Accurate 0-100mph times required for Octavia VRS (Petrol and Diesel)

[Jase S]

It's been some time since I last visited this forum when I had a Fabia VRS but I need some assistance from some fellow enthusiasts regarding the performance of the Octavia VRS.

 

I am currently preparing a case to defend myself in court against a speeding summons and I need to accurately establish the performance of the Skoda VRS (both petrol and diesel variants).

 

In this instance I was not stopped by Traffic Police but a marked area response car in Northampton.  Had it been Traffic I would be certain that it would have been a VRS.

 

I can find accurate 0-60mph times aplenty but finding accurate 0-100mph times is not proving easy.  

 

I would estimate 17.5 seconds at best but can someone please point me in the direction of some accurate statistics?

 

Many thanks,

 

J. 

[Rooted]

Welcome to the forum.

 

I take it if you are preparing a defence, then you are saying you were not speeding or doing what you are being prosecuted for, 

so how about telling the story about what you are being accused of.?

 

Is it the Police Cars 0-100 mph times you are interested in?

 

george

[Jase S]

Hi George,

 

 

The police are effectively claiming that they accelerated off a roundabout to catch me up, performed a follow-check (200m behind) for 1/2 mile at 100mph, accelerated again to catch me up (after I allegedly accelerated again(!) ) and then caused me to stop at the next roundabout.  Not bad going when the distance between the 2 roundabouts is only 9/10 mile.

 

Truth is the Police Skoda was effectively flat out to catch me up after a brief spell of hard acceleration (and noise).  As I was decelerating I could a car going for it (about 1/4 mile behind me) and assumed it was a rep giving it the beans in his 320d .  As I coasted to the roundabout I could see the same car now closing at a proper rate of knots 120mph(?) and as I was at the roundabout they were hard on the brakes with the passenger gesticulating like mad for me to pull over.  Suffice to say they were extremely agitated and excited having chased down a bright green 911 GT3 and initially told me I had been reported for dangerous driving - a statement they later retracted and later acknowledged that they weren't going to 'do' me for dangerous driving because I hadn't been driving dangerously, just too fast (something I don't intend to dispute!).

 

The fact is I had accelerated extremely hard and drawn attention to myself. Police said to me at the time that they had no idea what speed I got up to but they were going to call it a 100mph, which was nice.

 

The fact is their statement is factually incorrect and physically implausible.  Simple 'O' Level/GCSE physics proves the stated sequence of events and alleged 100mph 'follow-check' to be impossible over the distance in question.  I just want to be as precise as possible with the Police performance figures to prove that between the 2 roundabouts they would only have enough distance to get to a 100mph, stay at that speed for 18 seconds (1/2 mile) before jumping on he anchors to stop.

 

Jase.

 

 

[john999boy]

Is your car a GT3 or 320d as I'm a bit unsure from the description?

[Brimma]

So your evidence in court will be something to the effect of....

"I've been in touch with some members of a car forum and they say......."

When the parties of said court have stopped rolling on the floor laughing (colloquially, as that would be unprofessional), you'll be told that you can't use such evidence as it will be hearsay, unless you intend to call those people to explain exactly how they achieved such accurate figures

I'm guessing that a Porsche GT3 itself is quite loud, rear engined, and you accept a brief spell of acceleration and noise, so I'd be surprised if you heard another car quarter of a mile behind you

The fact the police have said 'about 100mph' is probably to err on the side of caution and be generous to you, knowing it would be implausible for them to get much higher in that distance

Anyway, having said all that, good luck with your case, and keep us all posted how you get on (when and where is it?)

Finally, I'm not a policeman, just a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus

[Sarge]

0-100 mph times may be of limited use as they won't have exited the roundabout at 0. Plus, as I'm sure you realise there are a heap of other factors which will affect the police car's performance. And as noted above I would suggest it's really manufacturer's data, or at least expert witness data, that's needed.

[Metblackrat]

Legally, the independent opinion of two officers that you were travelling in excess of the speed limit is all that is needed to convict. Any evidence of calibrated speedos, laser readings etc is secondary evidence and is not required when you have two, independently formed opinions that you were speeding.

[crocks]

police cars do carry cameras and telemetry recordings you could ask for that info to be admitted??

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Fiend v1.2.14.

[Jase S]

Legally, the independent opinion of two officers that you were travelling in excess of the speed limit is all that is needed to convict. Any evidence of calibrated speedos, laser readings etc is secondary evidence and is not required when you have two, independently formed opinions that you were speeding.

You're correct but in this case the officers had not followed at a constant speed as reported.  I saw them (not heard them) approaching at speed from quite a distance away after I had stopped accelerating and I did not accelerate again as reported.  Yes I had been going quickly but I dispute the facts in question in this case.

