|
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >JXStern wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >> >> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >> >> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >> >> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >> the way > >damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >and safety i'll wager. > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we will see how many people *really* need a truck. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam ><spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>> be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>> there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>> replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> >>damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>design and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > > > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special coatings/fasteners. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam ><spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>> be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>> there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>> replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> >>damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>design and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > > > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special coatings/fasteners. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam ><spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>> be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>> there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>> replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> >>damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>design and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > > > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special coatings/fasteners. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote: > > >>"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message >>news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >>> one >>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >>>at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >>>140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >>>the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >>>would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >>>be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >>> >>> >> >>I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover >>around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, >>responsiveness is relative.... >> >>Mike > > > > *I had a '73 1800ES... I'll bet you wish you still had it... > > http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html > > Much more like this: > > http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg > > And even more like this: > > http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg > > FUN!!!! > |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote: > > >>"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message >>news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >>> one >>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >>>at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >>>140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >>>the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >>>would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >>>be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >>> >>> >> >>I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover >>around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, >>responsiveness is relative.... >> >>Mike > > > > *I had a '73 1800ES... I'll bet you wish you still had it... > > http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html > > Much more like this: > > http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg > > And even more like this: > > http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg > > FUN!!!! > |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Hachiroku ハチク wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote: > > >>"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message >>news:Scgni.10134$yx4.2269@trndny08... >> >>> I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the >>> one >>>who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for >>>freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM >>>at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the >>>140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for >>>the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it >>>would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to >>>be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy. >>> >>> >> >>I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover >>around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, >>responsiveness is relative.... >> >>Mike > > > > *I had a '73 1800ES... I'll bet you wish you still had it... > > http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html > > Much more like this: > > http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg > > And even more like this: > > http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falt...ges/1800es.jpg > > FUN!!!! > |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>> JXStern wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>>> be "plush". >>>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>>> there. >>>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>>> >>>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>>> replacement. >>>> >>>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>>> the way >>> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>> gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>> deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>> design and safety i'll wager. >>> >> I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the >> side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got >> a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy >> bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, >> let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we >> will see how many people *really* need a truck. >> >> >> >> > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door > and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window > area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. not true for all new vehicles: http://www.edmunds.com/lotus/elise/review.html this thing cruises in at under 2,000lbs too. > > AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body > auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not > rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special > coatings/fasteners. adds to the price too. bottom line, i think safe is good, but the weight penalty to "protect" against side impact, the current hot ticket, is pretty much pointless. any time you have your head right next to a nice inflexible piece of bodywork, and no distance in which to decelerate moving objects, you're going to have injury. period. racing bucket seats, 5 point harness and helmets otoh /would/ make a significant difference to side impact safety. but they weigh nothing. just wait another 30 years and see whether they become mandatory! [not.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>> JXStern wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>>> be "plush". >>>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>>> there. >>>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>>> >>>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>>> replacement. >>>> >>>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>>> the way >>> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>> gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>> deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>> design and safety i'll wager. >>> >> I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the >> side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got >> a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy >> bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, >> let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we >> will see how many people *really* need a truck. >> >> >> >> > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door > and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window > area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. not true for all new vehicles: http://www.edmunds.com/lotus/elise/review.html this thing cruises in at under 2,000lbs too. > > AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body > auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not > rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special > coatings/fasteners. adds to the price too. bottom line, i think safe is good, but the weight penalty to "protect" against side impact, the current hot ticket, is pretty much pointless. any time you have your head right next to a nice inflexible piece of bodywork, and no distance in which to decelerate moving objects, you're going to have injury. period. racing bucket seats, 5 point harness and helmets otoh /would/ make a significant difference to side impact safety. but they weigh nothing. just wait another 30 years and see whether they become mandatory! [not.