PDA

View Full Version : NSW P PLATER LAWS CHANGING. Game changer



DakDak
07-08-2013, 10:13 PM
This will effect 99.9% of Ozhonda lolz.

The P plate restrictions on force inducted, V8's and high performance V6's is going to be lifted under the premise of a 130kw per tonne rule.

Discuss.

I for one will see a MASSIVE decline in Honda ownership. Leaving only true enthusiasts.
But then again Honda's will become so cheap everyone would buy one?

cuppa
07-08-2013, 11:12 PM
http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/nsw-backflips-on-pplate-turbo-ban-20130807-2rg9o.html
Here's the source, just in case anyone wants to verify.

I think it's about time, and if every p plater decides to dump their honda's the price will obviously plummet and that can't be good lol.

EKVTIR-T
07-08-2013, 11:31 PM
why wont it be good?

cheaper for honda fans to buy then

cheaper parts

eg's and dc2r wont sell for stupid prices anymore..

Grayfox
07-08-2013, 11:41 PM
All this means is a hoon can get a V8 commodore, put a big assed sound system in it to weigh it down and get around the 130Kw/T rule

lilthug
08-08-2013, 12:01 AM
All this means is a hoon can get a V8 commodore, put a big assed sound system in it to weigh it down and get around the 130Kw/T rule

goes of weight from factory

Daveho1
08-08-2013, 05:46 AM
unless engineered with cinder blocks in the back?

JDM DC2R
08-08-2013, 06:20 AM
You can still drive a Dc2R. 141 kws at 1087kg = 129.71 kws per tone

muzukashi
08-08-2013, 09:31 AM
Can see alot of Honda owners jumping over to Silvias

fillit
08-08-2013, 09:43 AM
You would imagine that the switch to power to weight rule is for the purposes of allowing eco boost cars to be driven by P platers and reduce the abuse of turbo/super charged diesels.

Performance turbo charged cars, e.g. Silvia's, Skylines, WRXs etc, would and should still be banned under the new rules similar to how 350Z and M3s are banned although they are N/A 6 cyl (under Victorian Law).

I see no harm in banning high performance cars from P platers, been on enough touge runs to see the stuff they do. It's a good time to learn the fundamentals of driving and vehicle dynamics. There's plenty of time later on to enjoy Turbos and 8s.

DakDak
08-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Yes. I can see all the P Platers abusing this rule.

No one buys a S15, WRX etc because it is "economical"

If I was a P plater and this rule came in I'd do something sneaky like, I'd buy a AUDM Spec R. Do a T28BB swap, put sleeper mods and go on a rampage.

lilthug
08-08-2013, 12:45 PM
hope the new rules drive up the price of my adm

Darmanin
08-08-2013, 12:50 PM
Its not good for us because Honda prices will plummet.

At this stage it looks as though any <130 kw/ton car will be legal, however I see them somehow making cars like silvia's, skylines and wrx's illegal.

muzukashi
08-08-2013, 01:28 PM
Is there anything thats going to be in place to stop a P Plater from buying something that is under the <130kw/tonne rule but then heavily modding it to 200kw+?

Can't really see the Police/RTA dynoing offenders to make sure their cars are still under the <130kw/tonne rule LOL

fillit
08-08-2013, 01:43 PM
Is there anything thats going to be in place to stop a P Plater from buying something that is under the <130kw/tonne rule but then heavily modding it to 200kw+?

Can't really see the Police/RTA dynoing offenders to make sure their cars are still under the <130kw/tonne rule LOL

There would be exceptions for turbo cars which fall under 130kw/ton, e.g. cruise turbo/ fiesta eco boost (don't quote me) etc. Other than that, performance turbos would still be banned (if common sense prevails), whether you can get a cruise or an eco boost car to 200KW+ is a different question and likely not worth while if even technically possible.

muzukashi
08-08-2013, 01:54 PM
There would be exceptions for turbo cars which fall under 130kw/ton, e.g. cruise turbo/ fiesta eco boost (don't quote me) etc. Other than that, performance turbos would still be banned (if common sense prevails), whether you can get a cruise or an eco boost car to 200KW+ is a different question and likely not worth while if even technically possible.

I hope so! A totally new/inexperienced red plater with a big ego and a car full of mates in control of a turbo RWD in the rain is a recipe for disaster

Chernoby1
08-08-2013, 03:01 PM
I still cant see how power of the car matters at all. I have 47kw in a 700kg car... ~70kw/t and it is easy as hell to loose control of the thing.
If you put a new driver in my car and let them go, i can guarantee they would floor it coz its slow, turn it into a corner way too fast coz you well... can and the proceed to brake when the rear steps out putting the thing into a massive spin.

Its all about attitude.

Hell, i find controlling a vz ss easier in the wet than the cappuccino, even when its gone sideways.

Grayfox
08-08-2013, 04:43 PM
Cappuccino, the little kei car from japan.

Someone near my work has one, parks it in the same spot everyday.

EKVTIR-T
08-08-2013, 05:40 PM
cappuccino is slow even with full mod

mocchi
08-08-2013, 06:19 PM
the more young uns selling their hondas cos v8 fully sik bro, the better

yh nh

RenzokukenJ
08-08-2013, 07:16 PM
the more young uns selling their hondas cos v8 fully sik bro, the better

yh nh

N8 wat u on about you are only 17

Grayfox
08-08-2013, 10:38 PM
P platers should only drive 4 pots with a displacement lower than 2000cc(exemptions can be granted to those who really need them)

fillit
09-08-2013, 12:00 AM
P platers should only drive 4 pots with a displacement lower than 2000cc(exemptions can be granted to those who really need them)

That doesn't work, as an example a DC2R is 1800cc yet power to weight is higher than an accord or camry etc.

Current model works, they just need to work out the flaws, in essence they just need to ban high powered diesels (but with that being said, most of these cars are euro luxury and has more safety features than say a corolla) and allow eco boost cars.

Grayfox
09-08-2013, 08:34 AM
And they can implement the current model too.

fillit
09-08-2013, 09:54 AM
So what you're saying is that it's okay to drive a dc2r because it's n/a 4 cyl and under 2000cc but not an accord because it's 2400cc. Yet the dc2r is miles faster and less safe.

Might as well make all p platers drive Hyundai excels, that will teach them how to drive.

muzukashi
09-08-2013, 11:22 AM
There will always be flaws in the system no matter what rule they make - the current turbo rules though it doesn't cover all the loopholes it really isn't that bad i do believe they should add more high performance N/A on the banned list though

the select few who try to get exemptions when they know its totally unnecessary are the ones who should be frowned upon though this is another story...

Chernoby1
09-08-2013, 12:05 PM
Cappuccino, the little kei car from japan.

Someone near my work has one, parks it in the same spot everyday.

Colour / state/ DEEEEETS!!!!


cappuccino is slow even with full mod

not quite sure how 180kw / 700kg is considered slow, but if you say so.


There will always be flaws in the system no matter what rule they make - the current turbo rules though it doesn't cover all the loopholes it really isn't that bad i do believe they should add more high performance N/A on the banned list though

the select few who try to get exemptions when they know its totally unnecessary are the ones who should be frowned upon though this is another story...

Pfft the whole idea of a probationary license is a total load of Sh*t. The driving test should assess whether a person is able to make the correct desicions or not.
If people feel that there needs to be some restrictions on who can drive what cars, then a seperate license should be implimented for certain 'performance car' ranges. This shoudl apply to EVERYONE.
Want to drive a VE GTS? Go get HP1 class license so you can.

Different rules for different groups of people is DISCRIMINATION. I do not care at all how long things have been this way, and i will say that this is one of the most stupid things in Australian laws.

charliebrown
09-08-2013, 12:06 PM
car for getting A to B why it matter fast

RenzokukenJ
09-08-2013, 12:09 PM
car for getting A to B why it matter fast

maybe if is late when get for plane to vietnam can flight quick

muzukashi
09-08-2013, 12:27 PM
^ what the? LOL

u mad?
09-08-2013, 12:34 PM
the value of honda will drop for sure

fillit
09-08-2013, 01:30 PM
not quite sure how 180kw / 700kg is considered slow, but if you say so.


