High Performance Cars

This is so accurate I feel slightly attacked.

I might add another - teenage bedroom wall collectors.  Always wanted one of those - couldn't afford it when I was younger - got a bit of cash now so I'll have one.  Never drive it though because, whisper it, it's slow, unreliable, I don't really fit it, so it'll live in the garage and I occasionally look at it.  Please don't mention my '88 Raleigh SBDU...

Guilty m'lud. Whole reason I wanted a Golf GTI was *that* Paula Hamilton ad.

A ridiculously rich mate of mine (pharama Global CFO) has lived the dream and bought basically every supercar from the 80s, in proper 80s colours. Countach, 288 GTO, 512BB, even an Porsche 959S. Made money on all of them and did actually drive them a bit but found them underwhelming compared even to something like a modern Skyline GTR. He's settled on an early '70s Carerra RSR as his "only" classic I think.

My budget limited me to hot hatches and pocket rockets and I still have obsession with stuff like AX GTs and anything with a VTEC badge. And this extended to the bike world of course - very nearly bought one of the Peugeot recreations they did a few years back with the classic logos and white and rainbow stripes paint job

"...so what we need to do is actualy conduct a 'war' on law-breaking motorists."

or "war on motorists" as the Daily Mail will no doubt have it, with a cast of traffic police "only in it for the fines revenue." 

David9694 wrote:

"...so what we need to do is actualy conduct a 'war' on law-breaking motorists."

or "war on motorists" as the Daily Mail will no doubt have it, with a cast of traffic police "only in it for the fines revenue." 

To be honest, I'm okay with drastically increasing taxes on fuel which would hit all motorists, though I'm not sure if that counts as war. Also, I'm in favour of redistributing road space to pedestrians and active travellers (is that what you call cyclists and skaters?) which could be considered a takeover of territory.

Oh, so now it's "mean-spirited cyclists want to bump up fuel duty and turn roads into a skate park" is it?

David9694 wrote:

Oh, so now it's "mean-spirited cyclists want to bump up fuel duty and turn roads into a skate park" is it?

Maybe not as catchy as "war on motorists". To be fair, some of the potholes on the roads are becoming like halfpipes.

Just out of sight : one of our bird feeders, that my wife has assured me are placed so high up that they are squirrel proof. 
 

David9694 wrote:

Just out of sight : one of our bird feeders, that my wife has assured me are placed so high up that they are squirrel proof. 

The feeders are still attached to something though right? 

David9694 wrote:

"...so what we need to do is actualy conduct a 'war' on law-breaking motorists."

or "war on motorists" as the Daily Mail will no doubt have it, with a cast of traffic police "only in it for the fines revenue." 

I would hazard that that would be six and two threes tbh...

Yet they show Formula 1 every week.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

You need to take your blinkers off, no matter how important you think the point you are trying to make is.  Which BTW I disagree with - you are in Daily Mail "wont somebody think of the children" territory.   The problem isnt performance cars - its that we live in a car-centric culture.   Changing that is meaningful, banning performance cars on the assumption that thats the problem is just daft.

A couple of notes.

The Audi has no further description - for all you know it could be anything from a 1L A1 upwards, or a 15 year old 1.4 A3 or a SQ7 sports barge.

The Audi news article says nothing of the circumstances of the incident - until then you are reaching to make a point.

I think there is a risk that you are in "Guns don't kill people..."  territory.

I agree with you that the central problem is the car-centric culture, however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that, on safety, environmental, and antisocial behaviour grounds.

Captain Badger wrote:

however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that,

I'm not sure I buy that - I think we're in danger of doing exactly the same thing as the anti-cylists do by singling out a subsection of the population of car owners - but willing to be convinced otherwise.

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

No sorry. There was an article last year that pointed to smaller cars/drivers (topping the list was the Peugeot 205 and Hyundai i10) being safest on the road with the usual suspects  (BMW, Audi) being the worst, however couldn't find it right now. There was an article in NewScientist discussing how sports cars were worse than SUVs, but behind a paywall so couldn't get to it.

Indeed it is likely to be a combination - performance cars are likely to attract a buyer that wants to use that performance. Unfortunately, that compound effect is difficult to parse. Indeed I don't believe it is necessary to do so - the whys do not detract from the reality; that they have attached problems and few, if any, benefits.

There is a further dimension. The performance car in itself fosters a culture. This is evidenced by the forums, magazines, shows, meets etc. 

So culture, of course, plays a part, however, the culture is not independent of the type car, it is in part driven by it.

I hitched a lift home from a trackday once with a former Le Mans 24h driver in a tricked-out Nissan Skyline GTR. Something like 450bhp which was a lot back in the 90s. Was expecting it to be a white knuckle ride and he just pootled back at the speed limit. When I asked him why he said he saved driving fast for the track, where it was safer for everyone - he'd driven Le Mans style cars through the 70s and seen so many mates die road racing.

I know in my 20s I thought I was (a) invincible (b) Ayrton Senna and (c) didn't care if I died. I can remember saying to my Mum something along the lines of "I don't have any passengers, if I do crash it will just be me who suffers".

kil0ran wrote:

 

I know in my 20s I thought I was (a) invincible (b) Ayrton Senna and (c) didn't care if I died. I can remember saying to my Mum something along the lines of "I don't have any passengers, if I do crash it will just be me who suffers".

Indeed, I remember those days as well. Also remember being involved in 2 collisions (not driving, although that doesn't mean that I was a saint myself) where we came off the road, both due to racing. Unbelievably no one was hurt in either case. 