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > news:p38t93tifmeqcttc9vuogpb14p5pje8j8i@4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam >> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>> JXStern wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps >>>>>>>> the weight up than safety. >>>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to >>>>>>> be "plush". >>>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get >>>>>> there. >>>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and >>>>> economical - crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>>> >>>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings >>>> that would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole >>>> lot more engineering was done as I suggested, with modular >>>> replacement. >>>> >>>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>>> the way >>> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >>> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins >>> gas mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good >>> deal more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle >>> design and safety i'll wager. >>> >> I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the >> side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got >> a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy >> bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, >> let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we >> will see how many people *really* need a truck. >> >> >> >> > > to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door > and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window > area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models. not true for all new vehicles: http://www.edmunds.com/lotus/elise/review.html this thing cruises in at under 2,000lbs too. > > AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body > auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not > rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special > coatings/fasteners. adds to the price too. bottom line, i think safe is good, but the weight penalty to "protect" against side impact, the current hot ticket, is pretty much pointless. any time you have your head right next to a nice inflexible piece of bodywork, and no distance in which to decelerate moving objects, you're going to have injury. period. racing bucket seats, 5 point harness and helmets otoh /would/ make a significant difference to side impact safety. but they weigh nothing. just wait another 30 years and see whether they become mandatory! [not.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >>> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >>> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >> mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >> more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >> and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > like it! but it may not make as much difference as you'd like. my ex was fixated on pink. /any/ vehicle that came with a huge pink fluffy bumper, she'd buy it. i'm not joking either. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >>> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >>> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >> mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >> more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >> and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > like it! but it may not make as much difference as you'd like. my ex was fixated on pink. /any/ vehicle that came with a huge pink fluffy bumper, she'd buy it. i'm not joking either. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> JXStern wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:52:25 -0700, jim beam >>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the >>>>>>> weight up than safety. >>>>>> popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush". >>>>> I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there. >>>> it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical - >>>> crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem. >>> I don't think nhtsa has any weight or material requirements. >>> >>> Maybe there are damage-at-speed requirements or even just ratings that >>> would make the composites look bad, until and unless a whole lot more >>> engineering was done as I suggested, with modular replacement. >>> >>> Never look to the government to help, though they can always get in >>> the way >> damned straight! a good deal of the modern so-called "safety" agenda >> does little more than add massive weight to a car, and thereby ruins gas >> mileage. now, how many oilco lobbyists are there in d.c? a good deal >> more than there are engineers experienced in matters of vehicle design >> and safety i'll wager. >> > > I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the > side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got > a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy > bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, > let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we > will see how many people *really* need a truck. > like it! but it may not make as much difference as you'd like. my ex was fixated on pink. /any/ vehicle that came with a huge pink fluffy bumper, she'd buy it. i'm not joking either. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:bdGdnVqTdIVpkQPbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps >>>> weren't causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial >>>> loss in revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, >>>> manufacturers. so it was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you >>>> say, but they're untrue. >>>> >>> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >>> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >>> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >>> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >>> witnessed that was under 15 mph. >> you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are >> the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of >> impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. >> that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and >> bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are >> completely unyielding. > > I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with > trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects. > They are not supposed to be tanks. >>> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >>> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >>> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >>> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >>> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >>> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. >> >> that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, >> but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars >> have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. >> maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement >> pointless" is the deal with the hp. >> > > IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being > an unsafe vehicle. > legally, they should be. but it's not enforced. write your congress critter! |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:bdGdnVqTdIVpkQPbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:P8Wdnc7eXpZbEgDbnZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> 5mph bumpers meant that the usual parking lot dings and bumps >>>> weren't causing damage, thereby causing a sudden and substantial >>>> loss in revenue for repair shops, and most importantly, >>>> manufacturers. so it was reduced, with b.s. reasons cited like you >>>> say, but they're untrue. >>>> >>> Consider the collisions you have known. Some of them have been at >>> very low speeds - parking lots, creeping traffic that suddenly jolted >>> - but the rest have probably been at much more than 5 mph. Except for >>> the 1-2 mph dings I can't think of a single collision I've ever >>> witnessed that was under 15 mph. >> you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are >> the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of >> impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10. >> that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and >> bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are >> completely unyielding. > > I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with > trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects. > They are not supposed to be tanks. >>> Proposed bumper height standards were the rage for a while because >>> bumpers are pointless if they aren't used. Dunno if any standards >>> were actually passed. The big problem there was (and is) that rear >>> end collisions are notorious for bumper heights not matching. Each >>> car in line nosedives as it brakes, so the lead car raises its rear >>> bumper and the following car lowers its front bumper. >> >> that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards, >> but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars >> have anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. >> maybe perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement >> pointless" is the deal with the hp. >> > > IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being > an unsafe vehicle. > legally, they should be. but it's not enforced. write your congress critter! |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands