Avoiding the unexpected deer

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Oh, really? Ever sat in a Model T Ford? And conversely, a lot of early European cars were pretty big: Rolls-Royce, Bugatti Royale, etc.

It wasn't until the mid-50s that US cars really started bulking up. Compare the 50-59 Chevrolets, for instance:

1950: http://www.50chevy.com/wp-content/up...et-bel-air.jpg

1954: http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...d-green-sy.jpg

1955: http://assets.speedtv.com/images/eas..._bel_air_m.jpg

1959: http://www.davidsdimension.com/Retro...let_Impala.jpg

Most of the larger models you mention were very much hand built toys for the rich - only 7 Bugatti Royales were made (+ one I think in the 1990s), few RRs, Bentleys etc. The model T was a flop in Europe post WW1 as it cost too much under European taxation which was (roughly) based on engine size. Model T was 3+ litres.

In Europe a lot of cars were developed which were < 1 litre in engine size. The Austin 7 is a good example - 747cc, and rated at 7HP which meant a cost of 7 pounds a year to tax. Thats at a time when a uk pound would be close to 20 US dollars in value and an average UK wage would be 1 pound and 11 shillings a week.

Ford realised this and made specific models fore Europe at their plant in Dagenham which was built as a slightly smaller version of the River Rouge plant - same idea though, raw metal in, cars out. For most of the period between WW1 and WW2 the average European consumer car had 4 cylinders, under 1 to 1.5 litres, 3 or 4 gears, 4 seats and would be about 12-14 feet long. At the same time average - as in straight family and not luxury US cars - developed 6 cylinder engines (albeit less sophisticated sidevalve - aka flathead designs) and larger enclosed bodies.

Economes of scale helped too - a market the size of Europe combined with no import and export taxes meant US companies could make a car and sell 2-10 times as many as European makers. We had a slight advantage here in the UK because we also sold tariff free to the empire / commonwealth but that went away after WW2. In 1948 though we made more cars in the UK than the US - scary to think what has happened since - never mind

This has continued into the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and right up until now. Compare a 1950s Ford Consul (UK) to a US Ford - much smaller. A 1950s Vauxhall Victor (GM) to a US GM product - again, much smaller. Remember the 1940s and early 1950s Austins - sold as small cars in the US, discounts at car washes ? Those were full sized cars to UK buyers.

The real difference is size is due to taxation on the cars themselves (as I say - engine size, bore size etc.) and to tax on fuel. In the US fuel isn't taxed very much and for a long time you even made it yourself. Here higher cost and tax has been a factor since before WW2.

Another factor is incomes vs. cost of living - in the 1930s a US worker could expect to own a car and a home, even with renting. An average European worker would not expect to own a car until at least the 1960s or 1970s, even a small one.

After all we had all those wars and empires to pay for

The advantage of that taxation is to insulate us against fuel rises. If Oil doubles in price the US pump price could also nearly double. In the UK it may rise 10-20%. Tough but not AS bad a difference.

[davidgrey50]

UK petrol is about 1.15/litre (sorry, no symbol for pounds sterling), roughly $1.85 Canadian. Current Vancouver price is $1.16. If oil goes up, UK petrol wouldn't rise as much because tax/es is/are a far larger component of the price than the price of oil. But it's nice you see a good side in that.

Slowly drifting off topic ... drifting ... drifting...

[SlideWRX]

Originally Posted by Varn

I live on a gravel road and have no interest in making anything which would decrease the ground clearance as in the winter we sometimes have ruts which scrapes everything. I hadn't put much effort into trying to improve the mileage and perhaps the highway performance. That may change.

Rally cars run primarily on dirt/gravel, and the cars after the first 20 or so run in solid ruts from those first cars. They typically run underbody plastic protection between the skid plates, which keeps the rocks/gravel/etc. from damaging the car, but it also cleans up the underbody significantly. HDPE (high density polyethelene) or UHMW-PE (Ultra high Molecular Weight polyethelene)

I don't have enough posts to link to thread/pics of said items.

Other things to think of: using trailer mirrors? all the time? extra resistance. Does either van have a roof rack? pull the crossbars.

what is the trailer like? a box? open? big ramps on the back standing straight up while driving?

