Honda Car Forum

Jeff wrote:


> 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.


All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs.

Where have you been for the last hundred years?



Jack

Jack wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> All cars eject unbelted occupants in roll-overs.

An SUV isn't a car.

And SUVs are more likely to rollover than a car.

> Where have you been for the last hundred years?

For most of them, I wasn't even conceived.

Jeff

> Jack

In article <o31q8358s3ipl6cavq2plb64g7rvo8kqku@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:

> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in
> death than an Explorer running into a semi?
Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them.

A Civic being hit by an Explorer would be in trouble, but two large SUVs
colliding together would be bigger trouble for the occupants than two
Civics colliding together.

The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car,
particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus.

In article <4687b982$0$7988$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Graybeard" <graybeard32@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

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

It's not comparable to the Corolla.
I suggest comparing it to the Yaris, still a practical quite roomy car
which is quite fuel efficient and low cost than the Smart.

IMO the Smart is the dumb car as a single car. OK as a second car for
the rich. The Smart is OK for two briefcase passengers in city driving,
however then public transportation may be the best solution.

Two people can't go grocery shopping or to the golf course with their
clubs and as for highway driving I wouldn't even consider it. No spare
and extra cost for a patching kit- bicycle like function.

Here many companies use them and as you say initially they are attention
getting so advertising on them will get attention initially.

Oh they aren't $12 K with the usually desired options, in fact I doubt
they ship the basic model.

That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have your
facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in which
to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for
properly belted passengers

As a former automotive design engineer for thirty years, that designed
crumple zones for over fifteen years, I can assure you in any similar
accident where two like vehicles collide head on, the larger the vehicle the
more likely properly belted passengers will sustain fewer injuries and
deaths. One can not defy the laws of physics.

mike

"Just Facts" <Jfact@intnet.wrld> wrote in message
news:Jfact-9E8761.10402123072007@news.telus.net...
> In article <o31q8358s3ipl6cavq2plb64g7rvo8kqku@4ax.com>,
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in
>> death than an Explorer running into a semi?

> Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them.
>
> A Civic being hit by an Explorer would be in trouble, but two large SUVs
> colliding together would be bigger trouble for the occupants than two
> Civics colliding together.
>
> The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car,
> particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:02:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have your
>facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in which
>to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for
>properly belted passengers
>
>As a former automotive design engineer for thirty years, that designed
>crumple zones for over fifteen years, I can assure you in any similar
>accident where two like vehicles collide head on, the larger the vehicle the
>more likely properly belted passengers will sustain fewer injuries and
>deaths. One can not defy the laws of physics.
>
>mike

Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two
identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on .
Most newer vehicles do very well in such tests, but ten or twenty
years ago, that wasn't so. (Was that when you were designing crumple
zones, Mike?) At that time, it was not uncommon for a small car to
outperform a larger vehicle (and especially light trucks) in those
tests.

So, engineer Mike, which of these vehicles has a more effective crush
zone? Which would you rather be in if you were going to hit an
identical vehicle head on?

http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/3844.html

http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/2249.html


Bonus question: Which of these vehicles is more likely to get in an
accident in the first place?




>
>"Just Facts" <Jfact@intnet.wrld> wrote in message
>news:Jfact-9E8761.10402123072007@news.telus.net...
>> In article <o31q8358s3ipl6cavq2plb64g7rvo8kqku@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A Civic running into another Civic is more likely to result in
>>> death than an Explorer running into a semi?
>
>> Both the Civic and semi would usually be toast if a semi hits them.
>>
>> A Civic being hit by an Explorer would be in trouble, but two large SUVs
>> colliding together would be bigger trouble for the occupants than two
>> Civics colliding together.
>>
>> The large truck like SUVs don't have the crush space of a car,
>> particularly a mid sized car such as a Honda Accord or Ford Taurus.
>

Let me put it to you this way to make it simple so that you may understand.
Properly belted passengers, in five star rated larger vehicles, will have a
far greater change of surviving a head-on collision between two like
vehicles, than properly belted passengers, in two like five star rated
smaller vehicles, in a similar crash, period. The reason being the
difference in the effect of the terminal speed of the third collision, when
one organs strikes ones skeleton.

