What's the Point of High-Powered Cars in a World of Speed Limits?

[billy_joule]

Ah, I forgot briefly that we live in the Age where we graciously allow our lives to be overriden and managed by great masses of faceless, unnamed 'experts', man of whom are known as such only because that's what they call themselves.

Imagine PF if we didn't:

Train driver needs help

Hi, I've derailed three trains this past week, my train is 100 tonnes, the curve in question has a radius of 200 m, I've tried 80, 70 and 100 km/hr with no luck, how fast can I go without derailling? pls halp, I'm close to getting fired and the blood of the innocent passengers is weighing on my mind.
sincerely, the fat conductor.

 

[russ_watters]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.
In fact some 1600cc cars can go over 120mph, it is just crazy when every one is complaining of fuel costs, the most sensible thing would be to design a car with a max of 100mph you can have all the bells and whistles on it you want, so long as can pull a caravan

As far as I can see, no one pointed out the physics/engineering flaw in your argument. The primary one is that engine power doesn't just provide for top speed, it also provides for acceleration, hill-climbing ability and towing/cargo capacity:

A buddy of mine owned a VW Rabbit that had something like 70hp and topped out at around 70mph. Going up a moderate hill on a highway meant going 40mph in second gear, with your fingers crossed.

My first car (that I really owned) was an Eagle Talon (Mitsubishi Eclipse) that had something like 95 hp, but it was really aerodynamic, so it topped-out at 110, but it was woefully underpowered for acceleration and hill climbing.

My second car was a Mazda 6 with 160 hp. It probably also topped out around 110, but was much better accelerating than the Talon. Still, I noticed times when more power would have been nice.

My current car is a Kia Optima turbo, with 275 hp. I've never used all the horses and it definitely doesn't top out at 110.

 

[nsaspook]

I've driven legally at 85 mph (5+ the legal limit) in Utah past Provo for hundreds of miles to Vegas and it's 85 at some roads in Texas. You need the power for acceleration with a load of six people and their luggage. It's also 115+ outside in summer so the AC is going full blast while you're driving up from the river. The last thing you need is some puny engine blowing a gasket and stranding your family in the middle of the desert.
http://www.speed-limits.com/texas.htm

 

[wolram]

The reality is, most highways in the U.S. the typical driving speed is about 80 mph when traffic is not heavy. This seems to be true regardless of the speed limit - I have lived on both sides of the U.S. and driven cross-country, and whether I'm on a highway where the speed limit is 55 mph or 75 mph, people generally drive at about 80 if there's plenty of space.

That being said, a car whose top speed is near 100 mph is going to accelerate very slowly in the range of 80 mph - making manoeuvring in traffic difficult.

I know common sense would say that applying your break is safer than accelerating in cases where you need to move around other cars, but that's really not how it works. Breaking causes confusion among other drivers and creates dangerous situations often.

This is not true engine manufacturers can tune a engine to rev up to 100mph then hit the limiter (goes off cam) quite easily.

 

[wolram]

As far as I can see, no one pointed out the physics/engineering flaw in your argument. The primary one is that engine power doesn't just provide for top speed, it also provides for acceleration, hill-climbing ability and towing/cargo capacity:

A buddy of mine owned a VW Rabbit that had something like 70hp and topped out at around 70mph. Going up a moderate hill on a highway meant going 40mph in second gear, with your fingers crossed.

My first car (that I really owned) was an Eagle Talon (Mitsubishi Eclipse) that had something like 95 hp, but it was really aerodynamic, so it topped-out at 110, but it was woefully underpowered for acceleration and hill climbing.

My second car was a Mazda 6 with 160 hp. It probably also topped out around 110, but was much better accelerating than the Talon. Still, I noticed times when more power would have been nice.

My current car is a Kia Optima turbo, with 275 hp. I've never used all the horses and it definitely doesn't top out at 110.

A 1600cccar is what you need regulated to 70mph top speed, may be with a( kick down)for emergencies.
Why have 275hp if you do not use it, may be you are planning a bank robbery

 

[256bits]

I may well be pissing up a rope but any sane person would agree there should be a( safe) speed to drive. and for any government to allow car manufacturers to build and sell car that can break this limit may just as well be in the military selling guns.