[Thymeclock]

So yes, those US figures are chilling.
And so are our Belgian figures for that matter.

Pointing out that things are worse elsewhere, really doesn't imply you're doing great.

Since you are so concerned with numbers, please tell us the statistics for all the countries that have better (i.e. "less chilling") fatality statistics than America or Belgium.

"One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic."

BTW, I don't see how going off on this tangent has anything to do with accidents involving deer.

[autoteach]

My dad has the same bigger is better ideas, but I had to show him his weapon of choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP5bBhaJpyk

I surely dont want to be in this vehicle. You stand a better choice in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpqCosw62f4

[Grant-53]

The Smart car is basically an armored telephone booth ie a well designed unibody. It is proper restraints, material strength and chassis geometry that allows a F1 driver to survive a high speed crash. The traditional frame and body design for full sized cars, light commercial vehicles, and yes many SUVs does not crash well. Mass alone will not save you. The engine and transmission are held in the frame by three 3/8" bolts in rubber. The body is attached to the frame by a handful of smaller bolts. Newer vehicles are somewhat better since some smaller SUVs and crossover vehicles are based on car plateforms. The videos are chilling not because I haven't seen crashes before but because I used to have to drive a similar van on the job.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

But let me go back to the beginning.
90% of all towns and cities that exist in europe were built and finished by 1900. the size of the roads in the towns were set.

And in the posher areas, people are still driving (or perhaps having their chauffeurs drive) Rolls, Bentleys, the larger BMWs and Mercedes, Land & Range Rovers, etc, and parking them on those narrow streets. So it's perfectly possible to operate large cars in those small streets.

90% of all towns and roads that exist in the US were still in development......we were still an Ag economy.
but to follow your point. Cars in the US got big because the could. Cars in europe got small because the had to.

It doesn't follow that because something CAN be done, that it will be done. At about the same time that US cars started metastasizing, there were people working on flying cars, amphibious cars, personal helicopters, and much else.

We could also note that even the largest American cars don't approach the legal limits of what can be driven on the roads, so evidently there was an upper limit...

Land is at a premium in the cities in europe. (much like New York) having a garage to put a car in was unheard of.

And why on earth would anyone put a car in a garage? Garages are for storing stuff - ever heard of a garage sale that sold cars?

[mcrews]

jamesqf,
sure someone can drive anything anywhere. you miss the point completely.
us cars got bigger with the completion of the US INTERSATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. Which created the birth of suburbs. Now dad could drive the 10-20 miles home in a larger car. AND park it at his job site.
Europe already had city planning in place that was NOT based on driving BIG cars with one person all the way into the office.

I am only stating what is a fact. it's not good or bad. It's how development takes place.

But of course you were right on the nail with the garage.....!!!!!!!

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Since you are so concerned with numbers, please tell us the statistics for all the countries that have better (i.e. "less chilling") fatality statistics than America or Belgium.

Choose your country :
http://www.etsc.eu/map-of-europe/

Most other European countries do better, only Cyprus (CY), Luxemburg (LU),
Lithuania (LT), Latvia (LV), Bulgaria (BG), Poland (PL), Greece (EL) and Romania do worse than Belgium (BE).

With the exception of troubles states Bulgaria and Romania, all former Eastern European countries are catching up quickly with ever more modern cars and better infrastructure.


Australia does better as well :
The road death rate in the USA was 142 per million population in 2006 (latest available data) against 79 in Australia in 2007 and 87 for the EU in 2007 (down to 79 in 2008).

BTW, I don't see how going off on this tangent has anything to do with accidents involving deer.

You don't ?
I wasn't really going off on a tangent.

Look at the statistics for European deer territorry : Sweden, Norway, Finland.
http://www.etsc.eu/map-of-europe/

They don't need to drive huge tanks to survive the deer.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Grant-53

Mass alone will not save you.

Indeed.

Mass works against you in just about every aspect of a crash.
From adding to the cause, to adding to the resulting carnage.

More mass can save your bacon when colliding with much lighter road users - but all too often killing them in the process. So while it may work for you in this instance, it still works against the bigger scheme of things.