High Performance Cars

RedRocket wrote:

The performance car owners aren't the issue in my experience. It's the inattentive people in boring/ordinary cars that make me nervous. Ironically most people I know with high end performance cars are actually road cyclists themselves! Even including a roadie who had a Honda Fireblade motorbike tuned to 1bhp : 1kg.

This. People who drive crap cars have no real interest in driving. If you have no interest in it there's far less incentive to be good at it.

Regarding speed limits and performance cars, name me just 1 public road in the UK that has no speed limit? Nowt, exactly. I don't see the issue with having a speed limitless motorway or 2. You'd still be legally required to drive well and there would indeed be speed limits in poor weather etc. But ffs there is absolutely nowhere I am aware of where you can legally drive at 100mph or more. They have such a thing in Germany and this hasn't resulted in plagues of gigantic man eating reptiles taking over or other unmanageble problems.

Race tracks are great but you can't get to and from cities on Santa Pod.

RedRocket wrote:

People who drive crap cars have no real interest in driving. If you have no interest in it there's far less incentive to be good at it.

Regarding speed limits and performance cars, name me just 1 public road in the UK that has no speed limit? Nowt, exactly. I don't see the issue with having a speed limitless motorway or 2. You'd still be legally required to drive well and there would indeed be speed limits in poor weather etc. But ffs there is absolutely nowhere I am aware of where you can legally drive at 100mph or more. They have such a thing in Germany and this hasn't resulted in plagues of gigantic man eating reptiles taking over or other unmanageble problems.

Race tracks are great but you can't get to and from cities on Santa Pod.

Oh please. People driving cars you dismiss as "crap" might just have better things to spend their money on, like bikes. Or just think that actually, given that you need to drive safely and the road is not reserved for you, a 1.2 Vauxhall is adequate. Or perhaps they've grown out of appendage measurement by transport box. And they may well be quite safe drivers because they realise their limits.

What would happen if, say, the M1 suddenly became unlimited? All the country's boy racers would head there to race. And I use the word "boy" advisedly because these are not adults. The rest of us would pay in CO2 emissions, emergency services time, and A&E capacity for those who survive their crashes long enough to get to hospital.

Driving in this country is barely policed due to budget cuts and a lack of will (politicians and police). So that's no solution. If anything, speed limits need to fall and enforcement, even of the automated kind, needs to rise. Why should the rest of us pay so you can play at 100 mph, indulging your racing driver fantasy?

Titanus wrote:

RedRocket wrote:

The performance car owners aren't the issue in my experience. It's the inattentive people in boring/ordinary cars that make me nervous. Ironically most people I know with high end performance cars are actually road cyclists themselves! Even including a roadie who had a Honda Fireblade motorbike tuned to 1bhp : 1kg.

 

This. People who drive crap cars have no real interest in driving. If you have no interest in it there's far less incentive to be good at it.

Lol, that's right, ability to drive safely increases roughly in line with your wallet. 

RedRocket wrote:

The performance car owners aren't the issue in my experience. It's the inattentive people in boring/ordinary cars that make me nervous. Ironically most people I know with high end performance cars are actually road cyclists themselves! Even including a roadie who had a Honda Fireblade motorbike tuned to 1bhp : 1kg.

I make a point of owning boring/ordinary cars. They're a means of transport nothing more. If I can't put bags of cement, oily machines, or crap for the tip in the boot, plywood on the roof, bikes on the tow hook, it's f*ck all use to me. If it's not simple enough for me to fix when it goes wrong it's over specced.  

I see mates worrying about where they leave their cars - not for the inconvenience it might cause others, but about whether it gets scratched - not for me the 5 minute ritual of poring over the paintwork with a worried scowl on my face when returning to the car park. These are the same people who put their car "through its paces" just "to see what it can do". The very same who think that HWC stopping distances don't apply to them cos "the braking system is much more advanced" than an ordinary car, and besides they've got the extra power to "get me out of trouble".

The only reason to have high-end performance is to use it. High-end performance's raison d'etre is to add greater acceleration, higher speed and more kinetic energy into the equation. How this can be anything but a hindrance to safe driving is beyond me - it is possible to drive them safely, but that's in the spite of their attributes, not because of.

If the problem isn't the performance car but the driver, why is it so much more expensive to get insurance on a powerful car?