I don't think that you have a non-valid position. Everyone thinks that they are better driver than anyone on the road around them. You know the old "What's that idiot doing &%# ". Slowpoke in the fast lane doing the speed limit.
Trouble is today with most cars is that they are built that much better than yesterdays. One can be doing 80mph ands not realize it all, with the car not shimmying and rattling and feeling like it is going to fall apart. The extra speed from powerful engines is really not needed for most peoples purposes - they just think they have to have it just in case they might use it. Grown ups after all, and they never not admit it, in one form or another, are just as susceptible to flashy things as kids, and with cars it is exhibited in color, style, power, gadgets,... Tim The Tool Guy was not really that far off.

Having said that, I am not all that much in favour of a mandatory governor attached speed regulator. If someone wants to purchase car insurance at a lower premium from an insurance company inspects the driving record from an attached monitoring device then all the more powere to them also.

Speed does not kill - stupidity does. Speeding over the speed limit is really a non-issue. Speeding in excess of the capability as a driver, in excess of what the car's performance is, in excess over and above what road conditions ( it is actually possible to be driving at a lower speed than the speed limit and still be stupid by not taking into consideration of the road conditions ), in excess of what other drivers around can be comfortable with ( a lousy driver might not be in an accident, but he can sure as fire be the cause of other driver being in one ).

As an anecdote, just the other day ( actually a few months back in warmer weather ) three motorbikes traveling a few clicks faster than the posted speed limit, driving two abreast in one lane, then all three taking all three lanes, then spitting up, then one pops a wheely. Now if all that isn't just too much of "I am on the road and it is all mine" mentality. If the wheely guy did just hit a bit of a bump and flips, well, being driven over by the vehicle behind I don't think is much too pleasant. Plain stupid, really.

 

[wolram]

Bad analogy. Obesity is not a market-driven feature.

I'm not saying there's no point in reducing accidents at high speeds, I'm saying, if Wolram wants to save lots of lives, he's being penny-wise but pound-foolish.

What does it take Dave, i have seen three fatal accidents in as many months, the details mean nothing to the dead, what can i do other than protest in fora like this and hope some thing rubs off on people.

 

[Ranger Mike]

One point needs to be corrected. In the USA you can drive as fast as you wish. it is called private property. You can drive a motor vehicle drunk if you like. You can build a 1000 horsepower automobile and drive it like you stole it if you choose.
Driving on public roads is a privilege not a right. certain laws are in effect to govern this traffic.
It is ironic that this discussion came on the eve of Veterans Day. Freedom is good!

 

[xxChrisxx]

What does it take Dave, i have seen three fatal accidents in as many months, the details mean nothing to the dead, what can i do other than protest in fora like this and hope some thing rubs off on people.

I've only seen one accident that resulted in injury in over 10 years, that was a bicycle riding into the back of a car. Does my anecdote beat yours?

The problem with 'speed kills' as a campaign is that it is not a good way to promote good road craft. Distilling the sense of 'good' or 'bad' driving to a single metric makes people switch their brain off if they meet that metric. People thinking that they can't be doing anything dangerous because they are traveling slightly slower than some arbitrary number.

Good road craft focuses on perception and reading the road ahead and the appropriateness of what you are doing. The moment you stop questioning 'am I driving appropriately' is the moment you become potentially dangerous.



Also I'd like to point out that jumping up and down about limiting cars to 70mph makes little sense from a safety perspective. Motorways have by far the highest average speed of all the roads you can travel on, but are by far the safest roads.

Your 70mph limited car, can still travel 70mph in a 20mph limit past a busy school.

I'd advocate reducing speed limits on busy urban roads, but it really makes little sense to keep the motorway speed limit the same as that set 50 years ago.

 

[wolram]

I've only seen one accident that resulted in injury in over 10 years, that was a bicycle riding into the back of a car. Does my anecdote beat yours?

The problem with 'speed kills' as a campaign is that it is not a good way to promote good road craft. Distilling the sense of 'good' or 'bad' driving to a single metric makes people switch their brain off if they meet that metric. People thinking that they can't be doing anything dangerous because they are traveling slightly slower than some arbitrary number.

