RE: Speed thrills: PH Blog
Discussion
Referring to the original post 'Bikers we need your Help'. The fact is modern sports Bikes are far to fast for the Roads, modern 1000cc Superbikes will easily hit 90mph in 1st gear, even 600 and 750cc are far to quick to be enjoyed. The only real place you can enjoy these Bikes to a manner in which they were designed for is Trackdays or Racing.
After having several sports cars I found them in the same bracket as the bikes but not as extreme with regards to speed. I personally think there is more fun to be had with less power on the public roads.
After having several sports cars I found them in the same bracket as the bikes but not as extreme with regards to speed. I personally think there is more fun to be had with less power on the public roads.
We are all a bit blinkered by our own enthusiasm for fast cars and this topic really demonstrates that. Car manufacturers sell the dream - fast cars that the majority can never enjoy. Most buyers don't care that the performance will never be used as they are buying the dream - that they could if they wanted to, be driving gods doing up to xxx mph. A relatively smaller group will use track days to turn the dream into a reality but this does not count much for the bigger manufacturers.
Motoring journalists are also part of selling the dream. Writing about cars that we may never own, driving at speeds we can never hope to achieve on our over scrutinised roads. Some even write about their own dreams as they have never driven the cars at high speed.
This guy was sleepwalking (sleep driving?)and was woken up! We might also wake up and stop buying the dream. What does that mean for the future of high performance cars, and also for motoring journalists for that matter.
Motoring journalists are also part of selling the dream. Writing about cars that we may never own, driving at speeds we can never hope to achieve on our over scrutinised roads. Some even write about their own dreams as they have never driven the cars at high speed.
This guy was sleepwalking (sleep driving?)and was woken up! We might also wake up and stop buying the dream. What does that mean for the future of high performance cars, and also for motoring journalists for that matter.
Long thread, and just skimmed through - so apologies if the point already made...
The article asks, how is a journalist supposed to convey the thrill of driving a supercar without busting the limits. Surely that shows the pointlessness of *some* cars - you can convey how good it feels (or bad) at the speeds everyone is obliged to drive at, or the car is totally unsuitable for its purpose. If the car performs well on the track, take it to the track and report that - job done. If a journo cannot describe how good the car is on the road, within limits; or on the track in a no holds barred way, then either the car is no good at either or the journo isn't up to the job. If the former, then we may end up seeing manufacturers producing better cars for it.
The article asks, how is a journalist supposed to convey the thrill of driving a supercar without busting the limits. Surely that shows the pointlessness of *some* cars - you can convey how good it feels (or bad) at the speeds everyone is obliged to drive at, or the car is totally unsuitable for its purpose. If the car performs well on the track, take it to the track and report that - job done. If a journo cannot describe how good the car is on the road, within limits; or on the track in a no holds barred way, then either the car is no good at either or the journo isn't up to the job. If the former, then we may end up seeing manufacturers producing better cars for it.
Journalist loses his licence after getting caught at well over a tonne in a 911? A little historical perspective from David Vivian. Plus ca change?
"It was all so different one fateful
September night back in 1983. The
evening air felt heavy with foreboding.
I could sense a dark, muzzy presence,
but couldn't make out that its true
identity was trouble ahead. I'd been
working late at the office, wrestling
with a road test of a car that, frankly,
I hadn't driven fast enough - a 9l1
Carrera. The positive clack of the
typewriter keys wasn't even fooling
me: the chains of words rattling
across the paper rang hollow. I really
needed to push the 91l I all the way to
l50mph to feel confident about what
I was writing. And I needed to be at
home, a 50-mile journey mostly on
the M25 and A2l, to concentrate, to
get the test finished. Maybe I could
combine the two.
Not much drama to begin with. I
set my default speed at a discreet
85mph. Then, whenever the traffic
cleared, I took a bite at something
more interesting: l20mph or so to
begin with. But as the cars occupying
the outside lane grew more sparse,
the accelerative lunges towards my
notional target became longer and
more sustained. Soon, I was hitting
l50mph with some regularity and,
I can't deny it, feeling good. This
was speeding - oh, was it speeding
- but it was also 'making progress'
in an appropriate car. And, as my
solicitor was to claim in court some
weeks later, 'in complete safety'. No
question, the deadline spurred me on
but, perhaps more worrying, I clearly
believed I had become invisible.
