9 ms·

It's pretty impressive. In terms of a daily driver, I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and thus the torque a car can produce. My daily driver is a M

It's pretty impressive. In terms of a daily driver, I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and thus the torque a car can produce. My daily driver is a Mazda 3 / Mazda Axela, which comes with 200 Newtonmeter torque at 6400 rpm. It's ok, it's fun, but yeah. So the other day I drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf (BEV), which gives you ~250 Nm torque right at the beginning. This was so much fun to drive. So for me, a car doesn't need to have a ridiculosly max speed - I need max torque from the start.

erikig 7y ago
I love acceleration but there’s also jerk - the rate at which acceleration builds up. It is is also a factor of the torque curve.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  The next derivatives in the sequence of position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk are amusingly named “snap, crackle, and pop”, respectively.
  - neohaven 7y ago
    Interestingly, they keep getting into "smaller" sounds. Snaps are kind of long-ish, potentially. Something can slowly snap (jerk primed) in two, it's not "as instantaneous a sound" as the two others. Compare to the pops (third) that are part of any crackle (second) you might hear. I always find it a little extra clever that they're ordered "like derivatives".
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Snap, Crackle, and Pop were three cartoon mascots of Rice Krispies cereal. (Mentioning only because non-US or "other generation" people might not get the reference.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap,_Crackle_and_Pop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap,_Crackle_and_Pop
    - mrfusion 7y ago
      I always wondered if these were all movements through different higher physical dimensions. I wonder if anyone has studied that.
- hazeii 7y ago
  Big-engined high performance sportsbikes really demonstrate this well. Rolling on the throttle in a high gear at a lowish speed results in a ride up the torque curve; the effect is the faster you get the harder the acceleration becomes. It's an exciting demonstration of positive-feedback.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Even not so large bikes, like say 600cc. I did some calculations once to relate sportbike performance to cars. People usually think about performance in terms of peak power on paper, which is not where you are most of the time on the street. I estimated that if you are riding a 600cc bike at roughly car-like rpms, then the power to weight ratio is comparable to a car with a 3.5L V-6. But if you are using the upper range, then it's more comparable to a Ferrari. With a literbike, if you are at car-like rpms, the power to weight is like a street car with a fairly large V-8, but if you are using it at high speeds, then it's comparable to a F1 car.
fasicle 7y ago
How would a Tesla's initial torque compare to the Bugatti? Would the Bugatti reach 30 mph much faster?
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  Top Gear actually did a road test of a Tesla S vs an Aston Martin starting at 30 MPH and the Tesla dusted the Aston Martin. Considering electric motors start with max torque, and the stats that are easily googlable, the Tesla would have no problem with the Bugatti. Never mind the Tesla is smaller, has a lower center of gravity, and costs 15x less and has more range. And it's probably worth noting that the Tesla is almost certainly software limited. Also, I haven't test-driven a Bugatti, but I've tested a Tesla. My wife compared the acceleration to a launched roller coaster. I entered the turn onto an onramp at 20 mph, exited the 90-ish degree turn at 60 in the same lane, and hit 80 by the time I realized I needed to take my foot off the pedal. We weren't halfway down the ramp. What was really impressive about that was the turn: plastered into the back and the side of seat at the same time, traction like it was on rails to whole time. It is quite possible the car was outperforming my nervous system's ability to orient.
  - out_of_protocol 7y ago
    google "tesla ludicrous mode"
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    Apples and oranges. Stats alone are pretty meaningless when comparing what's basically a mass produced commuter car that had to meet a price point with a limited production luxury super car built without budget constraints. The Bugattis and Aston Martins alike are engineered to lap tracks or do speed runs over and over again in comfort and luxury without any reduction in acceleration or braking performance while Tesla's drive-train reaches its thermal limits really fast if you push it and reduces its performance accordingly. Tesla, due to how economics factor in engineering, was not designed to deliver it's peak performance in a sustained fashion but in short bursts when you need it. The Bugattis and Porsches can deliver their peak performance all day long, that's why they cost x-times more. And let's not talk about luxury or comfort.
bartread 7y ago
I ride bikes and from a practical standpoint, along with small size and manoeuvrability, the acceleration (a result of torque) is one of the most useful attributes. Much moreso than top speed, or even speeds significantly in excess of the posted limits. Bikes don't tend to have high torque in general, but their light weight and gearing are designed to maximise what torque they do produce. This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm. What this means is that you can more easily get past, and through, traffic because you can safely take advantage of gaps that no car can. Also, that sense of having your arms ripped out of their sockets and hanging on for dear life is fun. Still, there's something to be said for going really fast as well: the feeling of the world blurring past you, and the road or track flowing and snaking underneath you like mercury, is hard to beat (if sometimes a little terrifying).
- bscphil 7y ago
  I assume you're talking about electric bikes or motorcycles? This confused me a lot for a while because I don't usually see those referred to as "bikes". > This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm. This was the give-away - pretty sure very few humans can do 60 mph on a bicycle, unless they're drafting.
  - blocked_again 7y ago
    Motorcycles are referred as bikes in many countries. And bikes are called as cycles.
    - dksbzmx 7y ago
      It’s actually pretty common in general. I refer to my motorcycle as a bike in the US. Frankly my favorite is the European “moto”
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > I don't usually see those referred to as "bikes". ‘Bike’ is short for bicycle. Motorcycles are also bicycles so they’re also bikes.
gavia1 7y ago
You could get close just with turbocharging which will lower the torque curve such that max torque is somewhere around 1500 to 2000RPM.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  a turbo with a torque that low will kill your engine high end
