Speed governors?

[Lethalchem]

If you live in the middle of nowhere, with no means to support yourself other than by taking your car to your workplace and decide that playing "Mr. Wobbly hides his helmet" is a great idea, despite the fact it could result in child and THEN chose to disobey traffic laws to the point where your licence is taken from you so you can no longer get to your workplace, that's two bad decisions you've made (or one bad decision and one which turned out to be bad in retrospect).

#1 Thanks one BIG ass sentence!
#2 What I was alluding to in my statement, is that you are coming from the perspective of a rational and intelligent person. Unfortunately, that perspective doesn't recognize all the other realities that people in the world are faced with daily. You over simplify things.

There is a WIDE range of variables which could cause an individual to be "stuck working on grandpa's farm with only an 8th grade education" , or "trapped taking care of sick/old relatives who have owned the same land for 5 generations".

The same can be said for children that need to be fed. Again, you take the egocentric viewpoint, and completely ignore the other issues, such as people unintentionally having children through rape, incest, childhood stupidity, retardation/mental illness etc. Not all religions accept abortion or adoption as a viable option.

I am a therapist by trade, and believe me, there are many reasons why these "ingrates" don't "get off their ass" and go get a job in the big city and be perfect little citizens. I see it play out on a daily basis. Because they have had hardships in their lives, does that mean they have to just "suck it up" because they "chose " to be poor, uneducated, and trapped in a town they loathe?

We're getting somewhat off topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that for some people, having a vehicle is NECESSARY for them to get by and survive. They need it to make ends meet. I'm not arguing that owning a vehicle IS a right, because the facts are that it's not. I'm just saying that perhaps it's not so black and white when it is intermingled with a person's livlihood and survival.

Are you saying that people should be allowed to get away with outrageous violations of traffic regulations if they have a family to support?

Personally I wouldn't one anyone who has been shown incapable of conducting a vehicle in a safe manner on the same road as me. And, if he kills me, I won't rest any easier knowing that he's allowed to be a total foreskin because he's got a baby.

I would hope that your comical exaggeration was meant for entertainment purposes only, as I'd hate to think you believed that to be a lucid or realistic retort. I never said any such thing. We already have a system in place for punishing improper vehicular behavior. It works just fine. I don't see the need to have the government treat us like children by forcing a speed limitation on vehicles. Even religion doesn't try to take away Freedom of Choice.

 

[Famine]

Yes - absolutely.

On one's own property a driving licence is unnecessary and normal driving regulations do not apply (although I'd be interested to hear what would happen if you inadvertantly - or even deliberately - killed or injured someone in a car with no licence on your onw property).

The Explorer, on the other hand, comes with S-rated BFG Rugged Trail T/A tires

Or, as I said, W-rated tyres (149mph+) in the UK. And I did state that the car was a 1998 Ford Explorer XLT 4.0, not the V8 (which never made it to these shores).

The Range Rover is every bit as tall and boxy as the Explorer - you can accuse me of nit-picking measurements all you like (whilst doing it yourself), but it's still got 10% more vehicle and 24% more weight (it's listed at 5,666lbs) on top of a shorter wheelbase and marginally wider track. The G-Wagen is even more ungainly. And yet the G-Wagen and Range Rover are not limited to any speed, but the smaller, lighter, lower, shorter Explorer on W-rated tyres is limited to 112mph.

As an additional, isn't limiting cars to 112mph because they have 112mph-rated tyres just a little bit stupid? If you have a device drawing 3 amps of current, you don't put a 3 amp fuse in the plug - you put a 5 amp fuse in.


Lethalchem - I'm struggling to see your point.

My point is that if someone "needs" a car to survive, then they "need" a car to survive. If they just slaughter road traffic rules I want them off the road, regardless of whether they "need" a car to survive or not. Their poor decision making endangers other road users. Are you arguing against this or not?

Not all religions accept abortion or adoption as a viable option.

[...]

Even religion doesn't try to take away Freedom of Choice.

 

[pimp racer]

Understand:

You have a right to drive a car - on your own property. It's driving on public roads that becomes a privelege.

The same with owning a gun (within what some of us call reason). You have a right to own a gun unless you have chosen to throw away that right by bring a convicted felon. But carrying that gun in public is a privelege that you must earn by education, testing, and a clean safety and criminal record.

Ok that even cleared out more things for me. Thanks.

