[Closed] "Modern cars are too powerful for UK roads"

[i]You're[/i] too powerful

[quote=jimjam ]Or vastly too powerful according to some. This is something I've seen repeated on this forum with some regularity over the last few weeks.
...
So can people stop saying modern cars are too powerful?

Can we have some linkys to see if that's what people are actually saying?

Modern cars ARE too powerful 😆

Can we have some linkys to see if that's what people are actually saying?

Here, for a start.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/hostility-on-the-roads/page/3#post-6502137

So will people stop saying modern cars are too powerful?

The argument then presumably becomes simply, "[s]modern[/s] cars are too powerful"?

Assuming your OP to be correct, it's not that cars have got more powerful which is the problem then, but rather there's so many more of them these days.

Thats STW on a driving thread, you cant take that seriously 😆

If a car can do 70mph easily, it's powerful enough. If it can do 100mph easily, its too powerful for the uk. If it can do 170mph easily, its way too powerful for the uk. Simples.

Not to say you shouldn't own it, but it's quite pontless if you're really honest, I was, and sold my 160bhp bike, now I have a 70bhp bike that costs 1/4 to run and is just as much fun.

(Don't try and justify speeding either, you can't win that one).

Quite interesting that.

I think big numbers aren't really the thing, a pretty small increase in power can cause quite a big difference in feel/attitude. Like, sticking with what I know, the step up from my old 80bhp Focus to my dad's 100-or-thereabouts felt massive, it can lift a car from "get there in the end" to "got something more to use"

I suppose, there's maybe a trend towards middle of the road versions of cars being a bit more rapid, like, a lardy family estate like a mondeo'll most often come with the 130-odd brake diesel or a 1.8 duratec I think whereas the equivalent 20 years ago probably used to be a 1.6 pinto in a sierra, not much lighter but barely half the power. Something like an Octavia VRS would have been a boyracer's thing and disapproved of by many, rather than a warm family car.

theres simply too many cars on the road .... and too many high power versions of the modern cars.

buying a new car now is like a mobile phone contract - no one cares about the actual cost or the running cost - only the monthly - hence the salesman adjusts the monthly on the higher end cars to suit - keeps husband happy he has power - keeps wife happy the monthly is low , salesman gets better commission - everyone wins.

that said - a colleague took me out on a not yet opened road in his c63 AMG - a very very nice motor to be taken out for a spin in and be impressed at its 0-60 times etc .... **** keeping it ... 1800 quid for a set of front disks , 18mpg at best he has seen but wow it can fly - but nice to get out and get back in my tin bucket where i know front disks are 23 quid and it gets 40mpg without being asked.

What about the effect power has on overtaking? I can over take in my wifes Clio but its far safer in my 5 series as it does it far quicker despite the difference in weight. That is down to power.

Thankfully most white vans have less than 100bhp so they are incapable of being driven dangerously or irresponsibly.

If a car can do 70mph easily, it's powerful enough. If it can do 100mph easily, its too powerful for the uk. If it can do 170mph easily, its way too powerful for the uk. Simples.

"Power" and "top speed" are not the same thing, not by a long way.

That BMW example up there isn't quite right as the 2014 [b]F30[/b] 316i develops 136 bhp with a kerb weight of 1460 kg = 93 bhp/tonne [/pedant]

but wow it can fly

...and that [i]noise[/i] 😈

Most modern cars, and old cars, have throttles and brakes..maybe the problems with the operator...Maybe the operator should be trained to control the car..lessons in understeer and oversteer would be a good starting point.

So modern cars are more powerful and heavier.

lessons in understeer and oversteer would be a good starting point.

Lessons in looking where you're going would be a good start for many people. Then we could maybe progress to "advanced looking" to encompass everything else not six feet from your front bumper.

trail_rat

theres simply too many cars on the road .... and too many high power versions of the modern cars.

Have you checked the sales figures? The Horribly powerful Golf R sold about 1000 units in four years. I can't find an exact figure for total numbers of Golfs sold in the same time period but it'll be in the hundreds of thousands. People obsess about scary cars and get their knickers in a twist because faster cars make better newspaper articles and tv programmes.

Thankfully most white vans have less than 100bhp so they are incapable of being driven dangerously or irresponsibly.

For those that think cars are too powerful just campaign for them to be banned. Good luck with that by the way.

I don't think your numbers say very much. 'Risk compensation' has a lot to answer for. I think if we all drove around in slightly draughty 1975 Vauxhall Vivas with a spike on the steering wheel there'd probably be a lot less accidents.

Cougar - Moderator
If a car can do 70mph easily, it's powerful enough. If it can do 100mph easily, its too powerful for the uk. If it can do 170mph easily, its way too powerful for the uk. Simples.
"Power" and "top speed" are not the same thing, not by a long way.