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  Case in point: a homologated (i.e. stock road car) Ford RS200 Evo set a record of 0-60 in 3.07 seconds back in 1986. When tuned for racing (non-road-legal) they would hit 60 in 2.1 sec. That's with a 2.0 litre straight-four engine, in the 1980s. Optimizing for ludicrous acceleration has always been possible. But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. At the track, if you are going below 80 mph at any point after the first 4 seconds, you're doing it wrong.
  - roelschroeven 7y ago
    > But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. I've been wondering about that for some time. What type(s) of competitions do cars like that enter? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the racing world, so my view is very limited; the few times a see something about racing (excluding F1 and rally which are obviously different beasts), I mainly see BMWs, Porches, Corvettes (I think) and so on. Maybe my limited exposure just covered the wrong competition?
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      a standard Porsche 911 is not really a racecar. it can be really fun to drive on a track and it will get good lap times, but no one would race this car in a serious competition. this type of car will mainly be driven on the street and in amateur races. now there are certain racing series like FIA GT3 where manufacturers are required to make a certain number of street-legal vehicles to qualify that car for the competition. a Porsche 911 GT3 RS is an example of this type of car. make a couple small modifications and your street-legal car is a GT3 racecar. homologated cars like this tend to push the limits of what's tolerable to drive on the street; they're not really setup to be comfortable.
agumonkey 7y ago
something that responds right to your foot is probably amazing...
- kart23 7y ago
  Variable valve timing.
sniglom 7y ago
Engine torque is pretty much a useless number as a consumer (not a manufacturer/builder/tuner). The interesting torque is the one at the wheels, after the transmission and adjusted for wheel size. Comparing to CPUs it would be similar to obsessing over IPC, but not caring about that performance = IPC * Frequency. Regardless, I understand your point. Having all the power from the start makes more sense for daily driving.
amelius 7y ago
> I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and thus the torque a car can produce. Roads don't like torque. If high-torque becomes a trend, expect to pay more vehicle-tax. Tires also don't like torque.
- SECProto 7y ago
  > Roads don't like torque. If high-torque becomes a trend, expect to pay more vehicle-tax. This is a bit off-topic, but this isn't really accurate. (Not the fact that high torque causes more surface damage thing, that's probably defensible - though gross loading does much more damage to roads in most conditions). But the source of funding for road construction and maintenance. Depending where you live, your vehicle tax doesn't do much of anything for the roads anyway. They're maintained and repaved using general funds, usually taken from property taxes and income taxes.
  - rswail 7y ago
    This! So called "hypothecated" taxes (supposedly dedicated to a specific purpose) are rarely actually restricted to that usage. In Australia, even if the tax is supposedly restricted in what it can be applied to, I believe that the parliament can legislate otherwise at any time.
  - amelius 7y ago
    > though gross loading does much more damage to roads in most conditions Yes, and remember that batteries are quite heavy so torque + electric vehicle = bad news for roads. See also: https://www.inverse.com/article/53612-electric-cars-cause-crumbling-roads-america-infrastructure https://www.inverse.com/article/53612-electric-cars-cause-cr...
lloeki 7y ago
I’m the complete opposite. I hate cars that have loads of torque on the low end then go down from there, it gives me the feeling that they get out of breath on the top half of the rev range. My daily driver FN2 Civic Type-R (stock, except for brake lines and pads) and whatever preconceptions are had about Honda, this is an engineering marvel. Torque is mostly linear, slightly going up on the top half, with a slight drop just before the 8300rpm limiter, giving the feeling that the car keeps on giving - wanting to give, even -you more and more. As for the numbers, it does 0-100kph in 6.2-6.4s but that’s because there’s a 2-3 gearshift at 95 (it’s well under 6 to that): it’s just such a “screw the numbers game” mentality, “let’s get the most out of this in every possible way, whatever the benchmarks. Only fun matters.”, which I fully subscribe to. Anyway, even acceleration is overrated, nice turns is what matters and gives Gs much more quickly than any acceleration, and this one delivers, with fantastic fast cornering and good tight cornering (if you set the car up correctly on entry to avoid understeer). As a tire manufacturer as said (I think it was Bridgestone), “fun is not a straight line”. And although imperfect in many ways, this car is so much fun (and practical, to boot) I have than big stupid grin in minutes, on every ride. I’ve driven so many powerful cars on occasion yet after the initial oomph effect, none ever came close to that. On the lower power end I did enjoy that ‘06 Suzuki Swift, and the latest MX-5 is solid gold :)
- dksbzmx 7y ago
  Look up Tom’s garage “Thunderbolt” miata. Mr. Tom put a V8 into a Miata while keeping it as close to the original in terms of handling as possible (I think the end result only weighs a couple hundred lb more) Mr. Tom is a maniac of precision, so the videos are a joy to see how clean everything is (he’a a bit of a nerd though)
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "I hate cars that have loads of torque on the low end then go down from there, it gives me the feeling that they get out of breath on the top half of the rev range." I might argue that there is no such thing as an engine (assuming reasonably modern and N/A) that has "a lot of low end torque"; rather that kind of engine should be described as "lacking high end torque".
peterwwillis 7y ago
This is why I've always loved big turbos. A little bit of lag, followed by being thrown in your seat like a rocket taking off. You can get the same with a big naturally aspirated engine, but a turbo is often cheaper and more feasible than an engine swap. The biggest problem with this is having too much torque. If the car isn't designed for it, you'll just spin the tires at full throttle, and you'll have to settle for mid-2nd and 3rd gear pulls. I knew someone with a boosted awd Toyota Camry that could spin all the tires in 3rd.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  AWD Camry?
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    Yep. From 1986-1992 there was a model SV25 that used the All-Trac drivetrain with a 3S-FE engine. Almost the same powertrain as the Celica GT-Four, the first Japanese car to win WRC titles. You find the Camry, swap in an MR2 Turbo engine (a modern version of the Celica GT-Four's) and you have an old beaten up grandma car with the powertrain of a rally car.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Man the fun for me is finding good parking where I’m headed. I feel blessed.

