[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

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.