What do you guys think? (2 Viewers)

[John McCain]

ps. Doesn't your example in the Merc confirm why some cars should be restricted? That being said, an early 90's E290 Merc shouldn't be that fast/powerful especially with all that weight... but then I haven't driven it so can't really compare.

Plenty of low powered old bombs are dangerous and require a skilled driver. You can spin a normal petrol ute easily on any wet road.

Don't believe in the nanny state.

 

[Azamakumar]

I thought we were trying to demonstrate some of the reasons why new drivers are restricted from more powerful cars...? Either way, I still found the cars startling the first time I moved up from my 1.3L Terios. Heck even the 1.8L Corolla was a huge step up!

I raised the point that none of the power is accessible unless you really want it, ie plant your foot to keep it from shifting.

True, the gearboxes do make a lot of difference in the power delivery but as mentioned above, to a novice driver who isn't yet able to fully control their right foot and understand the cars they are driving, having an unpredictable car is the last thing they need when there's plenty of other things to focus on.

ps. Doesn't your example in the Merc confirm why some cars should be restricted? That being said, an early 90's E290 Merc shouldn't be that fast/powerful especially with all that weight... but then I haven't driven it so can't really compare.

Nah the problem was getting used to the handling and throttle setup. Fair bit more power than I was used to but not enough to make a land speed record. Also, it was 15 years old.

If they're going to (re?)implement power restrictions, it should follow the vic/LAMS power:weight ratio. Any car can get to 120km/h given enough road. Power to weight restriction would solve most of these issues.

 

[seremify007]

Agreed about power to weight ratio restrictions. Truth be told though, when you're a P Plater you feel that the restrictions are stupid and pointless but once you're on your fulls and start really driving hard in a car which was previously prohibited, it doesn't take long to figure out why they don't want young drivers behind the wheel. Heck I see enough old Commodores on Vic Rd with red P plates swerving in and out of their lanes full of young males sticking their arms out the window and honking at people walking past in the streets. Could they epitomise the stereotype any more??

 

[John McCain]

I am on my fulls.

I don't believe there should be any limit.

 

[seremify007]

I am on my fulls.

I don't believe there should be any limit.

So you don't think there's anything dangerous or wrong with new drivers taking to the streets in an STi, Evo or GTR from day 1? Yes this is generalising and stereotyping but if it saves lives then so be it.

Depends what cars you're talking about and what you've experienced I suppose.

 

[John McCain]

No, I don't think those cars are inherently dangerous. They can be driven safely without any particular difficulty.

Enforcing the existing road laws to maintain safe driving is the answer, punishing safe drivers who wish to drive those cars is completely unfair and unjustified.

If they are going to drive dangerously in those cars, they will probably do so in anything. You said it yourself, those same drivers are now operating old commodores in a reckless manner.

When else is the government banning things justified to save lives? More people die from alcohol related causes, and many more from tobacco related causes, than from road accidents. Should the government ban them too? Horse riding is more dangerous than travelling by car or motorcycle, should we ban horse riding etc...?

 

[seremify007]

No, I don't think those cars are inherently dangerous. They can be driven safely without any particular difficulty.

You raise very fair and valid points in your argument but simply put, have you driven any such performance vehicles? And if so, was it a one-off or on a regular basis?

You probably have so then I ask, did you not in any way feel tempted to 'exploit' the vehicle capabilities even though you were both not familiar with the car and/or on public streets? I'm not saying everyone will or does it, but the temptation is there and even I feel myself trying hard to resist the temptation when not on the track.

I am 99% sure that quite a few of my friends in various car clubs/forums would definitely abuse the privilege if they were given the keys to those cars... and I can understand why the RTA doesn't want young 17 year olds killing themselves behind the wheels of cars which are beyond their driving limits.

I'm not saying I support the blanket ban because it unfairly targets vehicles which shouldn't be included on the list and vice versa, but I can definitely see where they are coming from.

(ps. this thread is a very good procrastination from my tax return)

 

[seremify007]

Enforcing the existing road laws to maintain safe driving is the answer, punishing safe drivers who wish to drive those cars is completely unfair and unjustified.

If they are going to drive dangerously in those cars, they will probably do so in anything. You said it yourself, those same drivers are now operating old commodores in a reckless manner.

Very much agreed that they shouldn't punish everyone for the minority's mistakes... but the real risk here however is the danger of people behind the wheel. Sure putting kids in a car which isn't prohibited isn't going to guarantee the saving of lives, but at least it removes an element of the temptation and the potential. A small underpowered Mazda3 or Corolla is a lot less likely to stir the flames inside young males (such as myself) into exploring the capabilities of the car around a corner compared to a late model S15 or STi. I suppose in a way it forces new drivers to learn their own capabilities first with less tempting vehicles as opposed to giving them a car which stretches their abilities far beyond what they are and gives them the impression they are the next Stig.