I'm a low risk driver according to the insurers - old enough not to go crazy, young enough not to have cataracts, in between enough not to wear any kind of hat. Yet when I was last changing car, I got a quote for a warmish Volvo estate that was 50% higher than my ordinary 1.8 Mondeo. Ok, the Volvo was quite lively but as a middle aged family man, they clearly thought that car made me a far worse risk.

It's just my quote, and I'm aware it was a price not a probability, but there will be stats behind it.

And by the way, I do hope your 4x4 is regularly needed in mud, snow, etc. Cos the pitchforks are most certainly out for the Chelsea tractors.

TheBillder wrote:

If the problem isn't the performance car but the driver, why is it so much more expensive to get insurance on a powerful car?

Because they cost more to repair. Volvo parts and panels more than Ford parts and panels.  Simple really. 
The risk you present as a driver is common to both, even if the prospect of driving a Volvo did cause a rush of excitement 😀

Ok, so why is Volvo T5 or whatever the fast ones are called now so much more expensive to insure than the slower ones given the common panels?

It's because a small proportion of the claims cost is for damage to your car or even theft of it. The rest is all about compensation for putting other people into 24x7 care situations for life, which costs millions.

TheBillder wrote:

If the problem isn't the performance car but the driver, why is it so much more expensive to get insurance on a powerful car? I'm a low risk driver according to the insurers - old enough not to go crazy, young enough not to have cataracts, in between enough not to wear any kind of hat. Yet when I was last changing car, I got a quote for a warmish Volvo estate that was 50% higher than my ordinary 1.8 Mondeo. Ok, the Volvo was quite lively but as a middle aged family man, they clearly thought that car made me a far worse risk. It's just my quote, and I'm aware it was a price not a probability, but there will be stats behind it. And by the way, I do hope your 4x4 is regularly needed in mud, snow, etc. Cos the pitchforks are most certainly out for the Chelsea tractors.

Could it be that dickheads that don't know how to drive them properly cause more accidents? Did you get the Volvo? The facelift V60 is a cracking drive, much nicer than any Mondeo.

No, it was a long time ago now, a V50 T5, I think with the engine from a Focus RS orange / white stripe / arrest me now thing. The dealer withdrew it from sale as it had a dodgy water pump and he didn't need the hassle.

It was also a bit small and dark for my family so I got a far slower Toyota Corolla Verso, which has been excellent. Now 15 years old and in need of some TLC but for shifting family / bikes / all the stuff of real life, perfection. If they made an electric one I'd probably buy it.

Always good to hear from you Don, how are the injurys clearing up and did you ever figure out the cause of the rear wheel locking?

I'm healing well, cheers, I've been riding the since the middle of Oct and just got the last bit of muscle damage in the shoulder to clear up.

No idea on the cause, but I have learnt to strip Campagnolo and Fulcrum hubs/wheels during down time. Nothing broken in the Zondas but bearings and spring replaced. I've been using the bike on the rollers with no problems whatsoever. A real strange one.

Any tips on Fulcrum free hub servicing?

My spare back wheel is a very lowly Racing Sport DB* with a clunky free hub. Last time it broke it spent 2 months in the shop waiting for new pawls. I keep meaning to strip it and see what's up (possibly just mucky) but I hear worrying tales of springs making the pawls fly out, never to be retrieved from the wasp corpses in the corner of the shed...

*the DB is true but not the Racing or the Sport.

I'll be updating the accident thread I started, so I'll respond to this there, save derailling this thread.

https://road.cc/content/forum/accident-post-mortem-277061

I think when you get into supercar territory that is certainly true - anytime someone writes off a car like that, it will make it into the media, even if there were no injuries, no other parties involved etc.

But when you look at e.g. NMOTD on this website or fatal collisions involving vulnerable road users (which typically make it into the media regardless of the car involved) I don't think the reporting bias will be as strong, but even so I think there are discernable patterns of the vehicle types involved, albeit less extreme and certainly no hard-and-fast rules.

Most of the supercar reporting is of the point and laugh variety I think. The real problem is putting stupidly powerful cars in the hands of inexperienced drivers. We don't allow it with motorbikes yet you can pass your test and drive your Mum's Audi RS4 home. As soon as my boy passes his test I'm taking him on an airfield and skidpan day so he can see just utterly shite his car control is.

I remember a story only a few years ago. A young lad, 17 I think, passed his test, went home and his dad threw him the keys to his Ferrari. The young lad went out and a few minutes later had crashed the car and very sadly died. 

