NSW P-Plater restrictions - part two.

[Biggoggs]

Damn, two pages overnight ?:/

Ok I'll give you my law Immeditetly restict all provisional drivers to a maximum of 1 passenger under 25yrs of age, excluding immediate family members carrying appropriate ID. Enything outside of this a finable offence. Simple to implement, easy to enforce, and I guarantee it would save a lot of lives.

And your grounding for this idea is what? Peer pressure, and distractions?! Firstly, which is better- one car with five passengers, or five cars in convoy? Secondly, your theory (thoroughly grounded in psychology, I'm sure) assumes every passenger is an uncontrollable hoon. I don't drink, so most times I go out, I come back with a full vehicle of people incapable of driving. I actually think people are more likely to hoon by themselves or with one passenger, as most `hoons' prefer to drive their own wheels.

You have to understand that a great deal of `P platers' aren't children, they're legally responsible adults, over eighteen. Since we're blindly restricting adults `for their own good', lets ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone over forty. By then, they're at higher risk of damaging their health than someone younger who smokes, and I mean, if they haven't kicked the habit by then... :P

Yaw: Even if you replaced it with a panel filter (shown not to increase power but cheaper in the long run)?

[Heeno]

just a thought but all the idiot p platers out there, i think you'll find everyone of them at that Holden site.

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by Biggoggs

Damn, two pages overnight ?:/

Yaw: Even if you replaced it with a panel filter (shown not to increase power but cheaper in the long run)?

Not sure if your asking regarding insurance or RTA rules.
I would say it would be the same answer for both but for different reasons.

Insurance: Premiums are worked out by certain make/model cars being stated.
Insurance honestly has nothing to do with the "saftey" of a car, its all about Dollars. Lets for argument sake say you get a price on insurance for a stock standard XD GL sedan 3.3 lt. If items need replacing due to a claim they have assumed since they know no different that you have the original air filter fitted. Ok Lets say you don't and have fitted something differernt. Why should your insurer pay more than what they can source an original part for?
Because you negleted to let them know to calculate this into the risk, that they will need to find whatever it is you fitted? Thats where your insurer will ask you to pay the difference or if the case is now may be able to say, claim denied.

[Heeno]

Damn Yaw, you really know your insurance don't ya, you don't happen to work for an insurance company do you??

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by Heeno

Damn Yaw, you really know your insurance don't ya, you don't happen to work for an insurance company do you??

Yes I do

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by Yaw

Yes I do

really, cool i bet you have seen a few outragous claims in your time, just a quick one then, : who offering the best insurance for under 20's at the moment? i need to renue mine soon thats all.(hope its alright to ask)
cheers

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by Heeno

really, cool i bet you have seen a few outragous claims in your time, just a quick one then, : who offering the best insurance for under 20's at the moment? i need to renue mine soon thats all.(hope its alright to ask)
cheers

Now lets see a couple of pages of your refusing to accept responsibility, denial of assumed risk, now what sort of premium would you set for a risk like that?

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Now lets see a couple of pages of your refusing to accept responsibility, denial of assumed risk, now what sort of premium would you set for a risk like that?

hey man everyone needs insurance, plus i stuff my car i fix my car, if someone hits me then thats a differant story, plus wreckers are usually cheaper anyway, never made a claim don't need to, i take responsibility for my own stuff ups....un like most out there

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by Heeno

really, cool i bet you have seen a few outragous claims in your time, just a quick one then, : who offering the best insurance for under 20's at the moment? i need to renue mine soon thats all.(hope its alright to ask)
cheers

Your best off doing what we all do, Search around, Different states have different insurers, Depends what your looking for. Or even try an insurance broker, they can sometimes find good deals.

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by Yaw

Your best off doing what we all do, Search around, Different states have different insurers, Depends what your looking for. Or even try an insurance broker, they can sometimes find good deals.

sweet as, cheers for the info, im with aimee at the moment but was thinking of goin racq, we'll see, once again cheers

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Your agreeing all the time is getting way spooky. :evil_laug ..

then hurry up and say something I can disagree with.. :Up_to_som

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Im pretty sure the accident your referring to was caused by a nudge rather than being able to get rid of water. Then again i could be wrong it was a while back.

Nope, Bargs was all by himself... Same thing (without the crashs, and with) happens at Bathurst in the wet...

Originally Posted by lizardmech

If there was no standing water on the track what exactly did the car aquaplane on?

It was heavy rain..not standing water... You don't need standing water to aquaplane

Originally Posted by Steffo

Its not always powerful cars either. A base EB-EL V8 has all of 165kW. That's not powerful. They're not fast. They run 16's. They get stomped by BA XTs (legal). And EB-BA XR6s (legal). Doesn't make sense.

