Ridiculous Sunday Indo Article

PaulKK

Hi all,
Apologies if this has been posted already but I was reading the Sunday Independent today and came across the following article:

Full Article:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/boy-racers-turning-own-vehicles-into-death-traps-2271792.html

Young male Irish drivers, who are six times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than any other category of driver, are creating further danger on the roads by over-riding safety and fuel efficiency equipment on cars.

And, many who have not notified their insurance company that they have over-ridden the original manufacturer's electronic controls on their cars could have their insurance invalidated after an accident. While third-party injuries would be covered, the car owner could be faced with huge medical bills for himself. The insurers of others injured in accidents would also be entitled to claim back any compensation paid to third parties from the car owner.

Large numbers of boy racers are buying black market computer chips to replace the manufacturers' electronic control unit (ECU) computer chip which controls the performance of diesel turbo engines. The process is known as 'chipping'.

The manufacturer-installed chips keep the engine performance to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the maximum in order to make the car more efficient and in order to ensure that the engine does not rev to its maximum and be damaged, or even blow up.

The black market chips remove the controls and allow the engine to run to their maximum speed. In a typical two-litre diesel turbo-charged engine, the new chip would increase the brake horsepower by 30 per cent from 170bhp to 230bhp.

It gives the car greatly increased acceleration from start and increases the top speed by 20 per cent. Again in a turbo diesel, this could increase the top speed of a car that was limited by the manufacturer to 130mph to around 160mph.

Niall Doyle, head of corporate affairs at the Irish Insurance Federation, said that if a car owner modified a car the insurer had to be informed. "If they do not inform their insurer they may be considered to be uninsured. There is a duty of disclosure, just as there is a duty to disclose if they have been disqualified or have penalty points. It's the same as if they declare the car is a 1.3-litre when it is a two-litre engine.

"It would be deemed to be uninsured and they would not be able to claim for any car or medical expenses. The third parties will be insured under the policy but the insurer may claim repayment made to third parties. You could have a payment as high as a €1m to a third party and the insurer would be entitled to go after that million."

I have to say reading the article really made my blood boil. Who allows this ill informed shite to be published in their paper?

The more ridiculous parts I have highlighted above.

Also, LOL at "boy racers" driving diesels.

Alanstrainor

But it's the Indo?

Mr Benevolent

Alanstrainor wrote: »

But it's the Indo?

Yep, never believe anything that's written in that rag.

Kristopherus

And there's no smoke without fire........

Owen

Great research done by the Journalist. When was the last time you saw a boy racer in a 170bhp diesel?

ltdslipdiff

Holy crap you're not joking, the figures alone quoted above are laughable ! Not many 2.0 Turbo diesels produce 170 bhp as standard(there are a few I know), don't know of many that can go that fast either. Utter tripe by the looks of things !

PaulKK

Alanstrainor wrote: »

But it's the Indo?

Confab wrote: »

Yep, never believe anything that's written in that rag.

I know its the Indo, but there are an awful lot of people who read it and will believe this bull.

bmstuff

Err, one "boy racers" do not drive turbo diesels lol...

Two, black market chips? Err, remap a turbo diesel by updating the ECU firmware is not exactly an under ground thingy...Plenty of reputable companies out there, nothing illegal about that.

Yes the insurer should be informed, but this guys is accusing all people who remap their TD of being "boy racers" and "ciminals" ??

No seriously this guy needs a new job.

peasant

This is the important (and correct) bit though:

And, many who have not notified their insurance company that they have over-ridden the original manufacturer's electronic controls on their cars could have their insurance invalidated after an accident. While third-party injuries would be covered, the car owner could be faced with huge medical bills for himself. The insurers of others injured in accidents would also be entitled to claim back any compensation paid to third parties from the car owner.

Never mind how or what you fiddled with your car without declaring it to your insurance ...have an expensive accident and they find out ...they own yo' ass

unkel

peasant wrote: »

This is the important (and correct) bit though:

Never mind how or what you fiddled with your car without declaring it to your insurance ...have an expensive accident and they find out ...they own yo' ass

Indeed. And there was a serious accident this month involving a foreign registered car driven illegally by an Irish resident. This accident will probably turn out to be the most expensive road accident in Irish history - one wonders about the insurance implications of that accident alone.

PaulKK

unkel wrote: »

Indeed. And there was a serious accident this month involving a foreign registered car driven illegally by an Irish resident. This accident will probably turn out to be the most expensive road accident in Irish history - one wonders about the insurance implications of that accident alone.

I agree with the comments about insurance etc and tbh that all goes without saying.

The issue I have with the article is the poor level of research and the rubbish I have highlighted above.

The problem I have with it is that the many average joes and josephines will read that crap and believe it.

