Hybrid cars- anyone have one?

[Vidar]

Yes, formalia and papers count for very little until there is a control or even worse an accident. And then they are front and center. So that sounds like a sane decision to avoid. It is weird that they wont just state a towing capacity though.

One design feature on many EVs that I just couldn't get my head around was the user interface with a single big screen for most things. I get that it is less expensive to manufacture, and that it is more flexible for later change or personal adjustments - but I don't want to look sideways to some screen for any regular driving controls. I'm old school that way I guess - I like handles, buttons and switches in all the right places.

I've seen a few Mustangs around here but I haven't driven one.

[Farmer X]

How do you pick what will be collectible sometime in the future?

It's impossible to say for sure. About all I can do is react and try to get my next rig before lightly optioned long-bed trucks start bringing silly money.

[Vidar]

My collectible for later sale record has so far been rather dismal so likely to be the same for cars I fear. I got one of the first series of Intel Pentiums back in 92 (?). Those were the ones that would do certain calculations wrong. Intel had this send in for working replacement thing going on, but as a good collector I didn't do that.. I'm still waiting for this to finance all my beach houses in Malibu. Right now it's more like a small DIY dog house... 

My other big collectible plan was this game we played at University - Magic the Gatherings - and its collectible cards. Years later I sold most of the valueable cards for about USD 4000 which was actually a good multiple. Did the mistake though of checking what they were worth last year. (Never do that). Definately sold way too early. 

Back to cars I wish that would actually make an inverse hybrid - that is an electric car with a big battery and then little petrol engine for the long hauls. The engine can actually be small as it only has to manage the average power drain at an ideal rpm. The battery will even out all acceleration and so forth. 10-20 horsepower might actually be enough if my whimsical head calculations are somewhat correct.

[Farmer X]

I've had much the same luck...I sold many things way too early and/or took a huge loss on them.

Sometimes I think a GMT 800 might be the way to go. But the GMT 400 (in my opinion, anyway) was a much better truck. I wouldn't own a GM truck made after 2007...and that's only because I believe the GMT 800 was produced early in that model year or concurrent with its replacement. The newest F-Series I'd buy would be a 2004, and the newest Dodge I'd buy would be a 2001. I'm still on the fence about the first-generation Toyota Tundra.

[Vidar]

I like new shiny things if they make sense. 

I have noticed though that many utility cars have drifted somewhat away from the utility part over the years, and now have a finish and interior you'd rather not messy up with pesky work stuff. But your reasons for not wanting newer might be different?

Big pickups aren't really a thing here. I guess one of the reasons being that the car tax is weight dependent, and the other being that most infrastructure and parkings lots are made for normal sized cars.
 

[Farmer X]

Your reasons for not wanting newer might be different?

They are, and they're also myriad. Much of it has to do with the increasing complexity and difficulty in working on them. I also don't like the idea of an enormous touch screen slapped onto the dashboard. The near extinction of the manual transmission doesn't help, either.

[Vidar]

They are, and they're also myriad. Much of it has to do with the increasing complexity and difficulty in working on them. I also don't like the idea of an enormous touch screen slapped onto the dashboard. The near extinction of the manual transmission doesn't help, either.

Yes, new models are harder to work on. I think of it like either go new enough that it stays reliable for some years without needing much work, or old and easier to work on but also more likely to need work. And as I think there are many additional reasons to prefer newer I've gone in that direction. (I can't say I miss changing wiper motors, wheel bearings, oxygen sensors, insanely constructed light bulb changes, some motor air intake valve, and using a hammer at the exact right spot to loosen a stuck valve - to mention some of the stuff I don't miss..).

I totally agree on the enormous touch screen - it was actually hard finding an EV without. These days at least some Europeans brands seems to be bringing back manual controls based on customer feedback and discussed upcoming EU regulations.

At least EVs should be perfect transmission wise then - it is always in the right gear..   

[nate j]

I also don't like the idea of an enormous touch screen slapped onto the dashboard.

You’re right to be skeptical of those.  I have had the touch screens go bad in two different vehicles (from two different manufacturers) that were less than five years old.

Meanwhile, there are 20-year-old vehicles being driven around that have all the knobs and buttons still working fine.

One I managed to get replaced under warranty, so it works again, at least for now.