The laws have been written so any cop can determine if the law has been broken. There is no need to worry about power/weight calculations. If it has 8 cylinders or more, turbo or supercharger it is illegal. (i'm sure even the most lowly cop can count to 8) The performance mods is the only thing that may be harder to spot for the average cop.

Originally Posted by Yaw

I am pretty sure there was a big outcry 30 years ago with the muscle car era.

yep. there were lots of young drivers killing themselves in powerfull cars. combined with the big 3 bringing out their "supercars" we had the supercar scare. also we lost our unrestricted speed limits in all states bar the NT...

Originally Posted by Steffo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it says no "high performance or 'souped' up engines." Nowhere do they draw the line at what's souped up and what isn't.

it's actually no engine performance modifications... at an extreme level that can mean no CAI... what will the ricers do, they won't be able to add their 6" canon, or their stickers....

[Biggoggs]

Now lets see a couple of pages of your refusing to accept responsibility, denial of assumed risk, now what sort of premium would you set for a risk like that?

Why are you abusing him?

The laws have been written so any cop can determine if the law has been broken. There is no need to worry about power/weight calculations. If it has 8 cylinders or more, turbo or supercharger it is illegal. (i'm sure even the most lowly cop can count to 8) The performance mods is the only thing that may be harder to spot for the average cop.

Would that necessarily make it right, though? As already mentioned, an ED xr8 makes about 5kw more than its xr6 counterpart...

[outback_ute]

Biggoggs:
1. I don't think it was abuse, just pointing out an inconsistency
2. Shh, careful they might ban XR6s too...

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by devil cv8

The laws have been written so any cop can determine if the law has been broken. There is no need to worry about power/weight calculations. If it has 8 cylinders or more, turbo or supercharger it is illegal. (i'm sure even the most lowly cop can count to 8) The performance mods is the only thing that may be harder to spot for the average cop.

thats fair enough and understandable, imo

Originally Posted by devil cv8

what will the ricers do, they won't be able to add their 6" canon, or their stickers....

:evil_laug :evil_laug :evil_laug that i like :evil_laug

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Biggoggs:
1. I don't think it was abuse, just pointing out an inconsistency

doesn't really bother me, give me someone to argue with ing_sm :evil_laug nar RED EL your alright.

Originally Posted by devil cv8

It was heavy rain..not standing water... You don't need standing water to aquaplane

Yeah I bet it was raining so much that the normal drainage systems couldnt cope with the water leading to a thin sheet of standing water forming on the racetrack.

Please complete this sentace: Despite a lack of water on the race track the car aquaplaned due to ...

Originally Posted by lizardmech

Please complete this sentace: Despite a lack of water on the race track the car aquaplaned due to ...

the inability of the tyres, that are wider than standard road car tyres, to remove the water. This is because wider tyres must remove more water for any given speed or amount of water.


Now you say after me: I must listen to my elders. They have knowledge and wisdom that I one day hope to achieve.

Originally Posted by devil cv8

the inability of the tyres, that are wider than standard road car tyres, to remove the water. This is because wider tyres must remove more water for any given speed or amount of water.


Now you say after me: I must listen to my elders. They have knowledge and wisdom that I one day hope to achieve.

Thats called aquaplaining and for that to happen there has to be more water that the tyres can remove sitting on the surface. This is EXACTLY what I have said in my previous posts. Now can you please tell me how a car can aquaplane on a road that is wet but has no standing water on its surface as you have said in previous posts.

Also if your argument is so compelling why do you feel the need to add an immature smartass comment to the end of your post?

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by devil cv8

This is because wider tyres must remove more water for any given speed or amount of water.

why would they use those sort of tyres in a raining race, im sure they would have changed over to wet tyres, and if race drivers are sliding all over the place in heavy rain on a straight and not standing water, why don't i and many other motorist go spining out on a straight in heavy rain???

[outback_ute]

Lizardmech why do you insist there has to be "standing water" for aquaplaning to occur, what do you mean by that term? It is a bit of a misnomer, I think Neil Crompton uses it to describe areas of the track that accumulate significantly deeper water than the majority (whether it be sitting still like a puddle or running across the track). ps not having a go at you here.

The mechanics of how it works is simple. The wider the tyre and the faster you go the more water you need to clear (can be expressed as litres per minute or second). The heavier the rain, and the rate at which it is cleared from the road also affect it - which depends on bitumen type, camber or slope, wear on the surface, unevenness, etc.

So basically the rain was too heavy, and was falling on the track faster than it could drain away - the thin film of water got thicker until there was to much for the tyre to clear to retain contact with the bitumen. When tyres aren't restricted as they are in V8Supercars narrower tyres would be an option, as would be more heavily treaded tyres. Look at the variety of tyres used in WRC just on gravel - some surfaces work better with wide tyres, some with narrow.

