VIC P-plater exemption 2011 Polo GTI [Archive]

Gladiator

05-02-2011, 05:52 PM

Hey everyone,
Has anyone here had their exemption application to drive a 'low powered turbo or supercharged car' approved from Vicroads to drive the 2011 Polo GTI?

Car details:
1.4L TSI 132kw, turbo & supercharged - 5 door
Power to weight ratio: Approx. 111 kw/tonne

I don't see why it shouldn't be approved as it meets all their requirements on the Vicroads website for a low powered turbo or supercharged car.
Vicroads link: Lower perfomance turbo or supercharged vehicles : VicRoads (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Licences/GetYourPs/RestrictionsOnPs/Lowerperfomanceturbochargedorsuperchargedvehicles. htm)

Despite falling within the permitted power to weight ratio range (100kw - 125kw/tonne) and being a family type car (5 door hatch with child restraints and a 5 star Ancap) there has been talk that the 2011 Polo GTI doesn't qualify for an exemption.

gavs

10-02-2011, 11:53 AM

I would say that if indeed it does not fall under exemtion rules, this would be due to it being determined as a performance car..... You can only ask though....

pologti18t

10-02-2011, 03:32 PM

Did you read the application form??

A family type vehicle does not include
sports cars (eg a two door coupe) or the sports oriented

variant of a specific model range.

I would think that the Polo GTI would be considered the sports oriented variant of the Polo range.

leasaunce

14-02-2011, 11:17 PM

doubt it. NRMA insurance categories the polo gti as a sports car.

shauno

14-02-2011, 11:31 PM

Zero chance in NSW, even the Golf 118TSI is on the ban list!

jamesatfish

15-02-2011, 01:57 PM

I always supported these type of restrictions on the strength of the same policies for motorcycle licencing, but it seems as always the powers that be are becoming over zealous in what vehicles are restricted and for what reason. For a vehicle such at the new Polo GTI which fits in the power-to-weight restrictions, seats 5 and is well equipped in terms of active and passive safety requirements to be banned simply because there are lesser powered versions of the Polo in the model range is just absurd.

Just to recap, if VW only sold the Polo GTI and not the others in the range, then the car would be eligible for the exemption. Instead because VW sell other cars in the Polo range the GTI somehow becomes unsafe for P plate drivers.

Of course I've just realised that when it comes time for my daughter to get her P plates we'll have to go out and buy her a car specifically to meet the requirements, as the cars we own (and which she will learn to drive in) are all on the banned list. I guess she'll be happy that the government is forcing Mum & Dad to buy her her own car - wish I had that excuse to run by my parents when I turned 17.

pologti18t

15-02-2011, 03:03 PM

Just to recap, if VW only sold the Polo GTI and not the others in the range, then the car would be eligible for the exemption. Instead because VW sell other cars in the Polo range the GTI somehow becomes unsafe for P plate drivers.

The Polo GTi does 0-100km/h in 6.9 secs. That's faster (significantly) than a Commodore Omega.
I think its perfectly fine to restrict P Platers from driving this car.

Anyway, a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

AFAIK... I dont think the ban on cars applied to learners (ie. supervised)

Frostee

15-02-2011, 04:14 PM

The rules are a little different in Victoria

P plates & probationary prohibited vehicles : VicRoads (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Licences/GetYourPs/RestrictionsOnPs/Pplatedriversandprobationaryprohibitedvehicles.htm )

From 6 July 2009, drivers issued with a probationary licence on or after 1 July 2007 may (upon receiving an exemption) drive some lower performance turbocharged or supercharged vehicles. The definition of a lower performance turbocharged or supercharged vehicle is a vehicle with 6 cylinders or less that is:

turbocharged or supercharged with a power to weight ratio of less than 100kW per tonne
turbocharged or supercharged with a power to weight ratio between 100kW and 125kW per tonne and that is considered to be a family type vehicle (4 seats or more) rather than a sports type vehicle. A family type vehicle is a sedan, station wagon or hatch normally used to carry families/passengers with 4 or more seats and are equipped with child restraint anchorages. A family type vehicle does not include a sports car (two door coupe).

I suspect the Polo GTI would not qualify for exemption, and rightly so IMHO.

Gladiator

15-02-2011, 07:31 PM

I would think that the Polo GTI would be considered the sports oriented variant of the Polo range.

The 2011 Polo GTI - 5 door should quality for exemption.
It satisfies the performance test (power-to-weight ratio) and satisfies the family type vehicle test...