The other, the dealer wanted $1000 to replace.  I told them I would pay it, if they would warranty it for the rest of time I own the vehicle.  They declined.

I am glad that the touchscreens in my vehicles are pretty much just infotainment plus backup cameras.  Some newer vehicles have important functions like heat and A/C controlled through the touchscreen.

[Farmer X]

The dealer wanted $1000 to replace.  I told them I would pay it, if they would warranty it for the rest of time I own the vehicle.  They declined.

Remind me to avoid that dealer, and possibly also that manufacturer.

Below is a photo showing car audio that is more my pace:



The little triangles at 640 and 1240 kHZ are CONELRAD markings. Note also that the knobs at the left of the photo are labeled "pull for temp" and "pull for heater." Much better than having that function controlled with a trouble-prone touch screen.

Though the car was sold a long time ago, it's well worth checking out. Excepting the dash-top tach and faux wood steering wheel, it's a good approximation of how my first car would have looked when it was brand-new (until the hood is opened, anyway). Mine also had sharp-looking and period-correct Cragar S/S mags.

[Vidar]

That would be a fun car to drive around with on good weather days in the city! 

Safety is one of the reasons I avoid older cars as daily drivers though. That was put on point some years ago when I got mixed into a nasty accident. The car, which I liked very much, did a great job. While the car got totalled I could just open the door and walk away without a scratch once the world came to a stop. A quite surreal feeling. I was literally checking myself if everything was still in place and if pointy bits were sticking out anywhere.

I think I would have been one for the statistics if I had driven one the cars I had owned earlier. So safety has become an even higher priority for me after that. Also because others I care about drive the same car.

[Farmer X]

TL; DR version: we need to put a lot more focus on making drivers safer.

The bit with safer cars just rubs me the wrong way. A lot of the safety features mandated by the government can be annoying, and that's the least of the worries. I'm sure many of them will result in expensive repair bills when they give up the ghost.

It's hard to believe that my nephew will soon be of driving age. He might not have the opportunity to drive a car that is devoid of the aforementioned safety features. My biggest worry is that once people get too used to having these electronic nannies, they will become complacent and have no clue about the appropriate course of action when the nannies take a day off work at the least opportune of times.

Thinking back to the three vehicles that I've had totaled, one was my fault. I was driving way too fast. A second was caused when the at-fault driver wasn't paying attention and drifted into the westbound lane (my lane) while she was heading east. The third was caused because the guy behind me was following too close. He had a CDL, so he was lucky that he wasn't driving a commercial vehicle at the time. All three of those could have been easily prevented.

Again, more attention needs to be paid to what the operators do and how they do it.

[Grant Lamontagne]

TL; DR version: we need to put a lot more focus on making drivers safer.

The bit with safer cars just rubs me the wrong way. A lot of the safety features mandated by the government can be annoying, and that's the least of the worries. I'm sure many of them will result in expensive repair bills when they give up the ghost.

It's hard to believe that my nephew will soon be of driving age. He might not have the opportunity to drive a car that is devoid of the aforementioned safety features. My biggest worry is that once people get too used to having these electronic nannies, they will become complacent and have no clue about the appropriate course of action when the nannies take a day off work at the least opportune of times.

Thinking back to the three vehicles that I've had totaled, one was my fault. I was driving way too fast. A second was caused when the at-fault driver wasn't paying attention and drifted into the westbound lane (my lane) while she was heading east. The third was caused because the guy behind me was following too close. He had a CDL, so he was lucky that he wasn't driving a commercial vehicle at the time. All three of those could have been easily prevented.

Again, more attention needs to be paid to what the operators do and how they do it.

I agree.

Not going to happen.

This requires a massive societal change that is very unlikely to be made any time in our lifespan.

People are simply too self absorbed and oblivious to the world immediately around them because they are focused too much on what is happening on their phones.  As someone who stands next to traffic every day, seeing first hand how people drive, I can tell you, self driving cars can't get here fast enough.

It's all well and good to say people need to learn to be better drivers, but as there is no way to actually make that happen, we need to do something else.  Having a computer that can't be distracted, absorbing data from dozens of sensors simultaneously is much safer and better on the road than relying on people that are either texting or looking straight ahead because they are terrified.

My ex wife (for example) is a terrible driver.  I think the world of her, but she should not be allowed behind the wheel.

She is also the best driver in her family.

