermarket market.
Even replacement batteries from the manufacturer should come down in price once they are part of a more standardized production run (over years).
I just bought a replacement battery for an old drill from the manufacturer; it has appreciably higher capacity because it is from several years after the production of my original. A bargain to be sure.
You have shown an increased risk from an individual crash. However, the overall safety impact is not as clear cut. It is speed differential that is more likely to cause crashes on the highways. Having higher speed limits on the highways could move traffic away from the more accident-prone(though less deadly per accident) city roads.
Where is the evidence of higher deaths from the 20 years of higher speed limits?
If you are so concerned about deaths from car crashes, then you should reconsider the CAFE limits. Search for CAFE mileage kills.
I thought all the "freedom" people would be cheering that article from an actual libertarian...
"search cafe mileage kills"
I did. Articles from American thinker, heritage foundation, and other sources of bad analysis and shitty thinking. Not a surprise considering the person who suggested it.
"You have shown an increased risk from an individual crash"
"However, the overall safety impact is not as clear cut"
Nope. It's pretty straightforward. About the only complexity is how many more accidents you get if the average speed is higher, making the damage go to an even higher power of the speed increase (above the squared value by physics).
" Having higher speed limits on the highways could move traffic away from the more accident-prone"
Nope, higher speed doesn't move you away from the more accident prone areas any more than a slow speed does. Except it makes it less likely for you to have an accident there. And get caught up in someone else's accident.
You really don't care that you're talking bollocks, do you "mike"?
It is clear you do not care at all what deaths are produced by car accidents, all you cared about was deflecting from the bigger problem of gun deaths.
"then you should reconsider the CAFE limits."
I did. the claims are a load of hooey. Did you not look into them yourself? And not as a gullible moron like usual, but as a skeptic?
No of course you did not.
Because you don't care about reality or deaths,only your political ideology.
>About the only complexity is how many more accidents you get if the average speed is higher,
The number of accidents could be lower. Higher speeds means lower time of travel, means more drivers will choose this road, reducing traffic in lower speed roads where accidents are more likely.
Where is this big increase in deaths after the elimination of federal 55 speed limit? The numbers show a continuing decline in fatality rate. The last two years have seen an increase, perhaps due to apps and the new increase in CAFE.
"Where is this big increase in deaths after the elimination of federal 55 speed limit?"
Increased safety engineering (airbags weren't mandated until three years after the double nickel law was modified to allow speeds up to 65 on interstates) coupled with a vast decrease in the number of drunk drivers on the road due to much stricter enforcement of DUI laws have led to fewer fatalities on the road, counteracting the smaller increase due to higher speeds.
Increased safety engineering of roads plays a role, too.
Also, the relaxation of the 55mph rule was nothing close to an instantaneous shift back to higher speeds. Many roads continued at 55 for a long time, and many roads (in many states, all or most roads) never went back to their previous speed limits.
In addition, when 55 was the rule, cops tended to pull people over who were going just over 70. When 65 or 70 is the rule, cops tend to pull people over who are going just over 70. That levels out the difference to the extent that speeding is a cause.
"Search for CAFE mileage kills."
Modern cars are vastly safer than the cars that were driven in the pre-CAFE years.
>when 55 was the rule, cops tended to pull people over who were going just over 70.
Wish that was how it was when I was driving on 55MPH roads. 67 here, 68 there, probably half my tickets.
OK,just under 70. The point is, the tolerance on a major 4+ lane highway at 55 speed limit was very high, often over 10mph. But today one is advised to not go over 70 in 70mph areas, unless maybe you are in Montana or driving a Cadillac or something.
Miken"s claim is simply a version of one that was popular several years ago. Basically speed doesn't kill because Nascar (and F1 and others) drive much faster than civilians do and the number of deaths in those crashes is nearly nonexistent.
Pointing out the fact that all of those drivers are essentially the same age, are trained to the same ability, the cars have to be engineered to nearly uniform levels of performance, and there are sufficient funds available for track maintenance, all of which rendered the comparison meaningless, was uniformly viewed as changing the subject.
The level of argument clearly hasn't changed.
"Basically speed doesn’t kill because Nascar (and F1 and others) drive much faster than civilians do and the number of deaths in those crashes is nearly nonexistent."
Jeez thats the most infantile dumbest argument in history of
"The number of accidents could be lower."
Faster means less time to react and therefore you're less liable to avoid them. And if you're faster, then you have less traction on the ground making it again more likely to crash or lose control and have an accident.
And, as said before, if someone has an accident before you, you're more likely to get involved.
"Where is this big increase in deaths after the elimination of federal 55 speed limit?"
Weren't you the one pointing out to the massive death toll? THERE is the big increase in deaths after the elimination of the 55 limit.
"Jeez thats the most infantile dumbest argument in history of
It's also wrong. If it were not for the extreme design of the cockpit, the death toll for F1 would be orders of magnitude higher per man-mile.
There would be vastly fewer survivors, but many many many more deaths.
"Wish that was how it was when I was driving on 55MPH roads"
So you were a willing participant in the death and dismemberment of people on the roads, "mike"? Why then were you complaining that people don't take it seriously enough earlier? YOU WANT IT EVEN HIGHER!