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

Another angle to take is whether modern cars are too powerful for the skills of the average driver?

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

would max out down the straights otherwise

and 70 is only the highest UK limit. rest of EU have various other higher ones, and realistically any car made for the European market is going to be specced basically the same.

so the German market.

and is indeed, exactly what the UK has.

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

edit - snap!

Rachel

lazybike - Member

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.

Maybe thats the problem, do away with the gizmos that control the car, and the avg driver, of which I am one..would be lucky to get off the forecourt, people would avoid powerful cars that they can't control..

This ^.
today's cars have so much tech the driver becomes disconnected from what's happening where the wheels meet the road.

[quote=simon_g ]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.

The 1.3 Astra I once owned only did over 100mph because the speedo over-read, yet that comfortably cruised at 70 and didn't have any problem reaching that to join a motorway on a standard slip-road. Try again.

"Just because you can only legally do 70mph in the UK doesn't mean that applies everywhere"

it doesnt even apply all over the uk ....

nor does 60 apply to every inch of every NSL road - but folk seem think that just because the limit is 60 everyone should be doing 60 everywhere. - be it single track or twisty.

i have 68 bhp in the van yet i can do 70 fine and merge join at motorways without issue.

still to date the least stressful to drive vehicle ive had was my land rover - everyone gave it space - would wave it out of junctions in traffic , it only cruised at 55mph - but would do 70 if you watched the temp gauge rising and the fuel gauge plumet but no one seemed to get angry with it or cut it up.

the least stressful place to drive - torridon out of tourist season , everyone was just polite over there regardless of car.

You'll be telling us to slow down for corners soon...

I'm not sure the reasons that relevant..Its like not needing 11 or 10 or 9 speed...or suspension or disc brakes..ad infinitum.

I drive a 4WD car with 430bhp, is it too powerful for the road? Not a bit. It handles the power very well in pretty much any weather and any road conditions. Plenty of opportunities to safely use full power too, particularly in the less congested North.

However, and it's a big however, does having 400bhp plus make it more fun to drive? Not really. The car is just too capable in most situations and normally a degree of restraint is needed as you can be traveling at license loosing speeds in the blink of an eye.

So whilst I've enjoyed the experience, my next car/van etc is going to have around the 200bhp mark maximum. That's plenty enough to be getting on with, and a good balance between power, fuel efficiency and pace.

One of my most memorable and enjoyable drives recently was in a 100hp works van. Just as much fun making progress on a twisty road in this as if I'd have been driving the day car with over 4 times the power. Also in the van it was rather nice that the fuel gauge didn't visibly move each time you put your foot down!

So in short, modern cars with lots of power are normally designed to handle this power in a safe and competent manner. However having less power can often be far more fun and a good compromise (the optimum balance) for me would be the 200bhp mark for an average sized car (Golf etc).

allthegear
You'll be telling us to slow down for corners soon...

Don't you? I stomp on my brakes good and hard at the merest hint of a corner 🙂

I might need to brake a few more times before I've exited the corner too, just in case.

aracer - Member
The 1.3 Astra I once owned only did over 100mph because the speedo over-read, yet that comfortably cruised at 70 and didn't have any problem reaching that to join a motorway on a standard slip-road. Try again.

You have no doubt forgotten that it was noisey and struggled to maintain that pace up hills.

"Don't you? I stomp on my brakes good and hard at the merest hint of a corner

I might need to brake a few more times before I've exited the corner too, just in case."

yep im sure ive driven behind you and your mates on the netherly road a few times.

sounds like the 1.2l modern polo I had as a rental car a while back.
sure it could cruise at 70 on the motorway, but had to change down a gear on 60mph A road every time the road slightly inclined.
goddamn awful clutch too (dual mass flywheel perhaps?)
and driving round Milton Keynes with its excess of roundabouts was most certainly not fun. just as you get it back up to 40-50 it's time to brake and do it all over again. shudder to think how it would cope with an actual hill or passengers.

[quote=legend ]You have no doubt forgotten that it was noisey and struggled to maintain that pace up hills.

Well I certainly can't remember either of those being a problem, so I suppose your suggestion is one possibility.

