|
rscott posted:Who cares if you're getting passed left and right? Ya I don't get this either, it's not like you're on a motorcycle and it's safer to be traveling slightly faster than traffic because your only protection is your helmet and whatever gear you're wearing. I think my next car might be an electric vehicle, the chargers are popping up everywhere around Seattle and the spaces are usually pretty prime parking locations. And in a city, one of my major caveats is ease of parking and travel within busy streets. Coming from a motorcycle I'm a little spoiled, so a small electric car for puttin' around the city is great.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
An electric car that does 78mph tops isn't one that won't fit what most electric car shoppers are looking for. It'll do fine on nearly all highways but will be at home moving around the city/suburbs. I'd have to sit in one but a cheap electric Smart may actually be a tempting vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:Who cares if you're getting passed left and right? I've got a passenger on my commute for three days a week, and you're not going to even get into the HOV lane without getting shot if you're not doing at least 70, and you will get a line of very angry drivers behind you if you're not doing at least 75. If I'm going to spend new car money on a car, it had better be able to handle driving in that speed range at least as well as my 2.5L Ranger, and trust me, that's not much of a bar to set. But, you know, everyone likes puttering along in the right lane and having to constantly speed up / slow down to deal with every single car that is exiting or entering the freeway. Weinertron posted:Is it as hard on electric cars for them to be doing 100% of their maximum speed as it is for conventional cars? I don't see this as a huge problem as long as it can sustain 75mph with no difficulties like an overheating battery occurring. I don't know that it's necessarily 'harder' on them mechanically, but I would expect that 90-mile range to be cut drastically shorter at 70+MPH. I doubt speeds there will be too much higher than other roads, actually. I10 between Phoenix and Tucson is signed 75 most of the way, but very little of the traffic is doing less than 80 - and very little is doing more than 85. It seems to be a speed that American drivers like to settle out at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Just because the car doesn't meet one person's needs doesn't mean it wouldn't meet the needs of 95% of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
A city car isn't suitable for commuting on the highway? Who'd have thought it
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
dissss posted:A city car isn't suitable for commuting on the highway? Who'd have thought it Yeah wasn't the Smart designed for European cities? I saw them all over Paris when I was there in August, as well as the iQ and TwinGo, and they're perfectly reasonable there. I can't imagine ever wanting to take even a petrol FourTwo on the highway in the states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:I've seen an eagle looking emblem on a few genesises and velosters. That's probably the model-specific Genesis badge made for the Korean market available here as an option for people who really hate the H emblem. There's also a V emblem for the Veloster that is also used in countries where it's common practice to have model-specific badges instead of corporate badges. There was talk of using it as part of a new Genesis luxury nameplate in the US, but the plan was shelved for being too expensive and risky. I just think the logos really dated and gross looking. I know there's trademark issues since Honda uses an H mark, too, but they must be able to find something less gross and 90s looking or at least tweak it a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:An electric car that does 78mph tops isn't one that won't fit what most electric car shoppers are looking for. It's a smart car, though, so it's not like a lot of people were buying them as bahn-burners anyway. It's a city car first and foremost, and city cars are also the market electric cars make most sense for anyway. It's intended to match the functionality of the non-electric car it replaces, which arguably it sort of does. Top speed for a the second gen prius was only 80mph, too, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
dissss posted:A city car isn't suitable for commuting on the highway? Who'd have thought it Yet what we need to lower energy use are cars that ARE good at commuting on the highway. It's not like most city dwellers can even think about buying an EV right now since the curb isn't exactly littered with power plugs. Sacrificing range for a higher top speed (90 or so) might have been a better option for the US. Many people commute under 40 miles round trip but have to do so on a highway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's a smart car, though, so it's not like a lot of people were buying them as bahn-burners anyway. It's a city car first and foremost, and city cars are also the market electric cars make most sense for anyway. Yeah, and by being an electric car, it eliminates what is apparently the worst transmission in the history of transmissions. bull3964 posted:Yet what we need to lower energy use are cars that ARE good at commuting on the highway. It's not like most city dwellers can even think about buying an EV right now since the curb isn't exactly littered with power plugs. Also this. The sheer volume of cars on US60 every day tells me I'm far from the only one who has a commute where the best way to get from A to B is by way of a road signed at 65MPH, and at all but the most congested times of the day, that traffic can be easily doing 75MPH.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Top speed for a the second gen prius was only 80mph, too, I believe. Nope, it's around 105.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
