Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 26 Dec 2012, 11:20 am
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions?

Hi,

Saw the new 2013 Accords today.

Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also
that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
Really bad, IMHO.

I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.

I'm 5'11 inches.

Is it only me, or... ?

BTW: might anyone offer any opinions on the new Subaru Legacy vs. the
new Accords, please ?

Thanks,
Bob
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 26 Dec 2012, 01:38 pm
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:20:06 -0500, Bob <rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Saw the new 2013 Accords today.
>
>Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also
>that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
>Really bad, IMHO.
>
>I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.
>
>I'm 5'11 inches.
>
>Is it only me, or... ?


I dunno, pretty much unchanged from models in the last ten years.
Seems OK to me. What have you seen that's better?

Nearly all cars have higher beltlines now for safety, which tends to
cut visibility a little. Honda is better than many, Accord is better
than Civic!

.... and now we have cameras for backing up or turning right!

J.


Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04 Jan 2013, 08:23 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. AccordsOpinions ?

On 12/26/2012 11:38 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:20:06 -0500, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Saw the new 2013 Accords today.
>>
>> Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also
>> that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
>> Really bad, IMHO.
>>
>> I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.
>>
>> I'm 5'11 inches.
>>
>> Is it only me, or... ?

>
> I dunno, pretty much unchanged from models in the last ten years.
> Seems OK to me. What have you seen that's better?


that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.


>
> Nearly all cars have higher beltlines now for safety, which tends to
> cut visibility a little.


cuts it a LOT. if it is for "safety", and i've yet to read anything
official that states any such requirement, i'd question the logic of
doing so because it presumes the occupants are un-belted. sorry, but if
you're not wearing a belt, all safety responsibility of the manufacturer
should be OFF. it's retarded to compromise the visual safety of
millions for the few that deserve to drop out of the gene pool anyway.


> Honda is better than many, Accord is better
> than Civic!
>
> ... and now we have cameras for backing up or turning right!
>
> J.
>
>



--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 10:04 am
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:23:58 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 12/26/2012 11:38 AM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:20:06 -0500, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Saw the new 2013 Accords today.
>>>
>>> Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also
>>> that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
>>> Really bad, IMHO.
>>>
>>> I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.
>>>
>>> I'm 5'11 inches.
>>>
>>> Is it only me, or... ?

>>
>> I dunno, pretty much unchanged from models in the last ten years.
>> Seems OK to me. What have you seen that's better?

>
>that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
>for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
>of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.


Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.

>> Nearly all cars have higher beltlines now for safety, which tends to
>> cut visibility a little.

>
>cuts it a LOT. if it is for "safety", and i've yet to read anything
>official that states any such requirement, i'd question the logic of
>doing so because it presumes the occupants are un-belted. sorry, but if
>you're not wearing a belt, all safety responsibility of the manufacturer
>should be OFF. it's retarded to compromise the visual safety of
>millions for the few that deserve to drop out of the gene pool anyway.


Well, I thought it's also because the manufacturers - ALL of them as
near as I can tell - no longer want to go to the expense of
wrap-around rear windows that were the state of the art in the 1960s.
Unless even the pillar placement is dictated by some d*ck in DC.

I'm mystified by rear and side windows that have an inch or two of
glass around the edges blacked out, I guess it's a cheap way to do
part of the fastening down or something or it helps make the windows
look larger than they actually are, if it's glass on one side I want
to see through it, y'know.

J.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 10:21 am
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. AccordsOpinions ?

On 01/05/2013 08:04 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:23:58 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2012 11:38 AM, JRStern wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:20:06 -0500, Bob<rgsros@notme.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Saw the new 2013 Accords today.
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering if it's only me, or others have noticed also
>>>> that there is zip for visibility out the rear window.
>>>> Really bad, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> I would categorize it as bordering on dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm 5'11 inches.
>>>>
>>>> Is it only me, or... ?
>>>
>>> I dunno, pretty much unchanged from models in the last ten years.
>>> Seems OK to me. What have you seen that's better?

>>
>> that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
>> for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
>> of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.

>
> Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.


that's what tegger keeps saying, but all the nhtsa stuff i've read
avoids the subject but does specifically say that they don't dictate
design features. what goes on in the back room [maybe orchestrated by
the insurers?] of course is another matter, but that's the public face
of it.


>
>>> Nearly all cars have higher beltlines now for safety, which tends to
>>> cut visibility a little.

>>
>> cuts it a LOT. if it is for "safety", and i've yet to read anything
>> official that states any such requirement, i'd question the logic of
>> doing so because it presumes the occupants are un-belted. sorry, but if
>> you're not wearing a belt, all safety responsibility of the manufacturer
>> should be OFF. it's retarded to compromise the visual safety of
>> millions for the few that deserve to drop out of the gene pool anyway.

>
> Well, I thought it's also because the manufacturers - ALL of them as
> near as I can tell - no longer want to go to the expense of
> wrap-around rear windows that were the state of the art in the 1960s.
> Unless even the pillar placement is dictated by some d*ck in DC.


no, that particular feature is the result of unibody construction and
glass costs. unibody is very good in that it allows a stiffer frame for
the same or less weight. but if something is allowed to flex too much,
it's also susceptible to failure, so that comes back around to the
stiffness mandate again. thus, if you "bring in" the glass, you
effectively "brace" the frame and make it stiffer. the cost of glass
rises significantly for stuff that's curved too. not only does it need
to be shaped in a way that keeps the optical qualities acceptable, it
needs to be heat treated without distortion. all this can be done of
course, but it costs. much easier to use flatter smaller glass.