Pfft the whole idea of a probationary license is a total load of Sh*t. The driving test should assess whether a person is able to make the correct desicions or not.
If people feel that there needs to be some restrictions on who can drive what cars, then a seperate license should be implimented for certain 'performance car' ranges. This shoudl apply to EVERYONE.
Want to drive a VE GTS? Go get HP1 class license so you can.

Different rules for different groups of people is DISCRIMINATION. I do not care at all how long things have been this way, and i will say that this is one of the most stupid things in Australian laws.

180KW/700KG is not slow, but the amount of time/money needed to obtain those figures is mind boggling. Yes I've driven a cap (kayfours) and yes I've been in his car even with turbo/intercooler/injector/ecu upgrade, still slow compared to a bog standard wrx or silvia, I think he is still only pulling dyno figures in the 50s. Not denying it's a fun car (around corners) but in pure speed, it's not fast (unless you, as quoted, achieve that power output).

Secondly, the road is not a race track, the purpose of probationary licensing is to teach people how to drive, even if you are a good driver (being able to control a car in a range of conditions) doesn't mean you drive in a manner which is safe to the community, i.e. abiding by road rules etc.

If you have the need to drive an overly powerful car, you are more than welcome to at any track event, where you can legally go as fast as you like in a safe controlled environment.

No, it's not discrimination, all people are subjected to the same rules. 1 year of red Ps, 3 years of green Ps then full license (in vic). The idea behind probation is to create maturity in the driver so they don't wrap themselves around a tree with their ego and reduce their chances of having an accident/violation, yes there are F*KWITs out there, but you can never have a perfect sample. I don't see any issues with that, if you feel the need to drive a faster car, trackdays are always at hand, the road is not a speedway.

Chernoby1
09-08-2013, 01:59 PM
180KW/700KG is not slow, but the amount of time/money needed to obtain those figures is mind boggling. Yes I've driven a cap (kayfours) and yes I've been in his car even with turbo/intercooler/injector/ecu upgrade, still slow compared to a bog standard wrx or silvia, I think he is still only pulling dyno figures in the 50s. Not denying it's a fun car (around corners) but in pure speed, it's not fast (unless you, as quoted, achieve that power output).


I think Danny's car has some big issues. Mine pulled 43.4kw 100% bog stock on same dyno/day as his pulled 54kw(i think) with all his mods. When i went back with my horrible road tune i pulled a 54.5; everything other than ecu is stock... His car should be ~70kw with the f111 kit. Pulling ~90kw from our engines isnt difficult at all and doesnt even require opening the block up. Sure 180kw is a tad hardcore (300kw/L) but i was responding to a guy that did say:

cappuccino is slow even with full mod

Full mod is full mod.



Secondly, the road is not a race track, the purpose of probationary licensing is to teach people how to drive, even if you are a good driver (being able to control a car in a range of conditions) doesn't mean you drive in a manner which is safe to the community, i.e. abiding by road rules etc.

If you have the need to drive an overly powerful car, you are more than welcome to at any track event, where you can legally go as fast as you like in a safe controlled environment.


My argument is that the power of the car is irrelevant to how it is driven. I might want to have an overly powerful car that i can take to a drag strip but i do not have the space/nor money to have a dedicated drag car AND a car i drive everyday. Why must it automatically be assumed that coz it is powerful i will hoon it? Should we assume that everyone with a gun (inc police/security) will shoot someone with it when they bear it in public? Seems retarded to me...



No, it's not discrimination, all people are subjected to the same rules. 1 year of red Ps, 3 years of green Ps then full license (in vic). The idea behind probation is to create maturity in the driver so they don't wrap themselves around a tree with their ego and reduce their chances of having an accident/violation, yes there are F*KWITs out there, but you can never have a perfect sample. I don't see any issues with that, if you feel the need to drive a faster car, trackdays are always at hand, the road is not a speedway.

If they dont have the maturity to not wrap themselves around a tree, i dont want them on a road. Period.

Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe? The rest of the planet (well majority) doesnt have any sort of probationary laws.. why? Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY. None of this "You can drive some of the stuff some of the time to learn" crap.

The fact that the Licensing test is held on public roads is beyond stupid. Until someone is fully lisenced they shoudlnt be on the road. want a license in japan? Do al lthe written test and then go through the practical exam in a Controlled Environment that is namely, NOT THE PUBLIC ROAD.

If someone wants to drive a vehicle with largely different dynamics for the 'average' car they need to get 'certified' for it. Want to drive something more than 4500kg? Need a LR y0.
Have a car that doenst have any sort of ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, Get a certification for the use of "Unassisted vehicles"
If someone wants to drive a 1000hp Supra, Get certified for "High Power Vehicles"

fillit
09-08-2013, 10:13 PM
I think Danny's car has some big issues. Mine pulled 43.4kw 100% bog stock on same dyno/day as his pulled 54kw(i think) with all his mods. When i went back with my horrible road tune i pulled a 54.5; everything other than ecu is stock... His car should be ~70kw with the f111 kit. Pulling ~90kw from our engines isnt difficult at all and doesnt even require opening the block up. Sure 180kw is a tad hardcore (300kw/L) but i was responding to a guy that did say:


Full mod is full mod.



My argument is that the power of the car is irrelevant to how it is driven. I might want to have an overly powerful car that i can take to a drag strip but i do not have the space/nor money to have a dedicated drag car AND a car i drive everyday. Why must it automatically be assumed that coz it is powerful i will hoon it? Should we assume that everyone with a gun (inc police/security) will shoot someone with it when they bear it in public? Seems retarded to me...



If they dont have the maturity to not wrap themselves around a tree, i dont want them on a road. Period.

Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe? The rest of the planet (well majority) doesnt have any sort of probationary laws.. why? Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY. None of this "You can drive some of the stuff some of the time to learn" crap.

The fact that the Licensing test is held on public roads is beyond stupid. Until someone is fully lisenced they shoudlnt be on the road. want a license in japan? Do al lthe written test and then go through the practical exam in a Controlled Environment that is namely, NOT THE PUBLIC ROAD.

If someone wants to drive a vehicle with largely different dynamics for the 'average' car they need to get 'certified' for it. Want to drive something more than 4500kg? Need a LR y0.
Have a car that doenst have any sort of ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, Get a certification for the use of "Unassisted vehicles"
If someone wants to drive a 1000hp Supra, Get certified for "High Power Vehicles"

Just making the call on the capp as I see it, as you own the car I'm sure you have more of an idea than I do.

The argument with restricting P platers from having high powered cars is due to "reducing" the risk of accidents, since the implementation of these restriction laws we have seen a decline in road fatalities, on a less tangible aspect the brain matures as you age and generally reaches it''s full development at around 25 which is also why they were looking to extend Ps to that age.

The law is there to protect the wider communities, because you want to have a overly powerful car to take on the dragstrip and drive around everyday, doesn't mean they would want to put additional risk on your life, the lives of your passengers and the general public (inexperience in a high powered car). An analogy would be that you want a Ferrari but can't afford one, so you do extensive modifications on your car to comparable performance, that's not an argument when you get defected, although you're increasing the performance of your car, you're not abiding by the written laws which is for the greater good (granted some things are stupid like EPA, coilover rules etc.)

Sadly even though you don't want morons on the road there will still be some, they ruin it for the others (fact) think about all the guys who rip skids getting out of meets even when explicable advised not to.

Not sure what you mean by "Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe?" however I'll forward my own interpretation, well to get your Ps you're required to do 120 hours on Ls, this is to increase the knowledge and experience on the road (yes the system get's abused by can't say more hours behind the wheel is a bad thing). What I would ask here, how is letting people drive over powered cars on public roads for them to learn is safe? Well it's not safe? I don't want to drive down the road whilst some c*nt is practicing skids around the corner.

