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

[theunchosen]

Also... for 40K you can definitely build an aluminum car.

Comparing a car to an airplane's rated lifetime is off-color. An airplane's satefy tolerances are very small. As small as is judged as "safe." Its important to stay as lightweight as possible and any "extra" safety features are removed.

The danger to aluminum in aircraft is fatigue because the stress loads approach their limits not frequently but 1-2 times per flight(take off and landing) and gradually generate stacked dislocations. Given enough time as you said it becomes a problem. This is more a cause of fatigue than vibration.

I for one don't even consider a safety rating on a car. The only thing I am concerned about as for car safety is "Does it have a likely failure that could cause an accident?" As long as the car is solid and nothing is going to break on its own and force a wreck thats enough safety for me.

I know SUVs can do damage, I drive a Del Sol I can see under alot of them... Someone has to take the first step with driving lightweight cars. I'm willing to be one of those people. I mean look at Formula one cars. They can stop painfully quickly. Of course I am not advocating the highway be at a speed limit of 120 or anything, but if all the cars were lighter we could stop quicker, avoid more accidents, and use alot less fuel.

I don't want air bags to be honest. Over the last 6 months I have had 5 friends in life-threatening car accidents. 4 of which were caused by drunk drivers and the other was my friends fault. 3 of those were 4 were t-boned on the driver's side. 2 had air bags and 1 didn't. The one that didn't was hit at 60 from the side in a civic. The wreck broke her left leg. She got a cast and was out the next day. The other two spent a week in the hospital each after being hit by cars at lower speeds with fractured disks in their necks from the air bags. The two not involved in T collisions did not have air bags and were just bruised one at 65 highway speed the other at 45 on a rural road.

I'll stick with a 5 point harness to an air bag any day...

[Jammer]

I believe the video I posted earlier in this thread did show that in most small cars the side air bags were not as effective as in a couple other cars. But it just so happens that the 2005 Cobalt (with side air bags) got a Best Pick, along with a Toyota car, so I for one am VERY happy to have these air bags in my car.

It sounds like Sour Grapes to me.

[MadisonMPG]

Let me go to work...oops I almost for got my 5 point harness, racing helmet, HANS device, and flame retardant suit.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by MadisonMPG

Let me go to work...oops I almost for got my 5 point harness, racing helmet, HANS device, and flame retardant suit.

You must be pretty hardcore. Hans, helmet and nomex jump suit are overkill unless you're riding around in something heavily modified and going very fast.

The added belts are obviously just about as convenient as your air bags without the burn risks and neck trauma.

[Jammer]

I realize we all are expressing our pov based on what we have been exposed too in life... err so I think anyway. I have only known one person to wreck and have an airbag go off. He was going 55/55 and was distracted looking at some woman or something and when he looked back at the road it was too late- A car was turning left and was at a stop directly in front of him with no time to stop. He hit that car from the rear doing 55mph (it was said the seat belt & air bag saved that driver). Both cars were about the same size and weight. He told all of us at work that the doctors told him the air bag saved his life. Yes he was bruised up, his glasses cut his face, and he had to do A LOT of walking and stuff for a few months to get his back working correctly again. But he never complained about his air bag. In fact he told many people his story about how his air bag saved his life and it was not a big deal to him to have a bad back and some cuts and bruises for a couple of months.

Of course my example above is NOT one of a "T-bone" hit by a large SUV on the driver's side of a small car either. But it is an example of a seat belt / air bag combination saving a life. An example that I knew personally.

I do agree that seat belts, when used properly, save lives. It happen to me last July. If I did not have my seat belt on I most likely would of been thrown through the windshield, or at the very least I would of hit the dash and then would of been been bouncing all around the inside of my 4x4 until it stopped flipping over and rested upside down. That seat belt kept me secure during the entire accident until the truck stopped and I found myself upside down in my seat and managed to walk away with only 2 small scratches due to the broken glass. No doubt that seat belts can save adults from serious injury when fitted correctly. It sold me. I did not even suffer whiplash, despite the first hard impact. (my air bags never went off, and I do not think I needed them in this case)

[Jammer]

Hey, speaking of Air Bags, and how Motorcycles
can be so deadly. I THINK I might of found the answer
for bike riders!

[dcb]

nice, certainly looks like a recipe for some fun in the works there

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

The danger to aluminum in aircraft is fatigue because the stress loads approach their limits not frequently but 1-2 times per flight(take off and landing)

Hey, dammit! Not all my landings are that bad!

[theunchosen]

James lol.

Its not that the landings are that rough at all(I didn't mean you specifically anyway ^_^), but its when the load is being applied and is greatest for a sustained period(takeoff). Obviously its one of the only times the plane climbs that far for several minutes, so also the only time the increased load is applied for several minutes.

Severe turbulence applies the same kind of danger loading that arises in landings, the fuselage is translating load onto/off the wings in a very short time span causing bump or rebound and then loading/unloading again.

Those are the points at which the fatigue limit for the aircraft super-structure is surpassed. The number of takeoffs and landings is limited for obvious reasons because it is almost a given that the material is fatigued during those processes and hours logged is limited because statistically the plane will encounter x turbulence events in y hours. Upon review it may come to light the plane's superstructure is completely fine because it flies routes with less than average turbulence or something along those lines.

[orange4boy]

For clarity:

Part 25 > Section 301 - Loads

(a) Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads.

(b) Unless otherwise provided, the specified air, ground, and water loads must be placed in equilibrium with inertia forces, considering each item of mass in the airplane. These loads must be distributed to conservatively approximate or closely represent actual conditions. Methods used to determine load intensities and distribution must be validated by flight load measurement unless the methods used for determining those loading conditions are shown to be reliable.

(c) If deflections under load would significantly change the distribution of external or internal loads, this redistribution must be taken into account.

I think you are confusing ultimate loads with limit loads. If aircraft were even close to limit loads during an average take off and landing, they would be falling out of the sky. Limit loads are the maximum load expected during service so the hardest landings/takeoffs/turbulence/manouvers, etc. expected.