The German motor lobby is one of the strongest in Europe with Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Opel, VW, Audi etc.. using the remaining sections of limit-free autobahn to justify cars that will do 250kmh. Statistics show that each time a section of German autobahn has a limit imposed the death rate goes down. The Greens are calling for [url= http://ml.spiegel.de/article.do?id=884358 ]120kmh[/url], I expect to see some kind of overall limit before long.

wilburt - Member

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

Because sometimes your Wife mistakes "check in time" with "we're closing the door of the plane time" and you get stuck behind a camper on the twisty bit between Morzine and the motorway to Geneva Airport.

130mph when the road was empty meant she caught her flight, by the skin of her teeth - 100mph wouldn't have done it.

1.25 Fiesta style has <60bhp, takes 16.4secs to get to 60mph and will only do 94mph. Sounds like what we should all be driving according to some of you lot....

Would I want to join the A14 from one of the many short slip roads in rush hour driving one? No thanks.
Would I want to load it up with a fortnight of camping gear, two bikes on the roof and drive it to Cornwall? No thanks.
Would I want to stick 3 other people in it and go any distance in it? No thanks.

I'll stick to my 130bhp Ibiza diesel menace.
Pretty sure it's less dangerous on the A1 at 60mph (on my commute) than the above Fiesta overtaking me at 70mph on the same road......

It's very little to do with the car and a lot to do with people's driving skills, patience and attitude to other road users.

I had a conversation with a well known Aussie racing driver a couple of years ago when he turned up in a "standard" 911 Turbo S. Well north of 500 hp with the grip and handling to match. He was genuinely concerned that any fool with £3K per month disposable income could be let loose on the road in one. It is a bit scary when you think of it that way. But to be honest most such cars are actually owned by middle aged fairly sensible types who know their limitations. It's when the likes of Justin Bieber get in them that things usually get out of hand.

Edukator - Troll
The German motor lobby is one of the strongest in Europe with Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Opel, VW, Audi etc.. using the remaining sections of limit-free autobahn to justify cars that will do 250kmh. Statistics show that each time a section of German autobahn has a limit imposed the death rate goes down. The Greens are calling for 120kmh, I expect to see some kind of overall limit before long.

No one 'likes' crashes, but the risk is a non-negotiable fact of motion.

I think modern bicycles are too light. Any fool can cycle them really fast.

They should all weigh 40kg and have draggy brakes to limit them to 5MPH, much safer for all concerned.

I think the epiphany about powerful cars came to me when I was driven around a race track in a road legal Impreza WRX by a professional race driver. It was mind-blowing how fast and capable it (and he) was, the speed at which he could corner was ridiculous and this was almost ten years ago.

That level of capability, both handling and performance, is completely untappable on the road - totally pointless. I get that at any given speed the brakes/handling/safety are better - but I'm not convinced that at anything approaching normal driving speeds the difference between that and a good family hatch in that respect are materially different. And clearly you don't buy a car with that kind of performance to drive sedately.

Basically I ditched the escalating performance treadmill (I'd a Type-R at the time - and was looking for the next upgrade. I'd already done motorbikes but stopped because I couldn't be trusted) and got a camper, and now a van. Much more relaxed and it really doesn't take that much longer to get anywhere

TBF on an A road collision, whether it's 60mph with 120mph closing speed) or one tit is doing 90mph whilst reading a text, giving 150mpg closing speed, the carnage is barely survivable either way.

Hmm. Not a very good argument. There's over half as much energy again in the second example - enough to make a difference. But you've not mentioned that the 90mph has less time to take evasive action when he finally notices he's veering out of his lane. Plus every time he glances down at his phone he has travelled 50% further without lookin at the road.

No one 'likes' crashes, but the risk is a non-negotiable fact of motion.

What a bizarre thing to say. The risk of a crash is lower if speeds are lower, of course it is!

OTOH, the same things that project my car to 60 in 8 seconds or thereabouts (yes I know it's not fast, but it's quicker a family estate needs to be) also allow it to waft along in 6th at 2000rpm, sipping diesel like a fine wine to be savoured- it's more economic than any of the lower powered versions of the same car, when driven economically, because it doesn't have to work as hard to deliver the same power

It's never gone any faster than my old low powered estate, but it's a hell of a lot nicer to drive all the time- that's why I have a relatively powerful car, not to set speed records

cubist - Member

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.

If you need the extra power to make the overtake, then the alternative wasn't to do it dangerously in the Clio, it was to not overtake at all. There shouldn't be any impact on safety, only on opportunity.