Her father never exceeds 50-60km/hr, which would be fine if he only drove on roads that warranted those speeds, but he regularly drives on highways where the limit is anywhere between 80km/hr and 110km/hr.

Her brother is lucky to be alive after not bothering to look when making a left turn, and putting his Mazda 3 under a fuel truck.

And her mother is the absolute worst.  In addition to backing into a tree that apparently jumped behind her car, she is so terrified of hitting the shoulder or going into the ditch that she drives straight up the middle of the road- even on the highway.  She will drive with the yellow line going right up the middle of her car, swerve into her own lane when there is oncoming traffic, then immediately return to the middle of the road.

I know people that routinely drive drunk and/or stoned, and I know very few people that don't text/surf when driving, at various levels.

Some of them even have badges, so they can get away with it if they are ever caught.   

Self driving cars can't get here soon enough.

Def

[Vidar]

TL; DR version: we need to put a lot more focus on making drivers safer.

The bit with safer cars just rubs me the wrong way. A lot of the safety features mandated by the government can be annoying, and that's the least of the worries.

I don't think of it as an either this or that - we clearly need both safer cars and better drivers. Better drivers will help reduce accidents, but we will never actually have perfect drivers. Human errors will continue to happen. Even if we had perfect drivers who never did mistakes accidents would still happen for other reasons. So I agree better drivers are important, but I also think it is only part of the solution. The cars themselves can help with (sensible!) active systems to prevent accidents in the first place, and good protection if accidents do happen.

I think mandated safety measures like seat belt, airbags and crash tests have proven themselves. What I don't agree with are these new smart functions who actually don't always work. For instance in the EU new cars are now required to have a lane following feature which will try to steer you back if it thinks you are going the wrong way. This is the most horrible smurf thing ever in winter conditions - it mistakes ice edges, snow tracks and who knows what as lanes. And thus it might randomly decide to try and steer you left or right at its own sudden whim. If you have oncoming traffic or very slippery conditions the last thing you need is for the car to start steering off in odd directions. I'm quite certain this "safety" feature has caused accidents and will continue to do so - it probably works fine on well marked tarmac roads (near the legislators), but they made it a requirement everywhere..

You can turn if off, but it only stays off until you turn the car on again. Then it will be back on again. I believe all cars sold after 2021 or 2022 is required to have this madness.

[nate j]

For instance in the EU new cars are now required to have a lane following feature which will try to steer you back if it thinks you are going the wrong way. This is the most horrible smurf thing ever in winter conditions - it mistakes ice edges, snow tracks and who knows what as lanes. And thus it might randomly decide to try and steer you left or right at its own sudden whim. If you have oncoming traffic or very slippery conditions the last thing you need is for the car to start steering off in odd directions. I'm quite certain this "safety" feature has caused accidents and will continue to do so - it probably works fine on well marked tarmac roads (near the legislators), but they made it a requirement everywhere..

You can turn if off, but it only stays off until you turn the car on again. Then it will be back on again. I believe all cars sold after 2021 or 2022 is required to have this madness.

My Subaru has this feature, and I agree with you that it’s not a good thing.  Fortunately, in my vehicle it is easy enough to turn off and have it stay off.  If I’m hugging or going over the line, it’s because I’m trying to avoid something, like a wide load in the adjacent lane or some poor fool trying to change a tire on the side of the road only inches from traffic.  In those scenarios, I certainly don’t need the car trying to steer back towards the obstacle.

[Vidar]

My Subaru has this feature, and I agree with you that it’s not a good thing.  Fortunately, in my vehicle it is easy enough to turn off and have it stay off.

That is the problem with the EU regulations and others that adopt it - like Norway. It is a requirement that it will be on every single time you turn it on. And thus you have to turn it off every time too. I wonder if there could be some OBD2 code to set this automagically and override the smurf thing?

Self driving cars can't get here soon enough.
Def

I agree that they should be able to do a better job than us feeble humans at some point in the future.

A non-technical question is the legal side of it. If my self driving car causes (due to errors or failing components for instance) an accident qualified as legal gross negligence, or decides to do something seriously illegal, will I as the "driver" be responsible? If not me then who? Insurance typically wont cover or seriously reduce compensation if they can state negligence so that can mean very serious money depending on damage caused. Then there is the the risk of going to jail for some driving offences.. I would need to see these questions resolved as well as technical ones before putting my trust and life in a self driving car.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Currently, at least in Canada and the US (may want to check your own laws for this) the driver is legally responsible for the actions of the car and assumes all responsibilities and liability involved with it's safe operation.

