7 ms·

Yes and no. Cars are less responsive than ever as manufacturers insert artificial latency into electric throttle-by-wire to reduce emissions. However, at the s

Yes and no. Cars are less responsive than ever as manufacturers insert artificial latency into electric throttle-by-wire to reduce emissions. However, at the same time cars continue to become heavier and heavier with each new model or generation. This in itself is poor for environment because heavier vehicles must burn more fuel to accelerate at the same rate, more fuel to maintain the same speed, use more pad material to brake (and thus release more particulates) while also having increased tire wear. But for some reason the latter issue is ignored while the former is front and center. It doesn't make sense to me

Sharlin 7y ago
Unfortunately in the US car size is (still) a status thing and has led to an arms race. Size is an obvious differentiator, acceleration or responsivity much less so. Your gasoline is also way too cheap.
- georgerobinson 7y ago
  I live in the U.K, I pay $1.75 per litre.
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    Oops, sorry for assuming!
sacheendra 7y ago
Safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire tech, crash zones and everything else petrolheads don't like about cars make them better for commuters. Even with all these features, the average increase in weight for cars of the same size has been a paltry 23kg. The weight increase of the "average car" comes from people buying SUVs, which people increasingly are. For a track day car, a cheap modern sports car like a miata, or a 1980s/90s sports car has all the characteristics you want for the price of a modern commuter car. Its just that a commuter cares more about relaxation than road feel. :-)
- georgerobinson 7y ago
  I agree! I have no issue with better safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire, crash zones, etc - to make cars better for people to use everyday. What is frustrating is that we are now unable to offer features in high performance vehicles that we were previously able to because they're considered too bad for the environment. A perfect example is the 4.0 engine in the 911 GT3. It's likely that this engine will never be offered again, despite itself being a masterpiece of engineering, sound and character; produced in such few numbers and driven so infrequently to have an insignificant effect on pollution when you consider all cars on the road. I'm curious where you got the 23KG figure? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested to see what kind of cars they looked at. If you consider a Golf GTI from 1980 to a Golf GTI of 2019 then you'll find that in 30 years the car has gained over 500KG. If we continue this trend then by 2050 the expected average weight for a hatchback should be somewhere around 2000KG. I agree with the cheap, 1980s/90s sports car - and did something like that just a couple months ago. But, if we are no longer capable of manufacturing cheap, light-weight cars in 2020 and onwards because of regulations, then these cars will have no choice but to die out leaving track days and motorsport inaccessible to everyone but the rich, like air travel in the 1950 and 60s.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I'm not an expert on the matter, but I had the impression that you can buy all kinds of vehicles provided you only run them on a racing track. I suppose that also covers emissions. Normal roads are not for sports, so I see no issue banning features that only benefit motor sports.
    - georgerobinson 7y ago
      That is more or less correct, look at the Aston Martin Vulcan, Ferrari 599XX, P1 GTR, or just about any street-legal car someone has turned into a non street legal race car. There is an argument to be made whether a feature should be banned from the road or not. I'm not sure having an EV that can accelerate from 0-60mph in 3 seconds is good for road safety either. How are these two any different?
CydeWeys 7y ago
> Cars are less responsive than ever I don't think this is remotely true. Cars are more powerful than ever before and have way better automatic transmissions than ever before. There's simply no comparison, modern cars are faster and more responsive than older cars. Can you give some specific examples (with model and year) where you think a modern car is less responsive than a comparable older car?
- georgerobinson 7y ago
  Sure! So an example is the old Renault Sport Clios. These had the 2.0 NA F4R 830 motor with cable actuated throttles. The combination of this and no turbo means the throttle response is immediate, much better than newer turbo cars with drive-by-wire throttles. In fact it's so much better than I went out and purchased one. Power has no real correlation with throttle response. Auto boxes often make throttle response worse - in fact even the latest ZF8 gearboxes tend to have noticeable lag between applying throttle and the power to the wheels. If you want to experience this for yourself I would recommend driving a manual M235i and an auto M235i back to back.
  - ollie87 7y ago
    Which old RenaultSport Clios? My 172 had an electric throttle body. I'd say the difference between older and newer engines is torque, I have B38 BMW engine in my car and it makes 220Nm @ 1250rpm, makes it lovely to drive around the city. Where the 172 was a bit of a pain as you had to wind it out a little to get any where quickly.
    - gavia1 7y ago
      You're right, that is indeed correct. I'm not sure why I thought it was a cable. I have a 197/200, and before than owned a couple of turbo cars. I'd take the 197 - it's so much more rewarding to drive with that extra 1000RPM and that noise that comes on when the cams switch on VVT.
      - ollie87 7y ago

