Audi S3 – quite fast!

Edukator – Troll

Because an S3 doesn’t stop any better than most other cars on the road. Do some research on the cars with the shortest stopping distances,

Actually, an S3 will stop faster than most other cars on the road- you don’t have to be the shortest to be above average, obviously ( a standard A3 has a better than average stopping distance) And as above, an S3 is very unlikely to be fitted with MOT-pass ditchfinder tyres, when I picked up my last 2 cars the stopping distance was measured in days in the wet, totally road legal and socially acceptable, very common, and undeniably less safe than driving the same car with quality tyres a little bit quicker.

And in the spirit of my earlier posts…

Edukator – Troll

Even then the insignificant differences in stopping distances don’t justify driving even a little bit faster

Ah hah. So the difference in stopping distance from 60 is irrelevant; that must mean that increasing speed, so your stopping distance increases by the same, is also irrelevant. It doesn’t of course, but this is the logical failure here. If a car can be safer while going faster- and it can- then why is it the driver of that car that’s being condemned, when it’s the car going slower, less safely, which presents that greater risk?

Who knows, perhaps it’s because it’s harder to be envious of a dude in a 20 year old Cavalier with 4 ditchfinder tyres on it, than it is the dude in a new S3.

The problem with cars is the impunity drivers feel which is why I’d like to see trackers fitted to all cars with insurance premiums and payouts in the case of a crash based on the behaviour of the driver. people with bad habits would soon be priced off the roads.

I’d like to see the test so hard that some people cannot pass it, skid pan training, tiered licensing, compulsory further training and retesting. That sort of thing. But that’ll never happen because it would be a vote looser.
The most scared I’ve ever been was as a passenger in the car of someone with so little skill and interest in what they were doing it was laughable. I’ve been in a car where the driver has stalled at 20-30mph. I didn’t even think that was possible. Mrs PP used to share a lift with a woman who by all accounts was an accident waiting to happen. I used to worry if she’d make it home to be honest, I was a lot happier when she took the motorbike.
I’ve seen people laugh and think it was funny that they couldn’t get round a corner without smacking the wheels on the kerb. And these people are still driving (mostly) undetected.

Northwind, please quote stopping distances for an S3 and the “average cars” you are comparing it with. I’ve linked a video to show a performance car (Mini Cooper S) being beaten in a realistic braking test by a cross-over BMW, Mazda people carrier and Mercedes luxury saloon.

The S3 is fitted with low rolling resistance tyres to achieve better fuel economy so I suspect it doesn’t do too well. If you find results for 60mph to zero I expect them to correspond to the tyres fitted varying from say 95ft for something on Michelin Pilots to 110ft for normal tyres and even more for low rolling resistance tyres.

Log off then, your ISP knows your every move.

I very much doubt it. Perhaps in France, but the lucky country down under as of yet has failed to implement anything of the sort. Sure, if asked by the police they could record every tedious argument with le troll on stw, but they’ve probably got better things to be doing. Besides, our PM doesn’t really understand the internet.

2) I’d rather not live inside an Orwellian 1984

If that’s not hyperbole I don’t know what is. If you’d read 1984 you’d know how ridiculous you sound. People simply cannot be trusted to drive well, and people are dying as a result. This is not acceptable.

Edukator, low RR tyres are not significantly worse than normal ones. They were when they were first introduced, but not now. OEM ones are though, but that’s because all OEM tyres are worse than aftermarket models with the same name. Afaik anyway.

@edukator- here’s a nice collated list of real world tests, a few years old but indicative:
http://www.monteverdiclub.com/rahmen/stoptbl.htm
It doesn’t have an S3, but does have 3 models of A3. S3 is recorded at 36.5 metres from 100km/h by Autocar.

Though I’m not sure why you asked, since you insist differences in stopping distances are insignificant.

I’ve got some Conti Ecocontact OEMs to go back on the car after a Winter on Michelin Alpins. They are truly dreadful. Madame, who takes no interest in cars noticed that the rather vague feel to the car disappeared and it became normal when I put the Michelins on.

If you’d read 1984 you’d know how ridiculous you sound.

I’m reading it now thanks. Not a bad factual representation of 21st century conservative politics, actually…

People simply cannot be trusted to drive well, and people are dying as a result. This is not acceptable.