Good road craft focuses on perception and reading the road ahead and the appropriateness of what you are doing. The moment you stop questioning 'am I driving appropriately' is the moment you become potentially dangerous.
Also I'd like to point out that jumping up and down about limiting cars to 70mph makes little sense from a safety perspective. Motorways have by far the highest average speed of all the roads you can travel on, but are by far the safest roads.

Your 70mph limited car, can still travel 70mph in a 20mph limit past a busy school.

I'd advocate reducing speed limits on busy urban roads, but it really makes little sense to keep the motorway speed limit the same as that set 50 years ago.

Motor ways are the safest roads to travel on no argument there,, i would however challenge a (normal) driver to drive at 100mph safely on a 70 limited motorway for more than a few miles, it takes concentration, some thing we are all lacking for sustained driving at that speed
I really do not understand what you are all quibbling about, i doubt if you flout the laws of the land by speeding so why would you want a car that can go double the speed limit yet alone treble

 

[xxChrisxx]

Motor ways are the safest roads to travel on no argument there,, i would however challenge a (normal) driver to drive at 100mph safely on a 70 limited motorway for more than a few miles, it takes concentration, some thing we are all lacking for sustained driving at that speed

M6 toll and M6 from J4 down would hypothetically be easy peasy to sustain a lepton. M40 is also a really nice road to get a move on too. I'd probably estimate average outside lane speeds in free flowing traffic are 85mph + these days and its creeping up slowly. The perverse thing is it really doesn't feel fast.

I hate driving in towns though. All sub 30mph, all stop start surrounded by hyper aggressive physcos. I'd take flying up and down the motorway over it any day.

I really do not understand what you are all quibbling about, i doubt if you flout the laws of the land by speeding so why would you want a car that can go double the speed limit yet alone treble

For the same reason I have a watch that is waterproof to 100m.

 

[wolram]

M6 toll and M6 from J4 down would hypothetically be easy peasy to sustain a lepton. M40 is also a really nice road to get a move on too. I'd probably estimate average outside lane speeds in free flowing traffic are 85mph + these days and its creeping up slowly. The perverse thing is it really doesn't feel fast.

I hate driving in towns though. All sub 30mph, all stop start surrounded by hyper aggressive physcos. I'd take flying up and down the motorway over it any day.For the same reason I have a watch that is waterproof to 100m.

Are you really admitting breaking the law of the land?, okay 15mph over is only points on your licence, but what should the punishment be for going 30, 60, 90, 120 over

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm merely pointing out casual observations regarding the average speed of the outside lane in free flowing traffic. There should be no outright punishment for traveling any speed over and above an arbitrary limit set 50 years ago. Each case should be considered on it's merits, unfortunately this is impractical to do in reality.

140mph down an empty M6 toll is perfectly feasible and not really dangerous at all. Weaving through traffic at 70mph during rush hour on the M6 is colossally dangerous.

The Germans got it right with the autobahns.

 

[wolram]

Even the Germans are looking into autobahn death rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths.

What more can be said, the last of the countries with no speed limit on their roads are getting worried about the death rate.
sorry xxChrisxx you are out and out wrong.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Even the Germans are looking into autobahn death rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths.

What more can be said, the last of the countries with no speed limit on their roads are getting worried about the death rate.
sorry xxChrisxx you are out and out wrong.

They may be, but it's extremely unlikely to happen. The big three hold far too much sway. I'd also like to make clear, that from an ideological point of view to motoring they got it right.

You can go as fast as you like on derestricted sections, but if speed is shown to be a factor you have increased culpability. It also encourages a sense of personal responsibility to others. To pass the driving test in Germany you have to know first aid. The TUV test is far stricter than the MOT. People don't scrimp out on crap tyres, winter tyres are mandatory, etc. The general standard of road craft is higher.

You couldn't apply the same rules that the autobahn has over here, as it would be utter chaos.





This is becoming a bit of a merry go round.

If saving lives is the order of the day, surely it's better to look at urban and rural roads first. Fix the least safe roads before you 'fix' the most safe ones. The issue is not people who belt up and down motorways. It's the 40mph everywhere crowds that are the menace.

 

[russ_watters]

Why have 275hp if you do not use it...

There were no options between that and 170hp. Car manufacturers can only make so many options.

This is not true engine manufacturers can tune a engine to rev up to 100mph then hit the limiter (goes off cam) quite easily.