Atomic Pineapple

Terrible, terrible level of competency by the writer who has obviously seen a few threads on forums about remapping and has thought I'll write something about this without doing any research what so ever and I'll pull the figures off the top of my head.

I mean increasing the speed from 130 to 160 mph.........seriously?

Where do I complain?

pajo1981

" the new chip would increase the brake horsepower by 30%.

...and increases the top speed by 20 per cent"

By my calculations a 20% increase in top speed would require a 72% increase in power. This guy is making up figures as he goes along.

Kristopherus

draffodx wrote: »

Terrible, terrible level of competency by the writer who has obviously seen a few threads on forums about remapping and has thought I'll write something about this without doing any research what so ever and I'll pull the figures off the top of my head.

I mean increasing the speed from 130 to 160 mph.........seriously?

Where do I complain?

Send this thread to the Sindo;)

bmstuff

Well after a second thought, actually any turbo car (diesel/petrol) could benefit greatly from a remap...And many of those Jap cars do have Turbo.

Anyway he is not backing his article with anything, I would like to see if there is any stats regarding remaped cars involved in accidents...

2yung2adm

The fact that the paper has overstated the facts does not take away from substantive issue and that is that many of these drivers are interfering with their cars outputs whether it is by chipping remapping or putting higher powered engines into the cars.

If this is a fact, and none of the posts have said it is not happening, why split hairs over the methods or doing it, and the amount by which it is done and deal with the substative issue that the car is illegal from an insurance point of view and may be illegal from a Road Traffic Act point of view apart from the dangers of increasing the power output without uprating the brakes and suspensions.

Eric Cartman

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Great research done by the Journalist. When was the last time you saw a boy racer in a 170bhp diesel?

the last time anyone was in donegal

Absurdum

that "journalist" would be horrified by the evil black market +10000 hp chips you can get on ebay for less than €1!!!!outrage!!!!!mad!!!arghhhh!!!!

pajo1981

2yung2adm wrote: »

The fact that the paper has overstated the facts does not take away from substantive issue and that is that many of these drivers are interfering with their cars outputs whether it is by chipping remapping or putting higher powered engines into the cars.

If this is a fact, and none of the posts have said it is not happening, why split hairs over the methods or doing it, and the amount by which it is done and deal with the substative issue that the car is illegal from an insurance point of view and may be illegal from a Road Traffic Act point of view apart from the dangers of increasing the power output without uprating the brakes and suspensions.

Uprating the brakes and suspension? Give me a break, the power gains to be had are modest at best! This is a non story.

jame5_b

where is this guy getting his figures from?? like top speed increase from 130mph to 160 mph? come on.. whos believes this kind of stuff?

Absurdum

jame5_b wrote: »

where is this guy getting his figures from?? like top speed increase from 130mph to 160 mph? come on.. whos believes this kind of stuff?

the vast majority of their readers, probably!

lots of ammo for Liveline this week...

pajo1981

jame5_b wrote: »

where is this guy getting his figures from?? like top speed increase from 130mph to 160 mph? come on.. whos believes this kind of stuff?

To put that into perspective: a 170HP car with a top speed of 130mph would require 316BHP to reach 160mph.

Claiming this is possible with a remap isn't just overstating the the facts, it's outright lying.

kasper

the journalist probably saw top gear for five minutes and was baffled and in awe of jeremy clarkson

BostonB

Its the indo. They struggle to get the day of the week right, and probably contradict that throughout the paper.

Last time I contacted a reporter about a story in a paper, they had to admit they had no facts, or stats to back up the story.

The media in this country is not credible.

Midnight_EG

pajo1981 wrote: »

To put that into perspective: a 170HP car with a top speed of 130mph would require 316BHP to reach 160mph.

Claiming this is possible with a remap isn't just overstating the the facts, it's outright lying.

So you're saying you need at least 316BHP to reach 160mph?


Where are you getting this from?


Just totally curious, seems like a weird theory.

2yung2adm

pajo1981 wrote: »

Uprating the brakes and suspension? Give me a break, the power gains to be had are modest at best! This is a non story.

If you uprate the power you have to uprate the brakes and suspension.
This is an accepted and legal requirement.
Some time ago I came across a fatal traffic acident. It was a nova or a corsa cannot remember which. Its brakes failed to match the performance of the red top engine I saw on the roadway-having being thrown out of the engine bay.
Now if that driver had put as much effort into his brakes and suspension as he did in fitting the red top he just might be alive today. Incidentally he ran into the rear of another vehicle that was doing a right hand turn

eringobragh

2yung2adm wrote: »

If you uprate the power you have to uprate the brakes and suspension.
This is an accepted and legal requirement.
Some time ago I came across a fatal traffic acident. It was a nova or a corsa cannot remember which. Its brakes failed to match the performance of the red top engine I saw on the roadway-having being thrown out of the engine bay.
Now if that driver had put as much effort into his brakes and suspension as he did in fitting the red top he just might be alive today. Incidentally he ran into the rear of another vehicle that was doing a right hand turn

I call BS :rolleyes:

Mr Benevolent

Midnight_EG wrote: »

So you're saying you need at least 316BHP to reach 160mph? Where are you getting this from?
Just totally curious, seems like a weird theory.

