Here's How Fast A Car Has To Be Before You Think It's Too Fast

Yahoo

13-02-2025

Supercars can go so much faster than they could ever legally go on an American public road for as long as there have been supercars, so what's the point in continuing to raise the top speed? Do you really need to be able to go faster than 85 miles per hour at all, anyway? Earlier this week we asked our readers to tell us what speed they felt was 'too fast' for a car, and the answers did not disappoint. We put together a few of our favorite answers below for your perusal.
If you think you have a better answer, drop it in the comments below and keep the conversation going.
I drive a 911. I don't have it to actually go very fast, in absolute speed. I bought it to have fun within legal(ish) limits on twisty mountain roads. I've never had it over 90, I don't think. I got that out of my system on race tracks.
I'd be totally fine limiting it to 90. There's probably no good argument to allow faster than that on a public road.
Suggested by Sissyfoot
Only as fast as the tire technology can support.
Suggested by Knyte
Driving fast in and of itself doesn't really do that much for me. Getting to speed is what is fun. I would rather have a car that accelerates stupid fast and has a 100 mph limiter than a 200 mph car that takes a minute to get to 60.
The main problem with speed is the margin of error and the domino effect it can have when things go wrong. At slower speeds you have time and space (potentially) to react if things start going wrong. Picture hydroplaning on a stretch of road with a curve coming up. At 70 you might have a chance to get it slowed down before the curve gets there, at 90 you've got a lot less time to adjust. Then, if worst comes to worst and things do go wrong, you're now barreling down the ravine/embankment/shoulder/ditch/etc. with way more momentum that can carry you into other stuff and further away from the road.
So I think speed is less about what is 'safe' for modern vehicles to travel at and more about what happens when things go wrong. Are our crash barriers and other things designed to handle a vehicle with exponentially more kinetic energy running into them?
Suggested by MoparMap
In the past, I pushed my motorcycle up to it's 150mph top speed and that was... mostly boring. I've been driving on I-39 down the middle of Illinois and realized I was going 100 mph and that yeah, it doesn't make the prairie any smaller. All speed really does is up the stakes when something goes wrong from this is bad to this is catastrophic.
When I took my MSF course decades ago, I remember the instructor pointing out that your speed should take into account not just the road, but what's near the road- If something goes wrong, are you gonna be sliding into trees or other cars or a fence or a ditch? And that stuck with me. Because problem at 50 mph is probably gonna be a lot less catastrophic than a problem at 100.
Suggested by Buckfiddiousagain
If I am going 90mph in a 535 I am far safer than somebody who's going 60 mph in a Wrangler. It is not even close.
Speed limiters (on road) should be based on grip, stability and stopping distance, not some universal absolute. Cars should be speed rated with license plates that reflect their maximum safe speed classification.
Obviously it can't be a free for all, you can''t have some people roaring past at 200 mph. But when Utah has 80mph highways where most cars are going 90 without drama, I have to believe that 90 is too low as a max speed.
Suggested by BiffMagnetude
I think there can be such thing as too fast to be fun. One problem with cars like the ZR1 is that you are almost always going to be holding it back. Even if you take it to a trackday, unless that trackday is all well-driven supercars you are going to be sitting there waiting to pass half the day instead of actually getting to drive it flat out.
Suggested by golfball
F=M*A. And that's the issue. Cars have gotten bigger and heavier, distractions have increased and cars while safer for the occupants, it hasn't for anyone in the area. So while a small sports car will hurt/kill the driver if things go horribly wrong, a gigantic SUV going at high speed could take out several other vehicles, pedestrians or both. So short answer is, depends greatly on the vehicle and environment.
Suggested by Drg84
Corvette Zr1, the new one. It'd be wise for chevy to pull a dodge and make buyers sign wavers saying 'Don't sue us because we basically killed you, but you were dumb enough to buy it.'
Suggested by Noturbestfriend
If the car is 1mph faster than your reflexes, then it is too fast for you. I've seen eighty year olds competent to drive a hellcat, and thirty year olds I wouldn't trust with a Geo because it is too fast for them. It is impossible to say what is too fast, but as a general rule of thumb; For most of us I'd say that once you start getting up to sixty-five/seventy-five mph, the number of people competent enough to drive beyond that speed drops off a cliff. There are probably only a few handfuls of drivers in America who are truly competent, even in the most modern car, of driving at over 100mph. I'm not one of them, that is all I know.
Suggested by skeffles
Wasn't there an episode of Top Gear where Clarkson went to Japan to test drive a GTR, and it was limited until it got to a track, then all sorts of magic technology went to work? I hate nannys, but being able to do 160 down I80 is just asking for trouble. Is there a hard limit? No. I'll admit, on two wheels I've really exceeded the limit. Pulling a trailer, no. Some jacked up jeep/SUV/truck with too oversized tires hanging out over the fenders where the handling is off should have some sort of nanny. It's a fine line between 'my freedomz' and driving is a privilege, not a right.
Suggested by McKooglyll
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.