About seven miles into the trip,
I overtook the law. My excuse was
that I was concentrating so intensely
on the road ahead, I simply didn't see
it creeping along in the inside lane.
It saw me, though, and, er, wheezed
into action.
The car was a Ford Granada 2.8,
circa 1981. Good for maybe l23mph
in peak, standard form - no more
than ll6mph with all the lights on
the roof and bollards in the boot.
Keeping up was never a realistic
option. As things turned out, it
couldn't get within half a mile. By
this time I'd more or less given up
looking in my rear-view mirror, but
I wouldn't have seen even a twinkle
of a flashing blue light. I continued at
warp speed.
Is a chase a chase when one party
doesn't know? Does a tree make
a sound when it falls in a forest if
there's no one there to hear it?
Was I in deep, deep do-do? Inclining
towards 'yes' for all three. The
'pursuit' lasted 2l miles, giving the
cops plenty of time to radio ahead
and organise the road block at a
set of traffic lights in Pembury, just
outside Tunbridge Wells. I stopped.
Thirty seconds later, the Granada slid
to a halt behind. Steam was curling
around the edges of its bonnet.
Rather incredibly, I lost my licence
for only two months. Today, I'd be
cast adrift in an iron tomb off the
coast of Scotland.
I was young, very stupid and very
lucky. And I got caught."
(David Vivian in evo 126)
"It was all so different one fateful
September night back in 1983. The
evening air felt heavy with foreboding.
I could sense a dark, muzzy presence,
but couldn't make out that its true
identity was trouble ahead. I'd been
working late at the office, wrestling
with a road test of a car that, frankly,
I hadn't driven fast enough - a 9l1
Carrera. The positive clack of the
typewriter keys wasn't even fooling
me: the chains of words rattling
across the paper rang hollow. I really
needed to push the 91l I all the way to
l50mph to feel confident about what
I was writing. And I needed to be at
home, a 50-mile journey mostly on
the M25 and A2l, to concentrate, to
get the test finished. Maybe I could
combine the two.
Not much drama to begin with. I
set my default speed at a discreet
85mph. Then, whenever the traffic
cleared, I took a bite at something
more interesting: l20mph or so to
begin with. But as the cars occupying
the outside lane grew more sparse,
the accelerative lunges towards my
notional target became longer and
more sustained. Soon, I was hitting
l50mph with some regularity and,
I can't deny it, feeling good. This
was speeding - oh, was it speeding
- but it was also 'making progress'
in an appropriate car. And, as my
solicitor was to claim in court some
weeks later, 'in complete safety'. No
question, the deadline spurred me on
but, perhaps more worrying, I clearly
believed I had become invisible.
About seven miles into the trip,
I overtook the law. My excuse was
that I was concentrating so intensely
on the road ahead, I simply didn't see
it creeping along in the inside lane.
It saw me, though, and, er, wheezed
into action.
The car was a Ford Granada 2.8,
circa 1981. Good for maybe l23mph
in peak, standard form - no more
than ll6mph with all the lights on
the roof and bollards in the boot.
Keeping up was never a realistic
option. As things turned out, it
couldn't get within half a mile. By
this time I'd more or less given up
looking in my rear-view mirror, but
I wouldn't have seen even a twinkle
of a flashing blue light. I continued at
warp speed.
Is a chase a chase when one party
doesn't know? Does a tree make
a sound when it falls in a forest if
there's no one there to hear it?
Was I in deep, deep do-do? Inclining
towards 'yes' for all three. The
'pursuit' lasted 2l miles, giving the
cops plenty of time to radio ahead
and organise the road block at a
set of traffic lights in Pembury, just
outside Tunbridge Wells. I stopped.
Thirty seconds later, the Granada slid
to a halt behind. Steam was curling
around the edges of its bonnet.
Rather incredibly, I lost my licence
for only two months. Today, I'd be
cast adrift in an iron tomb off the
coast of Scotland.
I was young, very stupid and very
lucky. And I got caught."
(David Vivian in evo 126)
No idea why people would buy fast cars n the UK at all actually. Cameras, speed restrictions,draconian punishments and so on. I lived there many years ago and it was very different.
