My Death Trap

[cfg83]

Hello -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

...

This thing was started by GM bragging about some piddling "weight reduction" on the Cruze- a small car that weighs half a Ton more than mine. Then I said my old 5 passenger car does have good safety features, including air bag- more than adequate in my book- so it is odd to think that if we want better performance including fe performance, we are saddled with an extra 1,000 It was 3500 lbs or so right? Oh- it was 32xx then the engineering miracles took about 200 out. The point wasn't primarily about Tempos, it's primarily about new cars being excessively heavy. Regardless, just about everything sub-compact and up weighs 3000 or more these days.

Sorry everybody, this thread is my fault. I posted a quote that Cruze engineers shed pounds on the Eco to gain MPG here :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/204000-post149.html

On a similar note, the next-gen Honda Civic design was replanned for the same reason. The original design was going to be "bigger heavier" than before, but I suppose they "saw the light(-weight)".

The Chevy Cruze was a pre-existing platform in other markets, so the curb weight is what the GM engineers started with. I would imagine that if the Cruze Eco crash tests are shown to be equal to the non-Eco Cruze, the diet-program will be instituted across the platform.

I am happy to toodle around in my 1999 SW2, whose safety design goes back to 1996. While I loved my 2nd gen CRX, I wonder if I would feel safe in one today. I used to drive my Dad's 1972 VW Karmann Ghia, and while I miss it every day, I have no illusions that I would survive a major crash in that car.

I agree that 90% of safety is in the hands of the driver. At the same time, I don't think you can win an argument with any "normal" driver if you tell them auto companies should make cars lighter and less crash-worthy than the competition.

CarloSW2

[JacobAziza]

I'm with Frank on this one.

Here's one big thing I didn't notice anyone acknowledging about car weight vs. safety:

Extra weight makes a difference in a head-on collision between two cars. That's just physics.
HOWEVER
Only 10% of fatal accidents are head-on collisions!
Which means 90% of fatal accidents ARE NOT head-on collisions.

In rear and side impact collisions, striking solid inanimate objects, and roll overs, weight does not change the outcome appreciably, if at all.
Why, then, is frontal impact testing the standard by which "safety" is measured?

For that matter, why is impact testing the standard for safety in the first place?

Wouldn't not getting into an accident in the first place be even better than surviving one?

Why isn't braking distance considered as a factor in determining safety? If it were, light cars would have the advantage.

In the same time that airbags were mandated, so were anti-lock brakes. Cars with side-curtain airbags often have traction control. Perhaps this has as much to do with the reduction in traffic fatalities?

I haven't looked at the numbers, so I'm not sure, but over the time that fatalities per mile have dropped, has the accident rate per mile dropped as well? If so, then safety features like airbags and crumple zones wouldn't account for it as much as measures to reduce accidents from occurring (better traffic control devices, for example, or anti-drunk driving ads plus better enforcement - about a third of fatal crashes involve alcohol, down from 2/3s in the 60s)

Someone on this forum once suggested that the best way to decrease traffic accidents was to put a big steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointing at the driver.
About 90% of traffic accidents are due to driver error, so I think whoever suggested that was on to something.

[user removed]

On the Island of Marathon in the Florida Keys there is a section of US1 where both my parents and myself were nearly killed by two different drunk drivers.

They were driving a 1977 Accord and I was driving a 1973 Alfa Romeo GTV. We were both headed towards the mainland and the two drunks were headed towards Key West.

In both cases the drunk swerved into our lane at 50 MPH per vehicle, 100 MPH impact. The drunks were in Cadillacs and we were both in cars that weighed less than 2100 pounds.

My mother was driving the Accord and she swerved off the road and missed the drunk. I was driving the Alfa and it was raining heavily and after sunset. I had to swerve across the oncoming lane of traffic into a parking lot to avoid the collision.

Pop told me that if they had been driving their other car, a 1973 Mercury Montego, they would never have missed the Cadillac.

2 separate instances of certain death involving 3 of my immediate family members including myself.

That was 28 years ago. Pop turns 90 the 8th of May, Mom turns 85 the 3rd August, and I turn 60 on Monday.

Statistics that never were because of situational awareness and very light maneuverable cars.

regards
Mech

[SoobieOut]

I think the best safety feature in a car is a well trained driver. In the US drivers are not given adequate training, most just drive around a parking lot for the drivers license test.

Most new cars sustain extreme damage from low speed accidents. Some of this is due to crumple zones, but my cycnical side thinks that it is to sell more expensive auto car parts.

