Volvo to limit the top speed on all its cars to 180km/h

[Arthur]

K.

Go get 'em!

 

[Colin62]

Well, the majority of the SA population are in urban areas, so it is relevant.

And anyway, what goalposts did I set initially? (to move them, I had to set them first)

The discussion was never limited to urban roads. Yet when Arthur came up with a plausible scenario, indeed, a situation which actually took place and wasn’t purely hypothetical, where driving above the speed limit saved someone’s life, you suddenly decide to narrow it down not just to urban roads in general but to Empire Road in Jo’burg.

Face it, you lost that round, get over it and move on to the next round.

 

[Craig_]

The trick here is 'limit'. Those lawnmowers are not limited, they just can't do it.

Quick google search gives me, 171km/h for the Up and 173km/h for the picanto (spark shows 144km/h but that doesn't support my narrative so I'll ignore that one) so you ( and @thechamp ) might just be very surprised at the speeds the little mini cars can do.

 

[genetic]

Yes, we can be thankful it isn't a law forced on us by government. Yet.

But just because it's a private decision doesn't mean it's a good one, or one I approve of. I fully respect their right to do as they please with their cars, of course.

So you don't approve that Picanto's, i10's and small cars that are mechanically limited to 150km/h?

 

[Arthur]

So you don't approve that Picanto's, i10's and small cars that are mechanically limited to 150km/h?

My quibble isn't with the speeds. It's with the restriction itself, irrespective of the speed. Even if I never drive faster than the speed limit, I really strongly resent that the performance of the machine is intentionally crippled "for my own good". It's a philosophical objection. Machines should serve us. Always.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

My quibble isn't with the speeds. It's with the restriction itself, irrespective of the speed. Even if I never drive faster than the speed limit, I really strongly resent that the performance of the machine is intentionally crippled "for my own good". It's a philosophical objection. Machines should serve us. Always.

So don't buy a Volvo. Or a BMW, Merc or Audi.

At least this way you have a choice, rather than it being a government mandated requirement...

 

[pinball wizard]

My quibble isn't with the speeds. It's with the restriction itself, irrespective of the speed. Even if I never drive faster than the speed limit, I really strongly resent that the performance of the machine is intentionally crippled "for my own good". It's a philosophical objection. Machines should serve us. Always.

How do you feel about dead man switches on circular saws and chainsaws? Or any other safety devices of that nature?

 

[Arthur]

How do you feel about dead man switches on circular saws and chainsaws? Or any other safety devices of that nature?

Much like a feel about airbags, seatbelts, and collapsible steering columns. They don't limit the performance of the machine.

Much the same sort of issue comes up with fly-by-wire systems, and is hotly debated. It is one thing to use machine intelligence to manage systems and to offload pilot decision-making. It is another entirely to absolutely prevent the pilot from performing certain manoeuvres, with no ability whatsoever to override or disable the software controls.

 

[Arthur]

So don't buy a Volvo. Or a BMW, Merc or Audi.

At least this way you have a choice, rather than it being a government mandated requirement...

+1

 

[pinball wizard]

Much like a feel about airbags, seatbelts, and collapsible steering columns. They don't limit the performance of the machine.

Ok, and like an M3 or whatever that is currently limited to 250km/h, but can go appreciably quicker. (most of the cars in that league are limited to 250...)

 

[Archer]

My quibble isn't with the speeds. It's with the restriction itself, irrespective of the speed. Even if I never drive faster than the speed limit, I really strongly resent that the performance of the machine is intentionally crippled "for my own good". It's a philosophical objection. Machines should serve us. Always.

Curse those mechanically limiting tyres! And mechanically limiting transmission. And engine. And chassis with insufficient stiffness to corner at high speeds. And bad suspension...
Hmmm, seems like every car was designed to certain limits.... You just like to pick the ones that irritate you

 

[Archer]

Much like a feel about airbags, seatbelts, and collapsible steering columns. They don't limit the performance of the machine.

Much the same sort of issue comes up with fly-by-wire systems, and is hotly debated. It is one thing to use machine intelligence to manage systems and to offload pilot decision-making. It is another entirely to absolutely prevent the pilot from performing certain manoeuvres, with no ability whatsoever to override or disable the software controls.

I'd love to see these zero weight systems you mention that don't limit the performance of the machine

 

[Arthur]

Curse those mechanically limiting tyres! And mechanically limiting transmission. And engine. And chassis with insufficient stiffness to corner at high speeds. And bad suspension...
Hmmm, seems like every car was designed to certain limits.... You just like to pick the ones that irritate you

You don't get it, eh.

Those are not limitations imposed by human intention but rather arise from the way the universe is architected and constructed. I rejoice in those physical laws and do not see them as restrictions but rather as enablers.

It is a very different thing entirely when human beings decide to place an artificial and arbitrary limit on the Volvo's top speed. It doesn't enable new capability. There is no universal or natural law that says 180 km/h is the maximum speed at which a motor vehicle may travel. 180 km/h is marginally riskier than 170 km/h, which is marginally riskier than 160 km/h, which is marginally riskier than ... etc, etc. You see where this is leading. What physical law says 180 km/h is the number? It's whimsical and arbitrary.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Could the car effectively be built to be more efficient due to the top speed no longer being required?

I'm thinking along the lines of gear ratios and overall engine tuning.

Also wouldn't cars become cheaper for their components not needing to be specially engineered for extremes they'll never reach?

 

[rietrot]

I'd love to see these zero weight systems you mention that don't limit the performance of the machine

Sometimes it is better to just say nothing.

 

[TheChamp]

Could the car effectively be built to be more efficient due to the top speed no longer being required?

I'm thinking along the lines of gear ratios and overall engine tuning.

Also wouldn't cars become cheaper for their components not needing to be specially engineered for extremes they'll never reach?

Good points but I honestly don't have any of car makers passing any cost benefit that arises to the consumer.

 

[Arthur]

I'd love to see these zero weight systems you mention that don't limit the performance of the machine

You got me. I don't have the foggiest notion where you plucked that from.

 

[rietrot]

Could the car effectively be built to be more efficient due to the top speed no longer being required?

I'm thinking along the lines of gear ratios and overall engine tuning.

Also wouldn't cars become cheaper for their components not needing to be specially engineered for extremes they'll never reach?

It is more effective to have long ratios(hi top end) with bigger engines. You want the car to just be idleing along at the normal hiway speeds. That's why they electronicly limit the cars and not just slap on a gearbox with shorter gear ratios.

 

[Archer]

Could the car effectively be built to be more efficient due to the top speed no longer being required?

I'm thinking along the lines of gear ratios and overall engine tuning.

Also wouldn't cars become cheaper for their components not needing to be specially engineered for extremes they'll never reach?

Yes to all points, unless you have a tinfoil hat.
This is precisely what drives literally every decision of the engineering team. Cost Vs mass Vs range

 

[RedViking]

Quick google search gives me, 171km/h for the Up and 173km/h for the picanto (spark shows 144km/h but that doesn't support my narrative so I'll ignore that one) so you ( and @thechamp ) might just be very surprised at the speeds the little mini cars can do.

Down hill test.....