Is it a family type vehicle?
1. Sedan, stationwagon or hatch normally used to carry families/passengers? Yes (hatch)
2. 4 seats or more? (4 seats)
3. Equipped with child restraint anchorages? Yes (5 star Ancap safety rating)
4. It is not a sports car such as a 2 door coupe. Yes
The 2011 Polo GTI – 5 door therefore meets the definition of a family type vehicle.

The only part where it fails is it being the sports variant.
Sports variant means nothing. It has nothing to do with the 'performance of the car' or whether it is a 'family type vehicle' (both of these have already been satisfied).
"Sports variant" can merely refer to the design of the car (Eg. Sports grill, sports exhaust, paintwork, etc.) as it is not a test of a car's performance or safety features.
To reject the 2011 Polo GTI because it is a sports variant despite it having satisfied the performance and family type vehicle guidline would mean you are saying that its sporty looks are likely to kill someone!

Gladiator

15-02-2011, 07:39 PM

The Polo GTi does 0-100km/h in 6.9 secs. That's faster (significantly) than a Commodore Omega.
I think its perfectly fine to restrict P Platers from driving this car.

Anyway, a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

The line has been drawn indeed and the 2011 Polo GTI falls within the permitted power-to-weight ratio range (100-125 kw/tonne). The Polo GTI is infact nowhere close to the permited power-to-weight ratio's upper limit coming in at approximately 111kw/tonne. The fact that is does 0-100km/h in 6.9 secs is perfectly fine under the law.

dribs

15-02-2011, 08:23 PM

I really dont' think they will excempt the Polo GTI. The Golf GTI is already banned and the 118TSI, while not officially banned, does require permission first.

You can argue all you want, bold all the words all you want but at the end of the day, its up VIC Roads and its very highly unlikely it will be exempt -unless in special cases. You can prove us all wrong by going up to them and asking.

Until, then I honestly don't think there's much up for discussion. Its a sport variant of the normal Polo as others have already pointed out. Much akin to the Golf GTI, being a sport variant of the normal Golf's.

pologti18t

16-02-2011, 07:01 AM

Who is stirring up all this debate anyway? P platers who have mistakenly ordered a car? Parents who may or may not own the car when their own children are of driving age?

The laws are their to restrict new drivers from having access to to high performance vehicles. I think the NEW Polo GTI is such a vehicle.
Guy from APR dyno'd the new Polo GTI and got 115kw at the wheels. To put this into perspective that a figure that Mazda MX5 SP would get. A Mazda MX5 SP was the locally developed turbocharged MX5. The Polo GTI has progressed from a warm hatch, in the last model, to a hot hatch similar in performance to a Golf GTI!

jamesatfish

16-02-2011, 09:28 AM

Who is stirring up all this debate anyway? P platers who have mistakenly ordered a car? Parents who may or may not own the car when their own children are of driving age?

I'm stirring the debate from the 'parents who may or may not own the car when their own children are of driving age' camp.

To me the issue is that power-to-weight and 0-100kph sprint times are not the only measure of whether a car is 'safe' or 'suitable for P platers', but the rules applied by the various state RTAs don't take anything into consideration other than those factors.

Assuming the ACT doesn't go down the same path as VIC and NSW with their restriction lists, when my daughter is old enough for her P plates I'll buy her an early 2000s Porsche Boxster:

•~150kW and 7.6s 0-100 are sufficient for safe overtaking on the highway but not too much to get her into trouble - my Boxster S had a hard time getting to more than 180 down the straight at Eastern Creek and that had another 40+kW.
•2 seats means that she can only ever drive one passenger, greatly reducing the risks associated with peer pressure pushing her to drive in an unsafe manner.
•Standard PSM (ESP), ABS, multiple airbags and fantastic passive safety means a greatly improved chance of surviving a crash should one occur.
•German reliability hopefully means less chance of breakdowns or other mechanical issues

My first P plate car was a (then new) Mitsubishi Lancer 1.5L coupe of roughly the same vintage as the Boxster outlined above. Whilst it would have been perfectly legal for me to drive that car under the new restrictions, there is absolutely no way that anyone can convince me it is a safer vehicle than the Boxster. No airbags, no ABS, no ESP, rear drum brakes(!), 5 seats to cram full of teenage mates, very poor passive safety (tap the roof and it sounds like tinfoil stretched across the A pillars). The lack of power didn't stop me from driving it like an idiot, reaching stupidly unsafe speeds or otherwise pushing it well beyond my abilities should anything have gone wrong, and if it had gone pear shaped the outcomes would have been a whole lot worse than the same crash in the Boxster.