So you manage the risk even if you can't eliminate it. You tax nasty substances to dissuade people from smoking and drinking, and put speed limits and radars on the roads. Fitting a black box to cars would be even better dissuasion.

"130mph when the road was empty meant she caught her flight, by the skin of her teeth - 100mph wouldn't have done it."

as i said in the other thread - id like to see you defend that position in court.

Yeah but I owned one of those silly Impreza WRX PPP's at one time. Was it that car where I picked up my (only) speeding ticket? No, it was the diesel Octavia.

It's not the car; it's the idiot driving it that needs to be aware of the situation around them...

Rachel

... thinking about it, I don't necessarily think it's power that is the issue - but the disassociation from the sense of speed (or more so energy) that you get in modern cars. Say a big and heavy 4WD with the performance of a reasonable sports car of 25 years ago - but with a real disconnect between the driver and the sense of speed/power. Combine that with tight UK roads - lots of narrow lanes round where I live - and endless distraction from mobile tech and I think that's where the problems come.

every single accident that I've seen on the German autobahns has been in a 120km/h section.
if they implement a limit it'll be 130km/h which is what it is in large sections already, and inline with much of mainland EU.
and even if they did that, most probably wouldn't notice much difference, since a lot of the average traffic drives that speed anyway.

The risk of a crash is lower if speeds are lower, of course it is!

Is it?

The [i]severity [/i]of a crash increases exponentially with speed, but does the chance of a crash happening increase as well? Is it not the case that motorways are our safest roads statistically?

If the risk of crashing was relative to speed, motorways would be carnage and some dappy bint wouldn't have almost severed my achilles tendon with a shopping trolley in Tesco the other week. People are very, very capable of travelling slowly whilst being away with the fairies, believe me; sometimes they're travelling slowly [i]because[/i] of that.

moshimonster - Member

I had a conversation with a well known Aussie racing driver a couple of years ago when he turned up in a "standard" 911 Turbo S. Well north of 500 hp with the grip and handling to match. He was genuinely concerned that any fool with £3K per month disposable income could be let loose on the road in one. It is a bit scary when you think of it that way. But to be honest most such cars are actually owned by middle aged fairly sensible types who know their limitations. It's when the likes of Justin Bieber get in them that things usually get out of hand.

Yeah but to be fair "any fool" is likely to be 40+ (maybe even higher) and probably a medical consultant/barrister/CEO with a family etc etc and might have a modicum of sense.

Everyone knows speed is a factor in rtcs, and everyone knows driver inexperience is a big factor too. The reality is (with the exception of your Justin Biebers and the odd Arab playboy) most young people (vast majority of any people ) can't afford anything like a 911 Turbo. When you see reports of fatal crashes on the local news or in papers quite often it is young drivers. but more often than not the car on it's roof or wrapped around a tree is a 1.2 Corsa, or a Fiesta, not a super car or a road legal group n rally car.

olddog -

I think the epiphany about powerful cars came to me when I was driven around a race track in a road legal Impreza WRX by a professional race driver. It was mind-blowing how fast and capable it (and he) was, the speed at which he could corner was ridiculous and this was almost ten years ago.

Again this must be a case of mistaken identity. Every time I've driven a WRX I've been massively overwhelmed. 210-220bhp, fairly predictable power delivery and not exactly blistering performance. An STI on the other hand, especially one that's running more boost is a different animal.

Good to see the bedwetters are out in force again.

That Daily Mail article is brilliant. "Faster than a Ferrari"

I'm pretty sure my humble SEAT is faster than a Ferrari too, a 246 Dino for example

"Can do 190mph" Yeah if you get two optional upgrades the standard one does 155mph

The safety charity Brake! said "Wah Wah Wah! Fast cars are bad!" Lucky then that a "slow" car has never killed anyone

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

Because some of them are actually a lot of fun to drive below their max speed. It's the same argument for motorbikes too.

What are you suggesting anyway? - a car that can barely reach 100 mph flat out on the rev limiter in top gear or just an artificial 100 mph limiter? The former would be a tiresome thing to drive any distance, the latter would be okay actually until you wanted to do a track day in it.

and they do have that artificial limiter. it's just set at 155 or thereabouts on cars that have sufficient engine capability to reach that point.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
"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.

It doesn't matter what their actual output was, they were fast enough to get the job done.