The rest of the "developed" world does have probationary licensing, two examples I'll use is the US and Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence

Although there are variants and there may be less/more time spent in probation (or equivalent).

"Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY", most people driving on the road would never drive/purchased a high powered sports car, they are simply driving A to B in their fwd hatchback or family car, I can't see why we need to change a rule that doesn't affect the MAJORITY of road users.

The licensing will need to conducted on a public road to see their ability to drive in comparable conditions to when they have their license. Keep in mind there is an instructor/tester to accompany the driver, therefore they are being supervised. Using your argument it means that L platers cannot drive on public roads, I'm not sure how they can attain their licenses? I do agree that there should be a defensive portion of the licensing test, perhaps a DECA section? However there are costs involved with that and it's unlikely to be implemented any soon.

While you have the idea of different licensing depending on cars, it will be ridiculously hard to enforce. Basically everyone will rort the system and cops will have to be pulling every tom dick and harry over to check their license conditions. Current systems works, if you car is over 4500kgs and you don't have the licensing you get fined. If you're driving a high powered car and you're not full licensed you get fined, yes people don't put up Ps for that reason, but then you're running a double fine and it's instant loss of license.

Instead of having a license for vehicles without ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, I think the mandatory DECA course is more practical as they can do testing in vehicles without those assistances. All new cars nowadays are required to have electronic aids anyway, so soon enough the majority of cars on the road will have these safety features by default.

Grayfox
09-08-2013, 11:05 PM
Colour / state/ DEEEEETS!!!!

It is a red in NSW, Warrawong.


So what you're saying is that it's okay to drive a dc2r because it's n/a 4 cyl and under 2000cc but not an accord because it's 2400cc. Yet the dc2r is miles faster and less safe.

Might as well make all p platers drive Hyundai excels, that will teach them how to drive.

Was thinking more of a way to prevent P platers from getting V6 commodores and falcons.

Something like a Civic sport.

150hp or less, 2L max , 4cylinder
That should be the limit.

If you need a more powerful apply for exemption.

Heck even 120hp or less is even better.

Chernoby1
10-08-2013, 01:20 AM
The argument with restricting P platers from having high powered cars is due to "reducing" the risk of accidents, since the implementation of these restriction laws we have seen a decline in road fatalities, on a less tangible aspect the brain matures as you age and generally reaches it''s full development at around 25 which is also why they were looking to extend Ps to that age.

My method of reducing the risk by simply not allowing those who are not ready ofr the responsibilities of driving ANY lisence. Im not saying they shouldnt be restricted, im saying they shouldnt be permitted to drive. IE, the car is never the problem it is always the driver so restrict the drivers not the cars.



The law is there to protect the wider communities, because you want to have a overly powerful car to take on the dragstrip and drive around everyday, doesn't mean they would want to put additional risk on your life, the lives of your passengers and the general public (inexperience in a high powered car). An analogy would be that you want a Ferrari but can't afford one, so you do extensive modifications on your car to comparable performance, that's not an argument when you get defected, although you're increasing the performance of your car, you're not abiding by the written laws which is for the greater good (granted some things are stupid like EPA, coilover rules etc.)

The idea of the certification is to enable me to gain said 'experience'. My problem is that there is nothing stopping some old fart who has never driven a high power vehcle from getting behind the wheels of one.
My argument here is that yes experience is necessary but it also has to be the RIGHT sort of experience. Putting around in a hyundai getz for 20 years will not mean you are safe to drive a air-cooled porsche (unstable as all funk). They should also be forced to undergo training for high power vehicles.



Sadly even though you don't want morons on the road there will still be some, they ruin it for the others (fact) think about all the guys who rip skids getting out of meets even when explicable advised not to.

When a license is easy to get and maintain, people will abuse it. The problem with these morons is that licensed or not they will do what they do. Restricting the people who do follow the laws makes no sense at all.



Not sure what you mean by "Why the F*ck are the Permitted to 'learn' and 'mature' on the road in an uncontrolled environment that is unsafe?" however I'll forward my own interpretation, well to get your Ps you're required to do 120 hours on Ls, this is to increase the knowledge and experience on the road (yes the system get's abused by can't say more hours behind the wheel is a bad thing). What I would ask here, how is letting people drive over powered cars on public roads for them to learn is safe? Well it's not safe? I don't want to drive down the road whilst some c*nt is practicing skids around the corner.

im saying Learning on public roads should be forbidden. You should get all the expirience you need in controlled environments where things cant go incredibly wrong.

Again im not saying that a learner driver should be permitted to drive a high power car on the road, im saying a learner driver shouldn't be permitted to drive ANY car on the road.



The rest of the "developed" world does have probationary licensing, two examples I'll use is the US and Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence

Although there are variants and there may be less/more time spent in probation (or equivalent).

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/dwiothercountries/dwiothercountries.html

Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland had no Graduate licensing systems pre EU.

Norway and sweden had a system whre it is easier to loose (not suspend but you have to go back to the beginning) within the first two years of getting your license.

As far as i know, none of the european/american countries restrict the use of 'certain' cars. Each category of vehicle has a related license and that license enables you to drive ALL vehicles in that category (probationary or not).



"Because if you arent ready to drive everything on the road, you simply ARENT READY", most people driving on the road would never drive/purchased a high powered sports car, they are simply driving A to B in their fwd hatchback or family car, I can't see why we need to change a rule that doesn't affect the MAJORITY of road users.

Hence my reason to introduce a new category for high power vehicles so the rest of people dont need to make any changes. This also helps prevent the general public getting behind the wheel of a powerful car and wrapping it around a pole. Dont see how someone who has been driving an econbox for the last 20 years will be safer and in more control of a vehicle than someone else who has 5 months of experience driving a high power vehicle and being forced to actually experience many of the possible things that can happen due to the higher power... And to make sure you understand what im saying, i mean 5 months of on track/motorkhana/other non public road environment and absolutely no driving of a high power vehicle on the road until you have got that license.



The licensing will need to conducted on a public road to see their ability to drive in comparable conditions to when they have their license. Keep in mind there is an instructor/tester to accompany the driver, therefore they are being supervised. Using your argument it means that L platers cannot drive on public roads, I'm not sure how they can attain their licenses? I do agree that there should be a defensive portion of the licensing test, perhaps a DECA section? However there are costs involved with that and it's unlikely to be implemented any soon.

Why should i, a member of the public be put at ANY risk at all so that other can be assessed on their safety and adherence to the law? I took my test in a vehicle that didnt have double controls and i cant see how there is any safety in another 'qualified' person being in that vehicle with me. IF i panicked and stomped on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, there is nothing that person can do that reduces the risk of injury to the public or myself.

By my argument a mock setup of streets and roads should be made to simulate the road, but not be part of the public road network (japan does exactly this). This also means that the person needs to do all their training in this environment to make sure the REST of the publics safety is not compromised by this learner being on the road.
Is this expensive? Yes. Is this going to make getting a license expensive and difficult? Yes.

If the reason you are not increasing safety is cost, then you/the politicians are effectively putting a monetary value on a persons life. That is a very slippery path to go down.



While you have the idea of different licensing depending on cars, it will be ridiculously hard to enforce. Basically everyone will rort the system and cops will have to be pulling every tom dick and harry over to check their license conditions. Current systems works, if you car is over 4500kgs and you don't have the licensing you get fined. If you're driving a high powered car and you're not full licensed you get fined, yes people don't put up Ps for that reason, but then you're running a double fine and it's instant loss of license.

Not really hard to enforce. A powerful vehicle would need a different registration from a 'non-high-power' vehicle. You said it yourself, the majority of the public wouldnt drive/own these sorts of vehicles, so it would be easy for the police to pick the high power cars out (especially with new rego plate scanners) and check if the operator has a high power vehicle license.



