I was going to say the exact same thing .

BUT, I have been thinking about where the power is going as well ... think of what happened in the late 60's / early 70's . The power and performance of cars started to ramp up REALLY quick (you could almost argue, "too quick"? ) and then all of a sudden, the government threw out a (bogus) "CRISIS" ..... "gas crisis" ..... and that was it, all the cars got a make-over -----> NEUTERED!!! I laugh at the thoughts of a ~170 HP V8 Camaro, and yet that was the reality.

Fast-forward: are we building up for a repeat of ~40-year-old history? It's one thing when the "big dogs" (ie: Viper, 'Vette, Ford GT, Ferrari, etc.) up the ante with their cars, and start pumping out ~500+ HP. But are the "every day / commuter" cars getting to be too much, too fast?

I'm all for it, but I'm another person who has been (just recently) taking my Camaro out on a road course for the first time since I've owned it, and you know what? With "merely" ~350 HP, it's a whole lot more car than even "I" realized . I can only "imagine" what ~500 HP would be like.

edit: I guess their "solution" to the problem could be to severely limit the cars with Torque Management, like Dodge has already done with the 425 HP Hemi Charger? How would you like a 425 HP car that barely runs high 13's around ~105? Or a 500 HP car (think "GT500") that "only" runs 12's? Whether they limit the power using Torque Management or whatever, somehow they'll find a way to "handicap" cars of the future .

 

It’s very true that those new to autocross quickly want to start changing suspension components or brakes or wheels/tires and on and on before they’ll actually give themselves time to improve as a driver.

Then can’t figure out how to enter and exit a corner to carry the most speed through but they’ll spend thousands of dollars on modifications that may give them a half-second here and a tenth of a second there- for much, much less money, they could attend a good driver’s school (or two or three) and cut two or three of four seconds off their time!

It’s almost always true that the when it comes to modifications, the best return for the dollar spent is modifying what’s between the ears rather than what you are sitting on or in….anybody with money can give a car HP and get a suspension working to its optimal level but a great driver with a decent car will beat a mediocre driver with a great car all day long.

I do think requiring (or at least strongly encouraging) a high-performance driving school for those buying high performance cars would be an excellent idea but it would be for the public in general as well – after all, you don’t need 500HP to kill yourself or someone else; a four cylinder econo-box can kill too.

 

There is one side of this that you guys are not seeing. Why would insurance companies want GM and other car makers to not have all this horsepower??

With more horsepower, comes more money on a monthly basis from those of us that will put up with it. We all want the car here, even if it has 450 HP (like that is a bad thing), and even if it costs us a butt load on insurance. We will pay it, and the insurance companies will gladly take it from us.

Why would they really want that to stop?

 

anybody who's driving 400+ RWPH should have some kind of previous driving experience. track, 5+ years behind the wheel, or experience with a comparable vehicle.

my 200 hp still gives me surprises. i'm sure a V8 would be awesome, but i don't mind waiting a couple years.

 

It’s not just a matter of charging high premiums…other than investments, the only way for an insurance company to make money is to bring in more revenue than they have to pay out in claims and the more claims a type of vehicle has, the more difficult it is to break even, let alone make a profit.

High performance/sports cars, especially cars that tend to appeal to kids and younger adults (like the Z/28) get wrecked more often than most other cars even if those other cars have the same performance capabilities which is why some insurance companies won’t insure them at all at any premium level. Yes, the insurance company can charge higher premiums to try and cover the additional risk but it’s still a hassle they don’t want and they can’t necessarily charge whatever they want or people will not buy the insurance.

 

I don't think the argument is that insurance companies want to regulate horsepower ratings on cars.

...Which in turn diminishes car sales and thus we end up at the same place we were at in 2002... no camaro

 

I really hope it doesnt come down the line like it looks like it will. I also hope the insurance companies dont try to pass on high premiums like they probably will. Either way, I want the horsepower, even if I dont need it. I would love to go through a high performance driving school. I would love it even more if it dropped my insurance premium. I will definitely be asking my insurance agent about it when the time comes.

I am buying a SS when it is available, wheter the insurance is high or not. Like u said casull, it is definitely good to be 30 and married, with two cars and house all on the same insurance.

 

I've been reading from this site for a few months now and Robert_Nashiville's first post intrigued me enough to register and provide some insight from a different point of view. I don't have very much knowledge regarding the mechanical and electrical engineering of vehicles. But I have entered hundreds of accident reports into a database for a transportation agency and done numerous safety studies as a consulting engineer in the Transportation field.