If the car makes a mistake, the driver is expected to be conscious and aware, able to assume control in an emergency.  This is why many cars (like the Ford Lightning) that have self drive options also have sensors that monitor the driver.  If it can't "see" your eyes then it will disable the autodrive function.  Ford's Blue Cruise system has two levels of autonomous driving- the top level monitors your eyes and ensures you are awake and aware, while the second level (for towing and other more challenging situations) requires that you have at least one hand on the steering wheel.

Except in the case of Tesla, where software hacks online may or may not exist that allow Teslas to autodrive at excessive speeds regardless of whether the driver is conscious or not.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9102924/tesla-driver-appears-asleep-ontario-highway/

In those cases, the driver is still at fault, only now you can be guaranteed that it will be a criminal charge in addition to a civil one.

That's why the driverless cabs I saw in California last week were so interesting- I can only assume the company has taken on HUGE liability insurance since there is no driver to blame.

Still, the LIDAR system they use is amazing.  It's bouncing energy beams something like 90,000 times per second in every direction and mapping literally everything for at least 100 meters in every direction.  You couldn't sneak up on one of these things if you tried.  And, at no point is it trying to light a cigarette, drink the last bit of coffee, respond to a text message, shift gears or change the radio station while it is driving.

Def

[Vidar]

That's why the driverless cabs I saw in California last week were so interesting- I can only assume the company has taken on HUGE liability insurance since there is no driver to blame.

I had to check one out on Youtube. That is quite impressive! But only driving in good weather and not on highways it said. That should properly mess up the market for full time taxi drivers... Unless Uber and its likes has already done it in.

I assume it removes the human factor from taxi drives too. From the top of my head I can remember being driven half way (into who knows where) and then asked to double the payment, driving much longer routes than necessary, not showing up for pickup, driving off without giving the change, speeding at 150 km/h down a highway while skipping between cars, refusing short drives, and spending the entire drive preaching some religion while showing utter contempt for his non-believing passenger. Lots of fun with taxis at times!

To be fair those were the very rare exceptions - most are very professional and courteous. And two times I've been in serious hurry two taxi drivers managed to cut the usual time to the destination in half or less - very impressive indeed! I'm certain no computer car would do that for me as it required forgetting some traffic rules for the occasion. (I remember driving straight through a school yard and along some pedestrian field).   

[Farmer X]

I know very few people that don't text/surf when driving, at various levels.

Add me to the list. I used to do that on occasion, but those days are over. The phone has to wait until I've parked, shut off the engine, and secured and left my vehicle.

Self driving cars can't get here soon enough.

There isn't much that scares me. (Considering where I live, that's probably a double-edged sword.) Autonomous vehicles, however, terrify me. One reason is related to a bit of advice my Dad gave me around the time I received my driver's license: "look out for the idiots, because they aren't looking out for you." The distracted driver who caused the premature demise of my '92 Toyota pickup is a great example. I made a move to avoid her, but she was coming at me too fast. The important thing is I made a conscious effort to avoid the collision. I trust myself to operate a vehicle that has been maintained to my standards. That includes taking evasive action if need be. I don't trust an autonomous vehicle to do the same, especially since they're very likely stuffed to the gills with sensors and reliant on some signal from who knows where. And what assurance do I have that some miscreant with ill intent will not try to hack such a vehicle?

I almost without exception detest inanimate objects that act and do things without my input. If my phone or PC does that, I'm annoyed. If an autonomous vehicle does that, I could be dead. Similarly, the VA rushed "virtual doctor visits" during the height of Covid, and I always had terrible luck with them. The technology with autonomous vehicles still has a very long way to go before they're ready for rollout on any sizable scale.

Better drivers will help reduce accidents, but we will never actually have perfect drivers.

True. However, Jim Clark came pretty close.

I think mandated safety measures like seat belt, airbags and crash tests have proven themselves.

The energy absorbing steering column was in widespread use before the air bag, and it made it far less likely that a front-end collision would result in a steering column impaling the driver. I have had seat belts leave their mark on me (temporarily), but they have also saved my life. Disc brakes, dual braking circuits, better tires, and multi-speed windshield wipers are some other safety measures that I 100% favor. As much as I loved my Falcon, its manual four-wheel drum brakes were shameful. The hyposensitive manual steering typical of Fords in those days wasn't much better.

