Seat Leon 154mph A11
Discussion
hora said:
Yup I wager a few consider themselves to be that undiscovered Schumacher from Hull (insert other town) too.
I feel I'm a pretty good driver but I know at silly speeds I'd be partly a passenger at my own wheel. No thanks.
This is it - some natural forces at work...I feel I'm a pretty good driver but I know at silly speeds I'd be partly a passenger at my own wheel. No thanks.
Despite some qualifications (sneeringly and negatively mentioned on here) my comfortable autobahn speed in a long wheelbase super stable car capable of more than twice the (higher than UK) French limit was, I found, about 110mph. But there is no political money/career in any subrogation or acceptance of the fact that citizens really are capable of determining a safe open road speed themselves - unless they are German of course...
We are being peddled such a load of self serving commercially driven sh... over here...
Pete317 said:
Many people who drive older cars wait for the potentially bad news from the MOT test before splashing out on new tyres.
I have on more than one occasion wasted a lot of money on new tyres for cars which subsequently failed their MOT because of something too expensive to fix.
I might drive a car with close to the limit tyres for a short while if necessary, but definitely not at very high speeds, and even more so on wet roads.
I'm really not sure the tyres are the biggest problem with that scenario.I have on more than one occasion wasted a lot of money on new tyres for cars which subsequently failed their MOT because of something too expensive to fix.
I might drive a car with close to the limit tyres for a short while if necessary, but definitely not at very high speeds, and even more so on wet roads.
surveyor_101 said:
Red Devil said:
Why?
With a background in highways and design you will know that the dualling of the A11 between the Five Ways roundabout at Barton Mills and Thetford is quite recent (December 2014). AFAICS the only thing it lacks compared with the M11 is a hard shoulder.
To me the absence of other traffic is a much more relevant factor if you're intent on going that fast. Further more I certainly wouldn't contemplate it in March on a unlit road at night. You can only see as far ahead as your headlights will illuminate
I worked areas 1/2 nothing do with that neck of the woods.With a background in highways and design you will know that the dualling of the A11 between the Five Ways roundabout at Barton Mills and Thetford is quite recent (December 2014). AFAICS the only thing it lacks compared with the M11 is a hard shoulder.
To me the absence of other traffic is a much more relevant factor if you're intent on going that fast. Further more I certainly wouldn't contemplate it in March on a unlit road at night. You can only see as far ahead as your headlights will illuminate
As said 2004/2014/2016 doesn't matter it was not designed for 140mph let alone 154
That 8 mile stretch of the A11 is wide, open with excellent clarity of the road ahead. It's one of the best surfaces around here and not at all like most of rest of the A11. Furthermore, traffic is generally light and often very light.
I'm not condoning what happened but if there's a stretch of road where 150+ might be safely achieved, that would be it.
Also, a tyre with 1.7mm of tread left is no less capable at high speed than a new tyre, unless it's raining.
REALIST123 said:
What? Just what are you on about? Even when you're not posting garbage, you make your posts unintelligible with your myriad grammatical and spelling errors. Slow down and think a bit, or get back to school.
That 8 mile stretch of the A11 is wide, open with excellent clarity of the road ahead. It's one of the best surfaces around here and not at all like most of rest of the A11. Furthermore, traffic is generally light and often very light.
I'm not condoning what happened but if there's a stretch of road where 150+ might be safely achieved, that would be it.
Also, a tyre with 1.7mm of tread left is no less capable at high speed than a new tyre, unless it's raining.
So you know the road in this case was bone dry and no rain>?That 8 mile stretch of the A11 is wide, open with excellent clarity of the road ahead. It's one of the best surfaces around here and not at all like most of rest of the A11. Furthermore, traffic is generally light and often very light.
I'm not condoning what happened but if there's a stretch of road where 150+ might be safely achieved, that would be it.
Also, a tyre with 1.7mm of tread left is no less capable at high speed than a new tyre, unless it's raining.
Also regardless how fresh and newer stretch of road it has not been designed for 154mph, so the principle still stands.
Do you happen to know the PSV and wearing course type? I doubt it~!!
Zombie said:
Are you saying that you do know what the PSV and wearing couse type is for that particular stretch of road? I'd be very surprised if you did...
Dmrb volume 7 section 5 Your arguement is it's a new road built for high speed modern driving, and the weather conditions so crucial to tread argument has gone unanswered.
it will vary slightly based on the design life, to
Normally dual track will be 50-55 and motorways 60-65.
So the polished stone value on a motorway will almost always be higher than a trunk road such and so the surface is a more suitable to higher speeds.
surveyor_101 said:
Zombie said:
Are you saying that you do know what the PSV and wearing couse type is for that particular stretch of road? I'd be very surprised if you did...
Dmrb volume 7 section 5 Your arguement is it's a new road built for high speed modern driving, and the weather conditions so crucial to tread argument has gone unanswered.
it will vary slightly based on the design life, to
Normally dual track will be 50-55 and motorways 60-65.
So the polished stone value on a motorway will almost always be higher than a trunk road such and so the surface is a more suitable to higher speeds.
