But I feel better for not taking the efficient way. Having to be the one to make a decision at every step of the way, choosing the constraints and where I cut my losses on accuracy, I think has taught me more about the subject than even reading literature would’ve directly stated.

I had to go and double check because a fact I was certain of was the PT Cruiser was designed to be classified as a light truck in order to require a lower CAFE standard, far before the 2008 reform. I’m sure there are many examples of this. The system in general is gamed aggressively. I can give a recent example:

The Honda CR-V. Look at the front bumpers of a European and US spec car

European: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Honda_CR...

US: https://file.kelleybluebookimages.com/kbb/base/house/2012/20...

The difference in front bumpers is due to a front approach angle requirement in CAFE’s regulations (18 degrees, off the top of my head?) to get a light truck classification.

Footprint isn’t really the issue. It’s related, and certainly why cars are getting bigger than they once were, but to my understanding the bounds of footprint for each classification hasn’t changed since the legislation was brought in, while cars are ballooning regardless. I think part of it is just consumer preference for more car.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20081216085824/http://www.nhtsa....

Wonder if books are inherently easier because their content is purely written language? Whereas movies and art tend to have less point by point descriptions of what they are.

Nissan simply could’ve never acknowledged it. Instead made a point that the GT-R was untuneable, which to my knowledge, is the only time a car company has claimed such a thing.

I think tuning needs a readjustment in perception. We’ve removed one way to tune, power, and I guess it’s more difficult to get excited about suspension geometry or alignment or handling balance vs a big shiny Garrett turbo, but the fact is we’re still talking about boxes with four wheels at the bottom. Tuning is, and always has been, about how to make a car use those tyres to their full effect.

The GT-R, as impressive as it was, also had its detractors for being a computer on wheels. Car lovers have always disliked techy cars and longed for simpler driving experiences. I know people who still insist carbs are better. I don’t see why the Plaid couldn’t have made Porsche miserable in all the same ways the GT-R did.

Maybe if the driver cares about performance, but is only capable of using their right foot. The only enthusiasm is being pushed into the seat at the peak of the traction of the tyres, for all of a moment before the speed limit restricts them again. All without any other theatre. I can see the appeal of being able to have that performance without drawing attention to yourself, but then you specifically clarify your statement by excluding tracks or technical (fun) roads.

…Strangely, I thought I liked the Plaid until writing this. I’m enthusiastic for what Tesla has done to the EV market, and the Model S appears to generally be a good car (all my experience is in the Model 3 my Dad has. I’d assume the experience is similar) but I can’t help but feel like they’ve made something so utterly uninteresting as their top of the line halo model. What could’ve been the GT-R of this era seems to have barely grazed the automotive community.

People like him are horrid traps for optimisers. They’re pointing out errors, and being so desperate to improve you’re encouraged to keep listening and value them greater instead of tuning their overeagerness out.

There’s an irony that actually getting hung up on minor comments and suggestions is in itself poor optimisation since the error becomes a distraction instead of a learning point.

Even for a finicky flying wing, I think if you keep an eye on the way the pitching moment shifts with pitch, I don’t see why picking an airfoil shape for the frame and hand calcs couldn’t get you to a design that flies reasonably.

“It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come.

“For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit)

Yet personally the second one reads easier for me, so I guess that reinforces the point to me specifically? Although I agree it’s unusual.

As I understand it, this is because tyres are still somewhat of a mystery, and anyone outside of a laboratory really doesn’t know shit. The best explanation I can think of is due to tyre load sensitivity. The friction coefficient of rubber decreases with normal force (E.g, a heavily loaded tyre has a lower friction coefficient), which is a pretty well accepted fact, this is one of the methods engineers will use to tune the handling of cars. This means a wider tyre has a lower force per unit area of the contact patch, which means it’ll have a higher friction coefficient.

Now that sounds plausible to me, but that’s just my best guess explanation.