Blender IS a regular car, although with a non industry standard dashboard that is hard to learn…
However, because it is a regular car, people can mod it and apply their own customization and kits to it. You’d be amazed to see what performance people can squeeze out of regular cars. A lot more people use regular cars than racing cars.
Those racing cars you mention, they’re built by companies like Autodesk who specialize in racing. Most people just want to drive, and nobody starts out by racing.
… also: A 3D Software is not a car. 
Nobody says that consistency and intuitive usability should come at the expense of speed. I am sure the Blender developers don’t want that, either. But getting to the ideal ballance of pleasant and easy use without the loss of speed takes time as well as trial and error. Changes will have to be dialed in and maybe partially rolled back as well.
Ultimately ease of use in the sense that you don’t have to constantly think about what to do (like for example the viewport setup for retopo which takes steps in several different places across viewport and object settings) also can mean a lot of speed improvement in the end.
The point of this topic all along was that these things should be taken more into an overarching and program wide consistent consideration manifest that we can see and talk about.
Not just as a modular thing that is attached to each individual module.
I think the real question is, what if Blender was an insect ? would it be more like a cicada, or more like a termite ?
As I mentioned, there are valid arguments regarding the fact that “easy to learn” (as a core focus and as a core philosophy) can mean significantly reduced power for those who want to go beyond putting together basic scenes, but I don’t think the car analogy fits very well.
The reason why that is so is due to the fact that while a race car has a lot more horsepower, it is built primarily for speed sports on a track. It would not be your first choice for things like errands (like shopping ect…) or even just driving in the real world where traffic laws need to be followed (because of the regulations regarding safety and because every part needs to last a long time over thousands of miles).
The Race Car excels at what it does because it is specialized for a specific task, Blender covers a lot of areas and a lot of use cases so it can’t specialize too much without alienating thousands of users. In the big picture of things I wouldn’t exactly call Maya and Max a race car either, though maybe Zbrush counts as one since its core use case is sculpting.
If it were a regular car, it would not have won Autodesk’s competitions several years in a row.
We use Blender for uniquely complex modeling projects where all other software fails.
May be you just using it wrong, but no worries, a lot of people use software just for fun.
Most people want to make money. If you want to make money in computer graphics, you have to be better than others, and… welcome to the business race. That’s how it works.
This is horizontal shift - between specializations (more ARTwork - less CADwork). There is also vertical shift - between professionals and new users (more consistency for new users - less relevancy for professionals).
Also, I’ve never compared Blender to a car. I compared the two cars to clarify one of the deepest UI/UX design problems. If something is hard to learn sometimes that means that you have to be smart enough to learn this, because further it will be even more hard.
Learning Blender is not that hard compared to making money in computer graphics.
Why are we even arguin about this?
Ease of use can be improved without sacrificing all the speed. Why do we need to bring up nonsense like “It’s supposed to be hard” all the time? You don’t need to be dumb to enjoy ease of use, either. Thats elitist nonsense. “As difficult as necessary. As easy as possible.” Ballance!!!
If we don’t think about how to solve the problem but whether it’s a problem in the first place we are getting nowhere.
We could be arguing about ways to make things more consistent, more easy to use while keeping speed. Instead we argua about whether Blender is a car, or if Blender can only be fast and effieienct if it’s hard to learn without any way to improve it after 2.79.
Artists have different needs.
Blender is for everybody - professionals who value speed as well as newcomers who value their time to learn a program that is able to communicate how it wants to be used without any secrets you just “have to know”.
We do not need to sacrifice all of the speed and we don’t want to dumb anything down, either.
We want a maximized ballance between both. That means consistency, intuitive UI approach and actual attention to the areas that are still sore.
Again - these include usability as well as speed.
It’s neither “Blender: The fastest software on the planet at any cost.” nor “Blender - the easiest software at any cost.”
It’s "Blender: The freedom to create. 
"
Ease of use is equal to speed, but is not equal to ease of learn.
Speed always require learning sacrifice.
So why should the experience of learning the software not improve, then?
(edit) Also even calling it “learning sacrifice” … I don’t even like the sound of calling learning a “sacrifice”. Learning can and should be fun. For a software good and consistent UX is part of it.
All the sculpting in Zbrush is an “editing a brush for 2D painting” process.
Minimal consistency, still good software.
I don’t understand that. 3DsMAX have a shit of UX, same for Maya, Zbrush is the worst software, substance is a pain to use… Few software have a better UI and UX than blender.
Had a chuckle about the race car metaphor.
That used to be the case, not anymore. Funny story: When Teslas first came out (referring back to the car metaphor), buyers would take them straight from the showroom to the race track and enter them in drag races. They consistently won their group and class.
And the whole interface Tesla drivers needed to learn to go fast was just pressing the accelerator pedal to the floor. The car took care of everything else (no gearbox, full anti-slip traction control and pure electric torque).
As far as is known, this is achieved by expensive design of automation systems, and not by simplifying a car to a bicycle.
Also, complex CG tasks are far away from being solved by pushing pedals.
I think our dialogue gets really fascinating at this point where the person associated with KIT-ops (a massive addon that gets harder to learn as it gets functionality)
talks about simplicity to the author of the simplest Blender add-on (F2), that occupies a single key, and which combines organic modeling and hardcore manual variable-density retopology into a single simple workflow.
Sorry, but I couldn’t help but appreciate the irony =)
I am in no way “associated with Hard Ops.” You might want to get your facts straight before slinging mud.
Aww, sorry then.
Indeed, it was KIT-ops.
My bad.
Fixed my post.
Hahaha. Just insert name of whatever addon suits you. Hilarious-- an ad hominem “generator” that insults whatever and whoever based on which flavor of response you don’t currently like.
You should consider patenting your approach here. It’s a good one!
BTW, if you want a copy of KIT OPS to try out, private message me and I’ll happily comp you a free one.
I see that you are a diamond developer. Thank you for your support of the Blender foundation. There are only three such contributors at that high level-- one of the three compatriots is the other person you’ve disparaged here, masterxeon, creator of Hard Ops.
I really didn’t tried to disparage anyone here. (I am subscribed to masterxeon’s patreon for years as well, he is a great artist and developer that I admire)
Hardops/KIT-ops/Boxcutter are a nice example - they can be hard to learn, but they definitely deserve it to get the hard work done faster.
All I want to say - functionality brings complexity, and it is ok. And summarizing a wide range of possibilities in a simple form is really hard and expensive design work.
I am closing this thread. The discussion is moving in circles and has been going on long enough. Concrete, constructive Blender UI / UX feedback to the developers is welcome in focused threads in the User Feedback or Usability section. Thanks.