What's the actual percent of US oil consumption that goes into passenger cars, anyway? As compared to stuff like trucks, planes, etc. It seems like passenger cars are a pretty slow and highly decentralized place to cut instead of areas that are a lot easier to push mandates in and not as disruptive to normal and poor peoples' lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Nope, it's around 105. I seem to recall something in the manual recommending it not be taken above 80 due to aerodynamic instability + tires. But this may have been the first gen Prius, too, I don't remember anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:What's the actual percent of US oil consumption that goes into passenger cars, anyway? As compared to stuff like trucks, planes, etc. It seems like passenger cars are a pretty slow and highly decentralized place to cut instead of areas that are a lot easier to push mandates in and not as disruptive to normal and poor peoples' lives. Most figures I see peg it at around 40%
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
dissss posted:A city car isn't suitable for commuting on the highway? Who'd have thought it  "MEEP MEEP, COMIN' THROUGH! It took me twenty minutes to build up this momentum, and so help me God, I ain't braking for anybody!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
It's a car designed strictly for city commuting, therefore if you need to commute on the highway, find a different car. A friend of mine daily drives a Midget II and does just fine; he just drives the CTS-V for highway driving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
I guess on the subject of efficient cars, I'd love to have something like this: http://green.autoblog.com/2012/05/31/lit-motors-c1-two-wheeled-encased-motorcycle-prototype/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/lit-motors-c1/ http://www.gizmag.com/lit-motors-c1-self-balancing-motorcycle/21002/   provided my head didn't stick out the top. It seems like a way to get all the convenience of a motorcycle without the hassle. No need for gear, stay dry in inclement weather, still park it anywhere you want in a city...
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Something like that would be literally perfect for me provided there was enough space for a couple of bags of groceries in the back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:It's a car designed strictly for city commuting, therefore if you need to commute on the highway, find a different car. A friend of mine daily drives a Midget II and does just fine; he just drives the CTS-V for highway driving. I don't see why it matters. Is highway commuting in a ForTwo really any worse than doing so in an F-150?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I don't see why it matters. Is highway commuting in a ForTwo really any worse than doing so in an F-150? It is when the F-150 hits the ForTwo at highway speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I don't see why it matters. Is highway commuting in a ForTwo really any worse than doing so in an F-150? Yes, if the ForTwo cannot keep up with the flow of traffic. On my drive last weekend, 78 MPH was slower than the norm during some portions of the route, and people who weren't keeping pace caused problems. Likewise, the Midget II take approximately seventeen years to accelerate from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, so taking it on the highway would probably endanger both my friend and other drivers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Yes, if the ForTwo cannot keep up with the flow of traffic. On my drive last weekend, 78 MPH was slower than the norm during some portions of the route, and people who weren't keeping pace caused problems. Do people doing ~70mph in the farthest right lane really cause such huge problems? I spend some significant time in right lanes when I'm in my girlfriends car because the three speed transmission makes for disastrous fuel economy much over 70mph. I get passed like crazy, but I don't think I'm ever holding up traffic doing 65-75 in the rightmost lane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Not every highway everywhere has a leftmost or rightmost lane. Sometimes it's just left and right. Someone going slow in one can really screw up the flow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Do people doing ~70mph in the farthest right lane really cause such huge problems? I spend some significant time in right lanes when I'm in my girlfriends car because the three speed transmission makes for disastrous fuel economy much over 70mph. I get passed like crazy, but I don't think I'm ever holding up traffic doing 65-75 in the rightmost lane. No, people doing 60-65mph in the rightmost lane are not a problem and I applaud them for being in the correct lane. I guess people are commuting on double-lane highways where you have to go in the oncoming lane just to pass one person so anyone going 55 is holding everyone up? Just being slower than the fastest person out there is not a big deal. I think the only safety issue would be accelerating to merge without screwing a bunch of people up, but if they're doing 80 in the rightmost lane then screw it, cut 'em off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
In New York, sometimes a dude going 70mph in the right lane of a 4 lane highway will screw up the flow. Drive down near Nyack and see how the poo poo goes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:In New York, sometimes a dude going 70mph in the right lane of a 4 lane highway will screw up the flow. Drive down near Nyack and see how the poo poo goes. I am terrible because I was flashing people doing 80 in the leftmost lane down 95 into NYC for not getting out of my way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I don't see why it matters. Is highway commuting in a ForTwo really any worse than doing so in an F-150? An F-150 offers about 15.5 lb/hp versus a Fortwo's 25.8 lb/hp. That's a pretty significant difference in terms of being able to merge and keep up with traffic. Yeah, it's heavy as hell, but it's in the same range as a minivan or a large sedan like a 7 series, S class, or, hell, only a few hundred pounds away from a Crown Vic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