Aerodynamic drag is the main force the car is working against at higher speeds.

From Wikipedia:

The power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph may require only 10 horsepower to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph requires 80 hp . With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

This is one of the reasons it's so difficult to reach very high speeds in a car (300+mph) - they're incredibly draggy compared to an aircraft.

Midnight_EG

Confab wrote: »

Aerodynamic drag is the main force the car is working against at higher speeds.

From Wikipedia:

To put a damper on it, my car has less than 80bhp and reaches 100.

Mr Benevolent

Midnight_EG wrote: »

To put a damper on it, my car has less than 80bhp and reaches 100.

That's just an example, not a hard number. The point is that at high speeds most of the engine's power is put into overcoming aerodynamic drag.

Midnight_EG

Confab wrote: »

That's just an example, not a hard number. The point is that at high speeds most of the engine's power is put into overcoming aerodynamic drag.

So there's no real numbers to go off of then, in relation to how much drag is being produced and bhp needed to combat it?


That's what I was getting at with pajo's posts, how he was getting his numbers...?

Mr Benevolent

Midnight_EG wrote: »

So there's no real numbers to go off of then, in relation to how much drag is being produced and bhp needed to combat it?


That's what I was getting at with pajo's posts, how he was getting his numbers...?

The formula (power required to overcome drag):



The translation:

Fd is the force of drag,
p is the density of the fluid,[3]
v is the speed of the object relative to the fluid,
A is the reference area,
Cd is the drag coefficient

Basically, the formula states that doubling your speed requires sixteen times the power to hold the new speed because of drag. This formula has been around for well over 100 years and it's not going to change for a Polo/Punto/Micra/Veyron.

Midnight_EG

Confab wrote: »

The formula (power required to overcome drag):



The translation:



Basically, the formula states that doubling your speed requires four times the power to hold the new speed because of drag. This formula has been around for well over 100 years and it's not going to change for a Polo/Punto/Micra/Veyron.

Get ya now, Physics helps! :P

shinikins

Confab wrote: »

The formula (power required to overcome drag):



The translation:



Basically, the formula states that doubling your speed requires four times the power to hold the new speed because of drag. This formula has been around for well over 100 years and it's not going to change for a Polo/Punto/Micra/Veyron.

Not even for a micra with furry dice and rattle can exhaust ? Surely that would break the sound barrier because it has a tdi sticker and was tuned by kellogs !

2yung2adm

eringobragh wrote: »

I call BS :rolleyes:

Ok justify your opinion, preferably before you cause a serious accident and the Garda PSV inspector recommends that you be done for dangerous driving, as you had modified your power output without uprating the other components.
Condition of the vehicle is part of the definition of Dangerous Driving as per Section 53 Road Traffic Act.
And have a look at EU type approval and certificates of conformity

Turpentine

PaulKK wrote: »

Hi all,
... I was reading the Sunday Independent today...

There's your problem right there.

Midnight_EG

2yung2adm wrote: »

Ok justify your opinion, preferably before you cause a serious accident and the Garda PSV inspector recommends that you be done for dangerous driving, as you had modified your power output without uprating the other components.
Condition of the vehicle is part of the definition of Dangerous Driving as per Section 53 Road Traffic Act.
And have a look at EU type approval and certificates of conformity

Nowhere does it say you've to uprate your suspension and brakes if you perform performance mods. Common sense should instead prevail.

furtzy

PaulKK wrote: »

Also, LOL at "boy racers" driving diesels.

Unfortunately I see them all the time. The Golf TDi is very popular with the peak cap brigade down the country

Cookie_Monster

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Great research done by the Journalist. When was the last time you saw a boy racer in a 170bhp diesel?

Its you there after PD!
:P

Selling those blackmarket bits in your sig...

Abelloid

Shouldn't brakes and suspension match the weight of the car and not the bhp?

gofaster_s13

Most importantly, where can I buy one of these chips, they sound like the business !!

Atomic Pineapple

furtzy wrote: »

Unfortunately I see them all the time. The Golf TDi is very popular with the peak cap brigade down the country

So do I, there is a rake of young lads driving TDi's these days that think they are driving Ferrari's.