Instead of having a license for vehicles without ESP/ESC/TC/ABS/ECT, I think the mandatory DECA course is more practical as they can do testing in vehicles without those assistances. All new cars nowadays are required to have electronic aids anyway, so soon enough the majority of cars on the road will have these safety features by default.

I dislike the fact i cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic safety ads, im baised as all hell so please bear that in mind. I simply wanted to make a point that a "non-standard car" needs to have its own certification. This is already in practice in industry environments (Verification of Competency) which as the name implies, is a test that verifies you are competent to operate the equipment. This MAY mean that i special cases, a VOC test may have to be created for that specific vehicle.

If you ever get a chance to drive most pre WW2 vehicle, lets just says its very different (some dont have the accelerator as a pedal but rather a knob on the dash handle on the door)... yet anybody is permitted to drive the thing without any special certification. Sure due to the lack of occurrences it hasnt been a big issue but F*ck me.... Safety > Practicality.

Grayfox
10-08-2013, 08:58 AM
When a license is easy to get and maintain, people will abuse it.

If i remember correctly, in japan you can only learn to drive by an instructor and it is expensive to learn by an instructor.


Not really hard to enforce. A powerful vehicle would need a different registration from a 'non-high-power' vehicle. You said it yourself, the majority of the public wouldnt drive/own these sorts of vehicles, so it would be easy for the police to pick the high power cars out (especially with new rego plate scanners) and check if the operator has a high power vehicle license.

In japan those kei cars have yellow license plates where as the normal sized cars have a white.
So maybe a dedicated color for low power cars

fillit
10-08-2013, 04:42 PM
It is a red in NSW, Warrawong.



Was thinking more of a way to prevent P platers from getting V6 commodores and falcons.

Something like a Civic sport.

150hp or less, 2L max , 4cylinder
That should be the limit.

If you need a more powerful apply for exemption.

Heck even 120hp or less is even better.

As said, using that method of calculation, P platers would be banned from driving Camrys, Accords, Rav 4s and CRVs etc. Which are all slower than a Civic Sport? Not really understanding.

fillit
10-08-2013, 05:15 PM
My method of reducing the risk by simply not allowing those who are not ready ofr the responsibilities of driving ANY lisence. Im not saying they shouldnt be restricted, im saying they shouldnt be permitted to drive. IE, the car is never the problem it is always the driver so restrict the drivers not the cars.


The idea of the certification is to enable me to gain said 'experience'. My problem is that there is nothing stopping some old fart who has never driven a high power vehcle from getting behind the wheels of one.
My argument here is that yes experience is necessary but it also has to be the RIGHT sort of experience. Putting around in a hyundai getz for 20 years will not mean you are safe to drive a air-cooled porsche (unstable as all funk). They should also be forced to undergo training for high power vehicles.


When a license is easy to get and maintain, people will abuse it. The problem with these morons is that licensed or not they will do what they do. Restricting the people who do follow the laws makes no sense at all.


im saying Learning on public roads should be forbidden. You should get all the expirience you need in controlled environments where things cant go incredibly wrong.

Again im not saying that a learner driver should be permitted to drive a high power car on the road, im saying a learner driver shouldn't be permitted to drive ANY car on the road.


http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/dwiothercountries/dwiothercountries.html

Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland had no Graduate licensing systems pre EU.

Norway and sweden had a system whre it is easier to loose (not suspend but you have to go back to the beginning) within the first two years of getting your license.

As far as i know, none of the european/american countries restrict the use of 'certain' cars. Each category of vehicle has a related license and that license enables you to drive ALL vehicles in that category (probationary or not).


Hence my reason to introduce a new category for high power vehicles so the rest of people dont need to make any changes. This also helps prevent the general public getting behind the wheel of a powerful car and wrapping it around a pole. Dont see how someone who has been driving an econbox for the last 20 years will be safer and in more control of a vehicle than someone else who has 5 months of experience driving a high power vehicle and being forced to actually experience many of the possible things that can happen due to the higher power... And to make sure you understand what im saying, i mean 5 months of on track/motorkhana/other non public road environment and absolutely no driving of a high power vehicle on the road until you have got that license.


Why should i, a member of the public be put at ANY risk at all so that other can be assessed on their safety and adherence to the law? I took my test in a vehicle that didnt have double controls and i cant see how there is any safety in another 'qualified' person being in that vehicle with me. IF i panicked and stomped on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, there is nothing that person can do that reduces the risk of injury to the public or myself.

By my argument a mock setup of streets and roads should be made to simulate the road, but not be part of the public road network (japan does exactly this). This also means that the person needs to do all their training in this environment to make sure the REST of the publics safety is not compromised by this learner being on the road.
Is this expensive? Yes. Is this going to make getting a license expensive and difficult? Yes.

If the reason you are not increasing safety is cost, then you/the politicians are effectively putting a monetary value on a persons life. That is a very slippery path to go down.


Not really hard to enforce. A powerful vehicle would need a different registration from a 'non-high-power' vehicle. You said it yourself, the majority of the public wouldnt drive/own these sorts of vehicles, so it would be easy for the police to pick the high power cars out (especially with new rego plate scanners) and check if the operator has a high power vehicle license.



I dislike the fact i cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic safety ads, im baised as all hell so please bear that in mind. I simply wanted to make a point that a "non-standard car" needs to have its own certification. This is already in practice in industry environments (Verification of Competency) which as the name implies, is a test that verifies you are competent to operate the equipment. This MAY mean that i special cases, a VOC test may have to be created for that specific vehicle.

If you ever get a chance to drive most pre WW2 vehicle, lets just says its very different (some dont have the accelerator as a pedal but rather a knob on the dash handle on the door)... yet anybody is permitted to drive the thing without any special certification. Sure due to the lack of occurrences it hasnt been a big issue but F*ck me.... Safety > Practicality.

Okay, as these posts are getting a bit long I will try and lay them out in point form.

1. The car that someone drives does affect the way they behave, since these restrictions have been placed, there has been a decline in road fatalities. Placing a 18 year old in a hyundai getz is very different to a nissan skyline.

2. This is when my argument of the "maturing of the driver" steps in, if you've been putting around in a hyundai getz for the last 20 years and get into a high powered sports car, you will know (and for gods sakes i hope you know) not to give it a flogging until such point as you can control the car. The mindset of someone who's 40 compares to someone who's 18 is very different, do you honestly think someone with a wife children and mortgage would want to put his life or their lives at risk.

3. The law is put in place, you're the one who's disagreeing with it, statistically speaking it works.

4 + 5, these countries have different rules as they are fundamentally different to Australia, Australia is a large country with lots of roads and the car is necessity. Alot of those countries have their citizens predominately using public transport. Whereas in Australia due to inadequacies, geographical spread etc has a reliance on cars.

Whether they have restrictions on high performance cars or not is a different issue, Australia has one of the lowest road tolls (comparing population/road users/amount of roads) in the world due to these restrictions, this is for the benefit of the community why do we have a need to change it.

6. Have you ever considered the economical cost of 5 months of driver training, revenue wise the government makes about a 33% cut from the luxury car tax alone. Also would you think anyone who can actually afford these cars would bother to go through all this training, they are driving the car A to B, not flogging it around thinking the road is a race track. Most high performance cars with the demographic you're speaking of have their cars driving in CBD traffic during peak. Go down to King/Collins street at 8.30 in the morning to see the plethora of lawyers and bankers driving their cars around bumper to bumper. Most of these gents are probably executive level managers or partners of their firms, you're talking incomes of excess of $500k a year, do you really believe they would endanger their lives by driving like an idiot.

