Filed under: Sports/GTs, Euro, Supercars
Europe considering ban of cars capable of more than 101 mph
Autocar is reporting that the European Parliament will consider a proposal this fall to ban all cars capable of reaching speeds over 101 mph. The proposal can be traced back to a man named Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parlaiment for the North West of England. Davies argues (try not to laugh while reading his words) that "between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28 per cent, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out, even though no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power."
The logic is so flawed here, we don't know where to begin. According to Davies, giving a car more power makes it heavier, thus increasing the amount of CO2 it emits. First of all, cars are heavier these days primarily because most developed nations, Europe and the United States included, have federally mandated that cars be made safer, and to achieve this, manufacturers have had to design new safety systems that add weight to cars. Things like airbags, crumple zones, side-impact bars, and the like are the primary reason cars have gotten heavier. While enlarging the displacement of an engine, switching from four to six cylinders or adding a supercharger could make a car heavier while giving it more oomph, more power for its own sake is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a car gaining weight.
[Source: Autocar]
And that's just it, most mainstream vehicles don't get power bumps just for the hell of it. Additional horsepower is usually required to comfortably move the additional weight added by the aforementioned safety systems. Yes, there's a vicious circle here, but Davies' logic is completely backwards. By his logic, Europe should actually ban all safety systems in cars, because as cars have gotten safer, they've also gotten heavier and are thus emitting more CO2.
And of course, Davies must realize that even if the unthinkable occurred and Europe banned cars that were capable of more than 101 mph, unless the law was written to specifically preclude this, automakers would likely just use a governor. After all, a Bugatti Veyron with a governor that drops anchor at 100 mph is a car not capable of 101 mph.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Dave 8:18PM (6/07/2007)
I speak on behalf of the north west of England, we aren't all that mental, and we no longer recognize him as one of our own.
Reply
fizzandpop 8:18PM (6/07/2007)
Well done Chris, the publicity you get from this will guarantee your salary for the near future. Now, go away again please.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 8:20PM (6/07/2007)
Adding 2 cylinders definitely adds weight. It also adds internal friction, which increases fuel consumption.
Efforts to mitigate this can work pretty well, but using the same techniques and NOT making the engine larger will work even better.
Cars didn't need 28% more HP just to carry a 100 lbs of safety equipment.
I'd say it's more the AWD running gear in cars that never go offroad. How about the extra 120lbs+ of huge rims? For that matter, look at a car in the 80s and look at one now. Cars used to roll on 175 and 185 width rubber, now they roll on 225 width and up!
Somehow, a lot of people are going to have to lose the idea that they need 1.0g of lateral grip or to ford 20" deep streams and get more into an economy mode. As stupid as this law might seem, if it could just change some minds it might do some good.
Reply
Iso 11:05AM (6/08/2007)
If I'm not mistaken, the new BMW M3's v8 is lighter than the previous generation's inline-6....
Gary 8:20PM (6/07/2007)
So, if a manufacturer stripped down a car to remove excess weight, thereby increasing its speed, that would be fine?
Reply
Paul Y 8:27PM (6/07/2007)
Just because someone was elected to make decisions on behalf of others, it doesn't mean that they're qualified to do so, or even halfway not-stupid.
Reply
Jared 8:31PM (6/07/2007)
My dad has had 2 trucks in the past few years. One was a V6, and the second is a V8. The V8 averages 2 more mpg than the V6. And they are only a few years apart in age.
Reply
ruggels 8:39PM (6/07/2007)
yeah, this is going to pass, vw/porsche will totally let this pass... right... banning ever single VW/Porsche car, not to mention every other European car sans the SMART... that'll work.
Reply
Steve B. 9:03PM (6/07/2007)
Say what? You do realize that the average American car is faster and more powerful than a European car, right? And you are considering that 12+ seconds to 60 mph is not unusual. And that even on comparable models sold in the US and Europe, the US versions are almost ALWAYS more powerful. Did you happen to look around last time you were in Europe?
ruggels 9:12PM (6/07/2007)
Pssst... VW is europe's largest automaker... BMW and Mercedes and Porsche also build and sell a ton of cars in america. Before you hop on your 'american car hater' pedestal, kindly consider the topic of the legislation is europe, vag is the largest car maker in europe with many influential friends and thus it might just be so that they would want to knock this down given europe is their largest market, and the same holds true for BMW, Mercedes and Porsche. Being faster to sixty wasn't something I was addressing, the ability of the vast majority of cars produced and sold in europe by european car manufacturers to exceed 100mph was what i was addressing. Not everything needs to be an american/european pissing contest. If some american congressperson was attempting to pass legislation like this you bet your ass i'd mention just how many american cars are 'capable' of more then 101mph and the lobbying GM and Ford would do.