>
> I'm mystified by rear and side windows that have an inch or two of
> glass around the edges blacked out, I guess it's a cheap way to do
> part of the fastening down or something or it helps make the windows
> look larger than they actually are, if it's glass on one side I want
> to see through it, y'know.


i'm with you on that for visibility and the width, but the blacking out
is to screen the owner from the ugliness that is the glue used to stick
the glass to the frame. if you go to a junkyard and look where someone
has wire-sawed out intact glass, you'll see that's it's a real mess
under there. that won't sell!


>
> J.
>



--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 12:13 pm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

In article <0gjge81bqe46vl6321edtpjhq4ov5nbrc7@4ax.com>,
JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote:

> >that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
> >for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
> >of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.

>
> Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.


yes, it is.

Just like the damn headrests that jab your chin down onto your chest,
although I think Honda took that particular federal mandate to a serious
extreme. On that alone, I wouldn't be another Honda.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 12:14 pm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

In article <kc9ju1$82o$1@dont-email.me>, jim beam <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> >> that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
> >> for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
> >> of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.

> >
> > Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.

>
> that's what tegger keeps saying, but all the nhtsa stuff i've read
> avoids the subject but does specifically say that they don't dictate
> design features.


Well, of course they don't. But some engineer figured out how to
execute a design that achieves the desired results, and so everyone else
just went there because it's easy.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. AccordsOpinions ?

On 01/05/2013 10:13 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<0gjge81bqe46vl6321edtpjhq4ov5nbrc7@4ax.com >,
> JRStern<JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
>>> for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
>>> of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.

>>
>> Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.

>
> yes, it is.
>
> Just like the damn headrests that jab your chin down onto your chest,
> although I think Honda took that particular federal mandate to a serious
> extreme.


no kidding - i HATE having to crook my neck like that. ridiculous.


> On that alone, I wouldn't be another Honda.



--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 12:49 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. AccordsOpinions ?

On 01/05/2013 10:14 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<kc9ju1$82o$1@dont-email.me>, jim beam<me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> that's the key - last 10 years. stuff from prior years was excellent
>>>> for visibility and modern stuff is significantly vision impaired because
>>>> of the much thicker columns and higher door lines.
>>>
>>> Thought this was more of them thar federal mandates.

>>
>> that's what tegger keeps saying, but all the nhtsa stuff i've read
>> avoids the subject but does specifically say that they don't dictate
>> design features.

>
> Well, of course they don't. But some engineer figured out how to
> execute a design that achieves the desired results,


i fail to see why "desired results" should include saving idiots that
aren't belted. if you actually believe that's the objective. but i
believe this is merely the charade that's called "safety" because it
compels me to lug hundreds of lbs of unnecessary metal about, pay for
the extra gas in doing so, and coincidentally be more likely to have an
accident through restricted visibility as a result.

bottom line, the oil industry is plugged deep into the ass of our
so-called "representatives", and they in turn are plugging into our
wallets just to feed their masters with /our/ money for all this
unnecessary bullshit.

i've said many times before, if the nhtsa were actually serious about
safety, we'd all be wearing helmets, have proper roll cages and use
proper safety harnesses in cars. instead, we have cars that are
ridiculously over-heavy, that can't brake as a result, can't maneuver as
a result, that impair visibility as a result, all to be producing the
same or worse gas mileage as cars of 20/30 years ago despite their much
superior engines.

in europe, japan, they have, light, fuel efficient and safe cars that we
simply can't get here. the contrast is dramatic and disgusting. our
"safety" is simply an excuse for an outrageous fuel rort, pure and simple.


> and so everyone else
> just went there because it's easy.



--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jan 2013, 07:41 pm
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: New Accord Rear Window Visibility ? And, Legacy vs. Accords Opinions ?

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:49:24 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>in europe, japan, they have, light, fuel efficient and safe cars that we
>simply can't get here. the contrast is dramatic and disgusting. our
>"safety" is simply an excuse for an outrageous fuel rort, pure and simple.


Lighter, really?

Have any handy spec sheets?

The gross weight of the American vehicles is definitely one of my soap
box issues, if anyone really cares about mileage.

J.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how much would it cost to tint the rear window & rear door windows at 35% tint on a 95 accord? greenmagic95 Honda Technical 2 23 Mar 2011 10:31 pm
my honda element had the rear hatch window replaced. When they replaced the window the window joejoe Honda Technical 2 15 Oct 2007 02:39 pm
I've heard timing belts on Accords need to be changed every 60k miles. Any opinions? barfly Honda Technical 11 22 Aug 2007 12:46 pm
Anyone have experiences/opinions about Acura aftermarket window regulators? Paintballa Acura Technical 1 20 Aug 2007 05:00 pm
Accords: 4 or 6 Cyl.? Opinions? Robert11 Honda 1 5 02 Sep 2003 09:31 pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.