Are you a race car driver?
Posted in General by George
I didn’t have time to get accurate statistics, but I’m pretty sure that less than 0.1% of people in the United States race their cars professionally. However, a much larger percentage of Americans believe that the time it takes their car to go from zero to sixty miles per hour is a deciding factor in automobile purchases.
I do not understand why this matters so much. Every car on the market today, be it an SUV, a hybrid, or a sports car, can accelerate at a speed that is more than enough for driving from point A to point B without problems. Every car on the market today also has more than enough top speed, handling, and other features needed to maneuver.
So why do so many people feel like they can’t buy a car that does 0-60 in slower than 4 seconds or doesn’t have a top speed of over 110mph? Why does this matter at all, especially compared to fuel efficiency and reliability?
So many people cite that they refuse to buy a hybrid/compact/small/fuel-efficient car because they don’t have the “performance” of a more powerful model. First off, is the difference that great? I don’t think so. Secondly, even if it is, why do you need to accelerate from 0-60 in 3 seconds? Why do you need to drive 110mph? Are you a race car driver? Are you aware that taking full advantage of your car’s “performance” is illegal?
So if you’re going to buy a car because it’s “performance” is above average, ask yourself whether it is worth the fact that it probably gets terrible gas mileage and using it to its full potential is illegal. If you’re just using your car to get from point A to point B, then you don’t need anything more than a basic, fuel-efficient car. If you buy a performance car and all you need is simple transportation, then you’re not only wasting money, but to me, you’re coming off as someone pretty darned lame who feels the need to be defined by a car.
Note: I am not saying that people who need to tow things with their cars are lame. I’m saying that people who drive powerful cars simply to drive powerful cars are lame.
April 12th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
You look in your rear view mirror and see that big tidal wave gaining on you. You think to yourself, “Oh sh*t. I wish a purchased that 300-hp Acura RL instead of the 78-hp Prius. I might have a chance…” And haven’t we all seen Mad Max Road Warrior? You can’t deal with crazed, rape happy barbarians in your small, economy hybrid. It’s just not done.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
george…why the sudden car push?
hm…calling people with a freedom to choose and waste their own time and money names…
I am not saying that I have a high performace car, or have ever had one. Some people just like cars, I have a couple Mechanical Engineering guys in my program here and they get a kick at looking at cars that they hope they can buy when they have enough money.
Does a BMW M5 get you to the same place as a honda civic? Yep. But as you said, there is status and an image associated with a certain car, and they may even like driving it.
There seems to be a trend in your posts George where you seem to be looking at would be best for society as a whole. And then you criticize people for doing something against your percieved “optimal” solution. Good stuff if you are a policy creator, but if you are joe schmoe looking to buy a car, there is a different way of thinking.
I mean we could overanalyze cars, fashion, houses, luxury anything, and come up with waste. If you want to do something about it, then do something about it. Give us a plan on how you would force your will on everyone.
Maybe I am just having a bad week, but all of this whining is pissing me off.
April 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
the question is…is banning high performance cars and their wastefulness enough to overcome the massive joblessness eliminating the SUV and sports car manufacturing facilities will create?
Also, why does pistachio ice cream exist? that is a real honest to God travesty. It’s not even that good as a pudding.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
After the speed limit changed from 55 to 65, some expected the car fatality rate to increase. It didn’t. It decreased.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/65-lives.html
Why did the new speed limit lower the fatality rate? 1) Drivers may have switched to safer roads; 2) highway patrols may have shifted resources to activities with more safety payoff; and 3) the speed variance among cars may have declined — it might decline on the interstates as law abiding drivers caught up with the speeders, and it might have declined on other highways as their speeders switched to the interstates.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:32 am
George,
As I have told you before, just because you don’t need something doesn’t mean you don’t want it. Also, I would take a 2006 Chevy Corvette ZO6 over a foreign (Asian, automotively speaking) PIECE OF CRAP like a honda civic hybrid any day. Do I need the 505hp in a Corvette ZO6, no but I want it.
This wanting of more despite any real need defines not only the all powerful American but moreover humans in general. I bet if I took away your iPOD that can store 20,000 songs and the air conditioning, and the, ah heck, everything relating to technology (Jessie’s phone number on your cell phone?) you would be pretty P.O.’d. Not for the fact that all of your college work and comforts are gone but rather that you can now never have those luxuries to fall back on as you once could. To exemplify this more: You take away the music that you listen during your downtime or the TV or the XBOX 360, PS3, or Gamecube and you feel empty due to the lack of these things which you don’t need but like to have just to have. Here’s a big one, an automatic transmission. THAT is a complete waste unless you live in the city but still, you want it because without it you have to shift all by yourself instead of having a computer do it for you. No apparent need, just pure want.
I probably have overdone this but the main principle is this: When someone has something and it gets taken away, they don’t like it, not because what they had was truly essential for their survival, but rather to just be able to have it there just to have to use or not.