erikig 7y ago

I love acceleration but there’s also jerk - the rate at which acceleration builds up. It is is also a factor of the torque curve.

sokoloff 7y ago
The next derivatives in the sequence of position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk are amusingly named “snap, crackle, and pop”, respectively.
- neohaven 7y ago
  Interestingly, they keep getting into "smaller" sounds. Snaps are kind of long-ish, potentially. Something can slowly snap (jerk primed) in two, it's not "as instantaneous a sound" as the two others. Compare to the pops (third) that are part of any crackle (second) you might hear. I always find it a little extra clever that they're ordered "like derivatives".
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Snap, Crackle, and Pop were three cartoon mascots of Rice Krispies cereal. (Mentioning only because non-US or "other generation" people might not get the reference.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap,_Crackle_and_Pop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap,_Crackle_and_Pop
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    I always wondered if these were all movements through different higher physical dimensions. I wonder if anyone has studied that.
hazeii 7y ago
Big-engined high performance sportsbikes really demonstrate this well. Rolling on the throttle in a high gear at a lowish speed results in a ride up the torque curve; the effect is the faster you get the harder the acceleration becomes. It's an exciting demonstration of positive-feedback.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Even not so large bikes, like say 600cc. I did some calculations once to relate sportbike performance to cars. People usually think about performance in terms of peak power on paper, which is not where you are most of the time on the street. I estimated that if you are riding a 600cc bike at roughly car-like rpms, then the power to weight ratio is comparable to a car with a 3.5L V-6. But if you are using the upper range, then it's more comparable to a Ferrari. With a literbike, if you are at car-like rpms, the power to weight is like a street car with a fairly large V-8, but if you are using it at high speeds, then it's comparable to a F1 car.

fasicle 7y ago

How would a Tesla's initial torque compare to the Bugatti? Would the Bugatti reach 30 mph much faster?

