Honda Car Forum

Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in this
country.
Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured electronic equipment for
airplanes. I was told that 70% of the cost for the equipment was for legal
insurance in case some lawyers sued them if their equipment was even on an
airplane involved in a crash. Contingency lawsuits are not allowed in most
of Europe!

BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car.
Wonder how it compares to the Corolla?

Graybeard


"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:Ttmdne1q7u-xwhvbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@sedona.net...
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:V96dnac-_aOERBjbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> Michael Pardee wrote:
>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rMCdnRTkqfsNyxjbnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>>>>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one
>>>>> would be better off just buying a actual
>>>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>>>
>> suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof collapses.
>>
>> in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's, so
>> domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they just
>> did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a lawsuit
>> settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you ask me.
>>
> SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same
> requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in
> the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup
> trucks. The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The
> problem was that there was no federal regulation concerning head
> restraints in pickup trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury
> that could involve head restraints in any respect liability would attach.
>
> IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks
> and buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger
> cars scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading themselves
> into trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles that - from
> a regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but were
> nevertheless fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you will:
> activists, law makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the situation
> isn't changing very quickly.
>
> Mike
>
>

If one does a proper search one will discover the so called roll over craze,
pushed by the safety Nazis, was a ruse brought on by faulty Firestone tires
used primarily on SUVs.

The fact is far more cars are involved in rollover type accidents than SUVs.
The fact is the majority of rollover accidents, among all types of vehicles
is the result of being struck by another vehicle or running up or down a
grade and not the type of vehicle. The fact is NO vehicle has a tendency to
rollover. The opposite is true, if a vehicle is tipped, even up to a 45
degrees or more, it has a propensity to fall back upon its wheels.

If rising the center of gravity on a vehicle increased the chance it would
rollover, one should expect to see box trucks and six wheels rolling over
every day. The fact is the center of gravity of any vehicle is somewhere
just above the centerline of the drive train . On the average SUV that
would be less than two inches high than the average car. The propensity of
a vehicle to rollover vis a v another has more to do with its wheelbase than
its height. The SUV that would role first would be those like the Rav4 or
Jeep rather than an Explorer or Sequa in any event

The fact is the single most likely accident, that any particular vehicle
will be involved in its lifetime, is a full frontal collision. In that type
of collision the larger and heaver the vehicle the more likely properly
belted passengers will escape injury or death

One reason the Senate choose not to raise the CAFE standard for light trucks
several years ago was the injury and death rate among properly belted
passengers and children had dropped significantly over the past ten years.
That improved rate was attributed to the fact more of them were riding in
the larger safer SUVs.

Unfortunately recent action by the Senate will result in more poorer people
riding in more of the smaller less safe vehicles, as in the seventies, and
the injury and death rate will increase again as a result. The rich will
simply pay the $1,000 gas-guzzler, tax as they do today on many luxury cars,
and continue to buy the large safer cars they want and can afford

On can search the Congressional record for the facts.

mike


"Graybeard" <graybeard32@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4687b982$0$7988$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Good point Mike, especially the legal issues involving manufacturing in
> this country.
> Years ago I worked for a company that manufactured electronic equipment
> for airplanes. I was told that 70% of the cost for the equipment was for
> legal insurance in case some lawyers sued them if their equipment was even
> on an airplane involved in a crash. Contingency lawsuits are not allowed
> in most of Europe!
>
> BTW, the "Smart" car is a very interesting and attention-grabbing car.
> Wonder how it compares to the Corolla?
>
> Graybeard
>
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:Ttmdne1q7u-xwhvbnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@sedona.net...

>>>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:rMCdnRTkqfsNyxjbnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>>>>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive
>>>>>> on American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year,
>>>>>> one would be better off just buying a actual
>>>>>> coffin for $5,000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, Mike - I have to give you a gold star for that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Except that it has not been shown that the Smart is actually less
>>>> dangerous than an SUV that throws its occupants as it rolls over.
>>>>
>>> suv's don't throw their occupants, they crush them as the roof
>>> collapses.
>>>
>>> in the past, there's been no legal roof collapse requirement on suv's,
>>> so domestic manufacturers never bothered to address this issue - they
>>> just did the math on the savings, put their calculated payout into a
>>> lawsuit settlement fund, and netted the profit. worse than enron if you
>>> ask me.
>>>
>> SUVs and pickups historically (I haven't kept up) have not had the same
>> requirements as passenger vehicles. About 20 years ago I got embroiled in
>> the struggle to have head restraints installed in our company pickup
>> trucks. The cost was reasonable enough - that wasn't the problem. The
>> problem was that there was no federal regulation concerning head
>> restraints in pickup trucks, so if a driver or passenger suffered injury
>> that could involve head restraints in any respect liability would attach.
>>
>> IMO, it is driven by CAFE. Passenger cars are one category, light trucks
>> and buses (including SUVs by GVWR) are another. CAFE made large passenger
>> cars scarce so people who wanted large vehicles started loading
>> themselves into trucks or buses. The market responded with large vehicles
>> that - from a regulatory standpoint - were not passenger vehicles but
>> were nevertheless fitted with creature comforts. Put the blame where you
>> will: activists, law makers, lawyers, manufacturers, consumers... the
>> situation isn't changing very quickly.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>
>

Useful Info wrote:

> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>

This has got to be the most bullshit troll of 'Useful Info'

What the **** does this have to do with the world's energy balance? My
son drives a TDI Jetta, so what! How safe is safe? So, one hundred posts
of useless drooling involving self importance. Yet, no cognisense of the
bigger picture. So human.......

