No one watches fifth gear anyway and to be fair .....the rear wheels were still usable...

Matthewr1990 said:

Even worse when you think that if you hit an oncoming car you have to add their speed into the equation, for arguments sake you're on a national speed limit country lane doing the speed limit (60) imagine hitting a car also sticking to the speed limit head on, coming the other way. You hit that person head on at 120MPH. Watch this ford focus hit a wall at 120MPH and I guarantee your jaw will drop as mine did.

http://youtu.be/6dI5ewOmHPQ

What you need to think about is theoretically the above situation would be completely within the laws of the uk roads.

Point I'm making? The fall doesn't kill you, it's the sudden stop at the end. We have all seen speed warning infomercials on the telly. There is no need for this thread. I think majority of Bravo owners are mature family men/women.

Click to expand...

I assume you don't watch mythbusters? They disproved that. Hitting a car coming the other way at 60mph while traveling at 60mph is = to hitting it stationary as long as they're similar mass.

ChrisUK said:

I assume you don't watch mythbusters? They disproved that. Hitting a car coming the other way at 60mph while traveling at 60mph is = to hitting it stationary as long as they're similar mass.

Click to expand...

its just a tv show, they didn't put people inside and check damage of internal organs

ChrisUK said:

I assume you don't watch mythbusters? They disproved that. Hitting a car coming the other way at 60mph while traveling at 60mph is = to hitting it stationary as long as they're similar mass.

Click to expand...

I love Mythbusters, I must've missed this one. However it still makes a pretty good point even if not completely accurate, it's going to cause a lot of pain and damage (and death) and that's without "speeding" theoretically. Basically the original post is just telling everyone what we already know. Whenever we put out foot down illegally or legally there's a danger so you must do everything you can to cut the risk.

ChrisUK said:

I assume you don't watch mythbusters? They disproved that. Hitting a car coming the other way at 60mph while traveling at 60mph is = to hitting it stationary as long as they're similar mass.

Click to expand...

Unless I am being pedantic, this is wrong.

It's not at all "stationary". If one car were stationary, and another shot into it at 60 mph, a lot of the force would be transferred from one into the other, shooting the stationary car backwards - yes? That transfer of force would reduce overall force placed on the travelling vehicle.

Unless of course you have the ability to totally bolt the car to the floor

I think it would be more realistic to compare it to hitting a concrete block at 60 - where ALL of the force is placed upon the moving car.

Rather than being "Stationary" the opposing vehicle has to have exactly the same amount of thrust and mass in order for that to work.

Who would come off worse if someone travelling the speed limit, say 40, hit head on with someone else speeding doing 70? That question is far more relevant as no-one is ever going to hit at the same speed, with the same car, at a dead square angle.

Just for the record - I'm starting to hate speed related threads because they just cause arguments.

And I can't help myself but argue/ debate. I'm very much adverse to speed unless it's in a safer, more appropriate environment - like a track day etc...

On the "Laws of Physics", in a collision, it's the dissipation of KINETIC ENERGY that causes the damage. KE increases according to the square of the speed, i.e. at 60mph, your KE is 4 times that at 30mph, at 120mph its 16 times. If you brake from 120 to 0 you dissipate as much energy as that Focus hitting the concrete block. If two Focuses ( Foci ? ) hit head on at equal speeds, the energy of the collision should be shared equally between them so the result would be the same as one hitting the concrete block.

There's a time and place for everything really. It's not like people stick to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways.

I was skint one month so I was trying to conserve fuel so was sticking to 70mph and the only thing I overtook was a couple of lorries and a caravan! Everyone else was wizzing past!

The way I see speed limits were setup when cars were absolutely crap. Drum brakes made from melted down milk bottle tops, fall to bits and shudder when they hit 70 (If you could even reach 70!).

It's about time they reviewed the limit on the motorway IMO.

I can't comment about the science aspect but having been involved in a head on collision on a dual carriageway I can tell you it hurts. That oddly enough was in my first (of many) Fiats, a Brava to be precise.

Somehow a Peugeot 205 driver got confused on an entrance to a dual carriageway and decided to stay by the central barrier on the wrong side - as I'm accelerating up the hill I'm overtaking into that lane (obviously as I have 2 lanes to use). For a split second I saw a woman waving her arms in a car that was coming straight at me and the next second we are all stopped and my air bags had been deployed.

Sadly there was a baby in the back seat but somehow it got carried away without any injuries. The only one who got taken to hospital was me - had fractured my nose and done something odd to my elbow. Whiplash came on the next day or so.

Think I was doing about 45 and the other car about 30.

Turned out the driver was a local person so should have known the road layout. He ended up being fined and sent on a driver awareness course. I on the other hand had to drive a Metro for a year until the injury claim was settled and then I bought my first Bravo (1.8 hlx in zenith blue).

I think regardless or speed limits, people still do stupid things and all the while they do, allowing them to go faster would only increase the chances of a fatality.

ChrisUK said:

There's a time and place for everything really. It's not like people stick to 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways.

I was skint one month so I was trying to conserve fuel so was sticking to 70mph and the only thing I overtook was a couple of lorries and a caravan! Everyone else was wizzing past!

The way I see speed limits were setup when cars were absolutely crap. Drum brakes made from melted down milk bottle tops, fall to bits and shudder when they hit 70 (If you could even reach 70!).

It's about time they reviewed the limit on the motorway IMO.

Click to expand...

indeed its the closing speeds that are the problems on motorways

i drive 10k a year on motorways on business and unless i am pushing along at 85 i am at risk. i feel safer being among the fastest cars than among the slowest.
if you try to stick to the limit you get hassled and boxed in which is particularly hazardous when a truck or white van pulls out on you.
assertive defensive driving

My Bravo 2.0 multijet 121kw/163hp(ps) goes 240km/h max
I'm going to remap it to 200hp and see how much more can it goes, but I think horse power and speed are not relatable, it is more rpm of motor and speed im connection

My 165 has a chip box and gets down the road well. I no longer feel the need to nail it everywhere and am happy to drive smoothly and at a pace that feels comfortable.
Nothing worse than when you get some plonker behind with about a fag paper between the bumpers. Occasionally under those circumstances I will give it some right foot, leaving a satisfying fog of black smoke and when it clears... there I am, a speck in the distance. Then just drop it back on to the cruise control. When they finally catch up I just let them pass so they can continue to get **** MPG. #nothingtoprove

My Bravo has gone from 1:41.4 to 1:24.8 around the half mile circuit at Blyton Park.

Top speed at the end of the straight of 84mph. :worship:

Nowhere near what the old girl can do but still a great day, every day we're there.

Doing this...

[ame="https://youtu.be/Rx_tTmWEuTE"]https://youtu.be/Rx_tTmWEuTE[/ame]

...is a damn sight better on a track than any road.