The Reddit thread in question tackles a foundational question in transport-category aviation: why does V2 exist as a distinct speed if V1 already marks the point of no return for a rejected takeoff? The original poster's confusion is common among student pilots and enthusiasts transitioning from light-aircraft operations to understanding FAR Part 25 performance planning, and the answer reveals the layered engineering logic behind the V-speed schedule that every airline and business jet pilot operates under daily.
The key clarification is that V1, VR, and V2 are three sequential but functionally distinct speeds, not redundant checkpoints. V1 is the critical engine failure recognition speed and the last point at which a rejected takeoff can be initiated within the calculated accelerate-stop distance; it answers the "go/no-go" decision, not the climb performance question. VR is simply the speed at which rotation begins, chosen so that by 35 feet above the runway (the screen height in performance calculations) the aircraft reaches V2, with an appropriate margin built in. V2 is the actual takeoff safety speed, the minimum speed that guarantees adequate climb gradient and controllability with one engine inoperative, all the way through the initial climb segment to acceleration altitude. The redundancy the poster perceives disappears once it's understood that V1 governs the abort decision, while VR and V2 govern the aerodynamic and performance requirements of a continued takeoff. An aircraft rotating at VR without reaching V2 could technically become airborne but with insufficient climb gradient or maneuvering margin, particularly critical during engine-out obstacle clearance calculations.
For working airline, corporate, and Part 135 pilots, this isn't academic. V-speed calculations directly drive daily dispatch decisions: runway length requirements, flap settings, assumed temperature methods for reduced thrust, and obstacle departure procedures all hinge on precise interplay between V1, VR, and V2 as computed by performance software (OPT, ACARS-linked EFB tools, or company-specific load planning systems) for each specific weight, temperature, pressure altitude, runway condition, and wind combination. A pilot who doesn't intuitively grasp why V2 must be reached, not just VR, is more likely to misinterpret abnormal V-speed outputs, mismanage an engine failure just after liftoff, or fail to recognize when a "V1 cut" scenario in the simulator requires flying a very specific pitch/airspeed target rather than simply rotating and climbing. This is precisely the kind of core airmanship reinforced in initial and recurrent type-rating training, especially during V1 cut maneuvers, where instructors emphasize maintaining directional control to VR, then flying a precise pitch attitude to capture V2, not just "any positive climb."
More broadly, this thread reflects a healthy pattern in online aviation communities: pilots and enthusiasts using forums like r/aviation to demystify performance concepts that are often taught procedurally in ground school without full conceptual grounding. The three V-speeds trace back to certification-driven performance guarantees under 14 CFR Part 25 (and equivalent EASA CS-25 standards), which require manufacturers to demonstrate accelerate-stop distance, accelerate-go distance, and one-engine-inoperative climb gradients across a range of conditions. Understanding the "why" behind V1/VR/V2 rather than just memorizing the sequence pays dividends well beyond initial certification, it underpins scenario-based training for engine failures, contaminated runway operations, and high-altitude/high-temperature departures where V-speed margins compress and precise speed discipline becomes safety-critical. Questions like this, however basic they may feel to the poster, are a useful reminder that even experienced pilots benefit from periodically revisiting first principles of performance planning.