4 ms·

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

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?
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    That is a good point, however, I believe the nuance is the future intent of the vehicle’s ‘purpose’. So, if it is to store value and become a collectible, because of its unique peformance capabilities and driving ‘experience’, that is one thing... But, if the intent is to eventually have multiples of these vehicles coordinating together to transport safely and quickly through ‘AI’ or ‘AI-assisted safety features’, I can see a possible use for the capability, as well.
sacheendra 7y ago
I agree that the regulation is not perfect. We can do better to accommodate the needs of enthusiasts. But, in the case of brute regulation, I prefer we err on the side of safety vs enthusiast features. Here in the netherlands, really old cars that fail to meet emission standards have special dispensation to be used on the road for less than 500km a year. Maybe something similar for sports cars would work. As you said, nobody is using their 911 GT3 for 10,000km a year anyway.
762236 7y ago
There is no point in that Porsche engine off the race track. Either the driver is fast, or the car is, and never both except for well trained drivers on the track.
- georgerobinson 7y ago
  Sure there is! The performance is just one feature of the engine. It has immense character, sound and response - possibly one of the best engines ever made. You don't need to drive it fast or irresponsibly on the road to enjoy it. It's like cycling with a carbon fiber race bicycle on the road. Just because you're not exploiting it to it's full potential on a velodrome doesn't mean you can't enjoy it sensibly in other situations. Ferrari have built their brand on road cars with high revving, naturally aspirated V8 and V12s - primarily designed as Gran Tourers rather than track cars. More evidence of this can be seen in the consumer demand for 911 Speedster, of which only 1948 cars will be built - and is looking to be one of the best Gran Tourers ever made.
  - sethhochberg 7y ago
    And despite all of that character, you driving one down my street has more negative externatlities for me when I admire it as you roll past than a comparable electric car would. I grew up reading Road & Track and Car and Driver, lusting after cars like the McLaren F1 and Acura NSX... but now I don't own a car at all, and live in a dense urban environment, and find it pretty annoying when someone's desire to show off their supercar leads to them riding up the avenue at high RPM in first gear, leaving both noise pollution and real emissions in their wake. Its the same annoyance I get when a truck drives by and uses its engine brake, or when a particularly poorly modified Civic with a soda can where the muffler should be rattles and roars down the block, or one of the fancy new hybrid grocery delivery trucks that still has an old reefer unit that belches black exhaust when it turns on is parked at the corner. None of these vehicles - modified or not, beautifully engineered or not - has a place contributing those noise and particulate and CO2 emissions in our densely populated regions. I respect the precision and craftsmanship. I love reading about the stats and design notes. I'd unquestionably love to take one for a spin on a track. But I'd also fully support a total ban of ICE vehicles in dense urban areas, where the joy the driver gets from driving is far outweighed by the cost to the other people around them.
dillonmckay 7y ago
I think you are correct, in that it will become a rich-person’s luxury to operate an ICE vehicle in the future.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Correctly price in the negative externalities caused by burning petroleum and people can go have their fun in ICE cars away from major population centers. It'll be more expensive, for sure, but I don't think it'll only be in the realm of the rich. Gas is already something like $8/gallon in many parts of Europe and is still widely used, just for daily life (forget racing).
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    I think insurance rates will drastically increase for human operated ICE vehicles, as well.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Why would that be? Insurance is about covering accidents; why would accidents suddenly shoot up for ICE cars? I haven't seen any data suggesting that ICEs are inherently more likely to get in accidents than EVs. Now if you want to talk about advanced driving aids, all the way through to self-driving, then sure, not having those will result in higher insurance. But that's not tied to the engine, and there's plenty of non-EVs that have very advanced driving aids.

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?
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  That is a good point, however, I believe the nuance is the future intent of the vehicle’s ‘purpose’. So, if it is to store value and become a collectible, because of its unique peformance capabilities and driving ‘experience’, that is one thing... But, if the intent is to eventually have multiples of these vehicles coordinating together to transport safely and quickly through ‘AI’ or ‘AI-assisted safety features’, I can see a possible use for the capability, as well.

sacheendra 7y ago

I agree that the regulation is not perfect. We can do better to accommodate the needs of enthusiasts. But, in the case of brute regulation, I prefer we err on the side of safety vs enthusiast features. Here in the netherlands, really old cars that fail to meet emission standards have special dispensation to be used on the road for less than 500km a year. Maybe something similar for sports cars would work. As you said, nobody is using their 911 GT3 for 10,000km a year anyway.

762236 7y ago

There is no point in that Porsche engine off the race track. Either the driver is fast, or the car is, and never both except for well trained drivers on the track.

georgerobinson 7y ago
Sure there is! The performance is just one feature of the engine. It has immense character, sound and response - possibly one of the best engines ever made. You don't need to drive it fast or irresponsibly on the road to enjoy it. It's like cycling with a carbon fiber race bicycle on the road. Just because you're not exploiting it to it's full potential on a velodrome doesn't mean you can't enjoy it sensibly in other situations. Ferrari have built their brand on road cars with high revving, naturally aspirated V8 and V12s - primarily designed as Gran Tourers rather than track cars. More evidence of this can be seen in the consumer demand for 911 Speedster, of which only 1948 cars will be built - and is looking to be one of the best Gran Tourers ever made.
- sethhochberg 7y ago
  And despite all of that character, you driving one down my street has more negative externatlities for me when I admire it as you roll past than a comparable electric car would. I grew up reading Road & Track and Car and Driver, lusting after cars like the McLaren F1 and Acura NSX... but now I don't own a car at all, and live in a dense urban environment, and find it pretty annoying when someone's desire to show off their supercar leads to them riding up the avenue at high RPM in first gear, leaving both noise pollution and real emissions in their wake. Its the same annoyance I get when a truck drives by and uses its engine brake, or when a particularly poorly modified Civic with a soda can where the muffler should be rattles and roars down the block, or one of the fancy new hybrid grocery delivery trucks that still has an old reefer unit that belches black exhaust when it turns on is parked at the corner. None of these vehicles - modified or not, beautifully engineered or not - has a place contributing those noise and particulate and CO2 emissions in our densely populated regions. I respect the precision and craftsmanship. I love reading about the stats and design notes. I'd unquestionably love to take one for a spin on a track. But I'd also fully support a total ban of ICE vehicles in dense urban areas, where the joy the driver gets from driving is far outweighed by the cost to the other people around them.

dillonmckay 7y ago

I think you are correct, in that it will become a rich-person’s luxury to operate an ICE vehicle in the future.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Correctly price in the negative externalities caused by burning petroleum and people can go have their fun in ICE cars away from major population centers. It'll be more expensive, for sure, but I don't think it'll only be in the realm of the rich. Gas is already something like $8/gallon in many parts of Europe and is still widely used, just for daily life (forget racing).
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  I think insurance rates will drastically increase for human operated ICE vehicles, as well.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Why would that be? Insurance is about covering accidents; why would accidents suddenly shoot up for ICE cars? I haven't seen any data suggesting that ICEs are inherently more likely to get in accidents than EVs. Now if you want to talk about advanced driving aids, all the way through to self-driving, then sure, not having those will result in higher insurance. But that's not tied to the engine, and there's plenty of non-EVs that have very advanced driving aids.