Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-20-2011, 02:44 PM   #61 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
XJguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 135
Thanks: 9
Thanked 43 Times in 24 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joenavy85 View Post
what are you smoking and where can i get some of it? and as far as the SRT8 Jeep, that is hardly a premium SUV. i've seen plenty of small cars out brake larger ones, and vise versa. just view this thread

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...s-5214-29.html

check the picture i posted at the end of the page, a ricer with "performance brakes", out-braked by a 3900+ pound Jeep, sad.
I dont know what you classify as a premium SUV, but anything that costs $50k has one option -loaded- full leather interior drizzled with alcantara, aluminum and carbon fiber, 425hp, Brembo brakes all around, corners at .9g, and is top of the line by its manufacturer is a premium SUV in my book. Now if you want diminishing returns you can go super-premium Supercharged Range Rover and pay $120k for a vehicle that performs worse and is less reliable.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-20-2011, 07:57 PM   #62 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
...the extra fat will act as a cushioning device, not altogether unlike airbags, cushioning the impact and providing slower deceleration...
Humm... Wonder if anyone's ever done a study on that? "Relation Between Body Mass Index and Motor Vehicle Crash Survival Rates": sounds like an instant hit, or at least a publication for someone's CV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 08:58 PM   #63 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 985

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 232 Times in 160 Posts
From actual death statistics http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808570.PDF

"Abstract
Fatality rates per million exposure years are computed by make, model and model year, based on the crash experience of model year 1985-93 passenger cars and light trucks (pickups, vans and sport utility vehicles) in the United States during calendar years 1989-93. Regression analyses calibrate the relationship between curb weight and the fatality rate, adjusting for the effects of driver age, sex and other confounding factors. The analyses estimate the change in fatalities (including occupants of the "case" vehicle, occupants of other vehicles in the crash, and pedestrians/bicyclists) per 100 pound weight reduction in cars or in light trucks. A 100-pound reduction in the average weight of passenger cars, with accompanying reductions (based on historical patterns) in other size parameters such as track width, and in the absence of any compensatory improvements in safety technology, is associated with an estimated increase of 302 fatalities per year (± 3-sigma confidence bounds range from an increase of 170 to an increase of 434). However, a 100-pound reduction in the average weight of light trucks is associated with an estimated decrease of 40 fatalities (± 3-sigma confidence bounds range from a decrease of 130 to an increase of 50). In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the cars. When light trucks are reduced in weight and size, they become less hazardous to occupants of passenger cars as well as pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. Conversely, growth in the weight and size of light trucks could increase hazards to those groups."

An updated study with a breakdown of statistics based on type of accident and compensating for safety features such as airbags etc. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regr...pdf/809662.pdf

"Why heavier vehicles have usually had lower fatality rates
One safety factor, momentum conservation, is a direct consequence of a vehicle’s mass. Other parameters, such as a vehicle’s length and width are naturally and historically (i.e., during 1968-99), but not inevitably proportional to its mass. Most of those parameters favor the heavier vehicle, making it physically, intrinsically safer than the light vehicle.
Some human factors of drivers are historically, but not intrinsically confounded with vehicle mass. For example, young drivers historically have driven smaller cars4, but at least in theory, they might at some future time prefer large cars. These factors could give heavy vehicles lower fatality rates, but don’t make them intrinsically safer. The analysis should, as much as possible, remove these factors and compare the fatality rates of heavy and light vehicles on a level playing field, leaving only the physical factors that make heavy vehicles safer. Finally, there are in-between factors where it is not so clear if the relationship with mass is intrinsic or coincidental.
Momentum conservation: When a heavy and a light vehicle collide, the heavy vehicle keeps moving forward; its occupants experience a small velocity change. The light vehicle gets pushed backward; its occupants experience a higher velocity change. These are consequences of the laws of physics; nothing can be done to equalize the velocity changes. For example, in a head-on collision, a 1 percent weight advantage corresponds to more than a 5 percent reduction in the driver's fatality risk, relative to the driver of the other vehicle.5
What benefits an individual – being in the heavier of the two vehicles – however, does not necessarily benefit society as a whole. Based on momentum considerations alone, the risk reduction in Vehicle 1 as it becomes heavier is cancelled by a risk increase in Vehicle 2. If momentum conservation were the only factor making heavier vehicles safer (it isn’t), overall fatalities in multivehicle crashes would neither increase nor decrease if the entire vehicle fleet were reduced in mass."