My issue with the Polo GTI ruling is exactly as above. How can it be that a 2011 model VW Polo with full electronic safety features and fitting within the RTA's own power-to-weight restrictions can be considered less suitable for a novice driver than a late 90's Japanese car with nothing but thin sheet metal and immature skills between the driver and a crash?

Gladiator

16-02-2011, 10:15 AM

Who is stirring up all this debate anyway?

The laws are their to restrict new drivers from having access to to high performance vehicles. I think the NEW Polo GTI is such a vehicle.

This thread is rather more aimed at highlighting the inadequacies of the Vicroads low powered turbo charged or supercharged exemption vehicle screening process, in particular the words "sports variant" rather than critisizing the reasons any buyers/owners may have for wanting an exemption for the 2011 Polo GTI.

Yes the laws are there to restrict new drivers from having access to high performance vehicles and the Polo GTI is not one of them. Lets look more closely, the Polo GTI comes with a tiny 1.4 litre engine and an additional turbo and supercharger unit to give it that extra near 2.0 litre performance. Can a 2.0 litre, 5 door hatchback be called a high performance vehicle???

Let me make this clear, Vicroads has NO quarrel with this car in terms of its performance and agrees that yes, the Polo GTI is a low turbo charged/supercharged vehicle (111kw/tonne falls within their 100-125kw/tonne range).

What Vicroads may appear to have a problem with it is it being the sports variant.
To put it in context as it appears on the exemption application form is that the vehicle must not be designed more for sports performance than as a family type car.
Under Vicroad's power-to-weight ratio test, the Polo GTI does not qualify as a high performance vehicle but as a low powered turbo/supercharged vehicle (not designed for sports performance).
If you have any doubt as it not being a family type car, please read my earlier post.

pologti18t

16-02-2011, 11:51 AM

If you have any doubt as it not being a family type car, please read my earlier post.

You just keep going don't you :)

Evidence 1 from the Vic Roads application form

A family type vehicle is typically a sedan, station wagon
or hatch used to carry families with 4 or more seats and
when manufactured was equipped with child restraint
anchorages. A family type vehicle does not include
sports cars (eg a two door coupe) or the sports oriented

variant of a specific model range.

And they even give you some examples of 4 seater sedans that DO NOT match the criteria.

MAZDA 6 MPS 5D SEDAN 4 2261 cc TURBO F/INJ 6 speed Manual

If you do the sums you will find that this vehicle has a power to weight of 118kw/tonne.

So, I think ViCRoads has it covered in this situation. It's perfectly obvious what that are trying to achieve and the Polo GTI does not
meet the criteria of a low powered turbo car by their definition.

Gladiator

16-02-2011, 01:04 PM

So, I think ViCRoads has it covered in this situation. It's perfectly obvious what that are trying to achieve and the Polo GTI does not
meet the criteria of a low powered turbo car by their definition.

[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LEFT]

All this highlights inadequacies of the vicroads low turbo/supercharged vehicle exemption process.
A car such as the 2011 Polo GTI can fall within their (Vicroads) acceptable power-to-weight ratio range (100-125kw/tonne) and have all the imaginable characteristics of a family type car (5 doors, hatchback, child achorages, 5 star ancap) and yet because it is the 'sports variant' of the Polo range which has nothing to do with the performance or safety features of the car, by Vicroad's definition it somehow does affect the performance and safety features of the car is not considered a 'low turbo/supercharged vehicle'.

Frostee

16-02-2011, 01:14 PM

Hail22

16-02-2011, 01:21 PM

Won't be exempted, Vicroads will laugh and say, dear lord he could just buy a 77tsi.

mate they may be state Governments but they look at details for power to weight ratio etc.

pologti18t

16-02-2011, 02:59 PM

All this highlights inadequacies of the vicroads low turbo/supercharged vehicle exemption process.
A car such as the 2011 Polo GTI can fall within their (Vicroads) acceptable power-to-weight ratio range (100-125kw/tonne) and have all the imaginable characteristics of a family type car (5 doors, hatchback, child achorages, 5 star ancap) and yet because it is the 'sports variant' of the Polo range which has nothing to do with the performance or safety features of the car, by Vicroad's definition it somehow does affect the performance and safety features of the car is not considered a 'low turbo/supercharged vehicle'.