7. It is impractical to not allow people to learn on the public roads, if there is a "pre-leaners" course in an controlled environment, then I would agree. Again this is up to the driving instructor putting you in a safe place, in my first lesson I was in a car with dual controls and he took me to an area which did not have any traffic. If you choose to learn in a car with no dual controls and without a driving instructor, YOU are putting the public to risk. A more practical solution would be to have a minimum of mandatory lessons with a driving instructor, say 10 hours, general expectations would be that you have acquired enough knowledge to drive in a safe enough manner to practice on the open road. Please refer to below diagram (source: betterdrivers.com.au, I think it's part of AAMI). Having an accompany instructor (even if it's mum, dad or sibling) does decrease the chances of an accident.

http://www.betterdriver.com.au/images/p-plate-crash-profile.jpg

8 + 9. I'm not sure how many times I've driven a vehicle which isn't rego'd under my own name, friends, family, fleet cars, company cars etc. You're just allowing people to rort the system or alternative cause more congestion from the police, current system works people there are only a finite amount of possibilities when checking a high performance car.

i) full license driver - okay
ii) P plater displaying Ps - 3 point demerit for over powered vehicle
iii) P plater not displaying Ps - 6 point demerit, loss of license

As you know how fkd up the laws are with car modifications, do you want to give these clowns the opportunity to interrogate you on the vehicle you are driving under your proposed changes.

Monetary values are places on peoples lives. I'm sure if you have a superannuation it would come with life insurance which will place a value of the payout on event of your death. Same with insurance policies etc. There is always a risk calculation on the premium and excess of all claims (house/cars/people), these services are to make money, welcome to the world of capitalism.

10. Why are you upset that you cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic aids, these are proven to assist people in situations where they would have been in a serious accident without them. Again, these are people driving from A to B, it may be one day in the 50 years they drive that they rely on these aids, is it practical to make them go through 5 months of training so they can control a power slide? no, is it economical? no. Your WW2 vehicle argument has no validity as it's almost statistically irrelevant in a test example, you would more likely be hit by a bus crossing the road than for a serious accident to occur in one of those vehicles, I can't imagine a museum lending you one to flog around anyway.

From reading your replies I can understand your point of view, but in essence what I get is that you think that there are alot of idiots on the road (yes there is) and once they obtain their full licensed they can drive whatever they want in a manner which they cannot control the vehicle or deemed unsafe to the public (yes they do). However there are always people out there who break the law, people get stabbed all the time, do we ban knives? No, because the majority of people don't do that, it's only a very small statistic who does. Currently the system works (although there are a few flaws). Yes there are probably improvements which can be made, say DECA training or a compulsory track day/skid pan day or compulsory minimum driving lessons, however fundamentally there isn't a need to overhaul the licensing arrangements as you have suggested.

Chernoby1
10-08-2013, 09:17 PM
Most of my points kinda flow across a bunch of your points so take the whole of the responses and not just the selected section for my view point. Would probably be able to make is nice and segmented but mega ceebs.


Okay, as these posts are getting a bit long I will try and lay them out in point form.

1. The car that someone drives does affect the way they behave, since these restrictions have been placed, there has been a decline in road fatalities. Placing a 18 year old in a hyundai getz is very different to a nissan skyline.

Im saying that all efforts should be made to deter the change in behavior, not eliminate it. if the majority will do the wrong thing, i want it to be possible for the minority to be able to do the right thing.



2. This is when my argument of the "maturing of the driver" steps in, if you've been putting around in a hyundai getz for the last 20 years and get into a high powered sports car, you will know (and for gods sakes i hope you know) not to give it a flogging until such point as you can control the car. The mindset of someone who's 40 compares to someone who's 18 is very different, do you honestly think someone with a wife children and mortgage would want to put his life or their lives at risk.

You are relying on that 'maturity'. I find it unreliable and thus suggesting making it not possible to rely on people.



3. The law is put in place, you're the one who's disagreeing with it, statistically speaking it works.

Im an Idealist. Statistics mean nothing to me.
Im also the sort of person who cares not of the practicality of the laws, but rather the fundamental reasoning. I believe people should be punished for their wrong doings, but not because they might do something wrong. To me, any sort of restriction is a punishment, even if it is likely to prevent lives being lost.

Freedom comes first > life comes second > everything else comes afterwards




4 + 5, these countries have different rules as they are fundamentally different to Australia, Australia is a large country with lots of roads and the car is necessity. Alot of those countries have their citizens predominately using public transport. Whereas in Australia due to inadequacies, geographical spread etc has a reliance on cars.

Idealist view, the reliance on vehicles and probable inconvenience to the majority with my proposed overhaul means very little/nothing to me. If the entire population underwent the training, i say its better for everyone regardless of the cost.



Whether they have restrictions on high performance cars or not is a different issue, Australia has one of the lowest road tolls (comparing population/road users/amount of roads) in the world due to these restrictions, this is for the benefit of the community why do we have a need to change it.

Because i beleive freedom is more important than life. Making a law to stop other laws being broken is useless.

Fundamental law:
Damage to persons and property is not tolerated.

Car related example secondary law:
Due to the higher likelihood of a crash and the increased damage if a crash occurs, high speed driving is made illegal.

Third tier law:
Young drivers are more likely (statistically) to speed in a high powered vehicle (cough arguable but ill just assume it). [The various other 'benefits' of these restrictions are omitted so to keep things tidy]

As such, not permitting them to drive a high power vehicle removes the likely hood that they would speed and in doing so cause damage to people/property.

In my view, 2nd and third tier should GTFO and we should only have the first tier law. Clearly i dont just have problems with the lisencing system, but the entire legal system of australia and most other countries. The lack of ability to move to a country that works the way i want it, or to even create such a place makes me angry and thus i vent like im doing now (I want my damned freedom!)
[/quote]



6. Have you ever considered the economical cost of 5 months of driver training, revenue wise the government makes about a 33% cut from the luxury car tax alone. Also would you think anyone who can actually afford these cars would bother to go through all this training, they are driving the car A to B, not flogging it around thinking the road is a race track. Most high performance cars with the demographic you're speaking of have their cars driving in CBD traffic during peak. Go down to King/Collins street at 8.30 in the morning to see the plethora of lawyers and bankers driving their cars around bumper to bumper. Most of these gents are probably executive level managers or partners of their firms, you're talking incomes of excess of $500k a year, do you really believe they would endanger their lives by driving like an idiot.

A) I dont care about the economical ramifications. If i/my community was dirt poor but free (or my definition of free at anyrate), id be content lol.

B)
If these people cant be bothered going through all the loops to be able to drive this said vehicle, then they dont get to drive the vehicle? I dont see the problem there.

I didnt mean those people at all. To be specific, i was talking about a mates mum who sometimes takes his 400kw vl to the shops. She isnt aware of the power the thing makes and (proving your point) her mentality on driving means she has never depressed the pedal anywhere near to the floor. God forbid she ever needed to overtake and the car spooled... i've seen that car fry the tires at ~130km/h.

Obviously this is an extreme case but if she was to be 'trained' and made aware of how the thing handles / operates then id be much more comfortable. If you made this mandatory to all drivers, i dont see how it would be possible for them to 'accidentally' do something stupid (which is my main concern, not people doing it on purpose). A few years back a ~40yo guy in his ferrari didnt take to kindly to being overtaken by an SS of somesort. So ofcourse he put the foot down, car spun the wheels, he paniced and hit the brake... ended up in a tree on the other side of the road.

This could have been avoided if he didnt put the foot down, but also if he knew wtf to expect would happen. I would not at all be surprised if this was the first time he flogged the car, especially as he was caught with some ~20yo chick in the passenger seat (again extreme case but yea.)



