jrcart

A 5 star crash rating in a mini-van is much different than a 5-star crash rating in a passanger car, if I'm not mistaken mini-vans and SUVS are not subject to the same ratings as cars.

GSUNole

I bet half of you complaining at the speed do all sorts of other things dangerous when driving your kids, such as eating, drinking, answering your cell phone, changing your cds, using your GPS etc. Lighten up people. Like some one else said none of us are saints, and until you get and can prove your sainthood, quit throwing stones.

Improviz

As I showed above, the forces a motor vehicle are subjected to at 110 mph are more than double those at 75 mph.

So, if I'm going 75 mph and I do answer my hands-free cell phone by pressing a button on the steering wheel and it somehow causes an accident, or if I decide to be a moron and eat a burger while driving down a freeway, or start listening to CDs instead of satellite radio, etc. and have an accident, my kid will still have a much higher chance of survival at 75 mph than if I wreck at 110 mph.

And the thing is, if you're coming up on someone at a buck ten and he doesn't look before switching into your lane, it's pretty touch-and-go, and entirely dependent upon how close you are. If you're too close, bang. Dead meat. If you're driving at 75, you can stop or swerve, no problemo.

Etc., etc., etc. It's just risky, and even riskier with distracting kiddos in the car.

Here's a video of a Camaro that wrecked going about 120.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhdUme2Zj-8

And here's a video of an E55 AMG that hit the back of a truck at 210 km/h (130 mph):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ksNkf2Xa8

If you want to risk your own life, fine, but why risk the kids' as well?

C43AMG

Well put.

UKA180man

2 kids in car seats & 110 +, very DUH Zal !! Could be one accident, no kids quicker than U realize

jrcart

I am not saying that everyone should run around with kids in their cars at 110 or 120mph, my only point is that some of you were very quick to raise judgment, but I'm sure some of you stick you kids in mini-vans and SUV's and cruise down the freeway keeping up with the flow of traffic that is usually 75-80mph...My point was that a CLK 55 or 63...and definetly my Black Series or any sports car for that matter handles and brakes better at 110 than ANY mini-van or SUV does at 80mph...If anyone thinks they can prove me wrong let me know, I'm always up for a challenge that I can't lose. I love making arogant cocky **** look like the idiots they really are!!!!!!!

.......come on, anyone with a coffin on wheels want to try to prove me wrong?

Improviz

I can probably figure it out directly if I can come up with some extra info, but I can give you a few figures in the ballpark. An E60 M5 under ideal test conditinos would take roughly 400 ft. to stop from 110 mph. A BS would probably better this, but not by a huge margin. However, to figure it directly, I'd need to find out its max deceleration rate in m/s^2 (the M5's is -9.8, one of the better cars out there), unless you've got some test numbers for 110-0 from somewhere. But I'd estiimate they'd be within anywhere from 20-60 ft of each other...

In their latest minivan comparison tests, Car & Driver got the following distances:
Dodge Grand Caravan SXT: 203 ft
Honda Odyssey EX-L: 187 ft
Hyundai Entourage Limited: 187 ft
Nissan Quest SL: 186 ft
Toyota Sienna LE: 201 ft

Now, at 80, their distances would definitely increase, but not by nearly as much as yours would from 80-110....I'd have to find or see if I can come up with that deceleration figure for a minivan if you're *really* all that interested....

The other factor to consider is reaction time. When you're going 110 mph = 161 ft/second, and the other driver is going 80 mph = 102.7, if you each have identical reaction times, say 0.4 seconds or so, you've already chewed up an extra 25 ft. or so.

As to crash-test ratings, I did some checking. The side-impact (for which the Sienna scored five stars) tests for all vehicles, cars, vans, whatever, are conducted identically. For the frontal impact (for which it also received five stars), they are not: the tests are conducted to simulate a head-on collision with a vehicle of like size and weight. So a head on collision for a Sienna would involve crashing into something weighing whatever it weighs, somewhere around 4500-5000 pounds, while for the C Class I cited earlier it would have involved a collision with an object more like 3500 pounds.