Terribly sad, but there should be laws to stop this happening, for everyone, not allowing those with very deep pockets the ability to put a young boy with no experience behind the wheel of a supercar a few minutes after he passed his test. 

biker phil wrote:

I remember a story only a few years ago. A young lad, 17 I think, passed his test, went home and his dad threw him the keys to his Ferrari. The young lad went out and a few minutes later won the F1 World Championship

When I started reading your post I was genuinely hoping for something about an exceptional outcome, albeit not quite as exceptional as my example.

I once took some friends kids out in one of my hot hatches to basically show it off and give them a laugh. Back end stepped out on a corner and I just managed to control it, slotting it back in line between a line of trees and an oncoming tractor. With them in the back chances are it would have been them who would have been killed rather than me - I had airbags and a racing seat. That was the end of driving like a dick for me, it was so close and I just could not have lived with the consequences. Sadly families lose teenagers in similar circumstances every few days, and have done for as long as I can remember.  This recent case really hit home, not least because I know the coroner who received the bodies - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-53798413

kil0ran wrote:

Sadly families lose teenagers in similar circumstances every few days, and have done for as long as I can remember.

I know of a few. One lad, whose Dad was a keen rally driver, took to driving everywhere at high speed. Hit a hump back bridge, rolled it, hospitalised for many months, paralysed waist-down for life.

My best friend's brother was a passenger when a car overtaking the other way at night forced them off the road. I drove his parents to the hospital. Significant brain injury as well as many bones broken. He was in ITU for months, hospital & rehab for 2+ years, can't speak or walk or use one arm, he also requires a live-in carer.

Another more recent one, early 20s, was a passenger going home with his teenage friend's little hatchback one night; car left the road on a bend, hit a tree, both dead.

Many years ago I used love driving fast then had a near miss at 22 - wedged my dad's 3 month old Golf head-on under a lorry on a narrow country lane, a write-off. 100% my fault. Fortunately not a scratch on me, just a stiff neck. I couldn't bring myself to get in a car for over a week and saw the light. I tell my kids that I too was a dickhead back then but thankfully learnt my lesson before anyone got hurt.

And responding to don simon, I'd argue that the existence and promotion of performance cars and motorsport are definitely the main reason why young men love driving fast. Ditto for motorbikes (and sadly I could reel off a number of pointless deaths of young men from those too).

kil0ran wrote:

Most of the supercar reporting is of the point and laugh variety I think. The real problem is putting stupidly powerful cars in the hands of inexperienced drivers. We don't allow it with motorbikes yet you can pass your test and drive your Mum's Audi RS4 home. As soon as my boy passes his test I'm taking him on an airfield and skidpan day so he can see just utterly shite his car control is.

This is something that has always baffled me. Can a newly  certified driver really legally drive a Bugatti Chiron? That's not the case with a biker acquiring a Suzuki Hayabusa. What also baffles me is "power modes". My current motorcycle has the option to reduce maximum power, by how much I don't even know. I leave it in full power mode but can still use less power by turning the throttle less, but when I need to overtake the power is there ready.

Yep. The only restriction is that if you pick up 6 points in the first two years you lose your license. Sadly I know several parents who've lost teenagers in fatal car crashes - common theme being inexperienced driver, passengers, showing off, unforgiving country lanes. You do think you're invincible and kids have been brought up on Top Gear and Gran Turismo. Of course the vast majority are safe and insurance premiums do a reasonable job of keeping a lid on what's available, but the loophole of being a named driver on a parent's policy or driving uninsured is still there. 

I'm not familiar with bike licenses, are you allowed to pillion as soon as you pass your test?

In some other European countries there are schemes that let teenagers get on the road a year or two earlier in a modified car which technically counts as a farm vehicle or a tractor or whatever. Generally it's got very little power and fewer seats (maybe this discourages drivers from showing off in front of their mates). It might be interesting to look at safety stats, see if the kids who had 1-2 years in a 30hp stigma-mobile cause fewer accidents when they graduate to grown-up cars. 

The answer is yes, you can drive a Chiron just after you pass. Anything is possible if you are prepared to pay the insurance. My ex boss put his lad on the insurance after he passed his test at 17. He was driving Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, etc, even some of his dads classic collection, which was valued at over £50 million.

kil0ran wrote:

As soon as my boy passes his test I'm taking him on an airfield and skidpan day so he can see just utterly shite his car control is.

Similar with my son, we did a car drifting day. Hard to put into words just how beneficial it is  to learn how to control a car when it behaves in a manner previously not experienced.