The most the speedo would give is 142 - which really is 140mph as the speedo is about 2mph out all the time.
155mph
Guy's don;t want to sound like a bit of a donkey but have seen the dizzy heights of 150 on what is obviously an in accurate speedo.
This obviously took place on a runway ( being in the RAF and everything) with a bit of a decline.
Would imagine this wolud be around the 140 mark as you tend to find that the further you go up the scale with an analogue gauge the more inaccurate they become.
These shenanigans took place after drawing the short straw for the pizza run so speed was of the upmost impotance!!! or importance even!!!
Think their most accurate around 50 to 70ish. sure if i'm wrong the onslaught of slating will ensue!!!
Steve
This obviously took place on a runway ( being in the RAF and everything) with a bit of a decline.
Would imagine this wolud be around the 140 mark as you tend to find that the further you go up the scale with an analogue gauge the more inaccurate they become.
These shenanigans took place after drawing the short straw for the pizza run so speed was of the upmost impotance!!! or importance even!!!
Think their most accurate around 50 to 70ish. sure if i'm wrong the onslaught of slating will ensue!!!
Steve
interestingly you'll find the cruise control is spot on accurate. Tested this against a sat nav system that apparently is accurate to 99.9% of actual speed.
setting the CC on 40mph brings up 42 on the speedo. 70 on CC is nearer 74 on the speedo.
setting the CC on 40mph brings up 42 on the speedo. 70 on CC is nearer 74 on the speedo.
Fish said:sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road, but all i meant was that you never know who could have signed in as a forum membe/guest and is reading all of these. Had a mate on the megane coupe forum, and she mentioned somethin on the lines of about, and got arrested for it 2 days later. no one knew how the fuzz knew about it so we all came to the conclusion that someone might have passed on the information.
I fail to understand how that can happen? I thought the police needed evidence and surely a post on a forum is no evidence as you could say anything you like.This sounds all rubbbish to me and surely wouldn't stand in front of a court, would it? :?
I got 142 out of mine. I don't know if it would have gone faster. (For the Police, I have taken my car on tracks and to the Nurburgring via Germany :wink: . I wouldn't/couldn't do that on a UK motorway, it's impossible anyway with the cheer volume of traffic so ... :lol: =; )
TBH and IMO, the Trophy is not about how fast it can go, but how well it handles in corners or on a twisty track like Cadwell or how great it is round the Ring!
Only just seen this post, very interesting.
First of all, George and Cue are right - for the Trophy to reach an actual V-max of 155mph on the level it would need about another 50-60bhp, this is a fact.
But...there is absolutely no reason to dispute the claim of an indicated 155 on the analogue speedo, we all know the trophy will do 140mph actual (and gets there remarkably quickly too, seems the drag gets the better of it about the same time as the max power is reached at 6750RPM - a perfect set-up) and that analogue speedos tend to add about 10% plus 3mph to counter any possible paralax error in the drivers reading of the gauge. Analogue speedometers incidentally can be calibrated very precisely, they are deliberately set to show a greater speed. So, in conclusion 140mph actual + 10% + 3mph = 157mph.
So if anything the pub factor might have played it down to not receive so much ridicule. But at the end of the day no standard or even lightly modified 172/182 Clio will hit 155mph, a V6 has 255 bhp, is slipperier and only just manages it FFS. It's not a land speed record car amd if something went wrong at 140mph you would wish you had the chutes from one very quickly, then you'd be dead. Blow-out at 10mph greater than terminal velocity anyone?
First of all, George and Cue are right - for the Trophy to reach an actual V-max of 155mph on the level it would need about another 50-60bhp, this is a fact.
But...there is absolutely no reason to dispute the claim of an indicated 155 on the analogue speedo, we all know the trophy will do 140mph actual (and gets there remarkably quickly too, seems the drag gets the better of it about the same time as the max power is reached at 6750RPM - a perfect set-up) and that analogue speedos tend to add about 10% plus 3mph to counter any possible paralax error in the drivers reading of the gauge. Analogue speedometers incidentally can be calibrated very precisely, they are deliberately set to show a greater speed. So, in conclusion 140mph actual + 10% + 3mph = 157mph.
So if anything the pub factor might have played it down to not receive so much ridicule. But at the end of the day no standard or even lightly modified 172/182 Clio will hit 155mph, a V6 has 255 bhp, is slipperier and only just manages it FFS. It's not a land speed record car amd if something went wrong at 140mph you would wish you had the chutes from one very quickly, then you'd be dead. Blow-out at 10mph greater than terminal velocity anyone?
