4 ms·

>Mass is still the enemy here, and EVs typically have lots of it. Factor in bigger brakes and wheels, and the result is an increase in unsprung mass. That puts

>Mass is still the enemy here, and EVs typically have lots of it. Factor in bigger brakes and wheels, and the result is an increase in unsprung mass. That puts the springs and dampers under more pressure, which results in an increased amount of energy that needs to be managed, and unwanted oscillations when a car hits a pothole, for example. This is straight up delusional. The cars increased weight increases grip, making it safer in the corners and less prone to oscillate. Potholes are less disturbing at higher unsprung masses and faster speeds, as the wheel dips into the hole less. They are totally mangling car physics to make what point exactly? Cars accelerate too fast?

olyjohn 1y ago
Sorry but you're not correct either. The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Weight is the enemy of performance. You don't see race cars adding weight. Less weight makes everything function better. Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension. We had big huge heavy cars in the 60s and 70s. They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  >The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Adding weight increases stopping distance under most circumstances. Who said anything about that? Corning "worse" is a dumb metric, this is not about performance in a sports car, but about the characteristics of a consumer vehicle. They are designed for comfort, not to corner fast, obviously. >Less weight makes everything function better. Completely false. A heavy car is generally more comfortable. Why you are brining up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Obviously the engineering tradeoffs for speed on a track and a desirable consumer car are radically different. Sports car reduce weight for track performance, applying the same principle to a family SUV would be lunacy. >Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension. Wrong explanation. The weight of the unsprung mass makes the difference. Higher unsprung mass means moving slower into the pothole. >They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast. Sure. Engineering tradeoff.
  - altairprime 1y ago
    > Why you are bringing up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid. There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two. (Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      >I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable. I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong. What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.

olyjohn 1y ago

Sorry but you're not correct either. The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Weight is the enemy of performance. You don't see race cars adding weight. Less weight makes everything function better. Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension. We had big huge heavy cars in the 60s and 70s. They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast.

constantcrying 1y ago
>The mass makes the car stop slower, makes it corner worse. 100% of the time. Adding weight increases stopping distance under most circumstances. Who said anything about that? Corning "worse" is a dumb metric, this is not about performance in a sports car, but about the characteristics of a consumer vehicle. They are designed for comfort, not to corner fast, obviously. >Less weight makes everything function better. Completely false. A heavy car is generally more comfortable. Why you are brining up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Obviously the engineering tradeoffs for speed on a track and a desirable consumer car are radically different. Sports car reduce weight for track performance, applying the same principle to a family SUV would be lunacy. >Potholes are less disturbing, that is true, but that's because the car is so heavy it won't dip into the hole as quickly. It's still harder in your whole suspension. Wrong explanation. The weight of the unsprung mass makes the difference. Higher unsprung mass means moving slower into the pothole. >They rode great, but nobody ever said they handled well or were fast. Sure. Engineering tradeoff.
- altairprime 1y ago
  > Why you are bringing up sports car is a mystery to me. Every single sports car would make a horrible and painful 500 mile drive. Incorrect. I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. It is extremely comfortable for road trips. I’ve driven several others that are as well. Each stops at a certain horsepower below what’s possible to focus on a more pleasing experience rather than a faster experience, spanning a price range from $25k to $250k. Each can take corners better — that is, can be turned within safe operating control margins at higher longitudinal G forces on roadways where other vehicles are present with tire grip and steering capability maintained through the turn — than any non-sports car, specifically including the Plaid. There are cheaper and more comfortable sports cars than a Lotus. Now that velocity no longer defines the ‘sports car’ category (and quite seriously. thanks to EVs for that!), the next item at the top of the list of what separates a sports car from other passenger vehicles is cornering, not acceleration. Within that post-EV definition of ‘sports car’, you have the entire spectrum of track vs. comfort tradeoffs available. What you do not have is heavy EVs. Sure, there’s the Roadster, which takes the knee-bruising, wildly-uncomfortable plastic shell interior of a Lotus and glues a battery pack to the bottom, and there’s the electric Ariel Atom if comfort is of even less importance. Acceleration, comfort, cornering: pick two. (Hypercars are a variation of passenger car that focus on maximizing acceleration and cost; Plaid has some interesting interactions with that category! But the category is also usually delivered at body widths that limit the roads one can use them on, and/or in Plaid’s case at body masses that limit cornering. Land speed records and narrow mountain switchbacks tend to be incompatible targets.)
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    >I drive a modern sports car that has less acceleration than a typical gas SUV or minivan or hybrid Prius. No, you are driving a consumer vehicle with slightly stiffer suspensions. Actual cars designed purely for track performance are neither legal on the road nor in any way comfortable. I have literally no idea what your point is. The article claims that unsprung weight makes potholes worse, that is wrong. The article also claims that higher weights make everything worse, which is also wrong. What is your actual point? The article is about consumer EVs, being driven by normal people. If you aren't disagreeing about the wrong car physics, then about what? That a 911 can be a comfortable drive? Shocking revelation.