7. It is impractical to not allow people to learn on the public roads, if there is a "pre-leaners" course in an controlled environment, then I would agree. Again this is up to the driving instructor putting you in a safe place, in my first lesson I was in a car with dual controls and he took me to an area which did not have any traffic. If you choose to learn in a car with no dual controls and without a driving instructor, YOU are putting the public to risk. A more practical solution would be to have a minimum of mandatory lessons with a driving instructor, say 10 hours, general expectations would be that you have acquired enough knowledge to drive in a safe enough manner to practice on the open road. Please refer to below diagram (source: betterdrivers.com.au, I think it's part of AAMI). Having an accompany instructor (even if it's mum, dad or sibling) does decrease the chances of an accident.

repeat: Practicality in laws means zeroooo to me...
The fact some one is LEGALLY ABLE to put me at risk is the problem. (Funnily enough the fact they ARE putting me at risk isnt that worrying lol)



8 + 9. I'm not sure how many times I've driven a vehicle which isn't rego'd under my own name, friends, family, fleet cars, company cars etc. You're just allowing people to rort the system or alternative cause more congestion from the police, current system works people there are only a finite amount of possibilities when checking a high performance car.

Who the car is registered to is irrelevant. I'm suggesting that the car itself must be registered in a different manner. Think of heavy vehicles... Doesnt matter at all who the owner is, the operator needs to have the correct license if he wishes to operate that vehicle. This is a fairly common (i take 10% as common) license and cops dont swarm on heavy vehicles because it is often presumed the person does have the correct lisencing and therefore its not checked.




i) full license driver - okay
ii) P plater displaying Ps - 3 point demerit for over powered vehicle
iii) P plater not displaying Ps - 6 point demerit, loss of license

As you know how fkd up the laws are with car modifications, do you want to give these clowns the opportunity to interrogate you on the vehicle you are driving under your proposed changes.

I would like the ability to carry out any modifications i want as long as it met the ADR's and that my registration record said modifications and certifies its compliance and thus be able to drive it without hassle.

I would also like for modified vehicles to be assessed on an individual basis on whether or not they are considered a high power vehicle and that determines whether or not a person needs a special license to drive the damned thing.

This is increasing the difficulty (and thus cost) of driving a modified vehicle but it gives me a legal avenue to drive a high powered modified vehicle and not be worried about being dicked for shit. If the vehicle has non-certified modifications well BL to you, defects it is.



Monetary values are places on peoples lives. I'm sure if you have a superannuation it would come with life insurance which will place a value of the payout on event of your death. Same with insurance policies etc. There is always a risk calculation on the premium and excess of all claims (house/cars/people), these services are to make money, welcome to the world of capitalism.

Screw capatalism as cultural system. I'm a hard socialist but want the economics of a capatalist nation... A country did pull it off a while ago, but then some external peeps where full wtfing and decided to **** that place up nice and hard.



10. Why are you upset that you cannot purchase a vehicle without electronic aids, these are proven to assist people in situations where they would have been in a serious accident without them. Again, these are people driving from A to B, it may be one day in the 50 years they drive that they rely on these aids, is it practical to make them go through 5 months of training so they can control a power slide? no, is it economical? no. Your WW2 vehicle argument has no validity as it's almost statistically irrelevant in a test example, you would more likely be hit by a bus crossing the road than for a serious accident to occur in one of those vehicles, I can't imagine a museum lending you one to flog around anyway.

I am upset htat i am not ABLE to buy a car without these options.

This is the point i should probably change from a high-power vehicle license to a specialty vehicle license (of which a high power vehicle would be a part of).

If lets say it was possible to get a Ford Falcon with no Abs/tcs/esc//airbags/ect only and ONLY if i had one of these lSVL's, id be happy. But id want the ability to also remove said systems in the same scenario.

The general public wouldnt be effected at all (unless i had a crash), and i highly doubt a manufacture would even bother to change thier lineup in anyway as the market is so minute, BUT, in the case where pople midify cars, i really HATE the fact that we are not legally able to remove or modify these systems even when they become inheently unsafe features due to the other modifications in the vihcle.

EG: Go drive a car that isnoticably more powerful than factory and also changes the rolling circumference of the tyre by like 15%. If that car came with ESC, that ESC system will probably loose the plot and make driving more dangerous as it tries to stabilise the car because the sensor are no longer within a calibratory range.




From reading your replies I can understand your point of view, but in essence what I get is that you think that there are alot of idiots on the road (yes there is) and once they obtain their full licensed they can drive whatever they want in a manner which they cannot control the vehicle or deemed unsafe to the public (yes they do). However there are always people out there who break the law, people get stabbed all the time, do we ban knives? No, because the majority of people don't do that, it's only a very small statistic who does. Currently the system works (although there are a few flaws). Yes there are probably improvements which can be made, say DECA training or a compulsory track day/skid pan day or compulsory minimum driving lessons, however fundamentally there isn't a need to overhaul the licensing arrangements as you have suggested.

Might want to read up on the laws for knives.... carrying a knife at home is fine. Carrying a knife in public is illegal. Driving a high power car at home is fine, driving a high power car on the road is not... very good analogy, but it didnt really illustrate your point too well :P
(If its of any concession, i have no problems at all with people carrying around weapons and that they should be punished if they use said weapons... but not because they have them)

As for the need? There is never a NEED for anything. There is an intense and insatiable desire within myself to live where i/other are free to do what i consider acceptable... which at the moment is not anywhere on the planet earth. LE SIGHS>

fillit
10-08-2013, 11:18 PM
I've hit the point where I cannot be bothered anymore lol.

As you've admitted that you do not care about legality, practicality or economic ramifications, which basically all of your "idealistic" view would have to cover before it can be implemented. Most of your responses have such a low probability of occurrence it is statistically irrelevant. Again, as you don't care about it, you will refuse to accept any my statistical evidence.

I can sit here, provide you statistics and the written law, however as mentioned all of the above means "nothing to you". That is your belief and I can accept that, I'm not here to change your views, just seeking your justification for the change in law and how you expect to apply it. For the records, I still cannot see how this would work, I don't think it's a bad idea, just that there is no practical way of implementing it unless you can prove otherwise.

On a few side notes.

ADR Compliance - You can engineer your car if you wish to have modifications on it.
Cars without electronic aids - How many people are actually going to purchase it? If given a choice I'm sure most people if not all people would opt for the aids.
Carrying a knife - You can carry a knife from point A to point B, the law stipulates that it is an controlled weapon, if the knife is not deemed to be a controlled weapon or the object intent is not for bodily harm, it is not illegal. Example would be carrying a swiss army knife, until the point you decide to shank someone, they cannot prosecute you for it.

As for your insatiable desire to live and do what you want, have you ever considered moving to New Zealand? They have very relaxed vehicle laws there, seems to be your haven.

Chernoby1
11-08-2013, 12:01 AM
Edit: I swear i tried to keep this short, bt it seems i cant do it. Mcfail.

I've hit the point where I cannot be bothered anymore lol.

As you've admitted that you do not care about legality, practicality or economic ramifications, which basically all of your "idealistic" view would have to cover before it can be implemented. Most of your responses have such a low probability of occurrence it is statistically irrelevant. Again, as you don't care about it, you will refuse to accept any my statistical evidence.

I dont care much with the current laws (not legality on the whole). Most of my responses may have incredibly low stat's but are based on experience and frustrations that came from them lol. I dont like when a law is 'good enough' because is covers 99% of cases. If it doesnt cover 100%, it cannot be a law (Personal definition of what defines a 'real' law). Luckily for a lot of people, i cant be bothered trying to change the system and can only be bothered trying to explain my viewpoint to people in the hopes they do something :P



I can sit here, provide you statistics and the written law, however as mentioned all of the above means "nothing to you". That is your belief and I can accept that, I'm not here to change your views, just seeking your justification for the change in law and how you expect to apply it. For the records, I still cannot see how this would work, I don't think it's a bad idea, just that there is no practical way of implementing it unless you can prove otherwise.

If this is regarding 'high power viehlce registration', i would take the current system for heavy vehicles (they need to get weighed / certififed / ect) and simply apply the same thing to any vehicle with 150+kw/t (pulled the figure out of a hat). If a car is standard no test needed, if the car is modified, you need to provide details. Once a person has got the the license, i would hope they keep the prices for normal cars vs high power cars the same and thus there is no real reason not to rego it as a high power vehicle... ect. Trust me, that part of it would work and actually not be tooooo difficult to implement.



