03-06-2019, 09:13 AM | #11 | |
No more BMWs
Join Date: Apr 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: Ram, MS3, CX-5, RX-8
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 14,753
|
Quote:
But, yeah. Meh. |
|
03-06-2019, 10:12 AM | #12 |
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,514
|
|
03-06-2019, 10:19 AM | #13 |
Relic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 12,458
|
IIRC, the EU is getting ready to mandate automatic speed limit compliance in new cars.
__________________
2011 M3 2006 Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison 2004 X5 3.0i 6MT 1995 M3 S50B32 1990 325is 1989 M3 S54B32 Hers: 1989 325iX 1996 911 Turbo |
03-06-2019, 11:04 AM | #14 |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
What bothers me about the idea of starting a safety argument at 112mph is that 112mph will probably have an imperceptible impact on traffic fatalities. It's also not very fast and perfectly reasonable on tens of thousands of miles of Interstate and US highways outside of built up metro areas. It's even often a sane and reasonable speed on the NJTP northbound from Exits 1-5 (but almost never southbound).
Anyway... My initial guess is that capping speeds at 112mph will not hurt Volvo's sales or their reputation among their buyers, but will cut their costs by, um, a lot. If your cars can't go over 112mph, you don't need to design all the parts and systems to perform over 112mph. You don't need to test them over 112mph. Parts costs go down, initially making new car sales more profitable and, later, saving customers money post-warranty with lower parts replacement costs. If they really wanted to spark a safety conversation to have a safety conversation and safety based outcome, they'd cap speeds at 80mph or less.
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
03-06-2019, 11:12 AM | #15 | |
Relic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 12,458
|
Quote:
__________________
2011 M3 2006 Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison 2004 X5 3.0i 6MT 1995 M3 S50B32 1990 325is 1989 M3 S54B32 Hers: 1989 325iX 1996 911 Turbo |
|
03-06-2019, 11:40 AM | #16 | |
Chief title editor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 26,599
|
Quote:
More limited, was the problem including the limiter or using a driveshaft that couldn't operate safely above the limiter's set speed?
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do? |
|
03-06-2019, 12:38 PM | #17 | |
No more BMWs
Join Date: Apr 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: Ram, MS3, CX-5, RX-8
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 14,753
|
Quote:
I agree with Clyde on this, generally. Zero impact from a safety standpoint. And 110+ is perfectly reasonable on many roads across the country. Interstate 72 across Illinois comes to mind. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|