 

As this was an area response car they do not have video evidence as this would have been used at the time.  Follow checks of this nature are a very rare occurrence as most cases have proper evidence pulls are via camera, laser, VASCAR and in those instances all you can do is plead mitigating circumstances.

 

Was hoping that someone might know a 'reliable' source of performance statistics for the Skoda Octavia VRS but so far it appears not.  Appreciate there are lots of factors involved but its just to show the comparative difference in performance.

 

Thank you all for your responses to-date. If any one can point me in the direction of some statistics I would be grateful otherwise I'll have to rely on timing a shaky YouTube video....just kidding of course.

 

Jason

[Brimma]

What speed do you accept doing?

A better option than going to trial might be to plead guilty on a limited basis

That way you'll see how strong the prosecution case is - if they think their evidence is strong they'll still run it to trial, and, if convicted, you'll get no credit and slammed for costs. If their evidence is weak they might accept your offer. That way you'll get some credit for a guilty plea and reduce the risk of a longer ban, if at all

[Rooted]

Do you have the Police cars registration to even know what car you are looking at,

 or at least as it is on the V5 & the DVLA Data Base as what engine it has.

 

Because i have an Ex Police Car, and have had ones in the past, and the Engine on the V5 is not what is in the car,

& that was the Registered Keeper, ie the Police that never changed the Engine Numbers,.

 

You seem to be saying on here that you might well have exceeded the NSL at the time the officers say you were.

Worth putting your defence in court and see what the person hearing your case thinks.

 

The Officers will no doubt have their evidence to give, or maybe not, 

and you will need a bit more than the 0-62 or to 100 mph times of Skodas.

Edited 13 December, 2014 by goneoffSKi

[littleade]

As above there are many factors that will effect the acceleration performance of the police car. Reaction times of the driver are likely to be reduced when chasing a bright green 911 due to an increased EF (envy factor) but overall performance will also be dependent on DD (donuts devoured) that they have consumed in the last hour multiplied by the number of officers onboard. You could ask if they have exceeded the ACPO guidelines of 1 donut per shift to see if their blood sugar limit would have been high thereby effecting their judgement.

[devonutopia]

Am I missing something?  How can they just say "100mph" without any real evidence of that?  Surely that won't stand up in court?

[Brimma]

Am I missing something? How can they just say "100mph" without any real evidence of that? Surely that won't stand up in court?

As I said earlier, I'm guessing they gave the benefit of the doubt and meant at least 100, when it's a chase they have to allow for themselves catching up with the other vehicle, so the figure is never going to be precise

[Nixd33]

Most traffic cars have speed recording equipment, whilst area response have calibrated speedos.realistically, they just need to catch u up, and decide in their (professional and experienced) opinion, what speed they thing you were doing. 2 x police officer witnesses stating you exceeded the speed limit and they were able to tell roughly what speed you were doing due to the calibrated speedometer reading/ advanced driving experience and evidence from the in car recorders speed reading ( for the police car) will be enough evidence to show most magistrates that you were speeding. It sounds like you are happy to admit speeding but not over 100mph? Personally if it was me I'd be doing that via your solicitor as far in advance as possible, that way the court will look favourably on a guilty plea, and less likely to get a ban if convicted at less than 100mph.

In relation to performance figures, it's a bit of a waste of your time because certain forces chip some cars to get more power, and then you have to consider the extra weight of 2 officers, the kit they are wearing, 2 kit bags, light bar weight, cones, signs, shovel and possibly a heavy onboard laptop/computer setup.

A police officers job and livelihood depend on their honesty and integrity, therefore the court is more likely to believe them over Joe public, as the risk of them not telling the truth is a lot less.

You can attempt to challenge using distances and calcuating speed, but the bottom line is 'were you speeding'. If it's yes, then don't make it worse for yourself and trying to look clever, it might backfire and you could get a worse fine.

Good luck, let us know how you get on.

[devonutopia]

I'd like to hear what the OP thinks he was actually doing and if 100mph would be deemed "lenient"

[Brimma]

I'd like to hear what the OP thinks he was actually doing

I very much doubt that will be made known on a public forum, but a Porsche GT3 would get to NSL quickly enough without making a lot of noise

[philbes]

It seems to me that the OP knows he was exceeding the speed limit(and over 1000mph?) but is now looking for a way to avoid punishment. The advice to own up to a lower speed, say 90mph, may be a way to at least avoid a ban. I have no idea of the procedure to do that. I suggest he just accepts the punishment or consults a solicitor and heeds his advice.

Many years ago I proved to the court that the police distance and time measurements showed that I had been driving at 63mph in a 70 limit. The court just allowed the police to 'correct' the distance measurement and I was found guilty of travelling at 102mph and banned.