The Dunning-Kruger effect applies behind the wheel every bit as much as elsewhere, and folk rarely think that there is a realistic chance of them crashing, because of course, they are good drivers, along with the other 98% of drivers who are above average.

Probably because I'm now a Dad but I'd like to see limits on horsepower and passengers for newly qualified drivers. I passed my test on a Friday and took three mates out on the lash on Saturday night (I was sensible and didn't drink). Managed to chuck my Allegro (don't laugh) off the road on a wet roundabout, fortunately only into the shrubbery rather than the trees a bit further along. And then on my first long trip I've still to this day no idea how I missed killing a cyclist on the A27, it felt like I was mm away from him at 60mph (misjudged a gap to a traffic island). Done my fair share of racing and traffic light GPs too, including more off-tarmac excursions.

Thing is, I'm still an enthusiast, it's just that the enthusiasm is directed towards old Volvos. I absolutely love my 940, love that I can fix most stuff with a hammer and screwdriver, love that my son helped me swap out the radiator. I'm even going to do the cambelt on it myself. Spent ages looking for the right one and the intention is that it will get us through until he leaves school. I'd like him to learn to drive in it but it will be almost 2030 so who knows what will happen to gas-guzzling 40yo motors then. We were going to go touring all over Europe this summer with it (getting it done before Brexit) but COVID intervened so we'll settle for touring the scenic bits of Blighty instead.

kil0ran wrote:

Thing is, I'm still an enthusiast, it's just that the enthusiasm is directed towards old Volvos. I absolutely love my 940, love that I can fix most stuff with a hammer and screwdriver, ...

I know what you mean. I have a kit car ( an eternal project that may or may not be complete by the time that petrol is outlawed). I get a buzz out of finding/fixing/fabricating/adapting/restoring/cleaning/painting up parts, and adding them to the whole. It's about the journey (rather than lack of it).

For that, it really doesn't matter about what car you are doing it to - as you say, they're all basically the same.

I have toyed with the idea of doing some serious performance stuff to the engine, but then it doesn't really suit my driving style, and the whole thing is supposed to be a bit of fun - as your Mrs said: "What's the point?".

There are all sorts of exotic engine swaps and upgrades for the 940 - the engine bay is mahoosive. Quite a scene around building externally standard sleeper 940s with enough torque to spin the earth backwards. I'm definitely not doing it, honest. But my son gets to do car mechanics and early driving courses in a couple of years at school so that might be the excuse needed. "Here son, just pop this V8 in and don't tell Mum"

kil0ran wrote:

There are all sorts of exotic engine swaps and upgrades for the 940 - the engine bay is mahoosive. Quite a scene around building externally standard sleeper 940s with enough torque to spin the earth backwards. I'm definitely not doing it, honest. But my son gets to do car mechanics and early driving courses in a couple of years at school so that might be the excuse needed. "Here son, just pop this V8 in and don't tell Mum"

There is also the bit about quality time with your boy. My Dad and I spent a lot of time tinkering around with stuff, he did it from when he was a lad. We didn't communicate much, so these are some of my fondest memories. The stuff he learns and the confidence it gives him to try his own stuff will also be invaluable.

Yeah, me too. Mine used to send me under the car to undo sump bolts and the like. I can strip a carb, set points and do a reasonable job with tappets because of him (none of which are much use these days), and I know my way around Japanese 16v late-80s engines too. It was probably the only thing we spoke about (other than footie) throughout my teenage years. It was a huge part of the reasoning behind buying the Volvo because you can see and access pretty much everything.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Can anyone point me at some stats that show its the type of car rather than say the type of driver (youngish males perchance)?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6799443/Cars-like-invol...

Top of the list is the Toyota Prius (popular as a taxi), after that it's mostly the sort of cars driven by teenagers, quite a few BMWs too (possibly company cars with high annual mileage?).

Captain Badger wrote:

I agree with you that the central problem is the car-centric culture, however, performance cars are still a distinct problem within that, on safety, environmental, and antisocial behaviour grounds.

Agreed.

The essential problem with the promotion and availability of high performance cars is that driving at high speed is made desirable.

Manufacturers, the vast majority of media outlets (print, TV, online etc), race teams, sponsors and everyone else involved in motorsport refuses the wholly negative effects of this behaviour on everyone outside the car - other road users, people who live/work near those roads - which is rendered completely irrelevant.

Limiting max speed to 85 mph won't prevent the majority of collisions, especially in areas where 30 or 40 mph is the legal limit. Plenty of far less powerful vehicles are involved in crashes every single day. Sadly SMIDSY or the arrogant belief that 'might is right' are often significant factors, as a glance through the contributory factors in the annual road stats will show.

It would be more instructive to ask why 150,000 people are still being killed or injured every year on our roads. And that number doesn't include the many incidents where no injury is recorded - see the ongoing Car crashes into building thread in the forum for some examples.

I see from my local rag's homepage this morning that a 2-lorry crashed has blocked the M54 while another article states that "one in 20 motorists in the TF and SY postcode areas have had to declare motoring offences when applying for car insurance, compared to a national average of one in 10." - story about the Moneysupermarket figures here. Before anyone thinks that's great, we're twice as well behaved as the national average, it's worth noting that SY covers Shropshire and mid-Wales which have a very rural populations, thinly spread police forces, and low camera counts.

kil0ran wrote:

Reformed petrolhead here. ....

 

Really intelligent post, and very readable. 

Captain Badger wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Reformed petrolhead here. ....

 

Really intelligent post, and very readable. 

Ditto

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Reformed petrolhead here. ....

 

Really intelligent post, and very readable. 

Ditto

Ditto!