If I’m hugging or going over the line, it’s because I’m trying to avoid something, like a wide load in the adjacent lane or some poor fool trying to change a tire on the side of the road only inches from traffic.

Or maybe a pothole.

[Vidar]

That includes taking evasive action if need be. I don't trust an autonomous vehicle to do the same, especially since they're very likely stuffed to the gills with sensors and reliant on some signal from who knows where. And what assurance do I have that some miscreant with ill intent will not try to hack such a vehicle?

I hesitate to admit it, but modern cars are better than me at correcting unwanted slides and rotations at slippery conditions. Part of the reason is that my control is limited to steering and speeding/ breaking all 4 wheels at once. The car though can control every individual wheel independently as needed - and likely much faster than I ever could. It is not a fair contest.

I similarly expect self-driving cars to become better than me at evasive actions. As above it has more control of the car and self-driving cars even add the steering. And unlike me it has full attention 360 degrees around the car at all times and with practically no reaction time. Computers are also very good at predicting where (several) moving objects will be and thus aim to avoid those. The self-driving cars might not be there yet, but I do think they will be. And probably before we know it. Widespread public use on the other hand I think is another matter - I suspect these costs plenty of money today.

And what assurance do I have that some miscreant with ill intent will not try to hack such a vehicle?

I think we can all be very assured that many of the most miscreant miscreants will indeed try to hack these vehicles. Anything from fairly innocent pranks via free taxi drives to serious offences. I assume that threat is taken seriously. On the positive side they are not running Windows at least. (As a side track US submarines has Windows.. that just doesn't sound right. I guess just for office tasks.)

The technology with autonomous vehicles still has a very long way to go before they're ready for rollout on any sizable scale.

I think so too. But if they can realize the ambition, and not make new major problems in the process, then I think that is real progress.

The energy absorbing steering column was in widespread use before the air bag, and it made it far less likely that a front-end collision would result in a steering column impaling the driver.

These days they have airbags everywhere I look so not just the driver and not just impact from the front. There is even one under the bonnet of our car. In case of collision I suppose it will fling some pedestrian or hapless elk over the car instead of into the cabin? (I don't really want to find out!)

[Farmer X]

These days they have airbags everywhere I look so not just the driver and not just impact from the front. There is even one under the bonnet of our car. In case of collision I suppose it will fling some pedestrian or hapless elk over the car instead of into the cabin? (I don't really want to find out!)

I hope you don't find that out, either!

All this talk about safety features reminds me of an easy way to prevent a lot of accidents. It can be summed up in five words: slow it the smurf down. I never would have said this 30 years ago, but I've also become a big proponent of tiered licensing.

[Vidar]

I find the introduction of cars in the first place somewhat funny: When cars got introduced here they were proper scary. Thus, they were banned by politicians. You could apply for an exception from the ban for a single planned drive. Given the speed of the mail back and forth, and the bureaucracy involved, you better plan ahead a few weeks or months before each drive. If you did get permission someone needed to walk or cycle in front of the car while shouting "a car is coming" - similar to todays wide load I guess. Apparently it was a dangerous job to be the safety person walking in front of these cars - some irony there.

By 1912 they let all loose. No more applying before each drive, no more people walking in front, and speed limits of 15 km/h in cities and 35 km/h elsewhere. Some areas with congestion would wish for those speeds even today! 

[Grant Lamontagne]

I get the discomfort with autonomous cars.  I really do.

Last night in the next province over a man was stopped for DUI.  His car was impounded, he was charged and released.

A few hours later, the police responded to another report of a drink driver, came out and stopped the same man in a different car.  Apparently he had either gone home and got his other car or borrowed one from someone and continued on his way.

As for it being hacked, well, if Russia or China wants you dead and goes that far, what's to stop them hacking another car and running you over?

As for your incident in getting hit by another driver and your ability to try and swerve....

The systems in these cars would have identified a potential threat before you and would have acted to mitigate it before you would have, and as Vidar pointed out, probably more effectively.  Double that if the other car was also autonomous.