The usual blah excuses seem utterly in conflict with the reaction when someone is caught. " I like to go for a brisk run on an empty country road", or "the acceleration is good for emergencies"..Surely not beyond (say) 90mph?. Yet when some guy gets nailed, there is as tsk tsk chorus of "bloody right, driving like a clown on a public road".
This seems inconsistent to me. Is it OK to break the law on remote roads to have a blast then?.
If not, the exactly when or why would you have very fast GT? If its because it is comfortable and gorgeous looking, then that is a far more valid excuse than the thrill of driving illegally on remote roads. IF no illegal driving , then you have a 200MPH car for running at 70MPH.
I had this with an V10 M6. Delimited so it was good for 200MPH, but not good on a track, so the only legal place I could drive it hard was on the autobahn, which I did. Of course, when I got it back to Canada and also in the US there were some very quick and empty places (its a big continent), but in the end it was just not worth it to go through radar detectors, laser cancelling stuff, police monitors and so on , though I knew a number of people who went to very elaborate lengths to do just that. It was the last non track-focused GT bought.
Now The cars I like can be thrashed hard on a track but still driven on the road. I really never come remotely near their capabilities on a road, and would never have one if not for track.
The usual blah excuses seem utterly in conflict with the reaction when someone is caught. " I like to go for a brisk run on an empty country road", or "the acceleration is good for emergencies"..Surely not beyond (say) 90mph?. Yet when some guy gets nailed, there is as tsk tsk chorus of "bloody right, driving like a clown on a public road".
This seems inconsistent to me. Is it OK to break the law on remote roads to have a blast then?.
If not, the exactly when or why would you have very fast GT? If its because it is comfortable and gorgeous looking, then that is a far more valid excuse than the thrill of driving illegally on remote roads. IF no illegal driving , then you have a 200MPH car for running at 70MPH.
I had this with an V10 M6. Delimited so it was good for 200MPH, but not good on a track, so the only legal place I could drive it hard was on the autobahn, which I did. Of course, when I got it back to Canada and also in the US there were some very quick and empty places (its a big continent), but in the end it was just not worth it to go through radar detectors, laser cancelling stuff, police monitors and so on , though I knew a number of people who went to very elaborate lengths to do just that. It was the last non track-focused GT bought.
Now The cars I like can be thrashed hard on a track but still driven on the road. I really never come remotely near their capabilities on a road, and would never have one if not for track.
W124 said:
It's got silly. Even something like a Megane 265 or a Golf R can give you an entirely inappropriate differential in speed to everything else. Very fast cars don't cost much anymore. Thus, people who really don't have the chops become an absolute bloody menace.
But surely 99% of the population stick at <80mph regardless of the cars power. I honestly can't remember the last time I exceeded that and both our cars are well North of 250hp. I enjoy the acceleration of a powerful car rather than the top speed which is not really dangerous at all. I'd also argue better to have it than not as at least you can accelerate out of trouble if you need to.TX.
RDMcG said:
The usual blah excuses seem utterly in conflict with the reaction when someone is caught. " I like to go for a brisk run on an empty country road", or "the acceleration is good for emergencies"..Surely not beyond (say) 90mph?. Yet when some guy gets nailed, there is as tsk tsk chorus of "bloody right, driving like a clown on a public road".
I agree. PH can be a very strange place. H100S said:
I can't understand why it's taken this long. You watch any clip on YouTube of all the journos driving these cars and most of the time they are breaking the law. Does not bother me in the slightest but they are taking risks.
Looks like Milbrook and blyton will be getting busier and the subscription fee increasing to cover costs.
I assume that if you've got a team of people, all on radios as lookouts on a very quiet road which is lightly trafficked then you can do pretty much anything.Looks like Milbrook and blyton will be getting busier and the subscription fee increasing to cover costs.
Terminator X said:
W124 said:
It's got silly. Even something like a Megane 265 or a Golf R can give you an entirely inappropriate differential in speed to everything else. Very fast cars don't cost much anymore. Thus, people who really don't have the chops become an absolute bloody menace.
But surely 99% of the population stick at <80mph regardless of the cars power. I honestly can't remember the last time I exceeded that and both our cars are well North of 250hp. I enjoy the acceleration of a powerful car rather than the top speed which is not really dangerous at all. I'd also argue better to have it than not as at least you can accelerate out of trouble if you need to.TX.