So actually, the impact forces when they test vans are *higher* than with passenger cars, just by virtue of the fact that since kinetic energy is directly proportional to weight, the impact forces at the same speed will be higher for the heavier vehicle.

And I've got a request: is it possible for you to engage in a discussion with your fellow forum members and enthusiasts without resorting to name calling and abuse whenever someone has a different opinion than you? It's really uncalled for. Nobody here has called you anything, or said anything that's the slightest bit rude towards you. Is a little reciprocity too much to ask?

Thank you.

jrcart

First of all you need to check your math and facts Motor Trend says a CLK Black Series can stop 80-0 in 196 ft vs a Chrysler Town & Country mini-van 80-0 267 feet....not even close, secondly all I was doing was defending another member who was atacked and criticized for his post. Maybe you need to direct your comments to some of them as well. I can't stand peopel that get up on their soap boxes and preach hot air.

otoupalik

So everyone in Europe is a complete idiot I guess? American speed laws have NOTHING to do with safety and EVERYTHING to do with revenue.

This is one of those situations where an international perspective really helps before making assumptions and generally stereotyping millions of people.

Thanks
brad

Air Marshall Eldritch

JR, would you mind toning down the attitude?

We'd all appreciate it. Thanks.

jrcart

LOL........Who needs to lighten up?

The following posts/remarks were made towards the OP previous to my comment...where were the mods while these comments where being made?

Nice driving,with your kids in the back.

+1 c43amg. That's what I was getting at with my "how old is daddy" comment. Sounds a little immature for someone who brought 10 kids into the world. I don't go faster than 90 if I have ANYONE in the car. Well maybe a little faster but only for brief periods.

Its not that at all, it's just you're a complete idiot for driving at speeds upwards on 110+ with anyone elses life in your hands besides your own!

Improviz

My math is fine. The mistake you're making is not realizing that brakes stop by dissapating kinetic energy, and that since kinetic energy increases nonlinearly with speed, so do braking distances. Getting back to the E60 M5 example (source: Motor Trend):

E60 M5 braking:
60-0 mph: 114 ft.
100-0 mph: 326 ft.

And from 110 mph it takes about 400 ft. At 140 mph, it takes 659 ft (over two football fields), and at 160 it takes 860 ft (nearly three football fields).

So note that even though speed from 60-100 only increased by 67%, the braking distance increased by 286%. And from 100-110, speed only went up by 10%, but braking distance increased by 23%. So at 110 mph, I can assure you that the braking distance of a CLK BS would be far more than that particular minivan's 267 ft (which, interestingly enough and almost certainly by coincidence, had the longest stopping distance from 70 mph of any of the other minivans I listed in my last post--can you say "cherry pick?).

I'm simply trying to make people aware of the inherant risks involved with high speed driving, namely exponentially higher braking distances and impact forces. There is a higher risk, which is a fact.

And in my opinion it is foolish and reckless to subject small children to this clearly heightened risk.

Which is, I thought, the purpose of a discussion board; to post facts and opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts as someone once said.

The videos I posted from yesterday show what happen to cars which wreck at these speeds. And now people can see the dramatically increased braking distances at higher speeds, and, hopefully act with a bit more prudence when it is warranted, i.e. when small children are in the car.

ItalianStallion

I'm a complete F'in lunatic...with that said...

I have to say that doing speeds of 110+ with your children in the car is a no-no.

Tire blow out, oil slick, deers, potholes, whatever it is...if you hit at 110 chances are everyone in the car is dead.

I have no problem putting my own life in jeopardy or other people who are willing to participate in races. But little kids...nah

Nice writeup though. Very cute. Just maybe keep the acceleration blasts from 0-65 instead of going through the triple digits. The car will feel fast accelerating at low speeds and then ease off as you go faster so there is no point in going so fast.

W211 BEAST

Believe me, I'm no saint, but I just wouldnt put anyone elses life at risk.