A governor is very different from limiting engine size and carries it's own problems. Most obvious is that it is only relevant on the highway, since that is the fastest you drive.

I'm sorry for your loss, but it is causing you to react to the issue with errors in logic. There is no simple way currently to build speeding limits into cars; governors and horsepower limits can eliminate vast violations (people who drive 140), but can't do anything for everyday speeding.

There is one way to do it from the car side without a terrible amount of effort: GPS adjusted governors. If the car knows what road you are on, it can adjust the governor to that road's limit. Not without issues, but doable. The other option is of course stronger enforcement.

 

[wolram]

Go back to the op, it is about manufacturers building cars that can go over 200mph it is common sense that they are not needed on any road in the world, they are built just because they can be.
70mph is the maximum speed allowed in the UK, and it is about the same in every other country, so what is a sane limit to spec a car to? the law of the land would be 70mph but manufactures spec them way over that 120mph for a 1600cc engined car is about average. why build any thing faster it just makes no sense.

Russ your idea of gps tracking and speed limiting is a good one, big brother yes but who should care.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Go back to the op, it is about manufacturers building cars that can go over 200mph it is common sense that they are not needed on any road in the world, they are built just because they can be.

And you got the answer. Real life top trumps.

Why do watch makers make watches that cost £15000? They don't tell the time any better than a £5 Casio. Why do designer clothes cost hundreds when a burlap sack will keep the cold out just as well. By the extension you can argue that any luxury good is an utter waste of time and effort, and 'overspecced'.

You can buy a box on 4 wheels that just about does 70mph if you want. People make fire breathing V12s that pop and bang because people will buy them.

 

[wolram]

i can not remember the last time a watch or designer clothes killed some one, may be in James Bond

 

[cjl]

A 1600cccar is what you need regulated to 70mph top speed, may be with a( kick down)for emergencies.
Why have 275hp if you do not use it, may be you are planning a bank robbery

There are several places in the United States where you can quite legally go 80-85 mph (85-90 if you're willing to go 5mph over the speed limit). In addition, there are also several places where the interstate highway goes up over significant hills. For example, my 175hp Subaru Outback with a 2500cc motor is very nearly running flat out to climb the hill on I-70 in Colorado from Silverthorne to the Eisenhower tunnel, especially when fully loaded with 3 or 4 people and their stuff. The high altitude (10,000+ feet above sea level) decreases engine power available, and maintaining 60-75mph up that hill requires just about everything that car has, even though on a flat surface at low altitude it is capable of 124mph (which by your definition means that it is "overpowered" and "excessive"). In addition, there are several areas in the mountains of Colorado here where you want everything you can get to safely pass a vehicle in the short passing lanes available on our mountain roads, and in many cases, my Outback is strained to get around before the passing zone or lane ends. Having plenty of power isn't just about top speed on a flat surface, and I often wish I had the larger motor in my car (the 3600cc with 250hp), simply so I wouldn't be running it so close to its limit whenever I am in the mountains, as I suspect that isn't fantastic for its longevity.

Also, I have taken my other car (a Porsche Cayman S, with 295hp, capable of well over 170mph) to the racetrack many times to have fun and improve my driving ability and car control, and when I do so, I use every bit of its available performance for hours at a time. Why should I be unable to do this? Given that I drive it within legal limits when on public roads, why shouldn't I be able to buy a car with very high performance to use on a closed circuit?

Finally, I suspect the great majority of "speed-related" accidents still occur at less than 100mph. Very high top speeds aren't the problem - the problem is speed unsuitable for the type of road and the circumstance. I'd much rather have someone going 120mph down an empty interstate highway in Kansas than 65mph down the main street in my town, and your proposed speed limiters would do nothing to prevent that latter situation.

 

[russ_watters]

Go back to the op, it is about manufacturers building cars that can go over 200mph it is common sense that they are not needed on any road in the world, they are built just because they can be.

You still have a logical disconnect here in that you say safety is your concern, but list for the details something that is way outside the typical and results in almost no deaths. There are just way too few cars capable of 200mph for them to be a noticeable part of crash stats.

 

[cjl]

What does it take Dave, i have seen three fatal accidents in as many months, the details mean nothing to the dead, what can i do other than protest in fora like this and hope some thing rubs off on people.