Audrey 286 said:Fish said:sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road
I fail to understand how that can happen? I thought the police needed evidence and surely a post on a forum is no evidence as you could say anything you like.This sounds all rubbbish to me and surely wouldn't stand in front of a court, would it? :?
I'd have to agree with this! Even if you overtake a police car at 100MPH + they still need to record your speed over 1/5th mile so if you slam on the anchors they'll still pull you but they can't charge you with out an average speed reading.
Based on that premise they can't arrest you for telling someone that you've driven at a particular speed as there's no proof...
Regarding 155....b*ll*x!
chiefsilverback said:Audrey 286 said:Fish said:sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road
I fail to understand how that can happen? I thought the police needed evidence and surely a post on a forum is no evidence as you could say anything you like.This sounds all rubbbish to me and surely wouldn't stand in front of a court, would it? :?
I'd have to agree with this! Even if you overtake a police car at 100MPH + they still need to record your speed over 1/5th mile so if you slam on the anchors they'll still pull you but they can't charge you with out an average speed reading.
Based on that premise they can't arrest you for telling someone that you've driven at a particular speed as there's no proof...
Regarding 155....b*ll*x!
Trust me on this, if you overtake a police car travelling at 140mph, they will arrest you, for dangerous driving. I know this because both my parents are police officers and have warned me that this is the case, there are a couple of Trophy owners on here that are police officers, ask them.
Steve Gunnis said:chiefsilverback said:[quote="Audrey 286":2se23o7e]Fish said:sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road
I fail to understand how that can happen? I thought the police needed evidence and surely a post on a forum is no evidence as you could say anything you like.This sounds all rubbbish to me and surely wouldn't stand in front of a court, would it? :?
I'd have to agree with this! Even if you overtake a police car at 100MPH + they still need to record your speed over 1/5th mile so if you slam on the anchors they'll still pull you but they can't charge you with out an average speed reading.
Based on that premise they can't arrest you for telling someone that you've driven at a particular speed as there's no proof...
Regarding 155....b*ll*x!
Trust me on this, if you overtake a police car travelling at 140mph, they will arrest you, for dangerous driving. I know this because both my parents are police officers and have warned me that this is the case, there are a couple of Trophy owners on here that are police officers, ask them.[/quote:2se23o7e]
But they have to be able to prove you were doing that speed, hence the average speed over a minimum distance. Otherwise the conversation would be something to the effect of:
"You're under arrest for driving dangerously."
"How so Officer?"
"You were travelling at 140MPH!"
"Have you got proof Officer?"
"No"
"Oh well, I guess I'll be on my way then...."
[quote="Steve Gunnis]Trust me on this, if you overtake a police car travelling at 140mph, they will arrest you, for dangerous driving. I know this because both my parents are police officers and have warned me that this is the case, there are a couple of Trophy owners on here that are police officers, ask them.[/quote]
yep, to get you on speeding they need an ave. speed confirmed but if they think that your speeding they can get you on dangerous driving with limited evidence - traffic cops tend to travel in 2's also, so they have a witness.
yep, to get you on speeding they need an ave. speed confirmed but if they think that your speeding they can get you on dangerous driving with limited evidence - traffic cops tend to travel in 2's also, so they have a witness.
Cue said:
yep, to get you on speeding they need an ave. speed confirmed but if they think that your speeding they can get you on dangerous driving with limited evidence - traffic cops tend to travel in 2's also, so they have a witness.[/quote]
What are the grounds for dangerous driving? For it to stand up in court they have to have concrete evidence after all we're innocent until proven guilty!
Dangerous driving is opinion based where as speeding is fact based. Hense why two witnesses is enough to prosecute.
I agree with that: if they physically see/follow you and record your speed, they will stop you and prosecute you, and that's only fair cos it is a silly speed to do on the roads.
But the point was that they cannot read a post on a forum from someone claiming they were doing whatever silly speed and prosecule them? or could they? see Fish's original post below. Surely this can't be true?
Fish wrote:
sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road , but all i meant was that you never know who could have signed in as a forum membe/guest and is reading all of these. Had a mate on the megane coupe forum, and she mentioned somethin on the lines of about, and got arrested for it 2 days later. no one knew how the fuzz knew about it so we all came to the conclusion that someone might have passed on the information.
But the point was that they cannot read a post on a forum from someone claiming they were doing whatever silly speed and prosecule them? or could they? see Fish's original post below. Surely this can't be true?
Fish wrote:
sorry guys, i didnt want it to come across that i was assuming that it was on the road , but all i meant was that you never know who could have signed in as a forum membe/guest and is reading all of these. Had a mate on the megane coupe forum, and she mentioned somethin on the lines of about, and got arrested for it 2 days later. no one knew how the fuzz knew about it so we all came to the conclusion that someone might have passed on the information.
Really?!! Is this why there were loads of Policemen at Cadwell for the RS trackdays? Were they watching one of their mates on track?! :lol:Steve Gunnis said:
to be fair i have hear of people being prosecuted in this way also, not sure how they get it through court. I've also heard of insurance companies not paying up because of undiclared mods and track use when it's been published on 't'internet forums.
At the end of the day it falls into the same catagory as publishing it in any medium - liable tribunals are a good example. Evidence of wrong doing is undisputable when evidence such as a magazine article is presented. The doubt is the harm done not that there was anything said.
It may seem off the mark but it's the same with web forums - there would be no doubt if i say said i'm going to Snetterton to race the Trophy on Monday lunchtime then i reported a crash just outside the circuit on Monday afternoon - they don't have to prove you've lied they just have to get over 'reasonable doubt'.
A decent lawyer though would pick holes in anything related to this type of prosecution - they would have to prove that for example "my cousin uses my username to post every now and again" they couldn't prove that he didn't and so they cannot prove who posted with 100% confidence - that'd be thrown out of court.
At the end of the day it falls into the same catagory as publishing it in any medium - liable tribunals are a good example. Evidence of wrong doing is undisputable when evidence such as a magazine article is presented. The doubt is the harm done not that there was anything said.
It may seem off the mark but it's the same with web forums - there would be no doubt if i say said i'm going to Snetterton to race the Trophy on Monday lunchtime then i reported a crash just outside the circuit on Monday afternoon - they don't have to prove you've lied they just have to get over 'reasonable doubt'.
A decent lawyer though would pick holes in anything related to this type of prosecution - they would have to prove that for example "my cousin uses my username to post every now and again" they couldn't prove that he didn't and so they cannot prove who posted with 100% confidence - that'd be thrown out of court.
Really?!! Is this why there were loads of Policemen at Cadwell for the RS trackdays? Were they watching one of their mates on track?! :lol:[/quote:5mf3jb5y]Audrey 286 said:
no, they apparently often go down to watch and to get some lunch when there's a track day on. I got talking to them about their bikes and who their bosses were. Nice guys really, into their motorsport also which is a bonus for Traffic cops.
155MPH :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Whatever...
Did you fit 40 inch rims and forget to down size the rubber! Speedo must be way out or your mate is boss eyed!
Did you fit 40 inch rims and forget to down size the rubber! Speedo must be way out or your mate is boss eyed!
i don't doubt that it's possible to get the speedo showing 155mph, the fact is though that it's probably 10-15mph out at that speed so actualy the felocity would have been around 140mph.
This may sound like a load of sh****t but here goes.
Chase a group of gumballers down the m20 to folkstone when the rally was on!!!
This alone was amazing but what was acheived was even better
on chasing a murcielago managed to reach an astonashing 147MPH
This i beleive was down to 2 things
1.Group N ECU....Raised Rev Limit
2.The cleanest slip stream none to man
After having my foot down for several minuets....looked down at the speedo to see 147MPH....Look back up to see lamborgini boy has backed off.........Oh well better 'gumball' him up the inside lane.....driver laughed as i went by.....is that a good thing????.......cought up with a small group of exotics and drove all the way to the docks
in a police convoy @ 90MPH!!!!
Possible DVD apppearance.....Fingers crossed..
Chase a group of gumballers down the m20 to folkstone when the rally was on!!!
This alone was amazing but what was acheived was even better
on chasing a murcielago managed to reach an astonashing 147MPH
This i beleive was down to 2 things
1.Group N ECU....Raised Rev Limit
2.The cleanest slip stream none to man
After having my foot down for several minuets....looked down at the speedo to see 147MPH....Look back up to see lamborgini boy has backed off.........Oh well better 'gumball' him up the inside lane.....driver laughed as i went by.....is that a good thing????.......cought up with a small group of exotics and drove all the way to the docks
in a police convoy @ 90MPH!!!!
Possible DVD apppearance.....Fingers crossed..