Power to weight ratios only tell half the story. A long time back I had a petrol V8 Range Rover Vogue (a beautiful machine) and at A road speeds, it could overtake with ease. Once rolling, it seemed to shed its weight.

The chief difficulty these days is not only power, but:
- the refinement which deadens the sensation of speed
- the safety gizmos, which make people believe they are invincible
- the width and weight of modern cars on our 1950's sized A roads

Modern cars are more controllable than ever before, ESP (insert whatever it says on your dash here, they're all the same) makes them virtually impossible to 'lose' unless you're driving like a complete moron.

The brakes on humdrum little shopping cars can drag them from 50-0mph quicker than Ferrari's and Porsches of a generation ago and whilst air bags and rigid safety cell don't help you much unless your in one during an accident - they have engineered much softer and better shaped bodies if you're hit by one.

All lovely things that are reflected in ever lower rates of deaths on the road - sometimes thought it's counter productive it's so piss easy to go fast in them, it doesn't really matter if you're packing 60bhp or 600bhp because even the slowest cars have got 3 times the grip of 20 years ago, it might take a while but you can carry so much speed these days.

If modern cars are too powerful it's not an safety issue to me, even the most crazy of barely road legal track day warrior has a throttle pedal and not an on/off switch - to me it's the wastefulness of it.

They're very clever now, they can make a 200bhp car that can do 140mph and 50mpg (not at the same time of course) but if it didn't weight 2 tonnes it could do the same and get 60, 70 even 80mpg - they're all massive now, the 3 series is bigger than the last 5 series and a MK1 Golf is smaller than the current Polo, much smaller.

I think saying they are too powerful is probably looking at the wrong end of the issue.

What is clear though is that they were powerful enough for their purpose 40 years ago. So why are we paying for and needing more power?

I assume we are not talking about racing or motorsport here.

Nothing to do with the cars. It's the ****s who drive them.

epicyclo

I think saying they are too powerful is probably looking at the wrong end of the issue.

What is clear though is that they were powerful enough for their purpose 40 years ago. So why are we paying for and needing more power?

More safety, comfort and refinement adds more weight, so engines have gotten progressively more powerful to compensate. If you put a 50bhp engine in a modern Golf you would have to thrash the engine to get anywhere leading increased wear on engine and drive train meaning far less reliability and decreased fuel efficiency.

quite a few of those 1000 units are sitting in my office car park i think - most of which are in that horrible purply blue.

and yes peterfile - that NOISE - like being at the F1- engine note only matched by the M5 estate i once had a spin in . both vastly nicer sounding beasts than the last round of v8 N/A M3's

So in real terms, where it actually counts, ie power to weight ratio there's often no increase in the average car.

Often? How many Golf 1.4s are on the road? Compared to how many 2.0 TDIs with double that power?

1975 Golf GTI has 148 bhp per tonne. The current mk7 Golf GTI has 173.6 bhp per tonne. 1985 E30 M3 206.1 bhp per tonne. 2013 E90 M3 240 bhp per tonne.

All four of those cars are 'too powerful for UK roads', makes no difference when they were made.

So will people stop saying modern cars are too powerful?

Well - powerful cars are too powerful - this has always been true. There are a few difference nowadays though.

1) There are probably more cars that could be considered more powerful on the roads. 40 years ago cars with 70 or 80 bhp were commonplace, even the norm - they are not that common now.

2) Cars that are really quite powerful by everyday standards (180+bhp) are very easily available to many people, if you buy old.

3) There have been huge advances in comfort, handling, ride and refinement which makes it feel very easy to do 80mph or whatever on A roads. However, physics hasn't changed, nor have people's reaction times.

What about the effect power has on overtaking? I can over take in my wifes Clio but its far safer in my 5 series as it does it far quicker despite the difference in weight.

It shouldn't be. It should be equally safe in both cars because you should only do it when it's safe. You're implying that you're taking risks by inching past in a slow car whilst running out of road - which is frankly as stupid a thing as you can do in a car. More power doesn't make overtaking safer, it gives you more safe overtaking options. Be clear about that.

See That Thinge on the end of a right foot called an ankle ... It's connected to a Brain... And that's the Problem right there...

Even 200 Mph Cars Are technically capable of being driven at 70mph, it's the Brain / Software That lets it all down...

P-Jay - Member
They're very clever now, they can make a 200bhp car that can do 140mph and 50mpg (not at the same time of course) but if it didn't weight 2 tonnes it could do the same and get 60, 70 even 80mpg - they're all massive now, the 3 series is bigger than the last 5 series and a MK1 Golf is smaller than the current Polo, much smaller.

The power argument is the same, if not more so, with motorbikes. No one needs anything 'more' than the 'Fartomatic 500', but there's no shortage of people lining up to buy the 900 and 1000cc models.