[cfg83]

Old Mech -

Would you advocate a driver's license process like Finland (if you want to win, hire a Finn)?

Driving licence in Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Finland, the car driver's training can be obtained either in a private driving school or given by a near relative who has a driver's license. If the person is trained by a relative, the relative must obtain a special instructor's permit and have a car fitted and inspected with an extra set of brake pedals for the front passenger. The training for B class license requires 30 hours of instructed driving, including a spell on a slippery driving course, and 20 theory lessons. After this, the person must pass a computerized theory test and a driving test in city traffic with a minimum length of 30 minutes. C class training is similar, but longer.

CarloSW2

[wdb]

I love threads like these. They renew my faith in the adversarial system.

I personally:

• tend towards small and light vs. large and 'safe'
• tend towards tires with great wet weather traction vs. low rolling resistance
• don't like a lot of the stuff federally mandated into cars
• do understand why a lot of them are there anyway
• don't like nanny electronics
• do like the fact that the moron in the FSP with the cellphone glued to their head has them
• would rather walk 10 miles than drive a Tempo
• would not feel unsafe if I was forced into it

[user removed]

I drove my 93 VX for 32 k miles with no radio, manual windows, and manual steering. It did have AC and a passengers mirror, but I usually did not use the AC unless it got above 92 degrees.

Car companies make 100% profit on options, or at least they used to make that much.
I hate option packages. I have yet to program my mirror to open my garage door. There are a lot of options on my Altima I will never use, but then I did not pay for them. They are also a huge factor in depreciation and very costly to repair.

On drivers licensing:

I think every new driver should have a gps in their car that allows the parents to monitor there driving and where they go, especially when you consider the parents are financially liable for the underage drivers mistakes.

I think a drivers test should be a heck of a lot harder than it is today, with probably a simulator to create emergency situations to test the response of the student. Maybe not as tough as Finland (the only country to pack back the WW2 debts) but a whole lot tougher than what is available today.

Pop learned to drive from his father who was one of 7 State Troopers in Virginia at the time, It took him two years. When he went into the military he was an ambulance driver before he went to pilots school.

His last accident was 1973 when he was t-boned by another driver who ran a red light.
His last ticket was 1955. He once told me I was the only person who he felt comfortable enough to fall asleep riding in a car I was driving.

One time I took him to Andrews AFB where he got on a courier flight to the Florida Keys. He was so nervous, the pilot let him come into the cockpit and actually fly the plane for a short distance, because he never trusted another pilot enough to feel comfortable.

I think new drivers should be carefully monitored until they have a couple of years experience. If they screw up they should have to spend a night in an emergency room and see the consequences of auto accidents.

My youngest brothers son got his license at 16, and his first car was a WS6 Firebird, a real road rocket. He is 23 now, and has never been cited for any traffic violation, with the exception of a charge of illegal fog lights on a Mini Cooper. In court he showed the judge that the lights were factory equipment and legal for the year the car was produced. With both of his parents sitting in court the case was thrown out. The other night he called his dad and asked him to come and get him because he had to many drinks at a bar. He knew his dad would take care of it without the need for any lecture.

He could have called me, or his grandparents, or his fathers other two brothers, and not a single one of us would have said anything but thanks for the opportunity to keep him safe.

regards
Mech

[cfg83]

Old Mech -

Thanks for the story. Sounds like Dad exceeded the Finland requirements.

CarloSW2

[user removed]

Compared to some of the cars I drove in the 60s and 70s, Frank's Tempo was a miracle car.

59 Austin Healey Sprite
58 Volkswagen
63 Valiant
59 Corvette

None of them even had dual circuit brake systems. Only one had seat belts. Windshields were not laminated safety glass. Pot metal knobs sticking out of the dash. No side guard beams in the doors. In fact only one of them had a PCV valve. No padded dash. Steering columns would impale you. Bias ply tires. Fuel tanks that vented into the atmosphere.

On the Corvette if you floored it in 2nd gear you could melt the brakes before it would stop.

regards
Mech

[autoteach]

I do think the solution is simple, take a new car that could be quite a bit more efficient then the tempo, strip out all the insulation and replace seats with 35 lb race seats. Strip out all insulation and covers under the hood. Pull out any other unnecessary devices or supplies. It will demo the tempo on mpg (think cruze, which is already pounding it), it will be almost as light, and surely as loud going down the road. Just an idea, then you can say screw the nanny society, I drive a vehicle that is as undesirable to drive as a mid nineties (fill in the blank) but gets considerably better FE.