Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I'm not one to go through life worrying about things I have zero control over. And I'm not about to wrap myself in the biggest gas guzzling SUV on the off chance that some moron might crash into me.
Originally posted by: Bignate603
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, I'm not one to go through life worrying about things I have zero control over. And I'm not about to wrap myself in the biggest gas guzzling SUV on the off chance that some moron might crash into me.
I'm not planning on letting it be the only thing that dictates my next vehicle purchase but it does play a role. If I can find a vehicle that meets my needs for a reasonable price that's safer than the others in its class that would be a good selling point for me.
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Auto manufacturers who ship their vehicles overseas routinely OVER-INFLATE their tires up to 80PSI (on a 44psi tire for example) in order to prevent the car from sitting on its rims by the time it arrives at its destination.
Why not just use nitrogen? My tires came filled with nitrogen when I bought the car and the pressure never drops. Almost a year later and they haven't lost any pressure.
Why take the time to pump them way up?
/facepalm.
Nitrogen will still leak out of tyres.
Sure it will, no one said it wouldn't, but replacing the 21% oxygen with Nitrogen's fatter molecule should slow down the leakage. I've never had tires maintain their pressure this long before.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
It doesn't matter. PhoKingGuy is right in the sense that if you have more tire contact with the road, you will have a shorter stopping distance which will save your life in an emergency.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: PhoKingGuy
Originally posted by: fleabag
Oh wow.... You're like those idiots who think that two cars going 30mph crashing into each other is twice as bad as one car going 30mph into a wall.....
It depends if the collision is elastic or inelastic
FINE, it's either two cars each going 30mph crashing head on OR one car going 30mph crashing into a IMMOVABLE SOLID AND RIGID WALL.
What are the masses of both cars involved?
Originally posted by: RichUK
Lol, this thread is not worth a sticky. :laugh:
Originally posted by: thescreensavers
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: thescreensavers
the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.
But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....
I'm not saying cars today aren't safer than cars of the 80s, I'm saying in the exact same tests, cars of the 80s that got 5 stars and cars of today that get 5 stars are directly comparable. Aside from side impact and offset crash testing, there is nothing else to indicate whether a car of today will perform better in a crash test than a car from 1980. You can't automatically assume that the car from 1980 is going to do worse just because it's older. You should see what a 5 star crash test from 1980 looks like, it's a lot better than you'd imagine. Cars of the 1980s and early to mid 1990s for the most part weren't tested or designed for those test, yet those are two exclusive trains of thought. You can have a car that is designed for a test and do bad and you can have a car that isn't designed for a test perform well, and vice versa. I've seen cars that aren't designed for say the side impact crash test actually do quite well.
There are just too many factors in a crash test that make declarations such as "this car because it was made in X year is less safe than car made in Y year" to be false more than you'd expect.
For example, that Escort got a 5 star rating for passenger and 3 star for the driver. Not so great, right? Well the 1991 Ford Escort Gets 5 Stars for both passenger and the driver. So, do you think the '91 is a LOT safer than the '89? I'd have to say no.
Why?
Well why the chest and head had low risk for injuries, what it didn't do so well in is the femur loads. It has a 1403lbs and 1055lbs for driver, 2151lbs and 1119lbs femur loads; this is really high especially considering that this is a crash into a wall with just the weight of the car itself. The star rating doesn't consider femur load into the test and therefore it's deceptive.
The only test that has come close to giving cars a more fair and accurate overall assessment to its safety are the IIHS tests but since those tests weren't conducted on some 1995 and no 1994 and earlier model year cars, one cannot definitively determine whether one vehicle is safer than another just because it's older. But going off of what I do know which is the NHTSA tests, a 5 star rated car IN THAT CRASH is just as safe as another 5 star rated car assuming they're the same weight and size, regardless of model year.
You can't assume that a newer vehicle is safer than an older vehicle, especially when you throw in variables that aren't even tested for like tall or really short passengers, having the sun visor down, etc. etc.
There is not, your right. But those 2 count for a lot... If you look at car accidents most of them are offset and not full on perfect crashes which is why they now do the offset test. Saying that offset and side crash testing are no biggie, and that they don't make a 2009 car safer then a 1980's car your crazy.
you can only test for so many variables I know, but based on the standard... Also if you look at Femur loads, and chest deceleration from older cars to newer cars you can see that the newer cars of the same models are lower thus improving chance to survive.
Lets take a nissan Maxima
1990
Driver/Passenger
Head Injury Criterion 808 736
Chest deceleration (g's) 51 44
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 611 / 664 1409 / 1043
2009
Head Injury Criterion 255 366
Chest deceleration (g's) 43 41
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 301 / 133 682 / 378
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.
All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.
All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.
After looking at the crazy driving by women (and it seems the majority of possible accidents I've avoided were caused by a woman doing something stupid/not paying attention/on the phone/etc) I somehow have a hard time believing this
I know that's what the statistics say, but still.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.
All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.
After looking at the crazy driving by women (and it seems the majority of possible accidents I've avoided were caused by a woman doing something stupid/not paying attention/on the phone/etc) I somehow have a hard time believing this
I know that's what the statistics say, but still.