 

[JNasty4G63]

As an additional, isn't limiting cars to 112mph because they have 112mph-rated tyres just a little bit stupid?

Well, in a sense, I guess. But, by being rated for 112, that means they can withstand that speed. But, the car, if it makes it to that speed won't be there very long. And, given how out of spec the speedo can be on cars at that speed, you're probably only doing 105 or so when it says your going 112. Silly, I guess. But, really, how many people do you know that take their SUVs to the limit all the time??? Not many here, not sure about you.

Hilg

 

[Famine]

Limiters are usually rev/gear based. Speedometers suck anyway.

Fun fact - someone I know had their 155mph Mercedes-Benz limiter removed (SL55 AMG) and found there was another limiter at 186mph which proved beyond the knowledge of the Mercedes engineer to remove.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Note: Vehicle property laws apply only to PRIVATE property. NOT your OWN property. That's PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. You can own land, but the rules still apply. Only on PRIVATE property can you void them.

 

[1X83Z]

(incidentally, I was under the impression that all US-built, US-market cars were limited to 112mph).

The cars we get from you losers (all Europeans ) are limited to 155 and the ones from Japan are limited to like 119. Our cars do not have limiters. I'm staring at a 1995 review of the Dodge Viper with the maximum speed listed at a non-restricted 165; the 1995 Corvette - not the high-performance ZR-1, but the normal one - did 162. And the period's V8 Camaro topped out at 140. Even in Safetyland (Canada) there aren't any governors.

Further prooving that some drivers like "oldschool" cars. Maybe I'm just outdating myself by buying older cars, but they are new to me, and they are very inexpensive. I've spent under $3K total on my Protege and it's reliable, drives nice, and does what I want it to do. Yeah, I know, not having a navagation system will haunt me.

Do you know that New Jersey's been trying to get their residents to get new license plates for about twelve years? Originally it was futile but year by year more and more people lost their old ones or got a new car or left the state. These days, 80% of the state has the new plates.

Point being - twenty years from now there will probably still be some of those old New Jersey license plates on the road. But maybe less than one percent. Same principle applies: eventually new stuff becomes commonplace.

Nonetheless, the Ford Explorer in the UK was electronically restricted to 112mph (and fitted with W-rated tyres, so that wasn't the case either). I'm told it was set like this - "as with many other US-made, US-market cars" - from the factory. Hopefully Doug can explain.

Wish I could but until this very thread, top speed has always bored me. I can tell you that the same source as from above says that the 1996 Ford Explorer XLT (5-door, 4-liter 160hp V6, 4-automatic, AWD) tops out at 121. Seems kind of stupid to limit it to 112 if it could only do 121 - are you sure it was restricted?

 

[JNasty4G63]

Fun fact - someone I know had their 155mph Mercedes-Benz limiter removed (SL55 AMG) and found there was another limiter at 186mph which proved beyond the knowledge of the Mercedes engineer to remove.

There was a story in EVO about this a few months ago. When you buy an AMG car, they give you the option to have it "delimited" before delivery. But, all that does is move the limiter from 250km/h to 300km/h. The guys from EVO wanted to see what a new CL 65 AMG would do unrestricted. They soon found out that it will hit the NEW, unknown limiter like a wall. The techs at AMG said it was for the tires sake. So, with the right tires, like the new Conti VMax, and a REAL unrestricted car, who knows. But, the delimiting is all done at AMG, not Benz dealers, so that might explain why they couldn't figure it out.

Hilg

I thump the throttle into the carpet, the CL65 piles on speed beyond 150mph as if it weighs the same as an Elise, the mighty, mighty torque neutralising any drag experienced by the huge body scything through the cooling night air until: buff... It butts into a new limiter set at 186mph and suddenly stops accelerating. You can feel the mighty engine gently stuttering, but no matter what you do it just will not go any faster.

It seems that Mercedes' view of de-limiting isn't exactly the same as my understanding of the word. What it actually means by de-limiting is moving the electronic barrier up from 155mph to 186mph, and the reason is that this is the safe limit for prolonged running with these tyres. It's hard to argue with that, and, let's face it, 186mph is still pretty damn fast in a big four-seater coupe. Pretty damn fast in anything...

The autobahn is practically deserted now, and we time just how long the 65 takes to go from the old limit of 155mph to the new limit of 186mph. The answer is seventeen delirious seconds.