Heeno - as mentioned above depending on amount of water and speed they can and do. Years ago up at home when there was heavy rain and flooding (paddocks were lakes, all table drains on the sides of roads were full) the bloke from the local motorbike shop was heading out with ute & trailer of bikes along a dead flat, straight road. He was doing 100km/h or so when he came across a section where there was a sudden increase in water on the road (flowing across due to the road being an inch or two lower for 20-30m). He aquaplaned off the road, through a fence and into a paddock, no real damage other than to his undies but he needed some retrieval.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by Heeno

why would they use those sort of tyres in a raining race, im sure they would have changed over to wet tyres, and if race drivers are sliding all over the place in heavy rain on a straight and not standing water, why don't i and many other motorist go spining out on a straight in heavy rain???

Just one quick off topic question? Do any of you guys own or have ever desired to own a red telstar? :

Now I'll leave you back to your debate...

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Heeno - as mentioned above depending on amount of water and speed they can and do. Years ago up at home when there was heavy rain and flooding (paddocks were lakes, all table drains on the sides of roads were full) the bloke from the local motorbike shop was heading out with ute & trailer of bikes along a dead flat, straight road. He was doing 100km/h or so when he came across a section where there was a sudden increase in water on the road (flowing across due to the road being an inch or two lower for 20-30m). He aquaplaned off the road, through a fence and into a paddock, no real damage other than to his undies but he needed some retrieval.

i just thought it was weird for a race driver to aquaplane off the track due to heavy rain (understand on a corner but a straight) they don't just use normal street tyres either. i really just find it hard to believe thats all, and about the moto rider that exact same thing happend to my step dad when he was 18 or 19 and never rode a bike since, he won't even take my 250 for a strap

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Just one quick off topic question? Do any of you guys own or have ever desired to own a red telstar? :

Now I'll leave you back to your debate...

Lol Dez hahaaha. I remember you 2 goin at it. I own a TX5 btw lol but its silver :P. My tyres are 1 inch wider than stock and can honestly say they handle better to the tyres i used to have in the wet. Correct me if im wrong but when you have wider tyres if you buy good tyres (and mine arent cheap bout $200 each) which you really should anyway, they have a more aggressive tread pattern to compensate for the water?

If you dont drive like an idiot in the rain then you got nothing to worry about. Ive aquaplaned once because there was a shadowy area in the morning and was still water on it as it hadnt dryed up due to not having sunlight. I didnt see it and did a change to 2nd and the rest speaks for itself into a gutter.

I havent done it since could say it would have just as easily happened if i had the stock tyres on. I learnt from it and fortunately wasnt to costly.

Whenever i see standing water i slow down and always have two hands on the wheel.

[Heeno]

lol that reminds me, i still find it funny as hell when i see people hit these, then hit the brakes lol sorry if im being rude but i would have thought everyone would know not to hit the brakes..... oh well some got a mind for the road some don't.
btw, this isn't directed at anyone im just speakin sh! :evilsasmo t

[MITCHAY]

Lol nah man no offence taken. I wasnt paying attention and it cost me money. Lucky i coukld control it a bit and managed to pull it up just for a big scrape instead of taking out a whole wheel and components. Paid about $700 to get everything fixed. Didnt hit the brakes as i was gone from then i just steered it away best i could and it worked. Lessened the damage.

[outback_ute]

Ok guys here is a site with a full description of how aquaplaning works, it also has a diagram which helps too:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/rai/rai...0(Aquaplaning)

There is a whole page on tips for driving in the rain, & others on other things, it's worth a read as you may well come across things you weren't aware of. Learn the easy way - from other people's experience - not the hard way!

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

. Learn the easy way - from other people's experience - not the hard way!

hey thats some damn good advice, cheers for finding the info to, im a perfectionest, even if i don't agree i still listen(or in this case read)

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Lizardmech why do you insist there has to be "standing water" for aquaplaning to occur, what do you mean by that term? It is a bit of a misnomer, I think Neil Crompton uses it to describe areas of the track that accumulate significantly deeper water than the majority (whether it be sitting still like a puddle or running across the track). ps not having a go at you here.

What i mean is there is a differenc between a wet surface and road that has a layer of water on top of it. If you throw a bucket of water on a dry road you get a wet surface that has less grip, this is like the kind of surface you get after light rain. In this situation the wider tyre will still have better grip and it is not very dependant on the treads ability to clear the water. For the width to be an issue there must be a layer of water over the road surface, not just a wet road. How big the layer has to be for a car to aquaplane depends on the speed, vehicle mass, tyre size, tyre tread design and depth.