As surprising as it is...it is actually true. Statistically, the majority of members of ATOT are in fact the worst drivers on the planet and the riskiest to insure.
Originally posted by: Bignate603
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.
All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.
After looking at the crazy driving by women (and it seems the majority of possible accidents I've avoided were caused by a woman doing something stupid/not paying attention/on the phone/etc) I somehow have a hard time believing this
I know that's what the statistics say, but still.
As surprising as it is...it is actually true. Statistically, the majority of members of ATOT are in fact the worst drivers on the planet and the riskiest to insure.
Considering some of the characters on this board (and in this thread) I can completely believe that.
Originally posted by: BassBomb
how the fuck did a fuel economy thread become about crash tests?
Originally posted by: fleabag
[
So check out the Corolla, it actually got WORSE ratings after the 1984-1987 MY with a really bad rating for the 1988-1992 MY and ok ratings for the '93-'97/'98-'02 MY. (Didn't post '93-'97 b/c they're kinda redundant)
The whole point of this argument and why it even started in the first place is that cars aren't heavier today because they're "safer", they're heavier because the manufacturers don't know how to stop making their cars increasingly bigger and not add more heavy sound insulation and other sometimes unnecessary amenities like big rims, "extra comfy seats", etc. etc. My argument is that you can make a safe car without making it weigh a whole lot and this is evidenced by the corolla and a few other cars that I may or may not have listed.
Probably the only reason why those cars aren't exactly as "safe" as the cars today is not because they're missing "critical" safety systems (airbags, heavy safety reinforcement, etc.) but because they simply weren't designed that way. We don't know how the 1984 corolla does in an offset crash but assuming we do and that it doesn't do so well, there is absolutely NOTHING to say that they couldn't have made the Corolla do well in both the full frontal and offset crash test without a significant increase in manufacturing cost. (i.e, not needing additional systems like airbags)
Originally posted by: BassBomb
how the fuck did a fuel economy thread become about crash tests?
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: BassBomb
how the fuck did a fuel economy thread become about crash tests?
When people starting saying that the reason why cars are so fucking heavy and get bad mileage is because of "all the safety systems", that you can't have a light car that is safe and I pointed out to them that they were wrong.
Originally posted by: PhoKingGuy
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: BassBomb
how the fuck did a fuel economy thread become about crash tests?
When people starting saying that the reason why cars are so fucking heavy and get bad mileage is because of "all the safety systems", that you can't have a light car that is safe and I pointed out to them that they were wrong.
You should apply for head of engineering at Honda, you obviously know more than all of them do
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: PhoKingGuy
Originally posted by: fleabag
Originally posted by: BassBomb
how the fuck did a fuel economy thread become about crash tests?
When people starting saying that the reason why cars are so fucking heavy and get bad mileage is because of "all the safety systems", that you can't have a light car that is safe and I pointed out to them that they were wrong.
You should apply for head of engineering at Honda, you obviously know more than all of them do
Engineering and Design teams guided by "focus groups" are not one in the same. Honda of today is nothing like Honda of 20 years ago... Honda has headed down hill since Soichiro Honda died.
I thought this was discussed ad nauseum already!?!?!Originally posted by: thescreensavers
Originally posted by: fleabag
[
So check out the Corolla, it actually got WORSE ratings after the 1984-1987 MY with a really bad rating for the 1988-1992 MY and ok ratings for the '93-'97/'98-'02 MY. (Didn't post '93-'97 b/c they're kinda redundant)
The whole point of this argument and why it even started in the first place is that cars aren't heavier today because they're "safer", they're heavier because the manufacturers don't know how to stop making their cars increasingly bigger and not add more heavy sound insulation and other sometimes unnecessary amenities like big rims, "extra comfy seats", etc. etc. My argument is that you can make a safe car without making it weigh a whole lot and this is evidenced by the corolla and a few other cars that I may or may not have listed.
Probably the only reason why those cars aren't exactly as "safe" as the cars today is not because they're missing "critical" safety systems (airbags, heavy safety reinforcement, etc.) but because they simply weren't designed that way. We don't know how the 1984 corolla does in an offset crash but assuming we do and that it doesn't do so well, there is absolutely NOTHING to say that they couldn't have made the Corolla do well in both the full frontal and offset crash test without a significant increase in manufacturing cost. (i.e, not needing additional systems like airbags)
I am talking about 1980-1990s as being the old cars are 2003ish + being the new cars. You can see newer models(2003+) have lower numbers all around board.
I am sure they could of build it better if the tests for offset were done then but the whole weight thing is iffy. If it was so simple to lower the weights of cars then why dont they do it then?
Originally posted by: desy
I watched a show about the new Mazda 3 and most of the engineering changes went into high strength steel in places you can't see
Yes, and fleabag is posting stuff like these...
I have an 18 gallon tank and I want to put something inside of the gas tank in order to reduce its capacity.
Do you guys think that a thick laptop from the mid '90s is a deterrent enough for people to not want to steal it? What if I put lead weights in it so that it's even heavier than expected?
Sue for false advertising on craig's list?