 

[Famine]

Wish I could but until this very thread, top speed has always bored me. I can tell you that the same source as from above says that the 1996 Ford Explorer XLT (5-door, 4-liter 160hp V6, 4-automatic, AWD) tops out at 121. Seems kind of stupid to limit it to 112 if it could only do 121 - are you sure it was restricted?

Yes (and with good reason).

The handbook said we had 205hp from our 4 litre V6...

 

[Lethalchem]

The cars we get from you losers (all Europeans ) are limited to 155 and the ones from Japan are limited to like 119. Our cars do not have limiters. I'm staring at a 1995 review of the Dodge Viper with the maximum speed listed at a non-restricted 165; the 1995 Corvette - not the high-performance ZR-1, but the normal one - did 162. And the period's V8 Camaro topped out at 140. Even in Safetyland (Canada) there aren't any governors.

As I stated earlier, the 2003/2004 Cobra's were limited from the factory to 155mph as well. They said it was because of the instability of the aerodynamics. I guess they don't think a flying brick is supposed to go 180mph. There's a team that used a 03 cobra to break 178mph at the salt flats, and then they eclipsed that last year with a run average over 200mph. The 178 run was pretty much stock, I'm just not sure about any additional bodywork for the second run.

 

[1X83Z]

Yes (and with good reason).

The handbook said we had 205hp from our 4 litre V6...

It all depended on the vehicle's age. The 1991-1994 Explorer, my favorite SUV, had a 145-horsepower OHV 4-liter V6. This was also used in the 1991-1994 Mazda Navajo, the twin of the original 3-door Ford Explorer.

Originally, this engine was carried on in the second-generation Explorer, which debuted in 1995 (that's the one I got my top speed figure from), though power had increased to 160 with the redesign. In 1998, the 205-horsepower SOHC 4-liter V6 debuted, replacing the OHV unit in the 5-door models. However, the OHV engine carried on in the Explorer Sport until its redesign in 2001, when it finally adopted the SOHC engine. Furthermore, the Explorer Sport Trac, an Explorer-based pickup, debuted in 2000 with the OHV engine; the SOHC engine became the next year.

When the Explorer itself was redesigned in 2002, horsepower jumped by five, which is where it stands now.

Not to mention the two V8s, the Mercury Mountaineer, or the Lincoln Aviator...

 

[blargonator]

driving is simply a privillage (spelling). i strongly dislike the idea of guns being in so many houses. the thing is if you do commit a crime you can have it cleared (can't think of the techincal term). all japanese cars are not limited to 119 as someone stated earlier. a friends accord is known to go 140 which i do not approve of and another friend with a rsx type-s knows his car can go past 120. hey M5 power what part of MI are you from? im in kzoo.

 

[Lethalchem]

driving is simply a privillage (spelling). i strongly dislike the idea of guns being in so many houses. the thing is if you do commit a crime you can have it cleared (can't think of the techincal term).

I think it's "expunged". As in, "I'm sure glad that DWI I got back when I was 18 eventually got expunged."

 

[1X83Z]

hey M5 power what part of MI are you from? im in kzoo.

I live west - I won't say exactly where, but it's between Manistee and Holland.

 

[Velocity]

I said earlier.......

And, I guess no one else does either. Its a viable question, but with the government involved, I doubt you'll ever get a straight answer.

Hilg

I think the answer is simple, at least here in NA. Horsepower helps to sell cars. Car makers know this. So does the government. What reason would car makers have for pumping out this glorious new technology that make these engines faster and more efficient if no one was allowed to use them? If speed were goverened to say 100 MPH or whatever then all car makers would have to do is turn out bland engines that could power them to these speeds. I mean why would anyone purchase a 300 HP car when they couldn't go faster than 100 MPH? Sales would drop and the car makers would lose a sizeable chunk of their revenue.

But since a signifigant portion of the population enjoys the luxry of excessive horsepwer and is willing to pay the extra money to own it, why would the car makers sabotage the very things that these buyers look for in a car? Since the government wants it's companies to do well and make money for the economy they only seem to tamper with things when they're forced too. (ie insurance company preassure and fuel prices killed the muscle car era. The government had no problem with it up till then, as long as cars were selling and they're making their chunk off it)

It is like someone said earlier witht the cigarette comparison. We all know it's wrong and should really be illegal but it's far to huge of a cash cow for the government to to outlaw. They'd lose billions in taxes. It's the ancient double standard still alive and well in our civilized society.

