this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
400 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

16367 readers
632 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I'm not sure it's reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.

Definitely agreed on weight.

The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that's like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

[–] inverted_deflector@startrek.website 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know if these graphs, again, I don't know what the source is, it's not really provided, but I don't think they're meant to make a specific judgment one way or another.

Well, except the note that cars have gotten bigger while also becoming more efficient.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 12 hours ago

It explicitly says "on this chart, down is worse".

[–] destructdisc@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times

It is certainly cause for concern when heavier and larger moving objects that are able to reach high speeds quicker are being controlled by increasingly more irresponsible people.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is why there is an increase in SUVs crashing through shops when grandpa hits the wrong pedal.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 12 hours ago

0-20 times and 0-60 times are not necessarily closely correlated.

Could argue that's due to a reduction in manual vehicles, or a reduction in driver competence / medical status.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Something that’s twice the weight with twice the horsepower only accelerates the same speed. Double the weight and keep the horsepower and you’ll go half as fast.

The graphs aren’t entirely 100% related to each other. The twice as fast acceleration average isn’t because of the double horsepower, that only works if the weight also isn’t doubles.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

EVs have massive torque from zero speed. Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque. A Model Y is both heavy and makes 500ftlbs torque immediately.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Both are very limited comparability especially between drive types.

Torque was normally measured ahead of the gearbox and that introduces a whole pile of extra messiness.

Power is relevant once you're into higher-speed regimes e.g. merging onto a fast road, overtaking, and climbing hills (especially if towing).

Force-speed or acceleration-speed curves would be nice.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque.

I don't really disagree with your earlier comment, and I agree that the shape of the torque curve matters a lot when it comes to the practicalities and experience of driving a vehicle, but, uhh, what you said here is just completely wrong.

Force and speed (torque and RPM) are both components of power (horsepower is torque * RPM / 5253). Saying that the RPM, or time component, of that equation doesn't matter is the same as saying it wouldn't matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 years for a crane to lift a load at a construction site, since its lifting the same weight either way.

To put it another way, with a long enough lever I can exert enough force to start a passenger train rolling down the tracks with just my own arms (and in fact, people do something similar using compound levers). But what that doesn't let me do is move a passenger train at 200 MPH like high speed rail lines do. There is no arrangement of gears or mechanical linkages that will let a single human being power a high speed rail line like that, the human body does not have enough power output.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that’s like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

I want to see that chart (a) starting at 0 sq. ft., and (b) going all the way back to the '50s.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 hours ago

Yeah, American cars have had a reputation as 'land yachts' for a long time.

[–] Duallight@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

For most cars, higher acceleration I don't think is an issue. However things like the Hummer EV weigh 9,000 pounds and goes from 0-60mph in a smidge over 3 seconds. The amount of damage that can do is insane

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

The acceleration of Teslas is one reason they have the highest crash rate of any brand. Fucking stupid to give the public more horsepower than a 70s formula one car.