As for the solution? I think the prohibited car list takes a bit too long to overcome (i.e. maybe during green P's rather than only on fulls) but the solution of increasing enforcement is a deterrent rather than a prevention. Again as mentioned above, hoons will always be hoons and taking them out of high powered cars doesn't necessarily prevent anything, but whatever it takes to slow them down.. so be it.

Just like our car meets- it only requires one idiot to ruin it for everyone.

 

[Riet]

I'd say an Evo or STi is more forgiving than an old commodore quite frankly. Brake better, stop better, AWD, traction control, etc. Big V6, RWD, drum rear brakes and tiny front discs... And like graney said, a regular ute is easy enough to spin in the wet. Hell I managed to spin my civic (admittedly driving like a cunt, was late for work).

As I've said before many times though power to weight ratio would have been much more sensible.

 

[61st of April]

As I've said before many times though power to weight ratio would have been much more sensible.

I totally agree with this statement - a lot of safe and sensible European family sedans and wagons have been banned simply because they have a turbo or supercharger in them but their turbos and superchargers don't make them extremely powerful, yet a red P-plater can still get behind the wheel of a Honda S2000...

For instance I'm banned from driving our Kompressor because it has a supercharger (that is only active if pulling a large weight up a hill) and I couldn't drive a Volvo wagon either (but would I want to? Probably not lol), but I'm safer in an S2000? But I suppose that turbos do make the majority of cars much more powerful so it made sense as a blanket rule when implemented.

Power to weight ratio would solve alot of this...

 

[Azamakumar]

You raise very fair and valid points in your argument but simply put, have you driven any such performance vehicles? And if so, was it a one-off or on a regular basis?

You probably have so then I ask, did you not in any way feel tempted to 'exploit' the vehicle capabilities even though you were both not familiar with the car and/or on public streets? I'm not saying everyone will or does it, but the temptation is there and even I feel myself trying hard to resist the temptation when not on the track.

I am 99% sure that quite a few of my friends in various car clubs/forums would definitely abuse the privilege if they were given the keys to those cars... and I can understand why the RTA doesn't want young 17 year olds killing themselves behind the wheels of cars which are beyond their driving limits.

I'm not saying I support the blanket ban because it unfairly targets vehicles which shouldn't be included on the list and vice versa, but I can definitely see where they are coming from.

(ps. this thread is a very good procrastination from my tax return)

FUCK TAX RETURN GAYYYY

lol I've driven a few 'fast' cars. I've always opened up the throttle on a straight empty road, most of the time with owner sitting right next to me. Of course the temptation is there. It was also there in my shitty 1.6, which I pushed to 180 just to see if I could max out the speedo.

Regardless, people that will break the law will break the law, the only people that stand to lose are the ones that wouldn't have abused it.

 

[seremify007]

I'm not going to deny that hoons will always be hoons but I still reckon giving any new driver without sufficient experience the temptation to drive a car which will elevate their driving ego (such as the Evo/STi's mentioned above) is only going to ask for trouble. Cars can't really defy physics despite what the advertising says. I'll admit it even boosted my ego a bit when I started driving performance cars but fortunately I also know how to identify poor drivers (sliding out of their lane, losing control, wobbling, etc) and respond accordingly. Not to say I'm pro nor to say that new drivers aren't any good, but why offer temptation and create an environment where the only thing stopping something bad happening is the driver's ability to say no? I'd think this situation bears some resemblance to when smoking was outlawed inside restaurants and clubs.

As for the ban on the Kompressor- that's stupid. Those cars are very P plate friendly- offering a very conservative (probably not the correct word) driving experience. Power to weight would've been far more suitable.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Remember that in NSW's P plater legislation, a P-plater cannot drive a factory standard Turbo Dihatsu Charade (with around 85 kilowatts), but they are legally allowed to drive the Lotus Exige.

 

[seremify007]

From memory aren't all Porsches on the prohibited list by default (for NSW)?

I'm inclined to think that the Exige isn't such a bad car though in terms of 'hons' because it's limited in seats, extra human weight dulls performance exponentially and unless you know how to drive it properly, it's nothing more than a Corolla with much better handling. Without having driven one, from what I can tell it's a very raw experience and doesn't artificially boost your perception of driving ability compared to many modern all-paw vehicles.

That being said the R32 Golf vs. the Golf GTi debate has always sparked a lot of "geez the RTA are a bunch of..."

 

[Azamakumar]

Check out the kilowatt differences in these banned and allowed vehicles -



Apparently, P-plate drivers can drive a Porsche 968, the non-turbo Lotus Elise and Lotus Exige (like AusBluesMan said) and the Honda S2000.


It's been said before, but I'll say it again - the Victorian system may fix a few of these problems


The only solution to all this is EXTREMELY impractical - assess each and every individual car model. No way they can do that, so we will just have to put up with these discrepancies no matter what system is implemented.

It works pretty well with motorcycles, x bikes are allowed, rego sticker is stamped with LAMS.

To get the rego, need to get your car dynoed if it were a certain type/modified + you wanted the restriction exemption.

