I’m guessing this is exactly the dilemma Molgrips faces. An opportunity that might be marginal for his Passat could be completely safe in a much higher powered car

Of course – but I’ll just relax and go when it is safe.

But isn’t this at odds with what you’ve previously complained about, I.e. when some selfish **** overtakes from behind and doesn’t wait his place in the overtaking queue? You didn’t seem relaxed last time this was discussed!

No, it is at odds and it’s at odds with the highway code too.

Imagine of that fiesta had more power, say for example a heady 115 bhp like a mk1 golf gti, which you claim is too powerful for the road.

It’s easier with a pokier car, but you’re right; overtaking is all about forward planning.

As long as someone isn’t bombing up the ouside of the queue in their cockmobile…

.. and we’re back full circle!

…back to the imaginary queue 🙁

Seems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it

Far too powerful.

I happily drove a 65bhp Aygo from Manchester to Nr.Frankfurt. I happily overtook cars on Snakepass in the later C1, also 65bhp engine.

We dont NEED fast cars but it makes insecure men feel good so hey.

you’re too powerful

yourguitarhero – Member

Seems like everyone should just buy an MX5 like mine.
Fun, not that fast and very little automatic systems on it

I think it has insufficient wheelbarrow docking space

Power is gooooood. thing is bhp is BRAKE horse power so actually the engine brakes the speed quicker while a smaller less engine with less compression will brake slower 🙂 just saying!

Back to the OP – I think the precept that cars aren’t faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.

Top speeds and acceleration at speed is less to do with power to weight ratio too as drag starts to come into it. And as most mags don’t even bother trying to measure top speeds (except in the odd closed road marketing exercise from Bugatti etc.) these days, I think that says it all.

But, somehow, less people (still too many of course) are getting killed and seriously injured on the roads per year than in the 70s. Must be doing something right.

philjunior – Member

Back to the OP – I think the precept that cars aren’t faster is incorrect, if you look at 0-60 times (car mag measured) rather than claimed power to weight ratios then cars are much faster than they were in the 70s.

Well since it’s going to be hard to get performance figures for a base spec Golf I looked at the GTI again. 0-60 in the late 70’s claimed at 8.1 seconds, the current golf GTI does it in 6.5 seconds. So in 30+ years that’s 1.6 second decrease or a 25% increase in 0-60 performance. Less than 1% increase every year.

Less drivers are getting killed and injured due to seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, better road infrastructure, speed cameras, less drink driving… . Now look at pedestrian and cyclist deaths and bear in mind that fewer people walk and cycle.

What’s changed is not so much the “peak” power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the “fatness” and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds. With the advent of all these modern turbo cars, pretty much even crappy cars have 200Nm at about 2000rpm, thats something like 50Nm more than say a golf Gti Mk1 had at PEAK torque! As a result, and with the added traction, and better cabin NVH, people can travel a lot faster in the real world that they realise if they are not concentrated on driving.

And they really, really aren’t concentrating on driving…….

Exactly. Not concentrating is dangerous in itself but can also result in too much speed ESPECIALLY in a plush modern car. You noticed it in the old days because you started having to rise your voice over the engine…

At least with speed there is a big dial in front of you showing it in an absolute sense. If cars has attentionometers and there were attention cameras on roadsides, then great – install those instead.

maxtorque – Member

What’s changed is not so much the “peak” power to weight ratio if you compare modern cars to old ones, but the “fatness” and accessability of the power at ALL engine speeds

Absolutely. Useable power across the rev range is greatly improved, so cars are more driveable. Of course that’s supplemented by abs brakes, improved handling, tyres, traction control. But my point is, they haven’t morphed into flame spitting, child murdering super cars. The average car is still less than 100bhp per tonne.

Whilst BHP per tonne doesn’t indicate drive-ability or torque it’s a key metric of how fast a car can be. Some people would argue it’s the only true measure of performance.

Its the advances in NVH that maxtorque mention really make the difference. In the 80’s in pretty much any car 70mph on a bumpy B road felt really fast. Especially in smaller cars like minis, metros, 205’s , Golfs, Astras and Escorts.
Modern cars have so much more sound deadening materials used in construction to mask road noise and quieter tyres. Suspension has improved alot, and with it ride and handling quality.
The luxo barge market is still better , take a newer Insignia and compare to an old Carlton for example. Or a new Mondeo against an old Seirra.
Add in better seats , better interiors that deaden road rumble, electronic toys to help you if it goes abit wrong, better headlights and all of a sudden its very easy to barrel along at 75 – 80 and feel perfectly safe and secure .