No wonder people on Jalopnik complain about the comments here, you're replying to my comment insinuating a condemnation I not only never made, but bares little reference to my point or this article as well.
Chris 8:39PM (6/07/2007)
One would have to think that not only do 100% of all car enthusiasts hate this guy now, his family must hate is guts also.
"Hi, my daddy is the idiot who says that every car in Europe should be banned. Will your family adopt me?"
Reply
James Sonne 8:49PM (6/07/2007)
Any law that specifically governs blanketedly is fascist in nature. The government, especially one coming from a background of individual liberty, should not decide for people what they need or should use. What they may do is use tariffs or taxations as incentives to encourage people to use appropriate items that do not exceed their necessity and means.
Reply
David 8:50PM (6/07/2007)
Added weight is not necessarily a function of added power. and this guy has his head up his butt. I doubt that his proposal is going anywhere. But it is worth pointing out that since fuel mileage peaked in the US in the late 80's ('87 I think) the US fleet has gotten heavier AND faster. If you don't believe that pick a car that you like now that was being built in the late 80's and compare weight and performance figures. You'll find it's heavier and faster which means that power has gone up a lot, first to move the additional weight as well as the old engines did and then to move the extra weight even faster, in many cases much faster.
I find it interesting and disturbing that since the 70's when we first learned how vulnerable to manipulation oil prices were, and how unstable the major oil producing regions were and still are, that our response has been to relax the efforts we made then to lower our use of imported oil. We import more to the US now than we did then and we're living in the midst of the greatest horsepower war in history. And nothing has happened in the driving environment since the 80's that actually allows us to use the performance we've gained in the last twenty years. The roads are more crowded, not less, gas is more expensive, not less and automotive writers who used to give high praise to performance cars like the M3 which performed beautifully with less than 300 horsepower fall over themselves every time someone announces another 600bhp engine. As a result the gap keeps growing between how we can actually drive legally and safely and what our cars are capable of.
There's a disconnect here that's getting harder and harder to understand considering where things in the Persian Gulf (with half the worlds oil) seem to be headed. I can't spell the names of the guys who run Iran but if I were an auto exec I wouldn't bet the future of my company on these guys making the right decisions and keeping the region out of war over the next ten years. Nor would I bet my company on political stability being the norm in Nigeria, Venezuela and a number of other places with lots of oil and seriously screwed up politics.
Reply
Edsel 8:52PM (6/07/2007)
I'd like to purchase one of these for Chris Davies...
http://www.tempolafaek.com.au/pics/4N20%20w%20Girl.jpg
Reply
Rob 8:56PM (6/07/2007)
Off the top of my head, I can only think of one car that would be legal under this rule - my mothers Nissan Pulsar. You had to red-line that thing just to get it going 70mph. (I'm serious).
Aside from that,.. practically every car made can break 100 if you try hard enough.
Reply
ruggels 9:13PM (6/07/2007)
... sans the SMART fourtwo ;)
AMcA 9:17PM (6/07/2007)
Europeans, who build the best fast cars in the world, will NEVER stand for this.
Reply
Chris 9:26PM (6/07/2007)
You're criticizing him and yet you think automotive safety systems are what's causing the weight increase? Holy crap, you're almost as dumb as he is. Go read some automotive engineering books and stop pretending you're something other than a wannabe journalist.
Reply
Rob 12:47PM (6/08/2007)
A HP limit could be a good thing, as it'd force companies to make lighter, smaller cars again. Everything today is way too bloated, with a few exceptions (lotus, arial atom etc).
HotRodzNKustoms 9:27PM (6/07/2007)
Maybe when Tiff said that thing about the HP limit.... just maybe he wasn't so out of line... scary thought. Thank goodness even some of our U.S. politicians love their cars.
Reply