killjoywashere 7y ago
Top Gear actually did a road test of a Tesla S vs an Aston Martin starting at 30 MPH and the Tesla dusted the Aston Martin. Considering electric motors start with max torque, and the stats that are easily googlable, the Tesla would have no problem with the Bugatti. Never mind the Tesla is smaller, has a lower center of gravity, and costs 15x less and has more range. And it's probably worth noting that the Tesla is almost certainly software limited. Also, I haven't test-driven a Bugatti, but I've tested a Tesla. My wife compared the acceleration to a launched roller coaster. I entered the turn onto an onramp at 20 mph, exited the 90-ish degree turn at 60 in the same lane, and hit 80 by the time I realized I needed to take my foot off the pedal. We weren't halfway down the ramp. What was really impressive about that was the turn: plastered into the back and the side of seat at the same time, traction like it was on rails to whole time. It is quite possible the car was outperforming my nervous system's ability to orient.
- out_of_protocol 7y ago
  google "tesla ludicrous mode"
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Apples and oranges. Stats alone are pretty meaningless when comparing what's basically a mass produced commuter car that had to meet a price point with a limited production luxury super car built without budget constraints. The Bugattis and Aston Martins alike are engineered to lap tracks or do speed runs over and over again in comfort and luxury without any reduction in acceleration or braking performance while Tesla's drive-train reaches its thermal limits really fast if you push it and reduces its performance accordingly. Tesla, due to how economics factor in engineering, was not designed to deliver it's peak performance in a sustained fashion but in short bursts when you need it. The Bugattis and Porsches can deliver their peak performance all day long, that's why they cost x-times more. And let's not talk about luxury or comfort.

bartread 7y ago

I ride bikes and from a practical standpoint, along with small size and manoeuvrability, the acceleration (a result of torque) is one of the most useful attributes. Much moreso than top speed, or even speeds significantly in excess of the posted limits. Bikes don't tend to have high torque in general, but their light weight and gearing are designed to maximise what torque they do produce. This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm. What this means is that you can more easily get past, and through, traffic because you can safely take advantage of gaps that no car can. Also, that sense of having your arms ripped out of their sockets and hanging on for dear life is fun. Still, there's something to be said for going really fast as well: the feeling of the world blurring past you, and the road or track flowing and snaking underneath you like mercury, is hard to beat (if sometimes a little terrifying).

bscphil 7y ago
I assume you're talking about electric bikes or motorcycles? This confused me a lot for a while because I don't usually see those referred to as "bikes". > This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm. This was the give-away - pretty sure very few humans can do 60 mph on a bicycle, unless they're drafting.
- blocked_again 7y ago
  Motorcycles are referred as bikes in many countries. And bikes are called as cycles.
  - dksbzmx 7y ago
    It’s actually pretty common in general. I refer to my motorcycle as a bike in the US. Frankly my favorite is the European “moto”
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > I don't usually see those referred to as "bikes". ‘Bike’ is short for bicycle. Motorcycles are also bicycles so they’re also bikes.

gavia1 7y ago

You could get close just with turbocharging which will lower the torque curve such that max torque is somewhere around 1500 to 2000RPM.

LoSboccacc 7y ago
a turbo with a torque that low will kill your engine high end
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
Case in point: a homologated (i.e. stock road car) Ford RS200 Evo set a record of 0-60 in 3.07 seconds back in 1986. When tuned for racing (non-road-legal) they would hit 60 in 2.1 sec. That's with a 2.0 litre straight-four engine, in the 1980s. Optimizing for ludicrous acceleration has always been possible. But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. At the track, if you are going below 80 mph at any point after the first 4 seconds, you're doing it wrong.
- roelschroeven 7y ago
  > But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. I've been wondering about that for some time. What type(s) of competitions do cars like that enter? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the racing world, so my view is very limited; the few times a see something about racing (excluding F1 and rally which are obviously different beasts), I mainly see BMWs, Porches, Corvettes (I think) and so on. Maybe my limited exposure just covered the wrong competition?
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    a standard Porsche 911 is not really a racecar. it can be really fun to drive on a track and it will get good lap times, but no one would race this car in a serious competition. this type of car will mainly be driven on the street and in amateur races. now there are certain racing series like FIA GT3 where manufacturers are required to make a certain number of street-legal vehicles to qualify that car for the competition. a Porsche 911 GT3 RS is an example of this type of car. make a couple small modifications and your street-legal car is a GT3 racecar. homologated cars like this tend to push the limits of what's tolerable to drive on the street; they're not really setup to be comfortable.

agumonkey 7y ago

something that responds right to your foot is probably amazing...

kart23 7y ago
Variable valve timing.

sniglom 7y ago

Engine torque is pretty much a useless number as a consumer (not a manufacturer/builder/tuner). The interesting torque is the one at the wheels, after the transmission and adjusted for wheel size. Comparing to CPUs it would be similar to obsessing over IPC, but not caring about that performance = IPC * Frequency. Regardless, I understand your point. Having all the power from the start makes more sense for daily driving.

amelius 7y ago

> I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and thus the torque a car can produce. Roads don't like torque. If high-torque becomes a trend, expect to pay more vehicle-tax. Tires also don't like torque.

