i like how its made for rich people with loads of hype consumerism hiking gear so they can go LARP in the woods away from their email job for 3 hours, and not helping people with paralysis or the elderly. that's cool and good.
This is very cheap. I know people who have amputated limbs who are on a waitlist for basically charity to get 15k prosthetics. Insurance ain't covering that. Obviously this isn't the same, but if anyone needs the assistance, then this isn't out of budget.
I was thinking about how this is ideal for a small number of people but probably would cost north of (I was guessing) $100k for that market so we’re gonna increase the market to lazy people and drive down the cost
its rougher because of america, not in spite of it. its a self-reinforcing feedback loop. implying you are the grown up in the room because you are 'realist' about this or whatever is a classic dimwit take.
These things are luxury/billionaire bragging devices first and foremost.
They get demoed, but they're not safe nor legal to use much of the performance on the street. And once you take it to the track you'll be hit with a massive bill to make it safe and then a bunch of restrictions because at the track they tend to do the math and actually be more rational about what is safe and what is not safe.
F1 would not allow this car to race on its closed courses, and F1 is about the most demanding there is in terms of track safety. There are basically no tracks that are actually designed to be safe for the speeds this car can hit. Especially in the US where most tracks have a far lower safety factor designed in.
> They get demoed, but they're not safe nor legal to use much of the performance on the street.
On the German autobahn there are parts without any speed limits so you can use all of the power there.
Also Nürburgring during public sessions is legally considered a public street (if you crash you will have to get police to make a report etc) so you can drive any road legal car there which the Nevera is.
> And once you take it to the track you'll be hit with a massive bill to make it safe and then a bunch of restrictions because at the track they tend to do the math and actually be more rational about what is safe and what is not safe.
Nah you can go to any track you want and the owner won't care (outside of you paying the damages if you crash).
The problems will arrive once you try to enter some racing series but Rimac could just create their own Nevara racing series just like a some supercars have.
But still the Nevera is not a race car. If it was it would have been built to fit into some racing series spec but it clearly isn't.
good? the obsessive fawning over speed (especially acceleration) as some intrinsically valuable property of a car could stand some introspection by society as a whole.
loud flashy, cramped exotics being humiliated by quiet practical commuter cars 1/10th their price calls the whole hyperbolic attentiin-seeking costume show of the former into question.
The motivation behind the inexpensive flashy noise makers is exactly the same as the expensive ones, except there's slightly more embarrassing pretense involved, you have to make sure you don't get shown up by someone with an actual exotic when you're cruising around in your me too discount version. So-called supercars, unlike rolls or Bentleys or similar, derive their association with quality from the ability to hit certain theoretical numbers on a drag strip or a race track. When a basic $40,000 family car can do the same it rather knocks the entire mystique out from underneath these things. There's no more basis for pretending that it's about performance or speed.
In all cases they are all pretending that they are interested in the speed as if it is a proxy for their ability to appreciate the fine technology and precision engineering of their automobiles. When in reality a Toyota Prius is equally if not more an accomplishment of refined technology than any exotic.
The whole thing is just an excuse to project an image of wealth and status to impress strangers and play a one-upsmanship game with the rest of your interest group, very much like watches except with the ability to annoy the neighbors as a petty power tripping bonus on the side.
Does it? Twenty years ago you could buy a souped up Honda Civic with a twin-turbo and NOS that could beat an exotic off the line, and the world of supercars didn't implode then, why would it now?
Because you couldn't buy that Civic from a dealership, and generally speaking you wouldn't have said Civic be nearly as reliable (or anywhere close to reliable) to an exotic, even as unreliable as exotics tend to be.
EVs broadly embarrass sports cars all while being more comfortable, more practical, and... usually cheaper.
Do you have intimate knowledge of how strong the carbon fiber structure of the car is?
Like, I agree we shouldn't have cars that can go over even 100mph on public roads, as that risks other people's lives, but all of them can already. If someone wants to risk their own life with an insufficiently caged car at a race track, that is their business, no need to make it illegal.