ADR Compliance - You can engineer your car if you wish to have modifications on it.

I know this is meant to be a thread for NSW, but i have NFI what sort of regs you got there. In vic, this is not possible. I can get / have gotten defected for something an engineer has signed off on.



Cars without electronic aids - How many people are actually going to purchase it? If given a choice I'm sure most people if not all people would opt for the aids.

Anyone that plans to modify the vehicle extensively ;)
As i said, i doubt any manufacturers would make such a car, but i want the ability to get rid of said safety systems legally.
At present, most people who modify the cars extensively replace the ECU and also get rid of many of the 'safety' electronics... Even if you are able to provide some form of comparable function, that would count as a modification to a safety system which is illegal and thus 99% of newer cars that are modified to that point are illegal no matter what you do. There is no way to certify such modifications.

99% of the population wouldnt be effected at all, me included as i dont like new cars, but i hate the fact there is no process or possibility of complying to the law while modifying a car extensively.



Carrying a knife - You can carry a knife from point A to point B, the law stipulates that it is an controlled weapon, if the knife is not deemed to be a controlled weapon or the object intent is not for bodily harm, it is not illegal. Example would be carrying a swiss army knife, until the point you decide to shank someone, they cannot prosecute you for it.

So simply because a car is able to kill someone and statistically (assumption) it is more likely to do so if the vehicle has lots of power and is drven by a youth; A youth driving a powerful shows intent to hurt? Bit iffy but comes back to my stubborn belief that supporting laws are retarded lol.



As for your insatiable desire to live and do what you want, have you ever considered moving to New Zealand? They have very relaxed vehicle laws there, seems to be your haven.

Vehicle laws are petty things imo, not going to change where i live based on that. ATM Its aus or canada based on all the other laws. Unfortunately both are slowly turing into america and am considering going to a non-developed nation but am kinda comfortable here with my decent paycheck, stable job and lack of fear of getting shanked walking down the street... ;)

fillit
11-08-2013, 12:41 AM
I'm just going to say agree to disagree.

This continued conversation will be ideologies vs statistics.

viett
12-08-2013, 05:59 PM
all dem wordz, all dat education

EKVTIR-T
12-08-2013, 06:09 PM
in japan the cappas struggle to better low 14s... as I say they are slow and waste of money if you want to go fast

theyre cute though,I actually like them

RenzokukenJ
12-08-2013, 06:19 PM
This thread turned into the Muslim thread ay

blommer
12-08-2013, 06:43 PM
nuff said.. move to WA and all's good

Chernoby1
12-08-2013, 06:51 PM
in japan the cappas struggle to better low 14s... as I say they are slow and waste of money if you want to go fast

theyre cute though,I actually like them

JDM cars are nearly always only stuffed with off the shelf parts... of course its gonna be slow. Theyre more concerned with driving the cars than with making them fast. Try and look up how many of them are runnig standalone ECU's.. if you find more than 10 ill be surprised, especially when you consider theres ~10 cappas in aus that run standalone ecus lol. But maybe im not in the right forum coz i dont like off the shelf shit.

/offtopic.com

mocchi
12-08-2013, 07:27 PM
what the fuark just happened here

cuppa
12-08-2013, 09:44 PM
all dem wordz, all dat education

This, entertaining to read tho

DakDak
13-08-2013, 05:53 PM
Now just too see whether this law actually comes into effect.

amant02
30-10-2013, 09:26 AM
What about us Type R owners who already are making close to 130kw/tonne

MassiEk4
02-11-2013, 09:35 AM
Why not give people open access to drive what ever they want, but put very heavy penalties for offending or abusing that privilege; like 3-6 month jail time, and properly in force it as well.
This way the real enthusiasts that do their racing on the track don't get punished for the hand full of a$$holes ruining it for everyone else.

Chernoby1
02-11-2013, 12:25 PM
People in jail cost money.
Catching someone driving non p plate car makes money

Logics

amant02
02-11-2013, 12:33 PM
Sydneys Jails are already crawling with driving offenders. This is they the state govt has changed the law to more administrative option. As the people breaking these laws are mostly good people. Only the serious offenders get sent away.

nate92
02-03-2014, 09:13 AM
i have an eg vti with a k24 engineered to the chassis, does that mean its illegal to drive as im only a P2 in nsw?

cuppa
02-03-2014, 11:04 AM
Why not give people open access to drive what ever they want, but put very heavy penalties for offending or abusing that privilege; like 3-6 month jail time, and properly in force it as well.
This way the real enthusiasts that do their racing on the track don't get punished for the hand full of a$$holes ruining it for everyone else.

Yeah, no.

This way you'll be clogging the courts and etc for no real reason. Plus, would it really be a good idea for a fresh p plater to be able to drive a GTR for example? Just because you put a penalty it doesn't mean it'll stop them. Look at our laws now, even though it's prohibited to drive said turbo cars e.g. EVO/STI, you still see p platers driving them with p plates on.

amant02
02-03-2014, 02:23 PM
i have an eg vti with a k24 engineered to the chassis, does that mean its illegal to drive as im only a P2 in nsw?

Yes very illegal.

DreadAngel
02-03-2014, 07:37 PM
Why not give people open access to drive what ever they want, but put very heavy penalties for offending or abusing that privilege; like 3-6 month jail time, and properly in force it as well.
This way the real enthusiasts that do their racing on the track don't get punished for the hand full of a$$holes ruining it for everyone else.

No way...

Kids these days need to be restricted, they don't know their limitations and think the cars will save them if they screw up.

EKVTIR-T
02-03-2014, 07:40 PM
seen some "ethnic" Pplaters down here driving m5 m3 c63 etc.

cops probably dont take interest in them

Grayfox
03-03-2014, 09:00 AM
seen some "ethnic" Pplaters down here driving m5 m3 c63 etc.

cops probably dont take interest in them

It's fully sick uleah

Darmanin
06-07-2014, 08:36 PM
So this actually happened

Leekie
08-07-2014, 04:08 PM
Definitely going to see alot of people heading towards s15s instead of hondas now..

EKVTIR-T
08-07-2014, 04:12 PM
Definitely going to see alot of people heading towards s15s instead of hondas now..you'd be crazy not to

SHOGUNOVDDRK
08-07-2014, 05:48 PM
Definitely going to see alot of people heading towards s15s instead of hondas now..

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/11/03/832241/Tom-Cruise-420x0.jpg

Monetz
08-07-2014, 11:21 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10509766_10154334581995112_7750063761819522609_n.j pg

viett
08-07-2014, 11:45 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought only 2010+ turbo cars that fall within the 130kw/ton can be driven on P's.

amant02
09-07-2014, 08:51 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought only 2010+ turbo cars that fall within the 130kw/ton can be driven on P's.

This is wut I thought, cos it would make sense. But no, our rule makers are potatoes.

Darmanin
09-07-2014, 09:17 AM
New rule is basically
Any car under 130kw/ton and slower than 6 seconds 0-100

Stats taken from redbook by the looks of it

Funny how half the first gen rexies are banned and half are allowed simply because some are listed as 5.6 and the others 6.6

Search
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/drivers/youngdrivers/vehicle-restrictions.html

u mad?
09-07-2014, 10:25 AM
you'd be crazy not to

Yeah exactly, only reason i got a honda is because of these p plate laws, wouldn't even know what a vtec is otherwise lmao

EKVTIR-T
09-07-2014, 11:42 AM
Yeah exactly, only reason i got a honda is because of these p plate laws, wouldn't even know what a vtec is otherwise lmao
You probably thought spoon was for eating icecream

RenzokukenJ
09-07-2014, 03:21 PM
Yeah exactly, only reason i got a honda is because of these p plate laws, wouldn't even know what a vtec is otherwise lmao
User u mad? only know dose pipe and single pegger

amant02
09-07-2014, 10:31 PM
Yeah exactly, only reason i got a honda is because of these p plate laws, wouldn't even know what a vtec is otherwise lmao

I knew what Vtec was.

