"The Volt" May BE SCRAPPED!- NEVER BUILT!!

[theunchosen]

sorry I don't really keep up on new cars. My opinion is slightly skewed then. Nevertheless. The point still stands to reason that alot of weight could very easily be shed from any of those cars. The 09 smart might be difficult to put on a diet, but not that difficult. I honestly don't see much reason for it to weigh twice as much as a go-kart. It can only seat two. Aluminum frame, FG/plastic body, small engine manual trans, is going to weigh in around 1K at most for that size. So what generated the extra 800 lbs?

[tjts1]

Aluminum is a very expensive material to build ca car out of. That why its only used in high end cars like top of the line Audis, Jaguar and Lotus. Also aluminum doen't flex like steel. When exposed to vibration and stress it develops very fine cracks. Not exactly idea for a car body. This is why aircraft are limited to fixed number of lifetime flying hours. The aluminum structure simply loses its integrity with time. Plus I doubt a go-cart could do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eghIfyHP0

[Christ]

awesome crash!

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Aluminum is a very expensive material to build ca car out of. That why its only used in high end cars like top of the line Audis, Jaguar and Lotus.

Plus the Honda Insight :-)

This is why aircraft are limited to fixed number of lifetime flying hours. The aluminum structure simply loses its integrity with time.

Where'd you get that idea? There's no such limit for aircraft in general. Though there are hour limits for some particular types, and for some parts on other types, these are generally the consequence of problems found when the aircraft is inspected. In fact there are a good number of planes from the '30s through '50s that have racked up high flying times, and are still flying. And most GA aircraft date from the late '50s through early '70s.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The only individuals who are willing to get into a car that has poor crash test ratings are the ones who want a car that goes very fast. the average person would not buy a car if the competitor came out and said their opponent got 2/5 stars instead of 5/5....

Wrong! I've never looked at a car's crash test ratings before buying it. I don't want my cars to go all that fast (though I admit I like them to go through the curves at the same speeds I travel on the straight), and would much prefer smaller & lighter.

I'll grant that I'm not average, but consider how many people ride motorcycles.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Carbon fiber is certainly lighter even than aluminum, and the costs of building with it should be coming (way?) down. Especially if we can move to production of carbon fiber from chicken feathers. It can be immensely strong and it does not rust, etc.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Plus the Honda Insight :-)

The original insight never turned a profit just like the NSX which came out of the same factory.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Where'd you get that idea? There's no such limit for aircraft in general. Though there are hour limits for some particular types, and for some parts on other types, these are generally the consequence of problems found when the aircraft is inspected. In fact there are a good number of planes from the '30s through '50s that have racked up high flying times, and are still flying. And most GA aircraft date from the late '50s through early '70s.

ALL aircraft have a predetermined lifetime flying hour limit and LTO cycles (landing and takeoff) limit when they leave the factory. That limit can be extended through strict inspection and overhaul programs. This is the problem the USAF is facing right now with an aging fleet of aircraft. The F15, KC135, A10 have all had structural integrity issues due to age.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...de5b7695ad43d1
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...rounded-04149/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U22_7jsQy7s

[dcb]

All this talk about cars with big butts and I thought someone would have made the connection



Sorry Oprah, you can handle it I hope

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by tjts1

The original insight never turned a profit just like the NSX which came out of the same factory.

But it was never supposed to turn a profit. It was a limited edition, real-world test bed for Honda's hybrid tech.

ALL aircraft have a predetermined lifetime flying hour limit and LTO cycles (landing and takeoff) limit when they leave the factory.

Would you care to cite the appropriate section of the FARs, or some equivalent source, to back up that statement?

The F15, KC135, A10 have all had structural integrity issues due to age.

As I said, some particular models do have problems. Most don't. How many DC-3s and Dehavilland Beavers are still out there flying, just to pick a couple off the top of my head.

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Wrong! I've never looked at a car's crash test ratings before buying it. I don't want my cars to go all that fast (though I admit I like them to go through the curves at the same speeds I travel on the straight), and would much prefer smaller & lighter.

I'll grant that I'm not average, but consider how many people ride motorcycles.

That's an interesting point. We should do a poll based on the car crash safety test :

What is the minimum car crash safety you will accept in a car?

5 Stars - Highest
4
3
2
1
0 Stars - Lowest (Motorcycle)

Assuming a motorcycle (or any two wheeled vehicle) is "0", I wonder how many people are driving *only* a motorocycle? What I mean is, if a person drives a 5-star rated car 50% of their miles, and a motorcycle the other 50% of their miles, I think they would be accepting a "2.5" star crash rating, because that is the degree to which they are exposing themselves to danger.

CarloSW2