Dillinger1977
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 10:39 AM |
|
|
ban fast cars
probably already been posted, but thought you lot might like to read this..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/europe_diary/default.stm
-Rog
|
|
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 10:48 AM |
|
|
What a load of utter bullcrap 
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 10:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
What a load of utter bullcrap
Oh I don't know, it's not the top speed, but how fast you get there  7's are pretty unpleasant at 101mph anyway.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Fatgadget
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 10:56 AM |
|
|
It's only a matter of time I reckon. Near where I work in Islington there is a whole street I swear everyone owns a Toyota Prius or one of those
GWizz contraptions. Apparently you don't have to pay for a parking permit nor congestion charge if you have one of these.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 10:58 AM |
|
|
wot an eejut.
quote:
The European Parliament is going to be asked to beef up plans to fight global warming by stopping cars pumping out so much carbon dioxide.
should ban planes next or limit them to 50 mph. Ok so all/most will drop out of the sky, assumung they could take off in the first place, and that
would solve a lot of problems as long as you are not on one at the time. 
[Edited on 7/6/07 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
zxrlocost
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
FINES FINES FINES FINES FINES FINES FINES
thats all I hear on the radio and on the TV
sick of it now
welcome to the UK dont forget to be fined!
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
JAG
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 11:15 AM |
|
|
Nice to see so many well thought out "anti" responces from the public though.
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
Aboardman
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
my friend owns a bmw x5 4 ltr version and some put a ticket on her window like a parking ticket and when she opened it was going on why should she
should not drive a 4x4, why it bad for the environment, what right does she have to drive such a car.
I did point out to her that at least she was driving the x5 as this seats 5 people easy, unlike her 2 seater 5.7 ltr merc, convertible, it would of
needed 3 trips to get the kids back from school.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
So they'll put a 101 MPH speed limiter onto all cars including 7 and 8 litre V8s. It won't alter fuel consumption a dot. (unless you
regularly do noticably over 101 MPH)
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
I would dare bet most of the big oems already know how to make powerful engines with low emissions. Unfortunately they will use less fuel that
generates tax for the country.
Ban supercars - why not. Then the companies go bust and huge numbers of people are out of work. No tax from the companies and spiralling state costs.
Sounds like a good idea.
How do the emmissions work anyway. If the engines put out more at the higher end of their operating range then all the manufacturers would do is limit
them to 100mph and quote the figures at that point.
Are they really just looking at environmental effects or the safety implications. As said in the comments, fast cars generally have better brakes etc
so could be safer. And when it matters can accelerate out of danger.
I cant see such legislation sticking. continually challenging the emissions has got to be a good thing overall but i was always taught to tackle
whatever has the greatest effect first and work down from there - are cars really where the problem is or just a soft target?
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
many moons ago - 80's bikes are hitting 120 bhp and there was a volunatriu agreement by the manufacturers to keep the power to that limit.
bike engines go above that now so presumably that affected sales or was shown not to have any affeft on safety or otherwise - lessons to be learnt
perhaps?
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
Well, if they can have Diesel Audi's winning races then a fairly environmental supercar, or 7, shouldn't be too hard. The world changes:
at one time, IRS was pretty rare for locosts, now that's becoming the norm.
I know it is a little (OK maybe a lot) upsetting from a cultural standpoint, all this European Union stuff, but if you stand back, it is possible to
adapt without losing yourself.
I am going to look into making a biodiesel 7 once my toyota engine craps out. Plenty of restaurants around for fuel!
|
|
|
PhilCross66
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:22 PM |
|
|
The reason Jap bikes are now unrestricted, as I remember it, is that Europe broke their side of the agreement. They tried to impose stricter power
limits and things like leg protectors without having any proof of it actually helping safety. This forced the bike makers into a legal battle that
they won, then they were free to make unrestricted bikes for us again
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
How do the emmissions work anyway. If the engines put out more at the higher end of their operating range then all the manufacturers would do is limit
them to 100mph and quote the figures at that point.
The car is driven on a rolling road over a set acceleration / deceleration / constant speed profile for Urban then Extra Urban driving, starting with
a cold engine. All of the exhaust gas is collected in big plastic bags and analysed. teh number of g of CO2 is divided by the number of km driven to
get the CO2/km figure. In all cases, the top speed is 120 km/h (about 75 MPH). Limiting the top speed of the vehicle is largely irrelevant. Ture,
the faster you go (above 30 or so), the more fuel you use per mile. Limiting cars to 101 MPH will only reduce fuel consumption on those miles you
would have spent driving at 102 MPH or more.
|
|
|
Duncan_P
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:39 PM |
|
|
Love this bit....
quote:
Mr Davies notes that between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they
put out, even though no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power.
Great to see to see he knows what he is talking about. I fail to see how adding more power adds that much weight.
I think it goes more like... "due to increased namy pamby European safety directives and public pressure for more 'toys' in cars;
the weight of them has increased (shocking I know). To prevent new models from being slower than outgoing models manufacturers increased the power of
the vehicles to make the performance comparable".....but what the hell do i know.
As you might have guessed people like this make me mad...... do some research damn fool.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 7/6/07 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
How do the emmissions work anyway. If the engines put out more at the higher end of their operating range then all the manufacturers would do is limit
them to 100mph and quote the figures at that point.
The car is driven on a rolling road over a set acceleration / deceleration / constant speed profile for Urban then Extra Urban driving, starting with
a cold engine. All of the exhaust gas is collected in big plastic bags and analysed. teh number of g of CO2 is divided by the number of km driven to
get the CO2/km figure. In all cases, the top speed is 120 km/h (about 75 MPH). Limiting the top speed of the vehicle is largely irrelevant. Ture,
the faster you go (above 30 or so), the more fuel you use per mile. Limiting cars to 101 MPH will only reduce fuel consumption on those miles you
would have spent driving at 102 MPH or more.
I suspect the (flawed) argument will go as the top speed is less the manufacturers will be able to use smaller less powerful less polluting engines.
Ignoring, completely, that top speed is a function of gearing and aerodynamics not engine bhp/pollution.
As said ^^^^^ it appears the quality of the research seems shockingly poor. They've not even tried to put some reasonable arguments just made
it up as they went along.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
.JPG)