And about the U.S speed laws not meaning ****, +1, but at the same time, when everyone else is going 75 it IS a little dangerious going 110. Of course when everyone is going 110 its a different story.

SMP

Well said, Brad! Since I was born and raised in Germany, I couldn't agree with you more. Doing a 110 mph is actually considered cruising speed on the Autobahn, and having your wife and kids in the car is normal.

jrcart

....try telling that to theguys on this thread, HA, these people will throw their kids in a car and let some soccer mom with terrible driving skills cruise down the freeway at 75 mph while chatting on her cell phone, keeping one eye on the road and the other eye on the 4 kids in the back of her 4 year old mini-van that a certain person on this forum thinks has nearly as good of brakes as my Black Series

People are too quick to pass judgment...bottom line, is I'll take 110 in my Black Series over 75 in Ford Windstar any day of the week.

IMPOVIZ; do you have any slalom figures for the mini-vans? How about evasive manuevering figures on a mini-van vs. a CLK????

Improviz

Either you're not reading what I wrote very carefully, or you're purposefully trying to distort it. I never said that any given mini-van, even your cherry-picked one, has brakes as good as your CLK.

What I did say is that the stopping distance of your CLK from 110 mph will be longer than the minivan you cited when it's traveling at 80. I also said, and showed, that the forces of a collision at 110 mph will be more than double those at 75 mph.

Now, if you've got a single reference, from anyhere, that shows either my math or my physics to be incorrect, then by all means, please: post it.

Because I know this stuff, have references and texts to back it up, and your claim, that a CLK BS could stop in a shorter distance from 110 mph than a Dodge Grand Caravan SXT going 80, is wrong.

What, now that you've been proven wrong on the crash test results and braking, you have to go erecting straw men to divert attention from the original issue?

Grow up.

otoupalik

Or more likely they are in an escallade with 24" wheels - which cannot be stopped in 2x the stock braking distance with the stock brakes.

Improviz

Just curious: is it your position that driving 110 mph in 75 mph traffic is every bit as safe as driving 75 mph in a Minivan?

Also: how much do I need to purchase from your establishment to get you to make my arguments for me?

otoupalik

I have not said anything about a minivan, you would see that if you read my posts. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you are asking me that question, my reply would be contingent on road conditions, weather, how heavy or light traffic is, how experienced the driver is. These would all need to be answered in order to answer your question.

My position specifically that I was making is that the current crop of soccer mom-mobiles with 24" wheels on SUV's with stock brakes are very MUCH not safe. In fact, legislation is begin considered to mitigate this. Driving 125+ in a BS is safer in most circumstances then driving 75 in one of these vehicles.

I am also saying that the speed in and of itself is NOT the issue. I do often drive 90-100 with my wife and 4 year old. But I can judge the road/traffic conditions for myself, and each minute of driving, that calculation changes.

I certainly am not arrogant enough to say that anyone who drives a certian speed is an idiot, when I don't have all the information. If someone is driving 110 when traffic is heavy and the road is wet, I would think that may be unwise. However, driving 130 when light traffic is going 90-100 and the weather is perfect might be perfectly sane (see Europe for example).

Assumptions and stereotypes tend to poloraize and alienate people, and that is what is happeneing here.

First of all, there is no amount of money in the world that would turn me into a puppet. You clearly have no idea about me, or you would know that. I am as alpha as they come, and am articulate enough to express my own opinion, thank you.

Second, your inflammatory attack at me (a site user, thread participant, board sponsor and board founder) clearly shows a level of maturity and lack of thought. It is just an emotional reply in an effort to bait or further create chaos or argument. Sorry, won't stoop to that level.

Further, making stereotyping comments like in this thread that one is an "idiot" to drive fast, or to drive fast with a family is personally insulting to me as I fit into that insult with my behavior. I take issue with that, and replied - which is my right to do.

Thanks
Brad

Improviz

The thing is that unlike Europe, people here are *not* expecting someone to come up on them at 110 when they're driving at 75, and so consequentially if they check their nine-times-out-of-ten-improperly-adjusted mirrors at all before changing lanes, they probably do it only long enough to see if anyone is within 100 ft. or so of them, making no attempt whatsoever to gage the speed of the approaching vehicle.

