The hazard of these cars is surprise: They can be operated with dynamics that surrounding traffic do not or cannot expect.
Speed differentials are hazardous because of limits of human attention.
Consider the simple case of an urban crosswalk: The rate of vehicles vs. pedestrians has an attention hazard for both: there's a speed beyond which the pedestrian can not safely judge a crossing because the vehicle will pass in a duration shorter than the attention span of the ped. Similarly there's a speed at which the operator can not react to appearance of ped.
Simple V differences are a well known hazard of surprise. EVs create another hazard which arise from relatively high delta-V dynamics. The vehicles can accelerate at surprising rates and therefore appear in places that operators don't expect them to be. For example, merging requires anticipation that the surveyed gap will be maintained during the crossing. Surrounding vehicles operating with disproportionate V or high dV upset the balance of the gap.
Surprise can have cascading effects, where surprised operators lose attention which in turn causes further hazards.
We might suspect that given the surprising power of EVs, their saving grace is that their operation in urban traffic tends towards operator passivity. But this tendency obviates power: the proper power level is that which permits the vehicle to operate fluidly with traffic.
Regardless of attention spans for operators, the simple mechanical comfort of occupants places very low limits on vehicle dynamics.
Vehicle power was already becoming well balanced before EVs, and EV development should be further refining the balance in favor of safety, comfort, efficiency, and wear.
But there's always an edge of fascination with performance limits.
Someone else in society asked. This article considers a valid role of societies: prohibiting the expression of certain desires in service of the public good. “Certain” is defined by the society’s opinions, which are not expressed in terms of any single person (outside of dictatorships and the like). Some opinions form slowly, or never reach the level of regulation of individual behavior. The society’s members follow IDIC so the expression of unasked-for questions from unexpected people is a universal constant. And once in a while one of those opinions will be enshrined in new regulation.
Do you have a case to make against the argument that isn’t already being discussed in another thread, or is your objection that societies should not restrict personal liberties, or..?
>Mass is still the enemy here, and EVs typically have lots of it. Factor in bigger brakes and wheels, and the result is an increase in unsprung mass. That puts the springs and dampers under more pressure, which results in an increased amount of energy that needs to be managed, and unwanted oscillations when a car hits a pothole, for example.
This is straight up delusional.
The cars increased weight increases grip, making it safer in the corners and less prone to oscillate. Potholes are less disturbing at higher unsprung masses and faster speeds, as the wheel dips into the hole less.
They are totally mangling car physics to make what point exactly? Cars accelerate too fast?
Sorry but you're not correct either. The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Weight is the enemy of performance. You don't see race cars adding weight. Less weight makes everything function better.
Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
We had big huge heavy cars in the 60s and 70s. They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
>The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time.
Adding weight increases stopping distance under most circumstances. Who said anything about that? Corning "worse" is a dumb metric, this is not about performance in a sports car, but about the characteristics of a consumer vehicle. They are designed for comfort, not to corner fast, obviously.
>Less weight makes everything function better.
Completely false. A heavy car is generally more comfortable.
Why you are brining up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Obviously the engineering tradeoffs for speed on a track and a desirable consumer car are radically different. Sports car reduce weight for track performance, applying the same principle to a family SUV would be lunacy.
>Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
Wrong explanation. The weight of the unsprung mass makes the difference. Higher unsprung mass means moving slower into the pothole.
>They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
> Why you are bringing up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid.
There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two.
(Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
>I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius.
No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable.
I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong.
What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
> Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
> If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
I didn’t think it was a particularly shocking revelation, I’m just disproving the “Every” claim above. I see now that we’re in agreement on the invalidity of it — I assume a “Porsche 911” is a sports car to you, as it is to me? — so I’ve nothing further to add.
The hazard of these cars is surprise: They can be operated with dynamics that surrounding traffic do not or cannot expect.
Speed differentials are hazardous because of limits of human attention.