I understand where you are coming from but you are dealing with Governments. Why bash your head against a brick wall trying to make them see your point of view?

If this really is about your children being able to drive a certain car down the track then I suggest you buy a car that meets the criteria. A lot less heart ache in the end. Life's way too short to be arguing with Government authorities.

Gladiator

16-02-2011, 03:53 PM

Life's way too short to be arguing with Government authorities.

Currently awaiting the reply from Vicroads for the exemption application. Will keep you all posted.

JaneAusten

16-02-2011, 07:39 PM

Relevance...
YouTube - Old Top Gear Faster = Safer? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTvJFSRYJr8&feature=related)

99_FGT

22-02-2011, 07:40 AM

I don't think you'll get any argument here that newer cars, whilst being more powerful, are a lot safer than older cars. Yep, Full Stop.
The problem is that the rules, as always, are made for the lowest common denominator.
So whilst the government would love to say 125kW / tonne means must have 5 star ANCAP, 100kW / tonne = 4 star, or 4 star ancap minimum (for example), that is beyond the reach of a large majority of voters buying their first car. And deciding who to vote for. Not everyone's parents bought / buy them their first car, so this is a large factor. NSW, with their new requirement (possibly proposed) for compulsory driver training, are already trying to figure out how to low income families, many of whom need cars to get to work.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the rules, they are a one size fits all, and a whole lot better than QLD (no TSi's whatsoever).
You can, and this is where it all falls apart of course, go buy a Renault Sport Clio 200 Cup, or a Mazda MX5, as they are NA, less than 200kW, 4 cylinder, and non turbo.
Fodder for trolls...
Al..

chocomui

04-03-2011, 11:38 AM

I was happy settling from a Golf to a Polo but then my friend told me to get Polo GTI instead and it just blew my mind. I never even considered it since Golf GTI was way out of reach. My friend also told me his mate got his golf or polo exempted by arguing fuel efficiency and it being green but I don't know how relevant that is since the GTI variant is the most L/100km (6.1) and produces more CO2 emissions g/km than the other variants.

pologti18t

04-03-2011, 12:33 PM

Hey Gladiator!

Have you recieved any news on your exemption yet? I'm basing my first car decision on your case!

Bleh I'd really like to know for certain so I can either give up or keep looking forward to it. Will be on my green P's soon and been driving my uncle's stock echo for past year.

Cheers~

By the time you order one and it is delivered you will be off your P-Plates :banana:

chocomui

04-03-2011, 01:01 PM

yeah that's exactly what I was thinking after reading more into these forums :P the wait is such a bummer

pologti18t

24-03-2011, 03:39 PM

For VIC P Platers
www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/pplatecars (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/pplatecars)

And yes, the Polo GTI is banned.

GTI JOE

24-03-2011, 04:21 PM

For VIC P Platers
www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/pplatecars (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/pplatecars)

And yes, the Polo GTI is banned.

And as it should be!

Frostee

24-03-2011, 04:40 PM

And as it should be!

+1 agree with all on this

yellow_cake

24-03-2011, 07:43 PM

And as it should be!

i've been on my full license for the past 2years but i still remember what it is like to be a P-plater... and honestly you're better off without the Polo GTI for glaringly obvious reasons...

gavs

25-03-2011, 07:09 AM

I can see the headline...

"today a p'plater was killed after crashing his high powered sports car into a tree on a country road.....esc didn't save the accident as due to lack of driver training and experience, the driver was pushing too hard over a section of road notorious for black ice...."

Frostee

25-03-2011, 08:13 AM

walkerchan

25-03-2011, 10:20 AM

Agreed. How would having a car with safety capabilities compared to a 199* falcodore be a bad thing. People who are going to do stupid **** will still do it. I saw a hsv maloo (near my uni- non p plater) and a senator skid out the other day getting off the ringroad after cutting of 3 people without indicating. He was a man in his late 40s I'd guess with a suit on.

Glad my 9n3 gti can be exempt.

gavs

25-03-2011, 11:15 AM

I used to think the same way 4 years ago when still on my P's, then I almost killed myself on the monash freeway in a commodore that had the same power as the polo, granted, it weighed closer to 1500kg but still, if I had proper driver training and knew what I was doing to correct the slide, it wouldn't have been a problem.

My argument is that if a P plater can show full car control, I say give them an F40, hell give them a "widowmaker" (aka Porsche 956) because they will know about car control. The problem isn't the cars, it comes down to the individual driving it and the governments who refuse to admit that they have known all along that driver training is the solution.

