5 ms·
The original title says "quickest" not "fastest." They're two very different claims, and only one of them is remotely true here.
by dublinben 10y ago
The original title says "quickest" not "fastest." They're two very different claims, and only one of them is remotely true here.
- nibs 10y ago0-60 is what matters. Top speed is not a bottleneck anymore unless you are track racing. It has a 0-60 that is comparable to a Bugatti Veyron.
- cheeze 10y agoI'd argue that lap times are what matters. Fastest is a broad term. I'd expect that "the fastest production car in the world" would have no problem winning a race at a majority of tracks. "Fastest" has nothing to do with getting up to speed on the freeway.
- stcredzero 10y ago"Fastest" has nothing to do with getting up to speed on the freeway. But for day to day driving, getting up to highway speed, and acceleration at passing speeds with good handling while doing so are what I actually need.
- serge2k 10y agoOkay, but then don't make comparisons to cars like the 918 and LaFerrari. Or call it the fastest production car. Quickest maybe, even that is debateable. Quickest 0-60, sure.
- beachstartup 10y agohey, the new tesla fanboys need something to cheer for. they're new to this whole racing-cars-on-the-internet thing.
- qbrass 10y agoAt least they're not bragging about HP/Liter.
- asimuvPR 10y agoFastest is commonly reserved for cars with the highest top speed. A fast track car is very different from that. You can have a car like a miata outpace a porsche 911 turbo on certain tracks.
- beachstartup 10y ago> You can have a car like a miata outpace a porsche 911 turbo on certain tracks this is basically only true on an autocross track. i.e. a bunch of cones in a parking lot.
- asimuvPR 10y agoI wish that were true. Notice that I did not mention a stock miata or stock 911. A properly setup miata can and will outpace a modified 911 on certain tracks (not autocross). Of course, the driver is a key element, but will still happen with equal drivers.
- beachstartup 10y agoso, if you modify a cheap car, it can go faster than more expensive ones? as per usual, a car thread on the internet that has yielded another set of incredible insights.
- asimuvPR 10y agoThe issue with this snarky comment is that it fails to take into account the limits of modifying cheap cars. There are cheap cars that may be modified to go faster than an expensive one without modifying the original structure (no tube chassis). But not all cheap cars can achieve that. Only a small list of "cheap" cars can do so. Such as the miata, civic, mustang, etc. In fact, the word cheap is not even the right way to address these cars because price does not define a cars performance or potential.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- flamedoge 10y agoNone of those matter really in day to day driving
- FireBeyond 10y agoExcept that they like to point out that the Porsche and Ferrari are "little 2 seaters with no cargo capacity" while the Tesla can carry seven passengers and has exceptional cargo capacity - well, without the passengers in the third row. And the fact that the 0-60 time was with only a driver on board, not the seven passengers + cargo, so it's a little unfair to call out the others for that.
- arcticfox 10y agoNot really unfair IMO. They're just pointing out the enormous relative versatility of the car.
- serge2k 10y agoThe ferrari and porsche aren't meant to be versatile. They will beat the Tesla every time at what they are meant to do. On the other hand, the Tesla is a much better family sedan.
- tanderson92 10y agoThat their purpose isn't to be versatile isn't a point in favor of their versatility. Tesla still wins this point as a net, regardless whether it matters to you personally.
- serge2k 10y agoIt's like saying a multitool is more versatile than a hammer. It's true, but a multitool still makes a shitty hammer. If I want a hammer and you hand me a multitool I'm gonna be disappointed.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe exposition of the relatively versatile features was placed in the same paragraph as the acceleration claim. You'd expect the two to reconcile. However, according to the disclaiming asterisk, the acceleration claim hasn't even been tested and is only an estimate, making the title claim particularly dubious.
- untog 10y agoEh. What "matters" is pretty debatable when it comes to cars. I very rarely accelerate from 0-60mph in one single acceleration, same as I rarely reach top speed.
- jonknee 10y agoMost people accelerate a lot more than they take a few laps on a track though...
- forgetsusername 10y ago>Most people accelerate a lot more than they take a few laps on a track though... Lap times give a better "all-around" indication of performance: speed, handling, acceleration.
- jonknee 10y agoFor production cars top speed doesn't matter, after you get past highway speeds it is meaningless. Maybe it's me, but I'd rather a car that goes 0-60 really fast and can only go 100MPH than one that goes 0-60 slower but can go 200MPH.
- forgetsusername 10y agoAnd I'd like one that can corner on rails, which is arguably more valuable than both speed and acceleration (after all, acceleration, after a certain point, is also useless). Hence why lap times are an interesting metric.
- galdosdi 10y agoI often do, nearly every time I stop at a toll booth (toll roads, bridges, and tunnels are very common in my area -- I'm guessing they're uncommon in your area, lucky you). (Of course, being able to do that really quickly, while fun, is not so /useful/ in real life, so it's still pretty debatable what "matters")
- 10y ago
- cowardlydragon 10y agoAmericans buy horsepower and drive torque.
- davis_m 10y agoVery true. The HN title mislead me and I thought there was no way it was true (which it isn't) Even the "quickest" is up for debate since this only measures 0-60 time, but I think it is leaps and bounds more accurate than "fastest".
- toomuchtodo 10y ago2.7 seconds 0-100. Is there a quicker production car than that?
- codeduck 10y ago* Bugatti Veyron - 2.5 seconds * Porsche 991 Turbo - 2.5 seconds * Porsche 918 Spider - 2.2 seconds - limited production, only 918 built. So it's not the quickest, but it's right up there.
- asimuvPR 10y agoDo you have the data for acceleration past 100MPH? The cars you listed really come to life after a 100MPH and it would be an interesting comparison.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago0-60 and 1/4 mile times here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car... link from truckle who's currently being blocked (turn on showdead).
- asimuvPR 10y agoThanks. The 2016 model has has a quarter mile time of 10.8 sec @ 121.99 mph. Not bad. Should dip into the 10.5 with grippy tyres. I wish they offered an additional overdrive gear to see if they would get to 200MPH. I don't know if they can handle the aero but they sure have the power.
- obi1kenobi 10y agoOP here, good point. I edited the title to "quickest" to mirror the original claim.
- ashman5 10y agoI've always thought, quick is measured in time and fast is measured in speed.
- notJim 10y agoAre these technical terms? To my ears they sound like synonyms.
- jagger27 10y agoAcceleration versus top speed. Quick to me refers to a period of time whereas fast refers only to a point of time.
- paulsutter 10y agoFastest is more likely to refer to top speed, and quickest is more likely to refer to the 0-60 times. But yes that's subjective difference in usage and not a strict definition.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoThanks for asking; I was very confused as well. I still don't find the difference between the two terms satisfying. I would rather them state acceleration or speed versus quick and fast.