4 ms·

Environmentally irresponsible, yeah. Unsafe, depends. It's definitely less safe than going slower. Agree on that. In my eyes,however, "unsafe" depends on traff

Environmentally irresponsible, yeah. Unsafe, depends. It's definitely less safe than going slower. Agree on that. In my eyes,however, "unsafe" depends on traffic, weather, road, vehicle, experience, etc. 200 in a Polo is sketchy, 200 in a clapped out Polo with cheap, old all seasons is an emotional experience, 200 on a bike is the top of 3rd gear, 200 in an M4/911 is about the same. Speed limiters, if we're talkiing about the same implementation (not Volvo being Volvo), came more so as a means of upselling (AMG driver's pack or whatever they called it) and to keep people from doing speeds unsafe even on a closed course in the very long overdrive gears. I'm also not about to go 140 because the Autobahn (+Nordschleife) might get a speed limit. If there's a speed limit added, I'll follow it to the best of my ability but I don't believe I'm being particularly asocial by staying in the left and giving it some chooch when I believe it's safe to do so. I'm not weaving, I flash very, very rarely, on the bike I'll only kill myself most likely, with the cars I'm even more careful with traffic since I can't squeeze by and am much more likely to hurt others in an accident, when doing a top speed run I abort if there's traffic in the next lane, if I'm going out to do one I do so at 2-3AM in bumfuck nowhere.. Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag. It was like an old Trailblazer I had where you'd see the fuel arrow start moving ever so slightly when you floored it but with a percentage.

arghwhat 2y ago
> Unsafe, depends. I agree that you can be better equipped for driving 200+ km/h, but I do not agree that it is possible for such driving to be safe on a public road unless you are guaranteed to be alone (and with proper racing equipment). The problem isn't you and your car, it's that you're zooming past other cars at speeds that make them practically stationary, and no amount of experience you may have make them any less likely to accidentally pull out, not noticing that a car had approached them at literally twice their speed. Even if no one ever failed to check their mirrors on regular lane changes, someone doing 80 might be forced to swerve for emergency reasons, and if you're going 210 then it's like hitting a stationary object at 130 km/h. Heck, even professional racing drivers have crash into each other all the time, and a check of your mirror isn't valid for very long if the speed difference is too high. Differential speeds are already not great when you mix 130 and 80 in the same direction, but mixing 200+ and 80 is impossible to do safely. > Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag. I wonder if the perceived difference isn't just a result of how much range you had to beign with, combined with the tesla maybe being easier to keep "in the green" near the rated range than an ICE car. Taking the polo as example, if you always drove it very aggressively you might be happy thinking it went 650 km on a tank and assume that the fuel rating was just an unrealistic lie. But drive it a bit more carefully (while staying at the speed limit) and you'll get 1000+ km on a tank as advertised. If you do the same exercise in a car that starts with a 500km range instead of 1000+, then being stuck with just 60% of the range from aggressive driving might be a lot more impactful. (Also, always remember that drag coefficients is for a given area which can be quite misleading when comparing cars of different sizes like crossover SUVs.)

arghwhat 2y ago

> Unsafe, depends. I agree that you can be better equipped for driving 200+ km/h, but I do not agree that it is possible for such driving to be safe on a public road unless you are guaranteed to be alone (and with proper racing equipment). The problem isn't you and your car, it's that you're zooming past other cars at speeds that make them practically stationary, and no amount of experience you may have make them any less likely to accidentally pull out, not noticing that a car had approached them at literally twice their speed. Even if no one ever failed to check their mirrors on regular lane changes, someone doing 80 might be forced to swerve for emergency reasons, and if you're going 210 then it's like hitting a stationary object at 130 km/h. Heck, even professional racing drivers have crash into each other all the time, and a check of your mirror isn't valid for very long if the speed difference is too high. Differential speeds are already not great when you mix 130 and 80 in the same direction, but mixing 200+ and 80 is impossible to do safely. > Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag. I wonder if the perceived difference isn't just a result of how much range you had to beign with, combined with the tesla maybe being easier to keep "in the green" near the rated range than an ICE car. Taking the polo as example, if you always drove it very aggressively you might be happy thinking it went 650 km on a tank and assume that the fuel rating was just an unrealistic lie. But drive it a bit more carefully (while staying at the speed limit) and you'll get 1000+ km on a tank as advertised. If you do the same exercise in a car that starts with a 500km range instead of 1000+, then being stuck with just 60% of the range from aggressive driving might be a lot more impactful. (Also, always remember that drag coefficients is for a given area which can be quite misleading when comparing cars of different sizes like crossover SUVs.)