Idiots will always kill themselves. The problem is that flog with the p plate on (who I used to be, I'll admit it) dropping burnouts, losing control and clouting the gutter. It is these immature people who nothing about controlling a 1 tonne plus machine that has a contact patch with the road of some 500mm worth of rubber. They are the ones who ruin it for us who have taken the time and spent money on leaning about car control, who like to drive enthusiastically, yet can't because these same flogs wrap themselves around a tree/telephone pole, run over a kid while doing a burnout, kill 4 of their mates, then complain that they can't go and start riots at planned private meets (ala Blockbuster video in Noble Park).

Final point:
No amount of airbags will save you if you launch over a hump in the road at 160-180kph into a telephone pole like the kid in the current TV ads, Norm Robinson's Son. It's called basic physics and it should be mandatory for every kid to be taught it. If you don't understand it, you don't get your license, simple.

apples

25-03-2011, 12:39 PM

So many arguments by people saying that if the car has the latest safety features, then it's a good thing and it should be exempt from the P Platers ban. What if the P plater doesn't just wrap his car around a tree but smashes into another car? It's about every road users' safety, not just the driver.

Gladiator

02-04-2011, 02:00 PM

I can see the headline...

"today a p'plater was killed after crashing his high powered sports car into a tree on a country road....."

HAHAHA sorry I just can't help it when someone calls the Polo GTI a 'High Powered Sports Car'. At the most it's a 1.4 litre hot hatch with a turbo/supercharger thrown in to bring it up to 2.0 litre performance. Wish it were a sports car though!

gavs

02-04-2011, 04:48 PM

Yes, but we all know what the media hacks are like, especially when the gti is double the output of the 66tdi :) anything to sell a story....

Diesel_vert

02-04-2011, 05:37 PM

HAHAHA sorry I just can't help it when someone calls the Polo GTI a 'High Powered Sports Car'. At the most it's a 1.4 litre hot hatch with a turbo/supercharger thrown in to bring it up to 2.0 litre performance. Wish it were a sports car though!

What relevance does market category, specific power output and displacement have?

Most people would consider 0-100 km/h in 6.9 seconds as fast, regardless of how it's achieved.

GTI_Adidas

02-04-2011, 08:02 PM

I say let P platers drive Golf TSI cars, but exclude GTI and R...The golf 118 TSI for example, just because it has turbo doesnt mean it is a sports car. It clearly isnt. I asked my Mercedes Benz dealer if a P plater can dirve a C250 CGI, about 150kw turbo 4. The guy said you can apply for exemption because its not a performance car...Because it has "Blue Efficiency" written on it doesnt mean its not a performance car. .A 118TSI golf isnt a performance car either, and has alot less power than a C250, and yet you cant drive it. Whats wrong with the bloody RTA? The Golf 118 TSI is one of the most popular small cars, and most families use it as a family car. I dont see why you cant drive a bloody 118 TSI. You can drive a damn R32 for god sake. 184 KW car. You can even drive a Passat R36, over 200kw. And why? Because its a naturally aspirated car....Thats total crap.

Why should you be able to drive a 200kw+ car and not a Turbo 118KW car?? Please, someone tell me why? I have a GTI adidas..When my son gets his P's he wont be able to drive it. And i might buy him a R32. So, my son will have a more powerful car than me....WTF!!!!! Seriously, RTA if your reading this, Take abit more time thinking about what cars you will ban. You cant just say "ohh that cars a turbo, banned" You have to look further into it. Like why can a P plater drive a R36 and not a 118TSI? That should be allowed for P platers. I could buy a R32, Pump the power up, put a new exhaust and and chip it. The RTA would still allow P platers to drive that car. It could have over 270KW. And still...cant drive a f**king 118TSI. This is really pissing me off that P platers cant drive a small, reliable and safe car.

RTA...Please, change your ban list

Diesel_vert

02-04-2011, 08:48 PM

What the RTA call "moderate performance turbo/supercharged vehicles" are eligible for exemption, which include vehicles such as the Golf 118TSI.

You still have to apply for an exemption (should be a formality), but to make enforcement easier to carry out for the authorities, you have to carry the letter with you.

See link - (Vehicle and passenger conditions for P1 and P2 licence holders (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/gettingalicence/car/p1p2_conditions.html?llid=4))

I think VicRoads have also put in place a similar system or something.