I agree that Europeans manage to do it, but this is by being more careful, alert drivers (as one has to be when at any given moment a vehicle could be coming up on you at 200-300 km/h) than their American counterparts.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, most soccer moms aren't tooling around in SUVs with 24" wheels, but I would agree that this particular subset of vehicle is unsafe.

Well, I'd counter-argue that it is a big issue if it's going to take you 1.5 football fields to stop vs. 0.75 football fields. and that the impact damage is double, triple, whatever what it is at lower speeds.

Now, if it's a relatively clear road, etc., it's one thing, but driving down the expressway? No. Too many careless noncombatants out there. I very nearly learned my lesson on this the hard way, when I was speeding along and had a guy just cut out into my lane, and I had nowhere to go. I missed him by a few feet at most.

This, btw, was some time ago, when I was younger, more immature, and more careless. But one should endeavor to learn from their mistakes, as well as those of others.

But still much more inherantly dangerous than driving at 75, due to the hugely longer stopping distances and hugely higher impact forces in the event of a collision, be it into another car, a tree, a deer, whatever...

Well, I do agree that name calling is bad, but if you compare the terminology used over the course of this thread and others by Mr. Cart and those with whom he disagrees, I would argue that profanity is a much more egregious offense than "idiot".

Which brings us to:

The fact is that I've seen JR engage in behavior that has gotten others (allanlambo?) banned. For the record, I actually enjoy some of his posts and AM NOT advocating his banning, but it would be nice to see him behave with a bit more politeness, and a bit less profanity-laced name-calling, whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with him.

And what I have observed is that in threads where he's done this, he hasn't been given a time out, while others whose posts in many cases contained far less profanity than his, have. Now, you're right: I don't know you and can't read your mind, but I've observed what appears to be a clear double standard at work. Which, frankly, is a disappointment, as I've come to expect a pretty high standard here, and for the most part that standard has been met...but there are glaring exceptions, this being one of them.

Fine, don't. To me it was an expression of frustration and exasperation. Suffice it to say that in conversations with other longtime members of this board, this opinion is far from being soley my own. In any event, at the very least I find it inexplicable that you would fail to recognize a conflict of interest in you, personally, or any other Evosport representative, moderating any flamefests in which Mr. Cart manages to get involved in.

Just a friendly suggestion, mind you...appearances are, after all, important.

....on the other hand, those who've lost children, know people who have, or have witnessed it in some fashion, particularly when the loss was due to avoidable, questionable behavior may tend to get rather emotional and critical...but again, "idiot" in my book is, while certainly impolite, doesn't rise to quite the same level as some of the terms Mr. Cart used in the thread.

It is. I hope you will continue to extend us all the same courtesy.

Carl Lassiter

You got any pics of your cars? Very impressive sounding stable and I look forward to seeing the new 65BS around town

otoupalik

Come to SoCal - you would think they issue them out!

Improviz

Ugh....now see, *those* people I would call idiots!

jrcart

I never said driving 110 in 75 mph traffic and neither did the OP. A bunch of you guys jumped all over him for saying he made a quick sprint up to 110 while merging...I am not condoning driving 110 where the conditions do not call for such a speed. There is a big difference between flooring a car for a few seconds to merge or make a pass than weaving in and out of 75mph traffic at 110 mph....I hate people that drive like that. My point is that 3-4 of you guys jumped all over the poor guy for doing something I'm sure 90% of you do without even thinking about it anyways, the only reason I threw in the mini-van subject is becuase a CLK 55 can stop better, turn better and make evasive manuvers much easier, safer in more in control as a mini-van even if the CLK is traveling at a much higher rate of speed...unless your last name is Schumacher, it's a pretty safe bet that you are not driving a mini-van at 75-80 with the same control as a CKL 55 at 110mph, I bet Mr Schumacher himself would would not even take that bet.