Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake jim beam <me@privacy.net> :
>
>
>>Steve Pankow wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
>>>Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
>>>model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
>>>discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
>>>out there, hybrid or not.
>>>
>>>I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
>>>low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
>>>They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
>>>efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.
>>>
>>>Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
>>>experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
>>>yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
>>>has changed?
>>>
>>
>>"crash testing".
>>
>>apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and financially
>>independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a side impact
>>component, and which by definition are pretty much impossible to provide
>>significant protection for since there is almost no bodywork to deform
>>between the foreign object and the vehicle occupant, are worth investing
>>600+lbs of extra metal in, and thus require car manufacturers to build
>>accordingly.
>
>
> I've seen a couple of nasty side impacts. Most of these involve folks
> running red lights at pretty high speeds. One was a 'Burb vs a Lexus.
> Lexus smacks 'Burb. 'Burb loses (surprisec?). 'Burb was legally
> crossing the intersection when Lexus hit it doing (according to DPS)
> 70. 'Burb driver's side pax in serious shape. Lexus driver did not
> need medical attention. She did get a ride in a black van provided by
> the county. So much for 1) side protection 2) big vehicles protecting
> pax better 3) improved front protection. Smack anything hard enough
> and everybody gets hurt.
>
>
>>of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything like
>>increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption, have
>>never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in unmarked
>>envelopes.
>>
>>and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running lights
>>either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use their real
>>lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at all times. [big
>>picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30% conversion efficiency.
>>that's a shitload of gasoline.]
>
>
> There are a few cars that, thank goodness, only light up the "parking"
> lights. A few. But that's still something on the order of 25W per
> side. Meanwhile we're being asked to replace our 60W bulbs at home
> with CFLs that use 15W (we've got some LEDs that burn 7W and seem to
> have better light).
>
>
>>oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
>>that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
>>traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because you
>>can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.
>
>
> Let's not overlook that fact that bigger vehicles transfer more energy
> in a colliision. So even if you're in a 'Burb, if a 'Burb rearends
> you, you're still going to hurt. But when my CRX got rearended by a
> Corolla, we got out and looked at the damage.
>
>
>>bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent leaders
>>were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate tubular crash
>>cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race cars, and helmets
>>like race cars. race car drivers walk away from 100+ mph accidents all
>>the time, and their cars weigh what?
>
>
> Yup. I can testify to that. Six point harness (many years ago when
> Simpson first developed and introduced the 6 pt, they ran an ad "only
> women and boys wear 5 pt.."), helmet, HANS, FIA firesuit, arm
> restraints, Nomex undies, gloves & boots. etc. I've backed a car into
> a wall at about 130 (suddenly running into rain on the back of the
> course with slicks on), gone airborn at ?? (wheel to wheel). If we
> want safe cars, we need to start with a clean piece of paper. As it
> is, all we're doing is taking the current cars and stuffing stuff into
> them. Ten pounds here, fifteen pounds there and suddenly your 2800
> pound car is a 3200 pound car.
>


And yet the improvement of the nut behind the wheel never enters any of
the safety related discussions...

JT