What we need is a two class (or three) driving license, according to formation and accident record. One for good drivers and another for the rest. This way everybody wins: a proper formation would be an incentive so there will be less accidents plus traffic law could be better targeted giving the freedom good drivers deserve.
One of the factors in this, could be how well many modern cars are insulated from the outside, with almost no road / wind noise, and heavily subdued engine, exhaust and transmission noise etc. Indeed to hear a decent engine being extended, the windows often have to be opened on many cars. If I see something which is likely to have a decent engine noise coming up behind me, I always open the window, to get the best chance of hearing it as it goes by.
My fun car is the Caterham, where there is virtually nothing in the way of creature comforts, and sound insulation would be a joke in one of these. The plus side is that the sensation of speed is magnified, over well insulated cars, where 90mph feels, and sounds like you could get out and walk faster!
When sitting in a layby, and watching traffic go by at 70 to 90 mph, it is then that it really hits home just how fast most vehicles are travelling. and yet inside each, it is probably a picture of calm, quiet ambling along, with all the other traffic.
Also when in company with lots of other vehicles, all travelling at similar speeds, minor variations in speed between vehicles will be apparent as slow overtakes between them, The fact that they are all travelling over ground at high speed, probably less so.
This is why (for me) outright speed, is not so much fun, as acceleration, which Caterhams happen to be very good at (as well as being able to negotiate any twisty roads like a go kart) There are also of course things like the Dartford Symphony hall, which allow the exhaust note to really be enjoyed to the full, Not so much fun in a car with a sophisticated, well damped exhaust system.
My fun car is the Caterham, where there is virtually nothing in the way of creature comforts, and sound insulation would be a joke in one of these. The plus side is that the sensation of speed is magnified, over well insulated cars, where 90mph feels, and sounds like you could get out and walk faster!
When sitting in a layby, and watching traffic go by at 70 to 90 mph, it is then that it really hits home just how fast most vehicles are travelling. and yet inside each, it is probably a picture of calm, quiet ambling along, with all the other traffic.
Also when in company with lots of other vehicles, all travelling at similar speeds, minor variations in speed between vehicles will be apparent as slow overtakes between them, The fact that they are all travelling over ground at high speed, probably less so.
This is why (for me) outright speed, is not so much fun, as acceleration, which Caterhams happen to be very good at (as well as being able to negotiate any twisty roads like a go kart) There are also of course things like the Dartford Symphony hall, which allow the exhaust note to really be enjoyed to the full, Not so much fun in a car with a sophisticated, well damped exhaust system.
Thrugglevalve said:
Referring to the original post 'Bikers we need your Help'. The fact is modern sports Bikes are far to fast for the Roads, modern 1000cc Superbikes will easily hit 90mph in 1st gear, even 600 and 750cc are far to quick to be enjoyed. The only real place you can enjoy these Bikes to a manner in which they were designed for is Trackdays or Racing.
After having several sports cars I found them in the same bracket as the bikes but not as extreme with regards to speed. I personally think there is more fun to be had with less power on the public roads.
To get the best of both worlds, you could always try out what has often been described as the four wheeled motorbike (a Lotus / Caterham 7) and on twisty roads relatively few cars, or bikes would be able to stay with them.After having several sports cars I found them in the same bracket as the bikes but not as extreme with regards to speed. I personally think there is more fun to be had with less power on the public roads.
An interesting thread, with lots of relatively new posters saying basically " you reap what you sow, tough".
Not convinced with that one.
Couple of points though, just how do the police clock high speed at night ? and also does anybody know what the actual journalist thinks of the whole episode now?
Clearly he seems to have lost his job....not sure why, there are many tracks and private runways that could accommodate road testing. What other effect will this have on his life?
With regard to his actual speed of 127mph......was it over a distance, or did he simply accelerate very hard off the roundabout, get zapped , and was slowing down again ?
Strange really, as far as we know no fluffy bunnies died, no cats, dogs, deer, sheep etc. No children were run over, no cars or bikes or lorries or buses were damaged, in fact nothing was damaged, and no-one was injured.......so why "dangerous driving" ?
Breaking the speed limit........yes, double it in fact, however, I regularly see vehicles displaying a blatant disregard of speed limits in villages, and regularly appear to be doing double the limits ( 60ish in a 30 ).