In some ways having a nice big fat powerband will make the car safer as it’s more predictable. IF you have a narrow powerband and the same power (to weight) you’re far more likely to put your foot down out of the powerband, hit it, wheelspin/understeer/spin off the road depending on driven wheels. If you have a nice wide spread of power you’d have to be properly stupid to do that.

After a big Leffe, several Guinness and now Jameson I’m not sure I’m ina postion to disagree with you, but I disagree if I think I’m understanding what I think you’re saying. If peak power is right at the redline then you have to rev the nuts off a car to get it to go quickly, but if you’ve got peak power lower in the rev range you can brake traction or lose control more easily.

They’re too refined – not too powerful.

Edit: Sorry, didn’t see how long this is! Peaky power bands feel faster – a massively boosty power delivery makes a car feel a lot quicker. Definitely agree with the safety concern – especially for people who expect an old school power delivery. Doesn’t apply to driving gods though, obviously 😀

A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

rureadyboots – Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their “fast” cars are. 🙂

Quick synopsis anyone?
Safest form of travel by far is a quick motor that when diddery diddery old Doris is in front going 27 in a 60 do you can drop and shoot by safely. Prior to this overtake, learn how to drive like Doris who’s never had a shunt in 48 yrs of driving.
Its a fine line.

rureadyboots – Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.
It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their “fast” cars are.

Why does some cretin always mention bikes on a car thread. It’s like bikers seem to have a chip on their shoulder or something. Have ridden bikes abroad, absolutely no desire to repeat the experience in the UK thanks.

Loving the constant snidey reference to “driving gods” too.
Pompous much?

wrightyson

Quick synopsis anyone?

Well apparently these are two of the statistically safest cars in the UK

and these are two of the most dangerous

But even with that established people will revert back to arguing that they are better safer drivers because they driver slower, lower spec, duller cars, even when they admit they need a run up, to execute an overtake.

epicyclo

rureadyboots – Member
A 190 bhp 200 kg motorbike would make these hand wringers very upset then.

It would also upset the driving gods when they realise how gutless their “fast” cars are.

No. Molgrips won’t be worried about a bike because it doesn’t highlight the inadequacies of his car. And people who drive fast cars won’t be worried because other than in a straight line, bikes don’t have a bike speed advantage and quite often the guys riding them are mid life crisis coffee shop poseurs.

Well apparently these are two of the statistically safest cars in the UK

and these are two of the most dangerous

Here’s a thought…… Maybe the former are driven by people who take an interest in driving, and god forbid even enjoy it. And the latter are driven by people with no interest in driving.

Would people who are not interested in driving and don’t enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

So, to put it another way – why buy a car that does 20mpg when you can’t get the benefit? You know there’s only so much petrol, don’t you?

What’s your definition of getting the benefit?

Fuel consumption is probably the last thing somebody who has bought a car like that will be thinking about, I certainly don’t think about it when my car is averaging 5mpg.

My other car averages 50mpg though which helps me feel a little less guilty about it 😆

Would people who are not interested in driving and don’t enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

^^This

“Driving god” that I am, as I said before, I enjoy having a bit of oomph, it makes it more fun.
Doesn’t automatically mean I drive like a dick.

Mate had a gtr, it was incredible. You’d have to be doing something ridiculous to lose control of it. I used to have imprezas, I miss them, the ability to pass cars easily was a bonus but more so the actual braking and handling was a huge bonus in the wet. I never worried when the mrs was out in them unlike when we had our little Peugeot 206.
Now got a Mazda 6 sport. I chose it because it handles brilliantly for an estate, if I could afford to run one it would have been an rs4 avant but that’s still on the list.

The figures your looking are people asking for an insurance quotes on those cars whilst disclosing a insurance claim in the last year, that is a hell of lot different than statistically safe.

Since this thread was born of misrepresented quotes in another thread it’s probably not surprising. The point made previously was that a car almost all cars are way more capable than they need to be to comfortably fulfil their purpose. That facilitates the culture of an increasingly smal number of people who see cars as a sporting device used for fun.