Though people would still buy cars even if goverened, (people still have to get around) I think people would be more likely to hold onto their car longer before buying a new one. All this extra tech and horsepower is put into these cars for one reason alone. To SELL them. Each new year brings fresh upgrades designed to tantalize potential car buyers into dumping their '89 Ford Tempo for a nice shiny, new *Insert model here*. Power also seems to be coming back into favour as selling tool. As we all know today is all about the bottom line. The more money you can make the more excuses you can use to make it.

The reality is whether we should be able to go faster than the speed limits is not relevant to car makers and governments. Selling the car is. There will always be people who want high performance vehicles and who will be willing to pay for it.
Take away the ability to be faster than your mom's station wagon, and who will be willing to pay for it? I wouldn't. I'd rather have the cheapest car I can get if there is no performance advantage to buying a "Faster" car. As we know the cheapest cars often make the least amount of money for a car manufactuer. They fund the R&D for the upper class models which is where the profit margin is higher in most cases.

I've said alot I will discontinue now

ps I almost forgot. Let's not forget about what would happen to the aftermarket upgrades companies. No reason for more performance means a lot of profitable buisness would go bye bye!

 

[standard235]

I think the answer is simple, at least here in NA. Horsepower helps to sell cars. Car makers know this. So does the government. What reason would car makers have for pumping out this glorious new technology that make these engines faster and more efficient if no one was allowed to use them? If speed were goverened to say 100 MPH or whatever then all car makers would have to do is turn out bland engines that could power them to these speeds. I mean why would anyone purchase a 300 HP car when they couldn't go faster than 100 MPH? Sales would drop and the car makers would lose a sizeable chunk of their revenue.

But since a signifigant portion of the population enjoys the luxry of excessive horsepwer and is willing to pay the extra money to own it, why would the car makers sabotage the very things that these buyers look for in a car? Since the government wants it's companies to do well and make money for the economy they only seem to tamper with things when they're forced too. (ie insurance company preassure and fuel prices killed the muscle car era. The government had no problem with it up till then, as long as cars were selling and they're making their chunk off it)

It is like someone said earlier witht the cigarette comparison. We all know it's wrong and should really be illegal but it's far to huge of a cash cow for the government to to outlaw. They'd lose billions in taxes. It's the ancient double standard still alive and well in our civilized society.

Though people would still buy cars even if goverened, (people still have to get around) I think people would be more likely to hold onto their car longer before buying a new one. All this extra tech and horsepower is put into these cars for one reason alone. To SELL them. Each new year brings fresh upgrades designed to tantalize potential car buyers into dumping their '89 Ford Tempo for a nice shiny, new *Insert model here*. Power also seems to be coming back into favour as selling tool. As we all know today is all about the bottom line. The more money you can make the more excuses you can use to make it.

The reality is whether we should be able to go faster than the speed limits is not relevant to car makers and governments. Selling the car is. There will always be people who want high performance vehicles and who will be willing to pay for it.
Take away the ability to be faster than your mom's station wagon, and who will be willing to pay for it? I wouldn't. I'd rather have the cheapest car I can get if there is no performance advantage to buying a "Faster" car.

I've said alot I will discontinue now

You said it man. :rockon: Anyways, people want cars with big numbers because everyone likes to brag about how much power their car has and so on and so forth.

 

[Velocity]

Hah, that's because American cars are generally slow - and prefered in automatic form. Americans tend to be "along for the ride" drivers, they merely drive to get from A to B, don't care about "spirited driving", and don't know how to properly inflate tires without going to a dealership. Glad I'm not one of them.

Well it's nice to know that Moderators don't have to worry about sounding prejudice toward whoever they feel like.

 

[Velocity]

Driving IS a right, depending on if you have money for a car, the physical ability to drive, pass the tests, and meeting all necessary requirements. Unfortunately, the US's requirements and tests are too easy.

Don't know what part of the U.S. you live in but uh I hate to break this to you, driving is not a RIGHT. It's a privilage. That is why the government can take your license away. They can't take your life away because we all have the RIGHT to live. But we do not all have the RIGHT to drive. Screw around on the road and you'll get punted off it eventually. Then you can whine to the judge about having all the money in the world and the youth to drive and that you're an American and dang it you have the right to drive! He'll just smile, nod and say "That's nice. Next case please."