In my mind, inattentive and 'lazy' (distracted, non- present, non-thinking) driving is worse than actual speed, but the whole SPEED KILLS lobby has kind of given people a "one metric fits all" approach. Hence 40mph everywhere.

molgrips - Member
...3) There have been huge advances in comfort, handling, ride and refinement which makes it feel very easy to do 80mph or whatever on A roads. However, physics hasn't changed, nor have people's reaction times.

That about sums it up.

The other thing that hasn't changed is the number of dickheads on the road, but safer cars let most of them survive to eventually mature. 🙂

Even 200 Mph Cars Are technically capable of being driven at 70mph, it's the Brain / Software That lets it all down...

Yes, and the brain is

a) easily fooled by the IMPRESSION of speed rather than the numbers on the speedo

b) very good at rationalising things (I was only doing 80 that's not that fast!)

c) easily tempted by the urge to have fun - see b)

What is clear though is that they were powerful enough for their purpose 40 years ago. So why are we paying for and needing more power?

I dunno about some of the examples posted in this thread, but there's no way on gods green earth that a lot of cars from the 70's and earlier ever made their quoted power. Modern cars seem to hit their numbers when magazines bother to test them, but I'd take those figures up there--^ with a pinch of salt.

In my mind, inattentive and 'lazy' (distracted, non- present, non-thinking) driving is worse than actual speed,

Yes but being inattentive and distracted in a fast car leads to not watching speed, which means you end up being inattentive and distracted at 90mph. Very easy to let speed creep up if you are not watching, which is a double-edged sword.

Modern cars are more controllable than ever before, ESP (insert whatever it says on your dash here, they're all the same) makes them virtually impossible to 'lose' unless you're driving like a complete moron.

wow - molgrips and me are agreeing.....

if hora agrees also the forum might fall over and the servers explode

As anyone explained why they need a car that can do over 100mph yet?

[quote=Cougar ]Can we have some linkys to see if that's what people are actually saying?
Here, for a start.
> http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/hostility-on-the-roads/page/3#post-6502137
br />

Which says that cars are too powerful, not that they are more powerful than they used to be, which seems to be the thrust of the OPs argument. I'm not really seeing anything in his argument disproving the suggestion in that post, which is why I was hoping he might come up with an example of what he was arguing against. Otherwise he gets a prize for starting a thread with

[img] [/img]

Thank god you're here to lecture [i]EVERYONE[/i] Molgrips. It's not often you bask in the genius of someone who's an master mechanic, a supreme authority on driving and an expert on psychology and the human brain.

aracer

Which says that cars are too powerful, not that they are more powerful than they used to be

wilburt - Member

some brands work hard to market their products as "sporting" and most modern cars way more powerful than they need to be.

brooess

Same with a car which is vastly more powerful than you need given UK roads and speed limits... what, really, is the point of a car that does 120mph

The use of "modern" in that context would imply that previously they were not.

While some of the average CO2 reduction is down to improvements in the cars themselves (and arguably, optimising for test conditions), it is linked to performance and has come way down in the last 15 years.

http://www.smmt.co.uk/co2report/

Almost 80% of new car registrations are in bands A-E (close to half in A-C). Anecdotally, VED and price of fuel is meaning most people buying cars are buying slower, smaller capacity ones than ever before. The "average" car these days probably has a 1.6 TDI making 110bhp or so.

wow - molgrips and me are agreeing.....

if hora agrees also the forum might fall over and the servers explode

anyway, after WW3 and the break up of the EU, those who survive will be able to qualify for a Saving Stamps book and buy a new millenium Trabant.

molgrips - Member
In my mind, inattentive and 'lazy' (distracted, non- present, non-thinking) driving is worse than actual speed,
Yes but being inattentive and distracted in a fast car leads to not watching speed, which means you end up being inattentive and distracted at 90mph. Very easy to let speed creep up if you are not watching, which is a double-edged sword.

My commute involves fast, narrow A roads and I have seen a lot of near misses, know of at least one two-way fatal and all are head-ons. If people cross the median, all bets are off. I've also seen a few non-fatals which were (kids mostly) going a bit hard, but even those would likely be avoidable at the same speed with better drivers.

Even 200 Mph Cars Are technically capable of being driven at 70mph, it's the Brain / Software That lets it all down...

By that argument, 200 Mph Cars Are technically capable of being driven at 200mph, it's the Brain / Software That lets it all down...

As anyone explained why they need a car that can do over 100mph yet?

No-one [i]needs [/i]a car that can do over a hundred (emergency services notwithstanding). Plenty of people want them, though.

Focusing on "top speed" is missing the point I think. No-one really cares about top speed, it's just a side effect that cars with better acceleration and handling tend to have higher top speeds (and a marketing ploy).

As anyone explained why they need a car that can do over 100mph yet?

Because a car that accelerate swiftly enough down a sliproad to join a motorway at a sensible speed, and that will cruise comfortably at 70, will inevitably do 100+ as a consequence.

giving 150mpg