Sharlin 7y ago

Unfortunately in the US car size is (still) a status thing and has led to an arms race. Size is an obvious differentiator, acceleration or responsivity much less so. Your gasoline is also way too cheap.

georgerobinson 7y ago
I live in the U.K, I pay $1.75 per litre.
- Sharlin 7y ago
  Oops, sorry for assuming!

sacheendra 7y ago

Safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire tech, crash zones and everything else petrolheads don't like about cars make them better for commuters. Even with all these features, the average increase in weight for cars of the same size has been a paltry 23kg. The weight increase of the "average car" comes from people buying SUVs, which people increasingly are. For a track day car, a cheap modern sports car like a miata, or a 1980s/90s sports car has all the characteristics you want for the price of a modern commuter car. Its just that a commuter cares more about relaxation than road feel. :-)

georgerobinson 7y ago
I agree! I have no issue with better safety regulations, stricter emissions regulations, drive by wire, crash zones, etc - to make cars better for people to use everyday. What is frustrating is that we are now unable to offer features in high performance vehicles that we were previously able to because they're considered too bad for the environment. A perfect example is the 4.0 engine in the 911 GT3. It's likely that this engine will never be offered again, despite itself being a masterpiece of engineering, sound and character; produced in such few numbers and driven so infrequently to have an insignificant effect on pollution when you consider all cars on the road. I'm curious where you got the 23KG figure? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested to see what kind of cars they looked at. If you consider a Golf GTI from 1980 to a Golf GTI of 2019 then you'll find that in 30 years the car has gained over 500KG. If we continue this trend then by 2050 the expected average weight for a hatchback should be somewhere around 2000KG. I agree with the cheap, 1980s/90s sports car - and did something like that just a couple months ago. But, if we are no longer capable of manufacturing cheap, light-weight cars in 2020 and onwards because of regulations, then these cars will have no choice but to die out leaving track days and motorsport inaccessible to everyone but the rich, like air travel in the 1950 and 60s.
- adrianN 7y ago
  I'm not an expert on the matter, but I had the impression that you can buy all kinds of vehicles provided you only run them on a racing track. I suppose that also covers emissions. Normal roads are not for sports, so I see no issue banning features that only benefit motor sports.
  - georgerobinson 7y ago
    That is more or less correct, look at the Aston Martin Vulcan, Ferrari 599XX, P1 GTR, or just about any street-legal car someone has turned into a non street legal race car. There is an argument to be made whether a feature should be banned from the road or not. I'm not sure having an EV that can accelerate from 0-60mph in 3 seconds is good for road safety either. How are these two any different?

CydeWeys 7y ago

> Cars are less responsive than ever I don't think this is remotely true. Cars are more powerful than ever before and have way better automatic transmissions than ever before. There's simply no comparison, modern cars are faster and more responsive than older cars. Can you give some specific examples (with model and year) where you think a modern car is less responsive than a comparable older car?

georgerobinson 7y ago
Sure! So an example is the old Renault Sport Clios. These had the 2.0 NA F4R 830 motor with cable actuated throttles. The combination of this and no turbo means the throttle response is immediate, much better than newer turbo cars with drive-by-wire throttles. In fact it's so much better than I went out and purchased one. Power has no real correlation with throttle response. Auto boxes often make throttle response worse - in fact even the latest ZF8 gearboxes tend to have noticeable lag between applying throttle and the power to the wheels. If you want to experience this for yourself I would recommend driving a manual M235i and an auto M235i back to back.
- ollie87 7y ago
  Which old RenaultSport Clios? My 172 had an electric throttle body. I'd say the difference between older and newer engines is torque, I have B38 BMW engine in my car and it makes 220Nm @ 1250rpm, makes it lovely to drive around the city. Where the 172 was a bit of a pain as you had to wind it out a little to get any where quickly.
  - gavia1 7y ago
    You're right, that is indeed correct. I'm not sure why I thought it was a cable. I have a 197/200, and before than owned a couple of turbo cars. I'd take the 197 - it's so much more rewarding to drive with that extra 1000RPM and that noise that comes on when the cams switch on VVT.
    - ollie87 7y ago