Is Comfort mode worthless on 2022?

[Devin]

What the heck is a pedal dead zone? I don't recall feeling like there is any place in the pedal travel that fails to accelerate the car.

I guess when I go to wide open throttle there is a slight delay, but I attributed that to turbo lag. Is that what a dead zone is?

I also don't understand how putting a computer in between the pedal and the throttle will increase the signaling rate. I think I am missing something fundamental here.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Air resistance (drag) makes moving vehicles at high speeds VERY inefficient. That's why it was proposed, not to make tourists drive slow.

Braking from a high rate of speed is also slow, making reaction to other vehicles potentially dangerous.

Non-sport/performance vehicles also react poorly to sudden changes in direction, so having to suddenly move the vehicle at a high rate of speed to avoid something/someone also dangerous.

There's very few legitimate reasons I can think for them to keep the status quo. And I'm into cars/speed.

Then "they" should call for banning automobile racing, since the total CO2 output from that dwarfs the relatively few who exceed 100 MPH on the autobahn.

The safety concerns are non sequitur since "they" want the evil ICE vehicles replaced by EVs in the near future, and there are plenty of performance EVs now.

 

[stoopid]

Then "they" should call for banning automobile racing, since the total CO2 output from that dwarfs the relatively few who exceed 100 MPH on the autobahn.

The safety concerns are non sequitur since "they" want the evil ICE vehicles replaced by EVs in the near future, and there are plenty of performance EVs now.

There aren't thousands of race cars competing 365/24/7. Air planes and other shipping vehicles are equally large polluters. Improving the situation isn't mutually exclusive of everyone improving the situation (meaning, 'unless every single industry makes identical measurable progress no one should' is a recipe for stagnation).

No one's suggesting to not have performance vehicles, but common sense would dictate bringing them to a track far away from involuntary contestants in the sport car owner's personal poll position race to work.

 

[stoopid]

What the heck is a pedal dead zone? I don't recall feeling like there is any place in the pedal travel that fails to accelerate the car.

I guess when I go to wide open throttle there is a slight delay, but I attributed that to turbo lag. Is that what a dead zone is?

I also don't understand how putting a computer in between the pedal and the throttle will increase the signaling rate. I think I am missing something fundamental here.

I had a throttle controller in my last vehicle, and it definitely helped/was needed. I do not feel that is the case with the Stinger for daily driving.

The Stinger doesn't really have a dead zone, unlike some passenger/non-sporty vehicles. Usually it's noticeable in the first bit of travel, this is to keep people who tend to stab at the pedal less likely to cause the engine to rev needlessly. At some point, usually 50+% depressed, the pedal will go into a more aggressive throttle curve. That's why on many vehicle the driver will simply get in the habit of mashing the pedal to accelerate quickly, where better tuned vehicles have a more linear pedal response.

With the Stinger, if I wanted a truly linear pedal response (10% pedal depress = 10% throttle response), then I would put it in Sport mode.

But there's a bit more to it than that, since other factors come into play here... like rev hanging/matching, which is fairly aggressively configured in Sport mode. Letting off the pedal in Sport mode the RPMs will hang for a bit, so the engine doesn't have to build boost again. And this also factors into the shift points for the transmission.

 

[MerlintheMad]

There aren't thousands of race cars competing 365/24/7. Air planes and other shipping vehicles are equally large polluters. Improving the situation isn't mutually exclusive of everyone improving the situation (meaning, 'unless every single industry makes identical measurable progress no one should' is a recipe for stagnation).

No one's suggesting to not have performance vehicles, but common sense would dictate bringing them to a track far away from involuntary contestants in the sport car owner's personal poll position race to work.

There are hundreds of race cars competing/practicing/testing/playing all over the planet 24 hours of every day. And NONE of them are fuel efficient, go figure. It would be an interesting study, that I've never heard mentioned.

A "race to work" is breaking the law on surface roads in Germany too.

A completely freed up lane on the autobahn/freeway makes sense: it addresses the "need" some have for speed, and having such a lane is not anymore dangerous than an inviolable car pool lane. The Germans don't have issues with high speed accidents; they can handle it. "Poll position" is also not dangerous: getting up to speed quickly is not dangerous: and extra legal is punishable by law. Others being scared by what I do in my car is akin to other calls on the nanny state to regulate my personal decisions and space. Until there actually is a problem, I will resist all attempts to impose on my freedom.

 

[stoopid]

There are hundreds of race cars competing/practicing/testing/playing all over the planet 24 hours of every day. And NONE of them are fuel efficient, go figure. It would be an interesting study, that I've never heard mentioned.

If we're going worldwide, there are hundreds of MILLIONS of car and trucks. Your argument is just argumentative. Spit balling for you, "race cars" probably account for 0.0001% of all CO2 emissions produced daily on the planet. Cows farting is likely a billion times more impactful. Certainly millions of vehicles account for a exponentially larger percentage.

I hope you don't race your car on the streets. Your defense of the activity sounds like you do. When your 'freedom' puts my life and liberty at risk, your 'freedom' takes a back seat (usually in a patrol car).

 

[MerlintheMad]

If we're going worldwide, there are hundreds of MILLIONS of car and trucks. Your argument is just argumentative. Spit balling for you, "race cars" probably account for 0.0001% of all CO2 emissions produced daily on the planet. Cows farting is likely a billion times more impactful. Certainly millions of vehicles account for a exponentially larger percentage.

I hope you don't race your car on the streets. Your defense of the activity sounds like you do.