Correct, but unless you’ve been saving it for this moment, I’m yet to see any correlative, let alone causative relationship between car type and accident likelihood. Insurance weighting, which is correlative at best, is far more weighted by location (theft issues), age, sex, and previous history

The Prius with its OEM Bridgestone Turanza would easily wheelspin out of junctions in the dry causing the super cautious traction control to come on and slow you down at the worst moment. It has Michelin Energy Savers on now, aftermarket ones, and whilst I find the tyres a bit noisy and harsh it won’t wheelspin at all even in the wet.

The Passat has Nokians on, all their tyres are low RR and it won’t lock up on braking at all no matter how hard I brake. Unless there’s gravel or mud.

I’m yet to see any correlative, let alone causative relationship between car type and accident likelihood.

Of course. I’m not saying driving an S3 is more dangerous than anything else. I’m saying driving fast is more dangerous than driving normally.

Incidentally, Zokes, do you also get upset when your insurance company asks you if you have locks on your windows, or do you tell the thought police to sod off?

So an S3 stops 1m shorter than a 15-year-old Mondeo 2.0 i GLX (which has to be as average as they come). I don’t consider that significant. Pity we don’t have a more recent table. That one does demonstrate very clearly what I’ve been saying here, the cars are very close with differences down to tyre spec. The Volvo V70 at 48.2m and the other 4x4s show just how bad tyres can be..

We don’t know if Autocar used the same road surface so the one-off result you quote should be treated with caution though it is consistent with results for the TT in the table. Some results in American magazines have clearly been achieved on high-grip racing circuits.

I suspect the more humble cars have improved most in the last 15 years, the very basic ABS systems then offered have been replaced with very good trickle-down technology.

Seeing as there’s a massive thread drift going on.

PeterPoddy
AFAIK you can’t get winter tyres for bikes anyway.

You can; Heidenau Scouts, or if you look you will find some of the more dual purpose tyres (I noted your NX) are rated M&S and suitable for lower temperatures. I’ve run a variety of them through the last 5 winters.

As for winter tyres, my last set of part worns (7mm) cost me £20 a corner, fitted to my Partner. I can’t fault them.

Edukator – Troll

(which has to be as average as they come)

Nope, you’ve actually picked out a fast stopping car from the list and declared it to be average. Purely coincidental I am sure.

And again, fixating on stopping distance alone just doesn’t make any sense, any more than fixating on speed alone.

I can’t believe this is still going on!

Edukator…I’ve not watched your video, but what age Cooper S is on it? The original R53 was comically under braked. It shared the same brakes as the One and Cooper. I was shocked at how bad mine were hence why many people splashed out for the JCW brake kit. The R56 was much better.

As for those mentioning posing, there is an element of drama like engine noise etc that you get with quick cars, even if you don’t drive then like a fit. I was in pub the other night and a guy pulled up in a V12 Vantage and it sounded ace. Even just pooling about. I love the noise that cars like that make.

True, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra. They all did as well or better than the Audi TTs tested by Sportauto and I’d put good money on that 15-year-old Mondeo on its normal tyres bettering a current S3 on its low rolling resistance tyres – on the same surface with the same driver of course.

Did you look at the Lotus results? Do you still want someone in a Lotus who probably thinks he’s a better than average driver tailgating your Mondeo on the basis he’s in a car with better braking, handling and performance?

A flashy “perforamnce” car is unlikely to stop significantly better than humble models and does not justify driving faster. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that, Northwind.

bedmaker – Member
Ah right. So it’s more a posing thing then?

Vanity probably plays a part… I like the way higher-performance cars drive, I like feeling a bit special driving one (Very shallow I acknowledge.), I like the idea that the car is better engineered and way more capable than I am and relatedly the perceived increase in safety margin this brings me.

Edukator – Troll

True, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra

No, if you want to talk about averages, talk about averages, don’t talk about specifics. That table shows that the Audi is well under average (as is the Mondeo- which was always an excellently equipped car, all but the most pov spec models came with the same brakes that worked well on the ST220)

And you’re still only talking about dry, ideal condition stopping distances, evasion is at least as important, and wet stopping distances is where better electronics etc come into their own. My mondeo’ll stop faster than most folks’d believe but it’ll not change direction like an S3 or similiar.

Educator, your focus on tread depth, a single stopping distance test etc is misleading at best. Please go and drive something like an S3 or RS4 for yourself for an extended period of time and in a variety of conditions and you will then see for yourself how much more capable these cars are than an average family hatchback.