2yung2adm wrote: »

Ok justify your opinion, preferably before you cause a serious accident and the Garda PSV inspector recommends that you be done for dangerous driving, as you had modified your power output without uprating the other components.
Condition of the vehicle is part of the definition of Dangerous Driving as per Section 53 Road Traffic Act.
And have a look at EU type approval and certificates of conformity

There is no law stating you have to upgrade your braking or safety equipment after upgrading your power output.

As Midnight has said common sense should tell you that you should.

And that is only in certain cases, in a lot of case's a car is well set up to handle the extra power from a remap, remember the gains from the article are highly dubious, a remap is only ever likely to return around 30bhp more.

monkeypants

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

Most importantly, where can I buy one of these chips, they sound like the business !!

Ask Jim Cusack, care of The Sunday Independent.

pajo1981

Midnight_EG wrote: »

So you're saying you need at least 316BHP to reach 160mph?

No, im saying that 'a 170HP car with a top speed of 130mph would require (at least) 316HP to reach 160mph' - not quite the same thing.

I can post up the math if you really want...

pajo1981

Confab wrote: »

The formula (power required to overcome drag):



The translation:



Basically, the formula states that doubling your speed requires four times the power to hold the new speed because of drag. This formula has been around for well over 100 years and it's not going to change for a Polo/Punto/Micra/Veyron.

Doubling the speed requires 8 times the power to overcome drag.

P prop. v^3

Check your formula again:)

peasant

Confab wrote: »

Basically, the formula states that doubling your speed requires four times the power to hold the new speed because of drag. This formula has been around for well over 100 years and it's not going to change for a Polo/Punto/Micra/Veyron.

...and then there would be the minor matter of engine rpm's and the gearbox ratio.

If you stick a 500 bhp truck engine into an otherwise stock Micra it will end up with a slower top speed than before (and a broken gear box )

Atomic Pineapple

pajo1981 wrote: »

No, im saying that 'a 170HP car with a top speed of 130mph would require (at least) 316HP to reach 160mph' - not quite the same thing.

I can post up the math if you really want...

And a remap would only up it to around the 200bhp mark too, not the 230bhp claimed in the article.

Lando Griffin

jame5_b wrote: »

where is this guy getting his figures from?? like top speed increase from 130mph to 160 mph? come on.. whos believes this kind of stuff?

I think myself the journalist is getting mixed up between the old MPH and the new KM/PH.

It would make it more realistic 130kmph - 160kmph.

sentient_6

draffodx wrote: »

And that is only in certain cases, in a lot of case's a car is well set up to handle the extra power from a remap, remember the gains from the article are highly dubious, a remap is only ever likely to return around 30bhp more.

Bang on. My diesel recently went from a max of 143 to max of 177. its hardly turned it into a bugatti. :rolleyes: from the extra torque its just got a little kick that was missing especially on the low end, it being a heavy diesel.

Wibbs

Look this is just the usual misinformed nonsense of "It's the boy racers" that comes out every time there's a major and fatal road accident. It's a regular as xmas coming around every year. I heard the same guff from a coterie of coffin dodgers on Joe duffy last week.

There are a lot of ill informed and frankly stupid people out there. A classic one was the MPH/KM changeover. I was listening to the radio and they were doing interviews with local county councillors. A couple were agin the notion of course and more than one was more than confused by the whole thing. One moron was complaining that 80kph was too fast for a particular road. When it was pointed out to him that the previous limit on that road was 60Mph and 80Kph was lower, his brain exploded and sublimely ignorant of his ignorance he went on to say that it was "fierce fast for the kilometer". Others agreed. I nearly crashed at that point. Make no mistake this is the level of imbecilic thinking we have to deal with here.

These are morons who will propagate and buy any BS you feed them. The more simplistic the better. "Speed kills!! "NCT saves lives!!" "Souped up cars kill!!" "He drives, you die!!". They're running around like headless chickens dreaming up the next slogan. The next one will likely be "private Speed cameras make money for NAMA save lives!!"

As for "souped up" cars? When was the last time you saw a fatal RTA that involved a Scooby WRX/Mitzi Evo/1000Bhp Supra/etc/etc? Nope, 99 times outa 100 it's usually some 1.4 econobox with an engine that couldnt pull a greased stick from a pigs arse, registered to the mammy and driven by the son(or daughter) at 2 in the morning.

RTA's and dopey kids like the poor will always be with us. We have among the safest roads in Europe as it stands. Can we reduce this further? Yes, but I suspect by surprisingly little except in known black spots.

monkeypants

Lando Griffin wrote: »

It would make it more realistic 130kmph - 16kmph.

That's not a chip, that's an anchor.