I did, early on, a few times. Then I made a promise to myself never to pick up a "gauntlet" again: a promise I have kept religiously and will to my grave. If I see a hot shoe in the lane next to me, both of us in the front row at a light, and if I accelerate fast and s/he does too (this has only happened a couple of times since my promise years ago), it means nothing: since I am not accelerating to race with anybody: I'd be hitting the kickdown switch regardless of any other cars in my vicinity.

I am arguing about FAST 100 MPH plus vehicles, not hundreds of millions of vehicles: your original assertion was how inefficient the gas consumption is to push a car fast, as a viable argument to eliminate the autobahn (and protect the planet): and I am arguing that the relative handful of 100 MPH plus cars on an autobahn bear no relationship to race cars being run all day every day.

 

[stoopid]

I am arguing about FAST 100 MPH plus vehicles, not hundreds of millions of vehicles: your original assertion was how inefficient the gas consumption is to push a car fast, as a viable argument to eliminate the autobahn (and protect the planet): and I am arguing that the relative handful of 100 MPH plus cars on an autobahn bear no relationship to race cars being run all day every day.

It's not a relative 'handful', have you watched all the youtube videos? It's a constant stream of vehicles on that road. And to your point - there are not races 24/7/365 that exceed the CO2 output from the daily use of cars driving spirited on the autobahn. It's a stupid point, but one you seem hell bent on making in defense (and only defense) to keeping that idiocy alive.

Maybe we should also ban auto racing then, following your logic. If one is bad, both are bad then, right? BOTH are certainly contributors, even though ironically I'm the one defending racing while you're summarily (and incorrectly) lumping it in as a equal contributor to the overall pollution and CO2 emissions problem.

 

[MerlintheMad]

It's not a relatively 'handful', have you watched all the youtube videos? It's a constant stream of vehicles on that road. And to your point - there are not races 24/7/365 that exceed the CO2 output from the daily use of cars driving spirited on the autobahn. It's a stupid point, but one you seem hell bent on making in defense (and only defense) to keeping that idiocy alive.

Maybe we should also ban auto racing then, following your logic. If one is bad, both are bad then, right?

I have not watched "all the YouTube videos": I've seen a representative selection of autobahn videos: and nearly all the traffic is in the slower lanes. Only a "special breed" even wants to go faster than the vast majority. Germany is the only first nation with a "recommended" speed of 130 km/h, i.e. no speed limit per se (but cops can cite anyone driving like an asshat at any speed whatsoever). Why should Germany ditch it's speed advisory policy on the "autobahn" (any highway with two or more lanes in each direction)? Just because some Karen types who want to "reinvent" capitalism and save the planet from humans say so? There is NO significant CO2 output for the relative handful of drivers in Germany who exceed 80 MPH (the "recommended" speed for highways).

Auto racing has been banned temporarily and races cancelled in the past: when those who bleat about the "danger!" prevail. And banning it for ecological reasons is definitely on the agenda of how the planet will benefit best. If they have their way, "Formula E" will be the only auto racing that survives.

 

[jthrelf]

Air resistance (drag) makes moving vehicles at high speeds VERY inefficient. That's why it was proposed, not to make tourists drive slow.

Braking from a high rate of speed is also slow, making reaction to other vehicles potentially dangerous.

Non-sport/performance vehicles also react poorly to sudden changes in direction, so having to suddenly move the vehicle at a high rate of speed to avoid something/someone also dangerous.

There's very few legitimate reasons I can think for them to keep the status quo. And I'm into cars/speed.

They don't really see a high rate of accidents. So that's a reason not to change something that isn't an issue.

And of course vehicles at that speed are extremely inefficient. That's just the price of admission for keeping no speed limit sections.

Like Merlin said, most folks aren't going nearly that fast. But I had a corporate card paying for my diesel.

 

[Devin]

You all are really cluttering up this thread.

 

[MerlintheMad]

I repent. It was a prolonged moment of weakness.

 

[5tinger]

It's finite and takes a long time (millions of years) to replenish. Unless you know something no one else does. Burning it is also has toxic byproducts. It's not really a different story, you're the one who brought up our reliance on it. Reconciling what replaces it is the top priority among all the various industries you listed. Air travel might be the most challenging, since planes need A LOT of fuel for an average length flight, and batteries are waaay too heavy using any incarnation of current tech.

Whether or not alternatives are found, eventually the well runs dry. Eventually we choke the atmosphere or warm the planet into extinction. We are the same species that cut down the last tree on easter island. We're ancestors of primitive animals who breed themselves into disease and famine.

The issue is that our lifestyles and our industrialized world was never intended to be sustainable. Instant gratification is our species' fatal flaw.

If we're going to talk about cars then let's stick to conversations and context of how that conversation relates back to cars.

Claiming that 150 odd years of industrialization has somehow altered the climate is not fathomable to me.

I don't buy into any leftist green hypocrisy agenda.

Evidence pertaining the effects of CO2 on the climate are largely inconclusive - some studies point to a warming effect, some to a cooling effect on the planet and others neutral.

Plants and trees absorb CO2 to create oxygen for life on earth after all?

And from my 28 years of local climate observation - I'd say the weather is based off a certain pattern that has more or less remained consistent. Despite the media scaremongering.

Besides, sources of CO2 are naturally occurring, such as volcanoes, ocean gassing and vegetation decomposition.
Self occurring forest fires, which actually serve to rejuvenate the forests emit CO2.