Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> 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
>
>

unfortunately, that one's proven impossible to fix. as you will
doubtless witness every day on our freeways.