4 ms·
> It’s surprising to see such lazy journalism in FT. This is certainly a fast time, but the Tesla s has been around for a while and they have a 2s time. Porsche
by alphabettsy 4y ago
> It’s surprising to see such lazy journalism in FT. This is certainly a fast time, but the Tesla s has been around for a while and they have a 2s time. Porsche Taycan has 2.4s.
They seem to be writing about their personal experience. Whether or not faster vehicles exist is irrelevant to their description of their own experience. It’s also not a car like those you mentioned.
This is pretty common from writers and publications who are not usually focused on automobiles.
- prepend 4y agoI think the personal experience is great. I called it lazy because it should have been coupled with reporting to investigate what the actual time was and put it in context. I don’t think this is unique to cars and would have the same complaint if the reporter said “Holy mole the price of these carrots seems astronomical to me.” Without any research into the actual price. FT usually has really good editors to improve stories like this. If a reader has a likely question and the article doesn’t provide it, that’s usually lazy.
- justin66 4y agoIf you were looking to geek out over zero to sixty times as if they matter you are not the intended audience of this article. You really were completely off base expecting the article to indulge you. It appears in Financial Times, not Road and Track or something.
- prepend 4y agoI’m not looking to geek out, I don’t really care about this stuff. I just want to know the reporter’s perspective in context. The author presents this as something unusual, but it’s not. It’s the same 0-60 as a tesla model3. That’s pretty relevant info.
- justin66 4y ago> The author presents this as something unusual, but it’s not. That’s completely, ridiculously untrue.