Who is it that actually decides " yes, that is dangerous driving" ?
It's a known fact that police training takes place on the public roads, with many "officers" reaching speeds of well over 120MPH, and yet none of these have lost their licences or jobs ( to my knowledge ) and they use the same reasons as journalists....we need to know how the cars handle in real life situations.
And now I've just read through this, I have no idea what point I'm trying to make...............bugger
Not convinced with that one.
Couple of points though, just how do the police clock high speed at night ? and also does anybody know what the actual journalist thinks of the whole episode now?
Clearly he seems to have lost his job....not sure why, there are many tracks and private runways that could accommodate road testing. What other effect will this have on his life?
With regard to his actual speed of 127mph......was it over a distance, or did he simply accelerate very hard off the roundabout, get zapped , and was slowing down again ?
Strange really, as far as we know no fluffy bunnies died, no cats, dogs, deer, sheep etc. No children were run over, no cars or bikes or lorries or buses were damaged, in fact nothing was damaged, and no-one was injured.......so why "dangerous driving" ?
Breaking the speed limit........yes, double it in fact, however, I regularly see vehicles displaying a blatant disregard of speed limits in villages, and regularly appear to be doing double the limits ( 60ish in a 30 ).
Who is it that actually decides " yes, that is dangerous driving" ?
It's a known fact that police training takes place on the public roads, with many "officers" reaching speeds of well over 120MPH, and yet none of these have lost their licences or jobs ( to my knowledge ) and they use the same reasons as journalists....we need to know how the cars handle in real life situations.
And now I've just read through this, I have no idea what point I'm trying to make...............bugger
delboy735 said:
An interesting thread, with lots of relatively new posters saying basically " you reap what you sow, tough".
Not convinced with that one.
Couple of points though, just how do the police clock high speed at night ? and also does anybody know what the actual journalist thinks of the whole episode now?
Clearly he seems to have lost his job....not sure why, there are many tracks and private runways that could accommodate road testing. What other effect will this have on his life?
With regard to his actual speed of 127mph......was it over a distance, or did he simply accelerate very hard off the roundabout, get zapped , and was slowing down again ?
Strange really, as far as we know no fluffy bunnies died, no cats, dogs, deer, sheep etc. No children were run over, no cars or bikes or lorries or buses were damaged, in fact nothing was damaged, and no-one was injured.......so why "dangerous driving" ?
Breaking the speed limit........yes, double it in fact, however, I regularly see vehicles displaying a blatant disregard of speed limits in villages, and regularly appear to be doing double the limits ( 60ish in a 30 ).
Who is it that actually decides " yes, that is dangerous driving" ?
It's a known fact that police training takes place on the public roads, with many "officers" reaching speeds of well over 120MPH, and yet none of these have lost their licences or jobs ( to my knowledge ) and they use the same reasons as journalists....we need to know how the cars handle in real life situations.
And now I've just read through this, I have no idea what point I'm trying to make...............bugger
Indeed! I would suspect getting hit by a police car doing 70 mph feels `exactly' the same as getting hit by a non police car doing 70 mph.Not convinced with that one.
Couple of points though, just how do the police clock high speed at night ? and also does anybody know what the actual journalist thinks of the whole episode now?
Clearly he seems to have lost his job....not sure why, there are many tracks and private runways that could accommodate road testing. What other effect will this have on his life?
With regard to his actual speed of 127mph......was it over a distance, or did he simply accelerate very hard off the roundabout, get zapped , and was slowing down again ?
Strange really, as far as we know no fluffy bunnies died, no cats, dogs, deer, sheep etc. No children were run over, no cars or bikes or lorries or buses were damaged, in fact nothing was damaged, and no-one was injured.......so why "dangerous driving" ?
Breaking the speed limit........yes, double it in fact, however, I regularly see vehicles displaying a blatant disregard of speed limits in villages, and regularly appear to be doing double the limits ( 60ish in a 30 ).
Who is it that actually decides " yes, that is dangerous driving" ?
It's a known fact that police training takes place on the public roads, with many "officers" reaching speeds of well over 120MPH, and yet none of these have lost their licences or jobs ( to my knowledge ) and they use the same reasons as journalists....we need to know how the cars handle in real life situations.
And now I've just read through this, I have no idea what point I'm trying to make...............bugger
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff