Should super cars be speed-limited for the sake of the environment?

Question

there is legislation going through Europe at the moment that would limit all cars to 101 MPH.

If passed, it due to be law in 4 years time.

Thier reasoning being that high powered cars cause too much damage to the environment.

i agree they put out lots of CO2, but is it really significant compared to the millions of chav-tastic easyjet holidays in spain, or the M25 car park every day ?

Are supercar owners just being picked on because they are rich, or do you think reducing thier cars to 101 MPH would really improve the environment significantly ?

Remember, the majority of these cars are not used for communting. I wonder if the anual CO2 from an M25 rep-mobile is actually higher because of the milage covered.

"cath in Scotland" your answer is so funny.

What about my question leads you to beleive i agree with the propsed legislation, eh ?

I retract my comment to Cath above.

We've had a chat and both agree

Answer 1

Most cars are capable of over 100mph anyway. However, a non-exhaustive list of reasons why it will never happen are:

Ford (Jaguar, Range Rover, plus a large stake in Aston Martin)
VAG (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Bentley, Lamborghini)
FIAT (Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Ferrari, Maserati)
Porsche (plus a controlling stake in VAG)
BMW (and Rolls Royce)
Mercedes Benz

Each of these companies has invested billions in developing their cars and their engines and have also changed their designs to comply with safety legislation, adding extra weight (which necessitates extra horsepower) necessary to comply with this legislation whilst simultaneously making their engines more efficient. Look at MPG figures twenty years ago to now. Plus they make cars with a longer lifespans and more recyclable parts. They generate billions of pounds in tax and directly and indirectly employ tens of thousands of people. If the EU do force this through then they may find that these manufacturers commit significantly less of their R&D budgets to green technology development.

Finally, I do not envy the Italian and German MEP's who would effectively end Porsche's and Ferrari's raison d'etre going back to their home countries.

I'm not taking sides but frankly it ain't gonna happen.

Answer 2

Of course (and unfortunately) it will make a difference to emmissions, however the CO2 generated by the EU debating this will take a good time to be offset.

Realistically no-one who wants to go over 101mph is going to leave the speed limiter in there - and it's not as if they can take your license away twice if you get caught. It's irrelevant.

The real reason for the legislation however is positive freedom. The fluffy environmental comments have been rolled out to make it more palitable and to confuse the issue.

Trust though that the 101mph rule is the start, not the finish.

Be a good citizen, now. Don't complain; it's all for your own good!

Answer 3

You are apparently a new driver. When people are thinking about buying a new car one of the first things they do is look up its performance figures. Obviously there is noe sense in making cars that do twice the maximum speed limit (my beemer allegedly does 140, allegedly, i have never tried to prove it) and i have always thought that if manufacturers had ploughed the money they spent designing and testing ever faster cars on improving ecomomy we could all have been getting 100mpg by now. The only thing i would point out though is that if a car is designed to handle and brake at up to 140mph at 70 it has massive reserves of handling and braking capacity which [skill of the driver allowing] makes it far safer at 70 than a car designed to do just 70 max.

Answer 4

I think is a good idea, but it's a stupid reason. Most cars are designed to run efficiently at 60-70mph. A SUV at 100mph is probably emitting more CO2 than a super car at the same speed.

Statistically, there are few super cars on the road, so their collective damage to the environment is minimal. SUV's are everywhere, 90% of owners don't need such heavy gigantic metal bricks, wasting gasoline. Safe in a crash - maybe. Really unsafe when braking, avoidance, rollovers, and especially unsafe to people in cars they crash into.

A good reason to limit top speed is safety. Most roads aren't designed to have someone at 110Mph (maybe except supercars). Cars in Japan can't exceed 180km/h, 111 mph, (ECU cuts fuel off). Another example of safety, the Autobahn in Germany has sections with no speed limit - but they have special rules they have to follow.

Answer 5

No super cars should not be limited, at least not until they put some form of limit on aircraft emissions. Or perhaps they should limit aircraft to a speed limit of say 50 mph (oops they cannot take off!). Anyway with super cars speed limited there will be no point in "Top Gear" so bang goes the only decent programme on TV.

The best thing the EU lawmakers should do is put a limit on the amount of CO2 volcanoes emit, its the latter who are the trouble makers.

Answer 6

Sounds like feel good legislation in an election year to me. A high performance engine burns fuel more efficiently, hence the performance. Better legislation would be to limit houses to 2000 square feet. All that coal being burned to climate control rarely used spaces is a much larger problem.

Answer 7

Anyone who can afford such a car will be able to afford to get someone to remove the limiter.
They only time they'll get the chance to enjoy such speeds will be on a German Autobahn, or on a racetrack, and if they do either they'll get the car de-limited. If they don't do either, why have they bought a supercar?
As you say, supercars tend not to cover high mileages, so their total contribution to pollution is minimal. Add in their rarity, and it would be much more effective to fit low-rolling resistance tyres to every VW Golf in Europe than to fit speed-limiters to every new supercar.

Answer 8

To answer your question: No!
Further to that ..... I fully agree with CATHINSCOTLAND's comments. Also, has no-one noticed how many Heavy Goods vehicles are on our motorways? Get them off the roads. They are the ones poluting the atmosphere much, much more than cars. Most goods should be on the trains or using sea and canal transport. There was a good article in the Times that pointed out that transport by sea and canal around the coast of the UK (and we are an island, after all) and inland is 10 times less poluting than by HGV.

Answer 9

ITs factually incorrect.

E.G.
A car travelling at 100mph in 5th gear at 4000rpm is giving out less CO2 than a car travelling at 40mph in 3rd gear at 6000rpm like most grannies do.

Hyperthetically a supercar doing over 120mph in 6th gear (an extra gear) proabably gives out the same CO2 as a normal car traveling at 101mph in 5th gear.

Restricting speed is not the way to tackle it

Answer 10

Look, a damed volcano puts out more than the Americans do in a whole year!! When are you clowns going to get it through your thick skulls, global warming is cause by SUN SPOTS which we CANNOT control!!!! How can something like CO2 which is 0.5 that is HALF A PERCENT of the earth atmosphere play such a huge part in Global Warming? This comes from the FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE!!!!AAAAAAAAGH! Did nobody watch the Channel 4 programme where he was interviewed LIVE on camera????????? The scientists are being paid to come up with 'NEW' ideas for this, if it's NOT Global Warming related, they DON'T get there grants and get hate mail!!!! Look, GOOGLE the damed thing and see for yourself? Ask what percentage is CO2 in the earths atmosphere and THINK for yourself, CLOWN!!!!! You people are really beginning to P*** me off!!!