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:46:22 +0000, Tegger wrote:

> Gunz4me <gunz4me@somewhere.com> wrote in news:a7-
> dnTYinbT0oxjbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> Useful Info wrote:
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>>>
>> OMG, I can just see one of those on the interstate getting knocked into
>> the median by the draft of a big semi. The only plus I see with that
>> tiny car is that it should be easy to find a parking spot, assuming I
>> can make it to my destination without being run off the road.
>>
>> Second thought, I would much rather have a Honda Civic Hybrid than this
>> tiny car.
>
>
>
> We have Stupid cars already up here in Canada.
>
> I must say, they look most utterly strange on the highway among the SUV's,
> like mobile phone booths. And next to a semi, like roadkill waiting to
> happen.
>
> I measured one of these things once to see just how much room there was
> between bumper and steering wheel, and I came up with forty inches. That's
> right, just over one yard between whatever you ran into and you. Go
> measure your own car. How much distance is there in that location? On my
> Integra, I get 70", almost double the "crumple zone".
>
> I notice the Stupid's length has been increased by a whopping 3" for the
> 2008 model year, this in order to to "improve safety". Sorta tells ya
> something, doesn't it?


I paid $15G for a 2005 tC last September. May not get 40+ MPG, but it sure
is a BLAST!!!

I paid $1400 in 2002 for a '95 Tercel w/99,000 on it. That got 45 MPG.
Wasn't as much fun as a tC, but was a nice car!

Useful Info wrote:
>
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org

My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
$12K.

Eric

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:10:29 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Mike Hunter wrote:
>> At the price of $16,000 for that midget two passenger car, to drive on
>> American highways, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year, one would
>> be better off just buying a actual
>> coffin for $5,000
>>
>> mike
>
>Actually, it is a perfect car for people in NYC. They're small enough so
>that you can just drive them into the elevator and park them in the
>corner of your cubical for the day.
>
>Jeff

We're not even allowed to bring bikes into commercial buildings in
NYC, which is why my bike is parked outside. On the other hand, I
think my bike is bigger so perhaps this will be allowed.

On Jun 29, 12:59 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Read all about it, here:http://Muvy.org

Well don't have to read anything about it.
Since we have been telling the GM, Ford, Chrysler,
New Pork and Popular Mechanics idiots for over 80 YEARS now,
that ANYTHING, from a unicyle to a US Post Office double wide, that
gets
ANY rating of (X) MPG. for X ranging from
minus infinity to plus infinity is NOT a
HIGHWAY or ROAD vehicle.
It's a SEARS Vehicle, MORONS.

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:4689EEF1.19A6DE13@spam.now...
> Useful Info wrote:
>>
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
> My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
> $12K.
>
> Eric

Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in their
Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.

Robert A. Cunningham

"Robert A. Cunningham" wrote:

> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote
> > Useful Info wrote:
> >>
> >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
> >
> > My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less than
> > $12K.
>
>
> Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in their
> Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
> They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.

In what respect.

It's the very best for parking.

Graham

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:468A8FF6.6EF6A8AA@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "Robert A. Cunningham" wrote:
>
>> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote
>> > Useful Info wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>> >
>> > My '88 Civic gets between 38 and 41 MPG and it cost quite a bit less
>> > than
>> > $12K.
>>
>>
>> Consumer Reports had a short article about the "Smart for Two" car in
>> their
>> Dec '06 issue (not this same exact model).
>> They said it was the worst car they have ever tested.
>
> In what respect.
>
> It's the very best for parking.
>
> Graham

In what respect? Well, for starters, how about 0 to 60 MPH speed: 23
seconds! How would you like to get on a freeway onramp with those numbers?.
Consumer Reports paid $22,000 for the Smart for Two in Montreal. They
averaged 43 MPG. (A Prius goes for $24,000 and averages about 44 MPG). The
ride is harsh and fidgety... handling is clumsy... many controls are small
and confusing... inside, engine clamor fights with wind noise...

CR's take: "Unless the new design is far better, buying a Smart could be
unwise."

Oh, one correction, I originally wrote that CR had said "it was the worst
car they have ever tested." I was wrong, the actual quote was "the Canadian
Smart is one of the worst cars we've tested." I apologize for the error,
but it does not change my opinion of the car.

Robert A. Cunningham