The question isnt whetjet the car is more capable but is the numpty behind the wheel any better? In most cases thats unlikley to be true based on my life experiences. Fast cars, like fast bikes are often driven very poorly and worse than average.

Fast cars, like fast bikes are often driven very poorly and worse than average.

What’s the average?

Just my perception I havent used a calculator.

A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.

You also have to take other people into account. They also have to react quicker to you, and they will not be expecting you hurtling around the next corner in your S3.

molgrips – Member

A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.

My experience doesn’t match this. If you see a vehicle driven at rocket speed, 95% of the time it’ll be a 320d, Zafira or Transit.

A fast car is likely to encourage fast driving. Speed is highly addictive, for me certainly. And regardless of braking time, reaction time does not change.

Appreciate that some people have issues with self control, but it’s funny that the majority of truly fast cars I see on the road seem to be generally driven at a sensible and conservative speed. It’s often the case of lesser models, old wrecks, delivery vans etc pushing the boundaries of common sense, yet these are the type of vehicles with the least built in capability and the least margin for error.

Also reaction time does change. An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper. Often when you’re dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly. Human nature I’m afraid.

You also have to take other people into account. They also have to react quicker to you, and they will not be expecting you hurtling around the next corner in your S3.

I always assume that there’s something coming at me faster than the posted limit when approaching any corner. If you’re an observant driver then there’s not much on the road that’s truly unexpected – and if you find that you’re always getting surprised by stuff on the road, then maybe it’s time for you to up your driver observation and perception skills by taking some extra driver training.

On second thoughts…I’m staying out of it. 🙂

reaction time does change. An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper. 

Brilliant, just brilliant how **** AWESOME.

it’s funny that the majority of truly fast cars I see on the road seem to be generally driven at a sensible and conservative speed

That’s OK then. Apart from being a waste of valuable fuel.

Often when you’re dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly.

Now who’s got no self control? Speak for yourself!

An observant driver driving quickly has a hightened sense of awareness and alertness meaning that reaction times are sharper.

it is not the quick car you need – it is a car with lots of feedback – otherwise driving is mundane and not involving and it is easy to drop your levels of concentration.

Hence a sports car that is easy and enjoyable to drive within road legal speeds is the optimum for road safety.

Those people driving mundane cars like passats who cruise along at 40 whatever the speed limit are the dangerous ones.

This is why I have had 3 alfas on the trot now, I just feel a lot safer as I am a lot more attentive to the road, and it is much easier to drive at 30 in urban areas and be able to keep a look out for hazards rather than have to concentrate on keeping the car speed down and potential lose reaction time if someone stepped out in front of me.

Often when you’re dawdling slowly, you become relaxed, easily distracted, less aware and reaction time suffers accordingly.

Now who’s got no self control? Speak for yourself!

This isn’t a case of self control, it’s just basic human nature I’m afraid. It’s why the biggest cause of accidents isn’t speed, it’s poor driver attention, awareness and observation. Drivers are often less alert and less attentive at low speed – FACT!

I’m with agent on this one – stick to the slow lane of any motorway and you’ll be in amongst the drivers chatting to their friends, either in the car or by mobile phone, drinking, eating or applying makeup. Whilst the ‘heightened senses’ is poor, possibly trolling, wording, people who are driving faster (not the same as fast) are often found to be concentrating more. I’d rather have one of those following closely behind me than a guy holding a mobile under his chin and chomping on a sandwich!

Edukator – Troll
True, the Citroen C5 would have been another one to pick out, or the Vectra. They all did as well or better than the Audi TTs tested by Sportauto and I’d put good money on that 15-year-old Mondeo on its normal tyres bettering a current S3 on its low rolling resistance tyres – on the same surface with the same driver of course.

Did you look at the Lotus results? Do you still want someone in a Lotus who probably thinks he’s a better than average driver tailgating your Mondeo on the basis he’s in a car with better braking, handling and performance?

A flashy “perforamnce” car is unlikely to stop significantly better than humble models and does not justify driving faster. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that, Northwind.

POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

The performance difference between brands / models is going to tell you very little in a test like that. What options / tyres / larger alloys to make the car look good for the test were fitted?

However, assuming VW supply their cars at a similar spec, it’s worthy of note that the faster ones seem to stop around 10% faster than the 1.6. I think that’s what I said about 4 pages ago.

However, if you want a safe car, go for the Porsche 911. It seems a rear engine helps the braking quite a bit (oh wait, they’re also fast ;-))

Edit, bollocks, I can’t work quotes tonight. I’ve had a lovely bottle of red and I feel like testing to see if concentrating more makes up for being over the limit as well!

