3 ms·

For car enthusiasts, I agree. For most of the population, 0-60 is a useful metric. Everybody accelerates from traffic lights and uses a highway on ramp nearly e

For car enthusiasts, I agree. For most of the population, 0-60 is a useful metric. Everybody accelerates from traffic lights and uses a highway on ramp nearly every day. Pulling 1g on a curve is for a work commute or road trip is rare.

Someone 5y ago
Everybody accelerates from traffic lights, but few want to do 0-60 in two seconds there. FTA: “firmly press your noggin against the headrest (trust us), release the brake, and hang on.” The difference between 0-60 in 4 seconds (drives the same distance as a constant speed of 30 for 4 seconds) and 0-60 in two seconds plus two seconds at 60 (gives you the same distance as a constant speed of 30 for 2 seconds plus one of 60 for 2 seconds) is the distance driven in two seconds at 30, so you’d be a whopping (not) one second behind if you drove that slower accelerating car. (Also, this car takes 8 to 15 minutes to prepare for that sprint. That’s not the practical)
- raisedbyninjas 5y ago
  I wasn't describing how the plaid is practical. I gave reasoning why the concept of the 0-60 metric is useful and relatable for the general public.
leetcrew 5y ago
there's very rarely a good reason to use full throttle from a dead stop on public roads. if I want to get in front of someone at a traffic light, about half-open throttle is all I need to do it. if the other driver resists, it's wiser to find a slot behind them instead. I actually find the 30-50 and 50-70 tests that car and driver runs to be pretty interesting for a daily driver. in a manual it shows what kind of performance you can expect merging / changing lanes if you're too lazy to downshift, and in an automatic it captures how well the transmission responds to a sudden application of the throttle while cruising. these figures strike me as a lot more realistic than flooring it from a dead stop. many cars are traction limited in the lower gears anyway. I do understand some people simply enjoy accelerating hard in a straight line, and I don't begrudge them that. I'm just disappointed by the tradeoffs that are made to hit that headline figure.

Someone 5y ago

Everybody accelerates from traffic lights, but few want to do 0-60 in two seconds there. FTA: “firmly press your noggin against the headrest (trust us), release the brake, and hang on.” The difference between 0-60 in 4 seconds (drives the same distance as a constant speed of 30 for 4 seconds) and 0-60 in two seconds plus two seconds at 60 (gives you the same distance as a constant speed of 30 for 2 seconds plus one of 60 for 2 seconds) is the distance driven in two seconds at 30, so you’d be a whopping (not) one second behind if you drove that slower accelerating car. (Also, this car takes 8 to 15 minutes to prepare for that sprint. That’s not the practical)

raisedbyninjas 5y ago
I wasn't describing how the plaid is practical. I gave reasoning why the concept of the 0-60 metric is useful and relatable for the general public.

leetcrew 5y ago

there's very rarely a good reason to use full throttle from a dead stop on public roads. if I want to get in front of someone at a traffic light, about half-open throttle is all I need to do it. if the other driver resists, it's wiser to find a slot behind them instead. I actually find the 30-50 and 50-70 tests that car and driver runs to be pretty interesting for a daily driver. in a manual it shows what kind of performance you can expect merging / changing lanes if you're too lazy to downshift, and in an automatic it captures how well the transmission responds to a sudden application of the throttle while cruising. these figures strike me as a lot more realistic than flooring it from a dead stop. many cars are traction limited in the lower gears anyway. I do understand some people simply enjoy accelerating hard in a straight line, and I don't begrudge them that. I'm just disappointed by the tradeoffs that are made to hit that headline figure.