High performance cars and young drivers

My 18yo was in a 4cyl 4wd busted doing 140km/h.

Only difference, it got there slower than a HP vehicle.

My XR6 had a higher top speed than my V8! Better gearbox etc...

**sorry for your accident, but even if they were going slower, if the timing was off you still wouldn't be here.

I've seen and attended several accidents below 50km/h where the occupant didn't survive. And plenty more high speed ones where they did.

It's partially luck of the draw...

In my youth - every one of my mates and I had 400+ bhp vehicles and we are all alive and kicking (& in 1 piece)

And please define "Hi Powered"

Only 14 years ago a HSV made 185kw

Now a 6 cyl bommowagon makes 195kw

Mums RAV makes 200kw


Oh yes, and the first bike I owned was a Katana 750, the 2nd was a Busa 1300 and the current one is 1800cc and about to be supercharged.

Nothing beats brains - you can't legislate for all otherwise we will have nothing...

And my 18yo - yea I would trust him on a litre bike no problems...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

My 18yo was in a 4cyl 4wd busted doing 140km/h.

Only difference, it got there slower than a HP vehicle.

My XR6 had a higher top speed than my V8! Better gearbox etc...

---

I never said to restrict vehicles by cylinder count - that's too simplistic. I said to restrict by engine capacity, bhp, something more pertinent to how powerful the vehicle actually is.

Quote:

---

**sorry for your accident, but even if they were going slower, if the timing was off you still wouldn't be here.

---

Yeah, but the point still remains - at the speed they were going, because it was a 1.3l (I think), I had a chance. If it were a 4.0l that had another 100kph in it, that chance would be drastically reduced.

Quote:

---

I've seen and attended several accidents below 50km/h where the occupant didn't survive. And plenty more high speed ones where they did.

---

Have you actually crunched the numbers to see what the percentages were on those accidents?? I once saw a guy walk away from a 120m fall down a cliff - that doesn't mean I plan on having a go myself. Going by what you are saying, your odds at 150kph are no worse than at 50kph...

Quote:

---

It's partially luck of the draw...

---

Partially, sure. But you can increase or decrease your odds quite dramatically.

Quote:

---

In my youth - every one of my mates and I had 400+ bhp vehicles and we are all alive and kicking (& in 1 piece)

---

Then you are one of the very lucky few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

And my 18yo - yea I would trust him on a litre bike no problems...

---

This the same 18 year old who "was in a 4cyl 4wd busted doing 140km/h."?? Because apparently he can't be trusted in a 4cyl 4WD.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

My 18yo was in a 4cyl 4wd busted doing 140km/h.

Only difference, it got there slower than a HP vehicle.

---

That may be more important than some people realise.

In the same way that people who are drunk can often negotiate their way home safely as long as nothing unexpected happens, inexperienced drivers can often cope if there is enough time for them to work out what needs to be done.

If things change slowly, an inexperienced driver can cope. If things change suddenly they may be in trouble.

Some powerful bikes and cars can accelerate so quickly that the inexperienced driver doesn't have time to adjust to the change in speed.

While the 1948 version Citroen 2CV might have been capable of reaching the breathtaking speed of 64km/h, it took so long to get to that speed that the driver had plenty of time to adjust to the increased speed and even had time to consider whether there was any necessity to hurtle along at such breakneck speeds.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV"]Citroën 2CV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Quote:

---

The original 1948 model that produced only 9 hp had a 0-40 time of 42.4 seconds and a top speed of just 64 km/h.

The top speed increased with engine size to 80 km/h (49 mph) in 1955, 84 km/h (52 mph) in 1962, 100 km/h (63 mph) in 1970, but was finally not capable of US freeway speeds of 115 km/h (71 mph) until 1981

---

Looking at the speed a vehicle can achieve is not enough. You also need the consider how rapidly the vehicle can dramatically increase its speed. Some bikes and cars can go from a sedate pace to a pace beyond the capabilities of the driver so quickly that the driver doesn't have time to adjust to the changed circumstances.

In some circumstances, I believe that rapid increases in speed could be exceptionally hard to deal with.

In NSW (at least), learners and provisional riders are limited with a power to weight ratio for their bikes. Yet for cars, it is too hard. I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonesy63

In NSW (at least), learners and provisional riders are limited with a power to weight ratio for their bikes. Yet for cars, it is too hard. I don't get it.

---

Here in Vic., there have been restrictions on motorcycles since the mid eighties.
In the very early days of the car restrictions here in Vic., the restrictions were based on a power to weight ratio. I remember this as a friend of mine was a "P" plater at the time. We were trying to work out whether he could drive my Commodore or not. I forget the conclusion.
Vicroads changed it with a stroke of a bureaucrats pen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonesy63

In NSW (at least), learners and provisional riders are limited with a power to weight ratio for their bikes. Yet for cars, it is too hard. I don't get it.

---

As I pointed out above, if the limit was set low enough to have any significant effect, it would exclude almost every car on the market.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

As I pointed out above, if the limit was set low enough to have any significant effect, it would exclude almost every car on the market.

John

---

John,
I suspect you missed the word "new" in that sentence. There are lots of old cars - even V8s - that would make the approved list.