But yeh only reason why I went vtec, cos no boost rule. Now I are too deep financially into my Honda that its gonna hurt to make the switch.

I think i have a case against the govt here. Imma be loosing alot cos of this rule, paid top dollar for my type R.

Grayfox
11-07-2014, 12:44 AM
N/A is better than turbo anyway.

Nothing better than an engine to give you raw power.

Not saying turbos are bad, just like N/A cars better.

amant02
11-07-2014, 12:53 AM
N/A is better than turbo anyway.

Nothing better than an engine to give you raw power.

Not saying turbos are bad, just like N/A cars better.


Not trying to be a dick. I have a feeling you have the wrong idea of turbo.

Your statement don't make sense.

N/A or Turbo. Its still the engine that's making the power.

I think what your meant to say is 'Nothing better than N/A engines responsiveness' or 'Nothing better then an NA powerband or delivery'. Something along them lines.

But in the modern world, if you have the money. Turbo setup is always going to outperform N/A equivalent.

Chernoby1
11-07-2014, 08:32 AM
Turbo is gonna suck if you have skinny tyres.

They're also more complex to drive. 50% throttle at x rpm is going to be consistent on a NA engine. With a turbo it depends how you got to 50% throttle.

Ie, transient throttle response can be a pain to deal with in most turbo cars.

For me, it is simply the choice of cars available that are practically turbo only that would make me consider them.
(# of manual rwd turbo cars > # of manual rwd NA cars)

Grayfox
16-07-2014, 12:57 AM
Not trying to be a dick. I have a feeling you have the wrong idea of turbo.

Your statement don't make sense.

N/A or Turbo. Its still the engine that's making the power.

I think what your meant to say is 'Nothing better than N/A engines responsiveness' or 'Nothing better then an NA powerband or delivery'. Something along them lines.

But in the modern world, if you have the money. Turbo setup is always going to outperform N/A equivalent.


What i mean is with N/A the engine makes the power by itself, no add ons.

With a turbo/supercharger, you need the turbo/superchager to make the power.
If you remove the turbo from a turbo charged engine it is rather weak as the engine needs it to make the power.

Chernoby1
16-07-2014, 09:07 AM
That's like saying remove the pistons from an NA engine and it will be rather weak.... Nuhduh.

curtis265
16-07-2014, 09:49 AM
Not trying to be a dick. I have a feeling you have the wrong idea of turbo.

Your statement don't make sense.

N/A or Turbo. Its still the engine that's making the power.

I think what your meant to say is 'Nothing better than N/A engines responsiveness' or 'Nothing better then an NA powerband or delivery'. Something along them lines.

But in the modern world, if you have the money. Turbo setup is always going to outperform N/A equivalent.

i would pick a 200whp na over a 200whp turbo

EKVTIR-T
16-07-2014, 09:53 AM
Ok guy

u mad?
16-07-2014, 02:13 PM
That's like saying remove the pistons from an NA engine and it will be rather weak.... Nuhduh.

lmao das it

mryangtastic
18-08-2014, 05:50 PM
So just to clear things up.
Is EP3 banned for recent/future P platers?
I just want a yes or a no.
Thanks.

EDIT: It's all very murky to me.
Especially after reading this.
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?178211-Can-anyone-confirm-the-Power-to-Weight-Ratio-for-EP3r

RenzokukenJ
18-08-2014, 07:41 PM
So just to clear things up.
Is EP3 banned for recent/future P platers?
I just want a yes or a no.
Thanks.

EDIT: It's all very murky to me.
Especially after reading this.
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?178211-Can-anyone-confirm-the-Power-to-Weight-Ratio-for-EP3r
No

5char

Integra-GSi
24-08-2014, 07:11 PM
i would pick a 200whp na over a 200whp turbo

200 horse power naturally aspirated 90% of the time will be more responsive than 200 horse power turbo. Much prefer real 200 horse power not after forced induction. Think 3SGE Beams.

amant02
24-08-2014, 08:18 PM
200 horse power naturally aspirated 90% of the time will be more responsive than 200 horse power turbo. Much prefer real 200 horse power not after forced induction. Think 3SGE Beams.

Oops. Read Wrong.

In my view if your only after 200kw. Why even bother going turbo..

Thats too easy to hit with NA Engines these days.

cuppa
25-08-2014, 04:26 PM
Oops. Read Wrong.

In my view if your only after 200kw. Why even bother going turbo..

Thats too easy to hit with NA Engines these days.

lulwut

EKVTIR-T
25-08-2014, 04:46 PM
yep

motec system exhaust and cool air intake will get you there with vtec NA



...

RenzokukenJ
25-08-2014, 05:28 PM
Oops. Read Wrong.

In my view if your only after 200kw. Why even bother going turbo..

Thats too easy to hit with NA Engines these days.
Go do it and show us how it's done

integraR
25-08-2014, 05:35 PM
Oops. Read Wrong.

In my view if your only after 200kw. Why even bother going turbo..

Thats too easy to hit with NA Engines these days.



Not trying to be a dick. I have a feeling you have the wrong idea of turbo.

Your statement don't make sense.

N/A or Turbo. Its still the engine that's making the power.

I think what your meant to say is 'Nothing better than N/A engines responsiveness' or 'Nothing better then an NA powerband or delivery'. Something along them lines.

But in the modern world, if you have the money. Turbo setup is always going to outperform N/A equivalent.

......























hehe

amant02
25-08-2014, 08:33 PM
Ofcourse to make NA 200kw will cost $$$ and more then just I/H/E will be required. We taking starting from sctrach here. Hone Bore Oversize, Bearings, Rods, Pistons, VRS Kit, Head Service, valvetrain kit, cams, oil + water pump, RRC, Toda Headers, 3" zorst, 70mm TB, balance rotating assembly + port if reqiured. Maybe even a fuel upgrade. yeh its possible and pretty sure she will be streetable.

and ofcourse 200kw with FI will be easier + cheaper.

Just need extra 4-5k to blow on my dc5 to finish the k24. Lets see how long my teggy stays around. Cos das good money towards the new CTR.

Vvvtec
09-09-2014, 03:43 PM
ballin

mryangtastic
09-09-2014, 03:44 PM
Okay. EP3 now banned.

u mad?
09-09-2014, 03:47 PM
amant do you know a fella by the name of watajk

cbauto
09-09-2014, 06:41 PM
amant do you know a fella by the name of watajk
Isn't he the guy that think dc5 better than dc2?

RenzokukenJ
09-09-2014, 06:43 PM
While on p plate I had 180sx, no troubles hehe

Dat legal WA system

Torell
09-09-2014, 06:44 PM
still, cant touch vtir preludes can you? or type Rs, Type S or s2ks. so.... should b ok? oh did i forget civic Rs also.

Vvvtec
09-09-2014, 07:57 PM
All honda too powerful for yung person back in vietnam i had car group and we all had very fast civics many died on the mountain runs can only imagine teenagers drivers on australia roads

Vvvtec
09-09-2014, 07:58 PM
In vietnam cant drive turbo until 25

Wiz Khalifa
10-09-2014, 09:02 AM
Okay. EP3 now banned.

why the fk is ep3 banned

RenzokukenJ
10-09-2014, 11:21 AM
still, cant touch vtir preludes can you? or type Rs, Type S or s2ks. so.... should b ok? oh did i forget civic Rs also.
Lol even prelude? Wow

All honda too powerful for yung person back in vietnam i had car group and we all had very fast civics many died on the mountain runs can only imagine teenagers drivers on australia roads


In vietnam cant drive turbo until 25
Can back up this statement - from Vietnam

cbauto
10-09-2014, 01:41 PM
Lol even prelude? Wow



Can back up this statement - from Vietnam
1/16 viet doesnt count.

RenzokukenJ
10-09-2014, 02:46 PM
1/16 viet doesnt count.
Then why are you commenting lad? Full viet only