The variables are the 1. the driver(s) 2. the vehicle(s) and 3. the road. Accidents are counteracted by the three "E"s. Engineering, Enforcement and Education. Two of the three countermeasures focus on 1. the driver. The other countermeasure, engineering, addresses the other variables (the vehicles and the road). Horsepower is just one small attribute of the substantive safety of the vehicle. By limiting one small attribute of one of only three variables, there would not be a significant increase in safety.

The reason that two of the countermeasures are focused on one variable, is because THE DRIVER IS USUALLY AT FAULT. Not the road or the vehicle.

I doubt that the federal government is going to step in to regulate horsepower when it would have a small impact in the overall number of injury and fatality related accidents nationwide. It would be much more meaningful for the federal highway administration to concentrate their limited budget and manpower on efforts that can make the biggest impact to lowering the overall number of accidents. Such as driver education...

Which would make me think that it would be great for the insurance companies to offer classes, keep it out of the feds hands. Politics will screw up anything meaningful that the feds would try to achieve anyway.

That being said, I can't wait for the 2009 Camaro to come out. Small problem is I'll have to buy a house so I can have a garage for it when it comes out. Why have a garage if you're not going to have Camaro in it, right?

 

Thanks for your comments...

While I agree in general and say that you make a very logical argument; I'm not so sure the government would stay out of it as you suggest...while your argument is sound, I would suggest that the government might stick their regulatory power into the horsepower issue because...

1)although it may prove the least meaningful in reducing accidents, it's easier to address/regulate than driver training and education

2)there are probably more people who think horsepower is bad than good and would welcome the regulation

3)It's an easy way to appear to "care" and do something without actually having to do much of anything.

I don't know, maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

 

1) Totally agree, sometimes the hardest tasks provide the best results.

2) Kind of agree, people love to drive, it is symbolic in this country for the freedom to go where you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want. For most people, what is better than getting from point A to point B faster, via more horsepower. On the other hand, people love to tell others how to live their lives, I'd say its a 50/50 split.

3) Agree, but it is much easier for them to be reactive, take a microscopic look, and throw a bunch of money on some infrastructure project and put a sign with their name on it than be proactive on a macro level and not have a product which shows a constant reminder of their accomplishment.

I think that if driver's ed or insurance companies had a road course set up with a bunch of 2009 Camaros then there would not be a problem with improving driver education. Driver's of all ages would line up to have fun, learn a little about road courses, and get a discount on insurance.

 

Excellent post, guys! Very well written arguments. The Best thread in quite a few weeks.
--drb

 

you just wanted to use the xquote didnt you

 

There is a show on TV right now, in its second season, called "Canada's Worst Driver" (who knows, maybe there is already an "America's Worst Driver" as well? ).

...anyway, they have 8 "contestants". They are all horrible drivers, but in different ways. When they all arrive at the location where the show is being filmed, they have to turn in their car keys, and not until they "graduate" will they get them back.

The contestants are forced through several different "challenges" ... they're not all easy or standard maneuvers ... I'm sure even "I" would mess up the odd one!! BUT, it is teaching them to be better drivers, or they don't get their keys back!! (there is a cop on the panel of judges for the show, so I'm sure he has authority to hand out tickets or suspend licences if he deems it necessary?? ).

I think either A) mandated driver's training, and/or B) significant insurance discounts for taking driver's training, would go a long way to improving today's drivers . Not that everybody needs to become a "race car driver", but a racing school can/would be very beneficial to most drivers .

 

They ought to take away the cars of the worst drivers and give them motorcycles as a replacement.

The best driver's school I ever had was from the Australian Northern Territory government: A rough equivilant to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. Excellent information that taught us all to be defensive drivers at all times. One of the best things we learned is to always look for a way to give your other drivers an escape route, in cases of "oopsies": Stupid mistakes. Simple stuff, like when making a left turn, always turn into the left lane until you can make a proper lane change into the right lane. It gives the red light runner some place to go rather than over you. I also slow down to the speed limit or below at all major intersections with my foot hovering over the brake, and keep the speed differential between myself and the car next to me at a minimum, certainly no more than 6 to 7 MPH. It doesn't pay to surprise them.

Motorcycle survival skills work well for car drivers, too. Driving schools ought to be worth an insurance discount.

 

OK, I haven't read the complete thread yet and somebody else may have already corrected this, but the word is "TOO" not "TO" for the title here!