In short, if you were both in autonomous cars, that accident likely wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Def

[Farmer X]

I'll have to do some research into what makes those systems work. Sensors are likely involved, and I think I've said previously that I've seen way too many of them go bad. My present car probably has a gearshift position sensor that's shot (sometimes I have to slam the shifter into low and back to park several times before I can turn the ignition switch to the off position and remove the key). That's yet another reason I so strongly dislike automatic transmissions.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Absolutely the tech isn't flawless just yet- but then it's also relatively new.  But, it doesn't get reliable without real world testing and use, so it has to start somewhere.

The LIDAR is very cool stuff.  This is a Top Gear episode from over a decade ago:

https://youtu.be/jV51BGIzkwU?si=-rN7zGBF2NfOa9m6

Also, you can see the effectiveness of LIDAR when you watch some of the documentaries on the Mayans and other South American civilizations whose buildings have been swallowed up by the jungles.  A plane or drone flies over an area with a LIDAR sensor that fires out something along the lines of 90,000 pulses every second, and maps it all.  They then run the results through software that identifies the position of each bounced pulse and they can then "see" the patterns that indicate a building that is hidden by leaves and trees. 

It's absolutely amazing stuff, and when you understand that the autonomous cars are able to use that, or rather the input from six of those sensors that are capable of finding ancient ruins in the jungle, covered by trees.... I mean, you would have to have eyes like a fly to be anywhere near that kind of awareness.

Def

[Farmer X]

It doesn't get reliable without real world testing and use, so it has to start somewhere.

Very true. I just prefer that it's done on a controlled and closed course as much as possible.

[Vidar]

Very true. I just prefer that it's done on a controlled and closed course as much as possible.

I would be surprised if that hasn't already been done for years on end before letting them out in traffic by themselves? At some point they will be declared ready for walking if not running yet.

On another note one modern feature I do like on cars are these matrix lights that only fade the high beams locally where oncoming traffic or car up ahead happens to be. Apart from being relaxing it has the benefit of keeping most of the road lit up with high beams even when meeting other traffic. In particular keeping the road edge well lit at all times seems like a safety boon. On the flip side the ones I've tried seem a bit slow to turn on high beams when leaving well lit areas. 

[Grant Lamontagne]

Has anyone seen the specs on the Second Generation Rivian trucks?

 

One of the benefits of having been the first to market with an electric truck means Rivian is ready to roll out a second generation truck (both pickup and SUV) while many other manufacturers are still trying to roll out their first attempts.

The Rivian R1T and R1S (Truck and SUV) are built on the same platform, and just a different body is added afterwards, which is convenient, and they have set the standard for range, towing, off road and other truck like tasks that everyone else has barely been able to meet.

But now that they are on the second generation, they have streamlined the components to reduce production costs (important since they are also teetering on the edge of bankruptcy) and they have really knocked it out of the park.  I'd hate to be in the other manufacturers' shoes right now.

The new quad motor R2T and R2S models have a total equivalent power of 1025HP.

Yup, you read that right- one thousand and twenty five horsepower!   

This gives it a 0-60mph time of 2.5 seconds.

That's not truck fast, that's not just sports car fast, that's SUPERCAR fast.  According to 0-60 times that puts it on par with the Lamborghini Hurrican EVO, Pagani Zonda and McLaren 750S.

In a smurfing pickup truck.



All that and it has a range of 420 miles or 675 kilometers.

Plus all the regular truck features mentioned above (towing, hauling, off roading, four doors, seating for five etc) and all of the cool EV truck stuff like on board power outlets and the front trunk.

I mean, I am still looking at the Lightning due largely to cost (Lightning is well under $100k CAD, the Rivina is over $100k CAD) and availability of service (there's a Ford dealer in every town across Canada, while Rivian isn't even selling in this half of the country yet) but I have always liked the Rivians better- and even more so now.

Def
Def

[powernoodle]

This gives it a 0-60mph time of 2.5 seconds.

That is goofy fast. Even a regular Tesla sedan is super fast.  Its hard to wrap your brain around that unless you see (or experience) it in person.

 

[Grant Lamontagne]

I never see the need to go that fast, especially not in a truck, but the ability to have all the torque you'll ever need available at all times is very appealing.

Def

[Farmer X]

I don't see the need for such acceleration and top speeds, either, especially since I've rarely been able to exceed 70 MPH (~113 KPH) legally. Seems to me like that's high potential to cause a lot of collisions.