This is a good point. (Cayenne Turbo owner here). I don’t even like the fastback “coupe” version of these vehicles, you’re just giving up functionality for some go-fast styling.

This.

US ones are a bit better:

But we already know from his calculations that the thrust from the drive train is stronger than the thrust needed from the jets. So the first part of your scenario is unlikely. (remember that we are only accelerating 0-60, so it’s not like the car motor is topping out , that would be a concern for drag)

Yeah, it’s kind of tricky, right? I’m only giving the author a bit of a hard time because he engineered / physics’d the hell out of the thrust calculations, but then kind of threw in that misunderstanding about grip at the end.  

Because the rockets are only providing somewhat less than half of the force. If you take the motors/tires out of the equation, you more than double all the problems he’s discussing.

Interesting point, but I don’t see why it would draw any more air over the car than when it normally goes 0-60.  Some sort of hypothetical venturi?  That’d be a really small effect, especially if all the rockets are on the back of the car.

I’m genuinely curious, in what scenario does pushing on the back of a car hurt its traction (grip)?

But why would the thrusters cause the grip of the tire to be exceeded, any more so than using no thrusters?

Yeah, I was going to mention using the thrusters to improve downforce, but I think it is fair to assume the thrusters would be at relatively balanced.  We don’t see rockets doing loops that often.

I understand your thrust calculations, those made sense to me.

Right!

Exactly. And Americans wonder how people overseas can get radicalized to hate the US to the point they would want to commit terrorism, when we have these Qanon nut jobs openly recruiting here. Sadly those people overseas often have a real grievance caused by some interference by the US , whereas Qanon has Russian…

Again, it’s complicated and we do not really have the facts. Suppose the transit agreement presents a contractual obligation for a ship of the size of Ever Given to be escorted by two tugs for the duration of the transit as has been reported.

Hindsight is always 20/20.  I agree the captain and the ship have ultimate responsibility for the decision to go through, that’s a weak argument.  If true, their argument of “you were supposed to provide two tug boats for the duration of the passage through the canal and you did not” might be a stronger one.  

Just last week the Ismailia Economic Court heard recordings of the Ever Given crew arguing with Suez Canal Authority pilots over whether the ship could make it through or not.

Read my comment carefully. I said 20MPH below the prevailing speed, not 20 MPH below the speed limit. If you are all driving in a convoy at the safe speed for conditions - you are the prevailing speed. Putting your flashers on in this context might ‘feel’ good, but does nothing for other drivers except create…

I guess I’m okay with this. The inappropriate use of the flashers (as described) is a useful warning that you are dealing with a bad driver and to give them a wide birth.

I don’t see how flashing the lights makes you visible further away. All you accomplish is confusing people who know what flashers are meant to be used for.  (for your original use case where you are just driving along)

you are right, my bill lists “Agency: Port Authority of New York & New Jersey”