Pros: efficient, still just as easy to catch people out. Can have the car you want if it meets a specific tuning requirement, and you personally have to go to the effort to ensure its legal, so it doesn't fall in the hands of the RTA or whatever to personally test every car, just walk into the RTA come rego time with engineering certificate and bobs your mums bro.
Cons: ???

It most certainly isn't any less efficient than the current system we have, nor would it be harder to police. Quick look at the rego sticker would rule out any problems. Somewhere along the line they just got lazy and applied a bandaid fix to a problem that didn't quite exist. Then they realised how backwards it was and started handing out exemptions like hotcakes (most european brands would get you off the hook if it's the only car you have access to even though RTA literature says they won't grant exemptions on that basis).

Also their reasoning with the 180kw commies/falcons was that they were popular family cars, and too many people would be without a car by banning them.

 

[61st of April]

From memory aren't all Porsches on the prohibited list by default (for NSW)?

I'm inclined to think that the Exige isn't such a bad car though in terms of 'hons' because it's limited in seats, extra human weight dulls performance exponentially and unless you know how to drive it properly, it's nothing more than a Corolla with much better handling. Without having driven one, from what I can tell it's a very raw experience and doesn't artificially boost your perception of driving ability compared to many modern all-paw vehicles.

That being said the R32 Golf vs. the Golf GTi debate has always sparked a lot of "geez the RTA are a bunch of..."

They probably are, this could be out of date a bit...
I always picture the Elise and Exige as racing/track cars, but if they aren't as powerful as they seem then they would be ok. I don't know what sort of power they have, having never driven one either but I just always assumed they were rather quick. However I do believe that excellent handling is a very good thing in a car - you gotta be able to steer the thing! One of my friend's cars doesn't have power steering - I've only driven cars with power steering and can't imagine life without it - apparently steering at slow speeds is more difficult (as in maneuvering a carpark, and then parking), but is it really difficult to drive without power steering? Or do you just need to use a bit more muscle and it's not really a big deal?

The R32/GTi debate just shows how the current blanket rule needs another revision (or change altogether). I'm sure there's heaps more examples to go with that too

 

[seremify007]

They probably are, this could be out of date a bit...
I always picture the Elise and Exige as racing/track cars, but if they aren't as powerful as they seem then they would be ok. I don't know what sort of power they have, having never driven one either but I just always assumed they were rather quick. However I do believe that excellent handling is a very good thing in a car - you gotta be able to steer the thing! One of my friend's cars doesn't have power steering - I've only driven cars with power steering and can't imagine life without it - apparently steering at slow speeds is more difficult (as in maneuvering a carpark, and then parking), but is it really difficult to drive without power steering? Or do you just need to use a bit more muscle and it's not really a big deal?

The R32/GTi debate just shows how the current blanket rule needs another revision (or change altogether). I'm sure there's heaps more examples to go with that too

In summary Lotus cars are lightweight bodies with ordinary engines. On a kW/tonne basis, they are far superior to their engine donor cars (i.e. Corollas and the like). Basically they are fast in the twisties because of the excellent handling and benefits of a lightweight setup, but in a straight line they aren't going to be blistering fast compared to say a Falcodore. The engines also tend to require them to be revved a bit to get the most out of them (after all, they are still petrol engines) and this is probably not going to be that possible in everyday driving (rather than a track where you can hold the revs high). They also tend to be quite uncomfortable for daily use with a very minimalistic/bare bones interior and minimal creature comforts- enough to leave you feeling rather sore after sitting in it.

This picture I took a while back of someone's Lotus at a track day really captures the essence of a Lotus and it's practicality;



(also thought I'd include a few other shots since it's a nice car)

 

[John McCain]

There are heaps of super fast cars available to P-platers, RX-8, Lotus elise, S2000, only porsches built after 1994 are banned (because it would just be silly for P-platers to not be able to drive a 924)- an N/A 1993 911 is still an insanely fast car and P-legal.

The thing they all have in common is that they're expensive. If an elise were $20'000, I have no doubt they'd be banned.

It's basically class discrimination. If you're rich you can drive fast, but it's not for us plebs.

Same reason there have often been calls to ban superbikes (and all japanese superbikes since 1998 have been limited to 299km/h), but not supercars. The fact anyone can afford super performance, not just an elite few. is considered unacceptable.

 

[Azamakumar]

There are heaps of super fast cars available to P-platers, RX-8, Lotus elise, S2000, only porsches built after 1994 are banned (because it would just be silly for P-platers to not be able to drive a 924)- an N/A 1993 911 is still an insanely fast car and P-legal.

The thing they all have in common is that they're expensive. If an elise were $20'000, I have no doubt they'd be banned.

It's basically class discrimination. If you're rich you can drive fast, but it's not for us plebs.

Same reason there have often been calls to ban superbikes (and all japanese superbikes since 1998 have been limited to 299km/h), but not supercars. The fact anyone can afford super performance, not just an elite few. is considered unacceptable.

Get a job

 

[John McCain]

I have a job.