And with those 3 fatal accidents, how fast were the vehicles traveling?

 

[wolram]

And with those 3 fatal accidents, how fast were the vehicles traveling?

I would be a liar if i told you x, all i can say is it was at a junction with the foss way, a roman road that seems dead straight but is not quite, all the accidents involved a car coming out of the junction and being hit by the car traveling along the foss way.the drivers coming out of the minor road did not have a chance.

 

[Smattering]

AFAIK the only country one can go above 70mph is Germany, so why are these huge engined cars sold world wide, what is the use owning a car with a v10 engine capable of 200mph when your local motorway has a 70mph top limit.

A combustion engine that does not have enough power to go beyond 70 mph, will most likely have not enough torque for decent acceleration either. Even if you limit the top speed, customers will still prefer cars that can accelerate decently.

 

[cjl]

I would be a liar if i told you x, all i can say is it was at a junction with the foss way, a roman road that seems dead straight but is not quite, all the accidents involved a car coming out of the junction and being hit by the car traveling along the foss way.the drivers coming out of the minor road did not have a chance.

OK, so you can't give an exact speed, but how about an estimate? Would you say the vehicles were traveling at greater than or less than 100mph? For reference, this is what a 100mph crash looks like:

 

[wolram]

A combustion engine that does not have enough power to go beyond 70 mph, will most likely have not enough torque for decent acceleration either. Even if you limit the top speed, customers will still prefer cars that can accelerate decently.

A 1000cc car can do 70mph if it is limited, same as 2000cc car, you can have oodles of torque, all you need is some electronics.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I would be a liar if i told you x, all i can say is it was at a junction with the foss way, a roman road that seems dead straight but is not quite, all the accidents involved a car coming out of the junction and being hit by the car traveling along the foss way.the drivers coming out of the minor road did not have a chance.

Where abouts on the Fosse?

 

[wolram]

OK, so you can't give an exact speed, but how about an estimate? Would you say the vehicles were traveling at greater than or less than 100mph? For reference, this is what a 100mph crash looks like:

Sorry i am not going to get pulled into this one, it all depends on how the driver reacted, he could have been doing 100mph but braked down to 70mph or any thing inbetween.
i can tell you that one of the cars was banana shaped.

 

[wolram]

Where abouts on the Fosse?

The Harbury lane junction.

you can see it on this map

http://www.maplandia.com/united-kingdom/england/west-midlands/warwickshire-county/harbury/

 

[cjl]

Sorry i am not going to get pulled into this one, it all depends on how the driver reacted, he could have been doing 100mph but braked down to 70mph or any thing inbetween.
i can tell you that one of the cars was banana shaped.

OK, but even if the driver was doing 100mph, your proposal wouldn't really eliminate the problem. Given that the fastest speed limits are around 85mph or so, the lowest you could reasonably set a speed limiter on a car would be about 90mph, and that would not have prevented the crashes you're talking about. How many crashes actually occur at triple digit speeds? I'd bet it's a pretty tiny percentage.

 

[cjl]

A combustion engine that does not have enough power to go beyond 70 mph, will most likely have not enough torque for decent acceleration either. Even if you limit the top speed, customers will still prefer cars that can accelerate decently.

It's not even a matter of torque - acceleration and top speed are both pretty much exclusively dependent on power, assuming a reasonable power curve and appropriate gearing. A car that is unable to exceed 70mph will also have abysmal acceleration, unless it has the aerodynamics of a parachute.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The Harbury lane junction.

They'll have been doing nowhere near 100mph. I'd be very surprised if they were breaking than NSL.

Dont ever have a side impact.

 

[wolram]

They'll have been doing nowhere near 100mph. I'd be very surprised if they were breaking than NSL.

Dont ever have a side impact.

I am no expert on accident investigation so i would have to refer to those that know better.

 

[cjl]

Assuming I'm understanding you right, it's this intersection?

I don't think 200mph cars are really the problem for accidents like that, since as Chris said, there's no way the cars were even doing 100mph through there.

 

[Smattering]

A 1000cc car can do 70mph if it is limited, same as 2000cc car, you can have oodles of torque, all you need is some electronics.

I thought your issue is that people buy bigger engines than actually needed.