SECProto 7y ago
> Roads don't like torque. If high-torque becomes a trend, expect to pay more vehicle-tax. This is a bit off-topic, but this isn't really accurate. (Not the fact that high torque causes more surface damage thing, that's probably defensible - though gross loading does much more damage to roads in most conditions). But the source of funding for road construction and maintenance. Depending where you live, your vehicle tax doesn't do much of anything for the roads anyway. They're maintained and repaved using general funds, usually taken from property taxes and income taxes.
- rswail 7y ago
  This! So called "hypothecated" taxes (supposedly dedicated to a specific purpose) are rarely actually restricted to that usage. In Australia, even if the tax is supposedly restricted in what it can be applied to, I believe that the parliament can legislate otherwise at any time.
- amelius 7y ago
  > though gross loading does much more damage to roads in most conditions Yes, and remember that batteries are quite heavy so torque + electric vehicle = bad news for roads. See also: https://www.inverse.com/article/53612-electric-cars-cause-crumbling-roads-america-infrastructure https://www.inverse.com/article/53612-electric-cars-cause-cr...

lloeki 7y ago

I’m the complete opposite. I hate cars that have loads of torque on the low end then go down from there, it gives me the feeling that they get out of breath on the top half of the rev range. My daily driver FN2 Civic Type-R (stock, except for brake lines and pads) and whatever preconceptions are had about Honda, this is an engineering marvel. Torque is mostly linear, slightly going up on the top half, with a slight drop just before the 8300rpm limiter, giving the feeling that the car keeps on giving - wanting to give, even -you more and more. As for the numbers, it does 0-100kph in 6.2-6.4s but that’s because there’s a 2-3 gearshift at 95 (it’s well under 6 to that): it’s just such a “screw the numbers game” mentality, “let’s get the most out of this in every possible way, whatever the benchmarks. Only fun matters.”, which I fully subscribe to. Anyway, even acceleration is overrated, nice turns is what matters and gives Gs much more quickly than any acceleration, and this one delivers, with fantastic fast cornering and good tight cornering (if you set the car up correctly on entry to avoid understeer). As a tire manufacturer as said (I think it was Bridgestone), “fun is not a straight line”. And although imperfect in many ways, this car is so much fun (and practical, to boot) I have than big stupid grin in minutes, on every ride. I’ve driven so many powerful cars on occasion yet after the initial oomph effect, none ever came close to that. On the lower power end I did enjoy that ‘06 Suzuki Swift, and the latest MX-5 is solid gold :)

dksbzmx 7y ago
Look up Tom’s garage “Thunderbolt” miata. Mr. Tom put a V8 into a Miata while keeping it as close to the original in terms of handling as possible (I think the end result only weighs a couple hundred lb more) Mr. Tom is a maniac of precision, so the videos are a joy to see how clean everything is (he’a a bit of a nerd though)
perl4ever 7y ago
"I hate cars that have loads of torque on the low end then go down from there, it gives me the feeling that they get out of breath on the top half of the rev range." I might argue that there is no such thing as an engine (assuming reasonably modern and N/A) that has "a lot of low end torque"; rather that kind of engine should be described as "lacking high end torque".

peterwwillis 7y ago

This is why I've always loved big turbos. A little bit of lag, followed by being thrown in your seat like a rocket taking off. You can get the same with a big naturally aspirated engine, but a turbo is often cheaper and more feasible than an engine swap. The biggest problem with this is having too much torque. If the car isn't designed for it, you'll just spin the tires at full throttle, and you'll have to settle for mid-2nd and 3rd gear pulls. I knew someone with a boosted awd Toyota Camry that could spin all the tires in 3rd.

perl4ever 7y ago
AWD Camry?
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  Yep. From 1986-1992 there was a model SV25 that used the All-Trac drivetrain with a 3S-FE engine. Almost the same powertrain as the Celica GT-Four, the first Japanese car to win WRC titles. You find the Camry, swap in an MR2 Turbo engine (a modern version of the Celica GT-Four's) and you have an old beaten up grandma car with the powertrain of a rally car.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Man the fun for me is finding good parking where I’m headed. I feel blessed.