You can always tell who's from somewhere else here in KC by them being the only one doing 20 over the speed limit. Doing 5-10 over generally has me passing most other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
fknlo posted:You can always tell who's from somewhere else here in KC by them being the only one doing 20 over the speed limit. Doing 5-10 over generally has me passing most other people. Oh yeah, the midwest is completely alien to me. You fuckers crack down HARD on speeders; the only times I've driven in KC or Minneapolis, it was bizarre seeing that everyone else was actually keeping very close to the speed limit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Even the tiniest little city car with a petrol engine (like an Aygo) will, if given enough run up, cruise at high speed, albeit noisely. It's quite funny when someone in a BM or Audi in the outside lane who's already doing 90 finds they've got an angry midget hatchback bearing down on them. True it can be done. Point is if you commute 40 miles a day at highway speeds, and have a carpark capable of fitting an SUV would you choose an Aygo sized car or something larger like a Corolla (Auris?)? City cars are not especially fuel efficient at highway speeds, and the smaller size is not an advantage unless it allows you to park more easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Do people doing ~70mph in the farthest right lane really cause such huge problems? I spend some significant time in right lanes when I'm in my girlfriends car because the three speed transmission makes for disastrous fuel economy much over 70mph. I get passed like crazy, but I don't think I'm ever holding up traffic doing 65-75 in the rightmost lane. As noted, not all highways have more than two lanes. In addition, plenty of highways have exits and on-ramps on the left, which further enhances the mess caused by a driver limping along below the speed of the rest of traffic. Couple that with the decreased visibility of a tiny car as compared to, for example, a tractor trailer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
I'm really confused where this conversation is going. So are you guys saying its bad that this car doubled it's acceleration?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Hashal posted:I'm really confused where this conversation is going. So are you guys saying its bad that this car doubled it's acceleration? No I think they're saying it's bad for things it wasn't designed for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Morphix posted:Ya I don't get this either, it's not like you're on a motorcycle and it's safer to be traveling slightly faster than traffic because your only protection is your helmet and whatever gear you're wearing. An electric isn't a bad idea in Seattle because our freeways and highways also have very low speed limits relative to other states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
dissss posted:True it can be done. I'm looking at it from the standpoint of it likely being the cheapest fully electric vehicle out there, which means it has the best odds of you being able to recoup the increased purchase price by means of using electricity instead of gasoline, over the life of the car. My problem with it is you're only going to see a significant financial benefit from this car if you drive a ton of miles, and a lot of people who rack up the miles needed to benefit, do so at speeds uncomfortably close to this car's top speed. I don't view the size itself as a positive or a negative here. The small size is of zero direct benefit to me, but the lack of cargo room is also not a negative since I would only be using it to drive to work and back either by myself or with one passenger. If given the choice at the same price point, I'd absolutely pick anything bigger - a Focus EV, for example, or a hypothetical Fiesta (or similarly sized) EV; but you're looking at a roughly $10k bump in sticker price over this thing's projected $25k. Hashal posted:I'm really confused where this conversation is going. So are you guys saying its bad that this car doubled it's acceleration? No, absolutely not; the previous 0-60MPH time would've precluded this thing from even getting onto most freeways without being shot at. This version could at least drive on most, but in an area where freeway commutes come with 70MPH+ speeds, it might get a bit hairy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
They are pretty close to the appropriate top speed for America. If they made it 90MPH, then it would be perfect. Pickup trucks from before 2000 were commonly limited to like 92MPH and that never seemed to be a problem for people. Hell, even some modern trucks can't go much faster than that. Pack in a few more battery cells and increase the cruising output of the car to like 35hp and the top speed argument should be moot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Drunken Lullabies posted:An electric isn't a bad idea in Seattle because our freeways and highways also have very low speed limits relative to other states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Anyone know the cost of replacing batteries in an electric vehicle and how often they need to be changed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
grover posted:The combination of unreasonably slow speed limits and drivers that, inexplicably and en masse, strictly obey them, is absolutely infuriating. Why does everyone in Seattle drive like it's raining even when it's not? Every one of the Washington expats that I know block up whatever highway they are going on by actually going 60/65 instead of the average speed in California, c.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
grover posted:The combination of unreasonably slow speed limits and drivers that, inexplicably and en masse, strictly obey them, is absolutely infuriating. Why does everyone in Seattle drive like it's raining even when it's not? Tweeting/texting with one hand, coffee in the other. gently caress, I've seen people loving reading newspapers on the road here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 02:24
|
|
