Safe Speed Forums

Hello
Who is "we"


Absolutely correct. Unfortunately we don't know how much tailwind there may have been, if any at all.
However, we do know there is potential for a decent tow from the traffic in front (even if in other lanes).


Yes, but that can also work in reverse! (hint)


From a recent thread (the same road): a lot more than 650m (650m to the camera/NSL sign alone).


What is the manufacturer's claim? 106mph is well within the 98.
I thought it was 14 years old? (at the time of offence)


I guess you already know this, but to be clear to everyone else: the offending measurement occurred from 24NR44/46 to 25NR12/14, much later than the time period you show. The failures are independent of the later speed reading.


Perhaps he stopped triggering because he saw the car (24NR10) coming well into view on his sighting scope? (which is of course far wider than the view on the video)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

'We' is the chattering classes who created 100 posts without probably any direct involvement in the news item

There's much more opportunity to slow a car down with a flat tyre than to speed it up by over pressure. Car tyres don't really go up to a point in the way that, say, a dual compound motorbike tyre is designed to do. If the book speed is 106mph not the 86 quoted earlier then it will be easier for wind & slope to get the car 12mph faster as the gearing will be right. Book speed 106mph, real speed 86mph after 14 years is nearer my expectations of a tired engine. The smallest seem to be rated 70 or 75 bhp and I would expect a claimed top speed over the ton from that. So no dispute over the possibility of 98mph, just as the test track got 86mph it is doubt until shown otherwise.

I agree that legally the failures are independent of the later speed reading, but where there is a problem it's often those failures that indicate the problem. Alignment usually shows up through incorrect distances or 'negative' speed readings compared to the target vehicle. So if in only 2s of clip we see the unit first fail to read (E03, 23NR38) then fail to acquire (E01, 23NR42) I'd say that, all being fair in the courts it would be an argument for a bit more of the tape. I don't think it represents any new unknown errors because if there are errors then I think it is alignment, beam spread or multipath. That's what you get when you target through a busy lane 1 & 2 to hit lane 3.

The vehicle that approaches at 24NR10 overlaps the second vehicle that approaches at 24NR38 yet within 80ms we know he *must* be back on the trigger (with 24NR10 vehicle still in frame, at x10 or whatever is fitted) to get the 98mph reading. It's possible but Schumacher can't react that fast so either v. lucky, or my view, he's on the trigger all the time and the gun has a problem to get E01 whilst sighted on a target.


On the topic of errors, this looks like an LTI 20.20 TS/M to me. E53 would be an error in self calibration. 2004 manual doesn't specify but ultralyte manual says 'too cold'. E87??? Typo? Or SI I have not spotted for update in software?