[Brimma]

It seems to me that the OP knows he was exceeding the speed limit(and over 1000mph?) but is now looking for a way to avoid punishment. The advice to own up to a lower speed, say 90mph, may be a way to at least avoid a ban. I have no idea of the procedure to do that. I suggest he just accepts the punishment or consults a solicitor and heeds his advice.

Many years ago I proved to the court that the police distance and time measurements showed that I had been driving at 63mph in a 70 limit. The court just allowed the police to 'correct' the distance measurement and I was found guilty of travelling at 102mph and banned.

Unfortunately many people see a typographical error as an automatic get out

I've seen cases where defendants plead not guilty because the reg number in the summons doesn't match the reg number in the police officer's statement

The statement is generally a contemporaneous note of what happens at the time, or is taken from the ticket issued at the time

A quick application to the court before the end of the prosecution case often corrects that, then the defendant pleads guilty

We live in a world where many people simply do not want to live up to their responsibilities

[Jase S]

I very much doubt that will be made known on a public forum, but a Porsche GT3 would get to NSL quickly enough without making a lot of noise

For certain these cars make an aural impression at 8500rpm! 82 mph can be (and was in this instance) reached in second gear at such revs.  I admit that I accelerated hard and exceeded the NSL but I question the accuracy of the police evidence.  I've have taken a lot of advice on this from contacts who are magistrates, policeman and a motoring solicitor and I just want to present the facts as they stand.

 

Really can't believe that the performance figures for the Octavia VRS are so clouded in secrecy though.

 

Will post up what happens in due course.

 

Jason

[Rooted]

They are not clouded is secrecy.

 

Lots of threads on the 1/4 mile times,  remapped quarter mile times etc.

Your OP actually is near enough the mark @ 17.5 seconds.

 

if you were taking your car up to 8,500 rpm, i think you and us know what you terminal velocity would have been if you had kept you toe down.

 

?

What is really upsetting you, is it that a Skoda curtailed your fun on the day?

Or are you liable to loose your licence on the toting up?

[john999boy]

If the worst comes to the worst Jason, then I'll be more than happy to look after your motor (it would obviously need regular exercise though) until you can use it again - and I won't even make any untoward comments about the colour.

[Brimma]

What was the NSL at the point in question?

Any way up it shouldn't be a not guilty plea, but a guilty plea with evidence called to determine the level of the speed

[pg220]

For what it's worth heres my two pen'eth.

 

Seems to me you were driving like a bit of a **** and unfortunately for you, got caught. At the speeds you refer to, and presuming you were on a dual carriageway subject of a 70mph speed limit, you are looking at utilising public transport for a considerable period in the near future. Each to his own opinion on the standard of your driving……..

 

Now the crux seems to be that you are being prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit on one of the following basis:-

 

That you were subject of a following speed check, over 5/10th of a mile at a constant speed of 100mph. The Police car was using a calibrated speedo and two officers say that was the distance and speed. What you need to be able to prove is that in the available 4/10th of a mile (excluding the 5/10ths for the 100 mph constant check) what took place was not possible. As many others have indicated there are so many variables that manufacturers performance figures are largely irrelevant. You have to introduce enough doubt that a Magistrate considers the CPS have failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you were, and heres the important part, exceeding the relevant speed limit for that road. Saying you were only doing 90 mph not 100 will not get you off.

 

That two officers following you in a Police car formed the independent opinion that you were speeding and estimated your speed at around 100mph, they may have corroborated their estimates by reference to the speedo at some point, but not over a set distance. If that's the case a journey up **** creek awaits you.

 

The CPS will provide advance notice of the basis and grounds of the prosecution including what they allege you have done and more importantly how the Police came to that conclusion. Once you know this you can consider your options on disputing the case or damage limitation by mitigating factors.

 

Either way, I suspect a a salutary lesson has been learned. 

[neil_f]

Good luck with fighting your case but as has already been mentioned if you have two officers both stating a particular offence has taken place then you'll struggle to prove this. A few years ago I was charged with dangerous driving on the heresay of two officers. They were in an unmarked corsa travelling in the opposite direction from myself with no recording equipment. They alleged I was driving on a country road in excess of 80mph and had witnessed my car being "airborne" (an audi a4 tdi estate!). The case went to court and I instructed an approved accident investigator (who was ex traffic) to disprove the officers evidence. The report stated my vehicle would have to have been travelling in excess of 100mph and , due to a bend in the road, would have crashed if the vehicle had left the ground. In court the judge still took the officers word and decided to reduce the charge to careless and I still got a 6month ban. Ridiculous as it seems two officers statements appear to hold more weighting in court than anything else unless you have eye witnesses at the time.

Edited 13 December, 2014 by neil_f