other statistics from this report

net increase of deaths resulting from a 100 pound reduction in weight (all types of accidents)

Trucks > 3870 lbs 71

Trucks < 3870 lbs 234

Cars > 2950 lbs 216

Cars < 2950 lbs 597


heavier is safer QED
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	deaths_cars.GIF
Views:	14
Size:	22.1 KB
ID:	8200   Click image for larger version

Name:	deaths_trucks_over3870.GIF
Views:	15
Size:	22.8 KB
ID:	8201  
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 09:10 PM   #64 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 985

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 232 Times in 160 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
Ever seen someone toss a match into 10 gallons of gasoline? Yet somehow we all seem to feel comfortable driving around with at least that much.
it takes someone to toss a match into the gas. Lithium Ion batteries will go off for no apparent reason.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 09:30 PM   #65 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
All that jargon says is that the occupants in the more massive vehicle have a better survival rate than those in the smaller vehicle, making it intrinsically safer for one set, but more hazardous for the other.

In an overall sense (you know, what REALLY matters), how is that any safer? Oh, that's right... It's not. Thought we covered that already?
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 10:10 PM   #66 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,891

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 506
Thanked 868 Times in 654 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark View Post
The Aptera has some serious safety issues other than weight.
One serious issue is that it doesn't even exist.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 10:20 PM   #67 (permalink)
home of the odd vehicles
 
rmay635703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere in WI
Posts: 3,891

Silver - '10 Chevy Cobalt XFE
Thanks: 506
Thanked 868 Times in 654 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by XJguy View Post
You drive a new car...wonder at what cost to the environment was it to make? Why not recycle an older car? An 80's Diesel Mercedes for instance. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
I drive new and very old cars. I still have a 1980 Commutacar electric, a 1970 subaru 360 that was restored (cosmetically) and a 1989 diesel suburban which is in the process of a regear with an antique MT transmission.

I am exactly the guy who will get rid of the new car once the old ones are setup correctly to my satisfaction.

Also, Each have their purpose. My new $11,000 car is a bit different in energy req. to build than say a prius or a new suburban. Also at the moment I don't even have it, my father drives it as much as I do and it is of more benefit to him than me because he was always driving a suburban otherwise.

Also you missed the point, besides the diesel which is a craft mobile/trailer mover most of my cars are very light and efficient, the cobalt gets in the low 50's in the summer. A new suburban or any other SUV does not do that, nor is my cobalt as much of a danger to other cars as an SUV.

And my 900 & 1200lb cars are certainly not resource hogs and are already recycled a few times over.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 11:09 PM   #68 (permalink)
DieselMiser
 
ConnClark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 985

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 232 Times in 160 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
All that jargon says is that the occupants in the more massive vehicle have a better survival rate than those in the smaller vehicle, making it intrinsically safer for one set, but more hazardous for the other.
Wrong!!!! I suggest you read it!!! Heavier cars in in single car accidents have a lower death rate. This study even considers death rates of occupants in the other cars involved in accidents. It also covers the death rates involving pedestrians. All statistics are weighted on the the actual probability of it happening.

Let me see your data that takes these factors into account.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 11:23 PM   #69 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
What are the serious safety issues?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2011, 12:01 AM   #70 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 813
Thanks: 5
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
What i gather is that we should all get fat, because although the result of an instant stop would be flying further through the air, the extra fat will act as a cushioning device, not altogether unlike airbags, cushioning the impact and providing slower deceleration...
I don't think you'd fly further through the air the fatter you are. If you were bigger but the same density you should fly about the same distance, but fatter people are less dense. So you would fly less far because the extra air resistance from low density fat.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com