Despite your comments against performance I know that even you would flip a sh*t in a formula 1 race car going 220 mph with G-forces out the butt pushing you against the frame of the seat you’re in.
By the way, Shaniqua, just because a car has 300hp doesn’t mean it can go 150mph, all cars have governors inside of them that shut off the fuel line to protect the engine and the driver from unsafe driving (in cars) when a certain speed is attained, limiters are in smaller engines. A 295 hp Suburban can only go 98 mph governered despite the potential for higher speed…..but these governors can be lifted and removed. Ever gone 35 mph in a golf cart?
Stay classy fellas,
Love, Ben.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Wow, I am delighted my little brother finally posted a comment on gimme-five! I’ll have to get back to it though… gotta run now!
April 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am
By the way, Shaniqua, just because a car has 300hp doesn’t mean it can go 150mph, all cars have governors inside of them that shut off the fuel line to protect the engine and the driver from unsafe driving (in cars) when a certain speed is attained, limiters are in smaller engines. A 295 hp Suburban can only go 98 mph governered despite the potential for higher speed…..but these governors can be lifted and removed. Ever gone 35 mph in a golf cart?
I’ve gone 130 in a V6 Camry 5-speed, so it’s not academic. The speedometer went to 150 mph in that model. I didn’t do it every day, but if the opportunity presents itself, why not. It felt kinda cool, and actually, I had to pull over to the right hand lane to let a guy pass.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:06 am
Benny, I promise I’ll respond to your comment soon, I’m just a little busy right now and I don’t want to tear into you over the internet. Love, George
April 14th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Benny,
The reason I write this article is to questioning why some people place a higher value on a performance oriented car versus a reliable, efficient one.
Luxuries such as an iPod, a cell phone, or an automatic transition all have clear value. An iPod enables me to stay entertained while I am riding the metro to and from work. A cell phone allows me to stay in touch and makes me more productive. An automatic transmission is necessary because I have no idea how to drive a manual one, because I’ve never had the opportunity to learn.
The problem I have is that it doesn’t make sense to me that people would want a luxury they can’t use legally or safely and/or causes damage to their car. Accelerating and braking rapidly puts serious wear and tear on a car. Driving 100mph puts you in serious risk of reckless driving charges (i.e. losing your license) and getting in a fatal accident. Any car can do at least 95 mph (even my 1990 Toyota Camry), so why would you need a car that has the potential to do 150mph if you can’t use it? Furthermore, your point about governors in the car is self-defeating… once again why would you want a car that can go faster than 98mph if you can’t even do it without the engine shutting off (minus dangerous tinkering with parts in your car)?
I rest my case.
April 14th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
George, your possible poll questions are a little skewed (of course, it’s your right since it’s your website).
I feel I don’t fit in either of the catergories. Maybe this would be a better split up.
What do you buy a car for?
1. Flashy/Status
2. Fast/Driving fun
3. Efficiency/Environmental Friendly
4. Reliability
5. Safety
So, I would choose reliability, just because I’m not a gear head and I don’t have the extra 4K to buy a hybrid version of my car.
April 14th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
True. I’ll admit I’m terrible at creating polls. Also, if you all have any poll questions you’d like me to post, just put them in the comments! I’ll alter the car one right now!
April 17th, 2006 at 7:58 am
From the anti-capitalist lefties at Consumer Reports:
Prius Not a Top Pick
The Toyota Prius was a good performer in the frontal crash test and, equipped with optional side airbags, also good in the side test. But it’s rated marginal for seat/head restraint design, so it isn’t a Top Safety Pick.
The movement of the driver dummy was reasonably well controlled during the frontal test. Although the dummy’s head did hit the pillar between the doors and the roof rail, head accelerations were low. Other injury measures also were low, and the Prius’s structure held up with minimal intrusion into the occupant compartment.
“The way a hybrid model earns the top rating in the frontal test is the same way any other car does,” Lund says. “Its front structure has to crush to absorb crash energy, and it has to have a safety cage that stays intact so the safety belts and airbags can protect the occupants.”
The Institute conducted two side tests of the Prius, with and without its optional head-protecting side airbags. Without the airbags the Prius earns the lowest rating of poor.
The intruding barrier struck the driver dummy’s head. Measures recorded during the crash indicate that a serious skull fracture and brain injuries would be likely to occur in a real-world crash of similar severity.
Surprisingly, the KIA Sedona was a top rated safety pick.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Looks like no REAL American wants to be seen in one of these things. Except at a photo-op.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., center, gets out of a Hydrogen Alternative Fueled automobile, left, as he prepares to board his SUV, which uses gasoline, after holding a new conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars only to switch to their official cars to drive back the few block back to the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/06042...
April 27th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Hahaha thanks for the picture… made me laugh.