Consider the simple case of an urban crosswalk: The rate of vehicles vs. pedestrians has an attention hazard for both: there's a speed beyond which the pedestrian can not safely judge a crossing because the vehicle will pass in a duration shorter than the attention span of the ped. Similarly there's a speed at which the operator can not react to appearance of ped.
Simple V differences are a well known hazard of surprise. EVs create another hazard which arise from relatively high delta-V dynamics. The vehicles can accelerate at surprising rates and therefore appear in places that operators don't expect them to be. For example, merging requires anticipation that the surveyed gap will be maintained during the crossing. Surrounding vehicles operating with disproportionate V or high dV upset the balance of the gap.
Surprise can have cascading effects, where surprised operators lose attention which in turn causes further hazards.
We might suspect that given the surprising power of EVs, their saving grace is that their operation in urban traffic tends towards operator passivity. But this tendency obviates power: the proper power level is that which permits the vehicle to operate fluidly with traffic.
Regardless of attention spans for operators, the simple mechanical comfort of occupants places very low limits on vehicle dynamics.
Vehicle power was already becoming well balanced before EVs, and EV development should be further refining the balance in favor of safety, comfort, efficiency, and wear.
But there's always an edge of fascination with performance limits.
> To which WIRED can only reply, who in their right mind wants to go that fast?
To which I can only reply: seriously, who asked you to decide what i want or do not want?
Someone else in society asked. This article considers a valid role of societies: prohibiting the expression of certain desires in service of the public good. “Certain” is defined by the society’s opinions, which are not expressed in terms of any single person (outside of dictatorships and the like). Some opinions form slowly, or never reach the level of regulation of individual behavior. The society’s members follow IDIC so the expression of unasked-for questions from unexpected people is a universal constant. And once in a while one of those opinions will be enshrined in new regulation.
Do you have a case to make against the argument that isn’t already being discussed in another thread, or is your objection that societies should not restrict personal liberties, or..?
Democracy is well-liked by 4 out of 5 animals. Only the ones elected to become dinner dislike it.
As long as I cause you no harm by my actions, you has no business restricting them.
>Mass is still the enemy here, and EVs typically have lots of it. Factor in bigger brakes and wheels, and the result is an increase in unsprung mass. That puts the springs and dampers under more pressure, which results in an increased amount of energy that needs to be managed, and unwanted oscillations when a car hits a pothole, for example.
This is straight up delusional.
The cars increased weight increases grip, making it safer in the corners and less prone to oscillate. Potholes are less disturbing at higher unsprung masses and faster speeds, as the wheel dips into the hole less.
They are totally mangling car physics to make what point exactly? Cars accelerate too fast?
Sorry but you're not correct either. The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Weight is the enemy of performance. You don't see race cars adding weight. Less weight makes everything function better.
Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
We had big huge heavy cars in the 60s and 70s. They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
>The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time.
Adding weight increases stopping distance under most circumstances. Who said anything about that? Corning "worse" is a dumb metric, this is not about performance in a sports car, but about the characteristics of a consumer vehicle. They are designed for comfort, not to corner fast, obviously.
>Less weight makes everything function better.
Completely false. A heavy car is generally more comfortable.
Why you are brining up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Obviously the engineering tradeoffs for speed on a track and a desirable consumer car are radically different. Sports car reduce weight for track performance, applying the same principle to a family SUV would be lunacy.
>Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension.
Wrong explanation. The weight of the unsprung mass makes the difference. Higher unsprung mass means moving slower into the pothole.
>They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
Sure. Engineering tradeoff.
> Why you are bringing up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid.
There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two.
(Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
>I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius.
No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable.
I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong.
What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
> Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive.
> If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.
I didn’t think it was a particularly shocking revelation, I’m just disproving the “Every” claim above. I see now that we’re in agreement on the invalidity of it — I assume a “Porsche 911” is a sports car to you, as it is to me? — so I’ve nothing further to add.