The first Google result disagrees with you 007.

Acccident causes

A lack of vigilance is an increasing problem that the Swiss authorities attribute to increased use of cruise controls rather than driving too slowly.

The fastest cars I’ve driven have generally been the ones with the least margin for error. Tunnel vision, less time to process information, more distance covered between each driver input, kinetic energy rising as the square of the speed; the faster you go the greater the chances of getting it wrong and the worse the consequences.

Heidenau Scouts

They sound like quality tyres…….. 😯

I think I’ll stick to Bridgestone and Michelin to be honest.

EDIT
I’ve just googled them. They’re a dual sport tyre, i.e. Designed for road/off road, they’d be bloody awful on wet roads!

Sorry educator, that link whilst being quite interesting, doesn’t seem counter 007’s argument. The stand out to me is 40% who crashed due to not looking properly. Add that to the 20% who failed to judge another cars speed, If 40% of drivers speed*, then clearly the slow coaches are causing the crashes.

I do however agree that if driving a car at high speed, all the concentration in the world isn’t going to get you out of trouble. That however is speed too high for conditions and at that point, I’d rather have a car that had emergency brake assist, abs, stability control and a ton of grip in a well designed singed chassis to make up for my obvious ( because otherwise I wouldn’t be in this situation) lack of skill/ awareness has got me into.

*completely made up statistic

Oh, also I read and autocar test the other day about braking distance test for tyres. The winner was the Perelli P7 Centerato (sp) which is their energy saver. Very different to my oem Michelin energy savers on the old golf. They were sodding terrible. Happily I’ve got them on my golf as standard so I’ll be sticking!

Hoisted by your own link Edukator- the Rospa sight says very clearly that only around 25% of all ksi’s involve a speeding driver or one driving too fast for the conditions. Spot the distinction, not “caused by” but simply involves speeding or driving too fast.

Meanwhile, 40% involve “failing to look properly”- the biggest contributor named.

The first Google result disagrees with you 007.

Sorry but you haven’t read your own article that you’ve just posted have you? If you actually read the article it cleary says that:

“Sadly, driver error remains the most common cause of road accidents”

Here’s a link to the actual statistics for you:

Most Common Causes of Accidents

Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in just 5.2% of all accidents.

it’s just basic human nature I’m afraid

Nope. It is possible to drive at the speed limit in a sensible and consistent manner, and pay attention.

For the record, I’m not talking about grandad dawdling here. I’m talking about normal driving as opposed to 300bhp being thrashed.

Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in just 5.2% of all accidents.

I’d need to see how they came to that conclusion. If someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them – what caused the accident? The car pulling out, of course.

However, if I’d been doing 30mph in a 30 instead of the more common 35mph, perhaps I could’ve stopped? So depending on how you look at it speed may be a contributing factor, or it may not.

Likewise, if I send a text message or look for a CD and crash, then that’s the cause of the accident. But if I’d been going slower perhaps I’d have covered less ground in the time I’d had my eyes off the road, and I’d have noticed sooner that I was veering out of my lane.

Speed is a factor in every accident, of course it is. It may not be the most prominent cause in most of them, but it’s always a factor. WHATEVER I do on the road, if I am going slower I have more time to react – and so do the other road users.

Then there’s the question of consequences. Higher speed always means more severe consequences.

Failing to look properly is also a “people in a hurry” issue. In fact speed is an issue in the majority of causes in your link:

Failed to look properly 35%
Failed to judge other persons’s path or speed 18.9%
Careless, reckless or in a hurry 16.2%
Loss of control 14.7%
Poor turn or manoeuvre 14.1%
Travelling too fast for the conditions 10.2%
Slippery road due to weather 10.1%
Pedestrian failed to look properly 7.2%
Sudden braking 7.2%
Following too close 6.7%

Any list like that that fails to put drink driving near the top is well off the mark when there are still 300 drink driving deaths a year..

molgrips – Member

I’d need to see how they came to that conclusion. If someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them – what caused the accident? The car pulling out, of course.

However, if I’d been doing 30mph in a 30 instead of the more common 35mph, perhaps I could’ve stopped? So depending on how you look at it speed may be a contributing factor, or it may not.

You’ve just described the exact difference between a primary and contributory factor tbh. I’m not going to stand behind the stat, no idea how they arrived at it and it feels low, but the concept is pretty simple.