Maybe folk should have to do a couple of years on big motorbikes first. It would cull the idiots with less chance of them terminating a car full of mates or an oncoming family. I think motorcyclists become more aware drivers.

Edit: Och, I'm sounding pious. I was an idiot on a motorbike for quite a number of years, and also wrecked a few cars. Which is why I bought a Volvo a few weeks ago instead of something like that nice Corvette which was featured in one of the threads here. I ain't good enough to use it properly, and being over-carred isn't a good look.

Yeah but to be fair "any fool" is likely to be 40+ (maybe even higher) and probably a medical consultant/barrister/CEO with a family etc etc and might have a modicum of sense.

Well that was kind of my point really. But plenty of rich kids about too you know. It's just the sort of car that might appeal to a Premiership footy player or city dealer for example.

Whilst we're referring to power and safety the biggest cause of accidents by far (65%) is not speed or speeding but "driver error or reaction"

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html ]See HERE[/url]

So inadequate training/skill or poor observation are far biggest problem on our roads. Those of you who like to rubbish the benefits that advanced driver training an observation skills can bring are clearly barking up the wrong tree, much like the government. The message shouldn't be so much 'speed kills', rather that having poor skills, poor judgement and poor observation kills.

The safety charity Brake! said "Wah Wah Wah! Fast cars are bad!" Lucky then that a "slow" car has never killed anyone

Not much of an argument. Why not just tell us all you don't give a shit and would rather have fun at someone else's expense and leave it there?

richmtb - Member

Good to see the bedwetters are out in force again.

That Daily Mail article is brilliant. "Faster than a Ferrari"

I'm pretty sure my humble SEAT is faster than a Ferrari too, a 246 Dino for example

"Can do 190mph" Yeah if you get two optional upgrades the standard one does 155mph

The safety charity Brake! said "Wah Wah Wah! Fast cars are bad!" Lucky then that a "slow" car has never killed anyone

What are you suggesting anyway? - a car that can barely reach 100 mph flat out on the rev limiter in top gear or just an artificial 100 mph limiter? The former would be a tiresome thing to drive any distance, the latter would be okay actually until you wanted to do a track day in it.

I doubt my van would get anywhere near 100mph - but it's fine at motorway speeds and once you recalibrate your brain to slower acceleration it's fine on any road. I'm not advocating that every car has the performance of a Trafic, but beyond a fairly conservative level it becomes just a sales tool. Mrs OD's 1.4TSI accelerates well enough and overtakes fine, no need for anything more for us. Maybe I'm just getting old as we both drove more powerful vehicles in the past.

agent007 - Member

Whilst we're referring to power and safety the biggest cause of accidents by far (65%) is not speed or speeding but "driver error or reaction"

And speed makes the result of these errors worse.

[img] [/img]

Poop poop!

From your link Agent007:

Topping the charge sheet is failing to look properly (the Smidsy factor – "Sorry mate, I didn't see you

Surely going more slowly would increase the chances of seeing someone? Fact is, whatever you are doing wrong, more speed makes it worse.

On the very same page half way down is a link to an article titled "Why 20mph limits save lives". So perhaps speed is a factor after all? That article says this:

The speed illusion works like this: everyone gauges the speed of an approaching object by assessing how quickly its image gets larger, its “looming rate”, and everyone has a threshold in their ability to detect it.

But, alarmingly, the faster a car is going, the lower its “looming” rate can appear

So even in normal situations fast moving cars make it harder to judge speed and space EVEN IF everyone is watching out - which is something I've said on here for ages.

The message shouldn't be so much 'speed kills', rather that having poor skills and poor observation kills.

I agree with that. Government campaign should be "watch what the **** you're doing"

and they do have that artificial limiter. it's just set at 155 or thereabouts on cars that have sufficient engine capability to reach that point.

Exactly, a 155 mph limiter would not bother me in the slightest. I could even live with a 120 mph limiter no problem and even a 100 mph limiter for everyday use. You don't generally buy any powerful road going sports car for its max speed, you buy it for its overall performance and fun factor. A high max speed is really just a by-product of that performance. Even a modern aerodynamically efficient boring Eurobox can easily exceed 100 mph. Even a 1980s Ford Cortina can just about get up there.

So trying to argue that 100 mph cars are totally pointless is like trying to argue that pretty much all cars are pointless.