Plus drag racing has recently changed the thresholds where cages are needed to be more in line with modern cars, which are stronger and can go 8 seconds without any drama, and have good brakes to stop from there.
Somehow it is, and statistics prove it [0]. There a lot more to safety than just physics.
Safety takes into account many other factors, this is why speed limits vary. Driving in Germany is safer than in places with worse infrastructure, general state of the vehicles, or driver education (as in "obeying the rules"). Simply put, better roads, better cars, and more conscious drivers will lead to higher safety even at higher speeds.
Romania and Bulgaria have a whopping ~3 times higher road death rates than Germany despite having low speed limits. This obscures the fact that both countries have a relatively poor general state of the infrastructure, of the vehicles, and of driver behavior.
I'm sure lowering the speed limits would make traffic even safer and also lower pollution, energy consumption, noise, road wear. But thinking safety is an absolute thing is making the same mistake people buying SUVs make.
Germany at least used have an extremely rigorous licensing process so the average German driver was considerably more skilled than the average American. Maybe someone can let us know if that’s still the case.
Still the case, but similar to many other European states. Austria, France, UK and Sweden have the same requirements (lived there or have very close friends on these).
US roads are much easier to drive though. Even in LA driving is much more relaxed. That city is just built for cars. I think it's reasonable that the US driving test isn't as strict.
EDIT: Sweden also has a mandatory snow & ice training as part of the learning. You can do that in Germany, too, but it's not part of your driving exam. Makes, of course, perfect sense given the weather in each of these countries.
German roads are built very well indeed. If you're a US citizen, come to Germany and you'll find like you've travelled 20 years into the future. The tarmac is much better, signs reflect much better, it all feels much better maintained.
Then again, Germany is a tiny country compared to the US. Of course you can build expensive roads if you don't have to build long roads.
By the way, if you drive from Germany to Austria, you'll get that feeling again: they spend even more money per km of highway; it's again a significant step up.
You don't need a cage if you don't go racing. Also the single piece carbon body may be strong enough to not need a cage.
Though convincing FIA of that fact is going to be really hard so probably easier to just weld one in there if you want to race it for some reason (and find a racing series that would accept it)
edit: And a cage without a proper racing harness and a helmet (+ HANS device) can be really dangerous.
To others or yourself?
In the early 1990s SUVs had more risk than cars for a while due to rollover risk, but today SUVs are safer for it's own occupants than cars on average.
As for other people on the road, yes the added mass is dangerous. But the Rimac is SUV heavy too.
I'm mostly concerned with others. If you want to kill yourself - that's your life. But threatening other people should be strictly regulated.
And SUVs are more dangerous for many reasons, not only mass. For example "regular" cars hit you in your legs and you roll over the car which dissipates some of the energy and spreads the rest over time better. Accelerations experienced can be several times lower if you spread the collision over time. Also you're less likely to go under the car than if a SUV hit you.
> today SUVs are safer for it's own occupants than cars on average
in a crash - possibly (I've seen studies both ways, but they did started to turn more in favor recently). But you're more likely to have a crash in SUV in the first place, because of worse visibility, breaking and turning performance, as well as mental factors (I'm higher and safer, I can take more risks).
What makes you think that? This thing generates enough kinetic energy in the hands of an idiot to far exceed most SUVs, and it weighs 4700lbs anyway, there are SUVs that are lighter.
"The American explosive devices needed to be camouflaged in a way that would make them appear to the Russian system as part of the natural background—something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water"
This was the most ridiculous part. I can't think of a reason they would prefer to use an explosive charge in a position visible to inspection.
"Salinity matched" does not make any sense, and the article said nothing of the sort.
It said "make them appear ... as part of the natural background — something that required adapting to the specific salinity of the water". Making something invisible to sonar could depend on the acoustic impedance (which varies with salinity) of the surrounding water and might involve adapting the object accordingly.