I told you the facts, I do not intend to argue the point, or to teach a
school on the subject.
I could not care less whether you chose to believe that basic principle of
physics, or not.

As for me personally I will not subject myself or my family to the prospect
of dieing in a small car, to save a relative few dollars a year on fuel,
when I can afford to buy larger safer vehicles and the fuel to run them.
You may chose to do differently, but that is your choice

mike

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:73caa3tl140h6hv3vthnnc2grpmeqh2o7o@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:02:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>
>>That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have
>>your
>>facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in
>>which
>>to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for
>>properly belted passengers
>>
>>As a former automotive design engineer for thirty years, that designed
>>crumple zones for over fifteen years, I can assure you in any similar
>>accident where two like vehicles collide head on, the larger the vehicle
>>the
>>more likely properly belted passengers will sustain fewer injuries and
>>deaths. One can not defy the laws of physics.
>>
>>mike
>
> Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two
> identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on .
>

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:58:53 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:

>Let me put it to you this way to make it simple so that you may understand.
>Properly belted passengers, in five star rated larger vehicles, will have a
>far greater change of surviving a head-on collision between two like
>vehicles, than properly belted passengers, in two like five star rated
>smaller vehicles, in a similar crash, period. The reason being the
>difference in the effect of the terminal speed of the third collision, when
>one organs strikes ones skeleton.

So you have modified your original claim to specify that the larger
vehicle has a 5-star rating. However, you are now stuck with arguing
that a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers.

Sorry, Mike, the star rating is based on the acceleration experienced
by the dummy's head and chest during the crash. Are you now going to
argue that even though the head experienced the same acceleration, the
brain felt a bigger impact?

>I told you the facts, I do not intend to argue the point, or to teach a
>school on the subject.
>I could not care less whether you chose to believe that basic principle of
>physics, or not.

Since you don't have time for the full lecture, maybe you could just
answer a few yes or no questions.

You don't have time to argue or teach or even to properly bottom-post
your reply, but I notice you did find time to snip my citations. Let
me post them back in for you.

http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/3844.html

http://www.safercar.gov/Cars/2249.html

Let me also quote your original claim.

>>>The large the vehicle the more room in which
>>>to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for
>>>properly belted passengers.

>>>I can assure you in any similar accident where two like vehicles collide
>>>head on, the larger the vehicle the more likely properly belted
>>>passengers will sustain fewer injuries and deaths. One can not defy
>>>the laws of physics.

Now:

Does a barrier impact test measure the effectiveness of a vehicle
crumple zone, yes or no?

Does a barrier impact approximate the effect of two identical cars
colliding head-on, yes or no?

Does the acceleration experienced by head and chest during a collision
correlate with likely severity of injury, yes or no?

Is the Chevy Avalanche larger than the Honda Fit, yes or no?

Did the Chevy have higher chest and head values than the Honda in the
crash test, yes or no?

Was the NHTSA test governed by the laws of physics, yes or no?

Is your original statement (above) false, yes or no?


>As for me personally I will not subject myself or my family to the prospect
>of dieing in a small car, to save a relative few dollars a year on fuel,
>when I can afford to buy larger safer vehicles and the fuel to run them.
>You may chose to do differently, but that is your choice
>
>mike

At your age Mike, the safest thing would be to let someone else drive.






>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:73caa3tl140h6hv3vthnnc2grpmeqh2o7o@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:02:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That may be you opinion but you are wrong in your assumptions. You have
>>>your
>>>facts back ward for one thing. The large the vehicle the more room in
>>>which
>>>to design in better crumple zones and thus the safer the vehicle for
>>>properly belted passengers
>>>
>>>As a former automotive design engineer for thirty years, that designed
>>>crumple zones for over fifteen years, I can assure you in any similar
>>>accident where two like vehicles collide head on, the larger the vehicle
>>>the
>>>more likely properly belted passengers will sustain fewer injuries and
>>>deaths. One can not defy the laws of physics.
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Frontal barrier crash tests approximate what would happen if two
>> identical vehicles traveling at the test speed were to crash head-on .
>>
>