I can understand that because driving can be fun but no one should be in any doubt, driving faster, accelerating harder, braking harder, cornering harder than average greatly increase the likelihood you’ll be involved in an incident.

mark90
Here’s a thought…… Maybe the former are driven by people who take an interest in driving, and god forbid even enjoy it. And the latter are driven by people with no interest in driving.

Would people who are not interested in driving and don’t enjoy it be less engaged and more easily distracted from the task or give it less focus in the first place?

Absolutely. Add to that the fact that performance cars are more likely to be cherished or aspirational – you’re less likely to want to want to damage your pride and joy than something that just gets you from a to b.

Also, cars that are on the sporting end of the spectrum generally have much more driver feedback and interaction, heavier clutch, better steering feel, a brake pedal that doesn’t lock up the wheels on a sneeze so you can judge surface grip, heavy precise gear shift, so the driver is more engaged in the experience as a whole.

Couple that with the fact that a lot happens when you accelerate in such cars and you will be careful with how and when you use them.

Since this thread was born of misrepresented quotes in another thread it’s probably not surprising. The point made previously was that a car almost all cars are way more capable than they need to be to comfortably fulfill their purpose. That facilitates the culture of an increasingly small number of people who see cars as a sporting device used for fun.

Nothing misinterpreted about it. You just reaffirmed it. if you and others are so aghast at how capable cars are why don’t you make a suggestion as to how they would be more suitable? What’s the maximum permissible engine or power output you would allow? How would you adjust that for larger cars? What’s your magic formula for a safe car? Or would you go the other way strip cars of sound deadening or heaters? or windows? Remove abs and power steering, that would make them lass capable.

Since the invention of the car people have enjoyed motorsport and motoring culture and they have taken pleasure from fast capable cars. And others who can’t afford them have protested them. It seems miserable begrudgers won’t be content until they’ve implemented some sort of Orwellian nightmare where everyone drives a Kia Sedona limited to 45mph.

…..
Safest form of travel by far is a quick motor that when diddery diddery old Doris is in front going 27 in a 60 do you can drop and shoot by safely. Prior to this overtake, learn how to drive like Doris who’s never had a shunt in 48 yrs of driving.
Its a fine line.

True that, except the one thing never taken into consideration is how many accidents has Doris contributed to by driving at inappropriate speed everywhere she goes, completely oblivious to everything around her?

Hey who’s dissing the Rover 75. My diesel one is like a luxury slug. I love it.

anagallis_arvensis that Rover in the picture is a Rover 45 1.6

For 10 years I drove a 1.4 Rover 400 (the boxy Honda Concerto one) and it was more than capable of “making progress” mainly as so many people seem to drive round in a dream state.

But these days I wouldn’t want to try it as I know my reactions are not as quick.

I now drive a diesel estate that is quicker than the MK II GTi Scirocco I had in my youth but I tend to drive it at probably 50% of its capability as despite all the modern driving aids it packs I seem to see more risk than I did years ago.

The safest car I owned was a 1966 MG Midget as 30mph felt like 50 & 70 felt like 100mph

What’s your magic formula for a safe car?

I have a magic formula for a safe driver..

Open showrooms that only sell two cars – one is an energy efficient, ecologically friendly vehicle, that is practical and comfortable.. The other is some kind of flash beefy testosterone substitute..

Place both cars at the same very, very affordable price..

Anyone choosing the flash motor gets taken out to the back of the showroom and fired into space from a cannon

Anyone choosing the flash motor gets taken out to the back of the showroom and fired into space from a cannon

Yes!

Choice is a consumerist nonsense. As with motorbikes, you should have to apply for a special licence according to the power and potential deadliness of your car.

people will revert back to arguing that they are better safer drivers because they driver slower, lower spec, duller cars, even when they admit they need a run up, to execute an overtake.

Wow, that’s not even close to what I said. Not in the least. I hope you pay more attention to your driving than your reading!

By the way, there were two cars on the forecourt when I bought mine – one was the 105bhp model and I didn’t buy it because it was too slow.

The rest of your post is total rubbish also, jimjam. Let me know if you need it explaining why.

I dont really overtake in the car makes life simpler.

“Modern cars are too powerful for UK roads”

😆 In the mid-80s we were already driving Toyota Corolla with 4age engine that came with standard 150hp with none of your ABS, airbag etc. I mean if you are just the sort of guy that like normal aspirated car …

Oh no … we put a turbo into the 4age engine and turn it into road legal “dragster” that could outrun standard RB32 anytime in a quarter mile race.