View Single Post
Old 03-17-08, 08:40 AM
  #528  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by paytonc
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I came across this in a search:



Actually, yes, the Gregg Easterbrook editorial in the LA Times that was mentioned upthread argues that average drivers do have "muscle car" horsepower nowadays. A Toyota Camry today does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds; a 1970 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Cobra Jet 428 did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. A Porsche Cayenne gets over 500 horsepower, which would have been absolutely unheard of in the 1960s; the same Mustang Cobra Jet is listed at 335 hp. Yes, 50% more horsepower than even one of the fabled muscle cars.

What's more, only 3,500 1970 Mustang Cobra Jets were ever made; the vast majority of cars then were much, much pokier. By contrast, there are already over 200,000 Porsche Cayennes on the road, and the Camry is America's most popular car with half a million (!) sold in the US every year.

An amazing graph showing how fleet average horsepower has skyrocketed in recent years (ever since rising fuel economy standards stalled) is here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/27/163819/327
The average car sold in 2006 gets both 60% more power and 60% more MPG than the average car sold in 1975.

The cars that we "share the road" with today are NOT the same cars that were on the roads when Vehicular Cycling was invented.
I don't doubt the data that you present. However, those data are rather far removed from the issues of operation in traffic. You have made a claim, while trying to conceal it, that the higher HP/ton of the present automotive population makes vehicular cycling more difficult. Such a claim needs to be either supported or withdrawn. Make up your mind as to which.
John Forester is offline