As I'm sure you're well aware, Part 1 HD36/06 only specifies the minimum** PSV required for a given IL, traffic level and type of site.
It is also clear from the table that the driver for changes to the PSV value is the traffic level not the type of road.
Those for Site Category A1 and Site category B1 are exactly the same - http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol7/se...
* If it has, can you please provide a link?
** In which case I don't think we are any further forward than we were previously.
Earlier you posted this.
surveyor_101 said:
More aggravating is I would only attempt that sort of speed on a motorway not the A11.
I notice that you have avoided answering my question - why?I'll ask you again, especially in view of the fact that HD36/06 shows no difference in PSV values for motorways and d/cs with the same traffic levels.
Red Devil said:
I notice that you have avoided answering my question - why?
I'll ask you again, especially in view of the fact that HD36/06 shows no difference in PSV values for motorways and d/cs with the same traffic levels.
Vaguely I don't design them just cost and survey them based on a design most of the a30 to Cornwall is 50-55 and the m5 is 60-65 so don't agree. It's a guide and local HE teams will decide the final psvrequirements. They don't always refer to dmrb, it's a guide in some cases I'll ask you again, especially in view of the fact that HD36/06 shows no difference in PSV values for motorways and d/cs with the same traffic levels.
Still various for traffic volume and design life the carriageway.
It really will depend but motorways normally have a higher life requiments.
Also when people bang on about autobahns they aren two lane they are 4'
surveyor_101 said:
Your arguement is it's a new road built for high speed modern driving, and the weather conditions so crucial to tread argument has gone unanswered.
it will vary slightly based on the design life, to
Normally dual track will be 50-55 and motorways 60-65.
So the polished stone value on a motorway will almost always be higher than a trunk road such and so the surface is a more suitable to higher speeds.
My argument? it will vary slightly based on the design life, to
Normally dual track will be 50-55 and motorways 60-65.
So the polished stone value on a motorway will almost always be higher than a trunk road such and so the surface is a more suitable to higher speeds.
ETA...
Ah right I think I understand what you're trying to say.
Realistically, you'd have to undertake skid resistance testing to KNOW what the polished stone value is rather than assuming you know what it is.
And you still don't know what the wearing course type is. - There is a section of A11 that has been recently constructed and may well be where the person in question was caught:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a11...
It's pretty irrelevant to the thread though.
Edited by Zombie on Tuesday 16th August 20:43
surveyor_101 said:
Red Devil said:
I notice that you have avoided answering my question - why?
I'll ask you again, especially in view of the fact that HD36/06 shows no difference in PSV values for motorways and d/cs with the same traffic levels.
Vaguely I don't design them just cost and survey them based on a design most of the a30 to Cornwall is 50-55 and the m5 is 60-65 so don't agree. It's a guide and local HE teams will decide the final psvrequirements. They don't always refer to dmrb, it's a guide in some cases I'll ask you again, especially in view of the fact that HD36/06 shows no difference in PSV values for motorways and d/cs with the same traffic levels.
Still various for traffic volume and design life the carriageway.
It really will depend but motorways normally have a higher life requiments.
However, a proper comparison in respect of the question I put to you is between the northern two lane section of the M11 and the A11 where the Seat was travelling at warp factor 9. If you wouldn't do it on the d/c A11, why would it be OK with you on the M11? Doesn't seem consistent to me.
surveyor_101 said:
Also when people bang on about autobahns they aren two lane they are 4'
What has four feet got to do with it? If you meant 4 lane, really? Much more likely to be 3 imo.Yes, I know there are 4 lane sections, e.g. the A5 near Frankfurt Airport - https://goo.gl/maps/G97p3UGLvhm
But the majority of the network isn't. As for none being two lane, what's this then?
Have a look at this as well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX0ew81tXeo
I'm beginning to think that members need a salt cellar handy when reading anything you post.
I've done a lot of miles over the years (though not recently) on 2-lane autobahns. In the 70s I found that some still had cobblestone cloverleaf junctions, fun in the wet. In the 80s in the deep south of Germany I even encountered autobahn junctions that had no slips - in effect a T-junction.
I'm still not aware of having been on a 4-lane autobahn, unless it was a multi-lane junction / xroads of major autobahn type thing.
Anyway, this film must be made up because everyone kno human beings can not breathe at this speed and thus explode. https://youtu.be/6DzsdSWTMug?t=26s
I'm still not aware of having been on a 4-lane autobahn, unless it was a multi-lane junction / xroads of major autobahn type thing.
Anyway, this film must be made up because everyone kno human beings can not breathe at this speed and thus explode. https://youtu.be/6DzsdSWTMug?t=26s
agtlaw said:
They conveniently avoid mentioning anything about the road, which I believe is the Thorney by-pass so reasonably new dual-laned with central barriers. I had this forwarded to me on holiday and my response was that 160 was fairly impressive if done on the single carriageway but nowt special on the dualled section. I expect plenty of test rides from Wheels Motorcycles get some stick down the dualled bit to see how they go. Traffic density on the dualled section is often light and visibility is good. Being the Fens, sidewinds are a factor at high speed.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff