|
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:
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in > news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > >> "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. >> >> 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. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and > struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only > damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. > the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. > > Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my > roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. > you'd be surprised. i've seen a lot of crashed hondas in a lot of junk yards and they survive pretty damned well. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in > news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > >> "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. >> >> 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. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and > struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only > damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. > the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. > > Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my > roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. > you'd be surprised. i've seen a lot of crashed hondas in a lot of junk yards and they survive pretty damned well. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in > news:k72dnbxi49fNmgPbnZ2dnUVZ_oCmnZ2d@sedona.net: > >> "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. >> >> 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. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> > > yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and > struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only > damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted. > the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear. > > Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my > roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it. > you'd be surprised. i've seen a lot of crashed hondas in a lot of junk yards and they survive pretty damned well. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>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... LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost). But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do with the removable roof section...) Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>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... LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost). But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do with the removable roof section...) Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:
>>>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... LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost). But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do with the removable roof section...) Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars into their cars... |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > >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. I think that's mostly style. >AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) overengineered instead. J. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > >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. I think that's mostly style. >AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) overengineered instead. J. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in > >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. I think that's mostly style. >AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) overengineered instead. J. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote: > On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > > >>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in >> >>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. > > > I think that's mostly style. > > >>AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >>auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > > > Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the > high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, > the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and > cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in > the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) > overengineered instead. > > J. > The new 787 is largely constructed of carbon fiber. The first big aerospace application was carbon fiber rotor blades that were pioneered by Kaman in the 1960's. The company is the world's largest producer of rotor blades today. OTOH, the L1011 while sporting an aluminum fuselage had no stringers as it was constructed of thicker aluminum sheets which in turn really provided for an airframe that did not have a dated life time expectancy. Construction and maintenance were greatly simplified. JT |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote: > On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > > >>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in >> >>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. > > > I think that's mostly style. > > >>AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >>auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > > > Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the > high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, > the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and > cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in > the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) > overengineered instead. > > J. > The new 787 is largely constructed of carbon fiber. The first big aerospace application was carbon fiber rotor blades that were pioneered by Kaman in the 1960's. The company is the world's largest producer of rotor blades today. OTOH, the L1011 while sporting an aluminum fuselage had no stringers as it was constructed of thicker aluminum sheets which in turn really provided for an airframe that did not have a dated life time expectancy. Construction and maintenance were greatly simplified. JT |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote: > On 19 Jul 2007 00:22:40 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > > >>Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in >> >>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. > > > I think that's mostly style. > > >>AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body >>auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. > > > Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the > high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, > the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and > cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in > the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) > overengineered instead. > > J. > The new 787 is largely constructed of carbon fiber. The first big aerospace application was carbon fiber rotor blades that were pioneered by Kaman in the 1960's. The company is the world's largest producer of rotor blades today. OTOH, the L1011 while sporting an aluminum fuselage had no stringers as it was constructed of thicker aluminum sheets which in turn really provided for an airframe that did not have a dated life time expectancy. Construction and maintenance were greatly simplified. JT |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Hachiroku ハチク wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote: > > >>>>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... > > > > LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost). > > But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like > how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do > with the removable roof section...) > > Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars > into their cars... > > To the best of my knowledge, the Studebaker Avanti was the only American car with an integral roll bar as part of the design. This car which was introduced in the spring of 1962, also had a fiberglass body, front disk brakes and a completely padded safety interior. And driving was a pleasure as it sure was glued to the road. I loved that car and sure wish that I did not sell it but unfortunately, I had to thin the herd when I accepted overseas employment back in 1989... JT |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG? RPM @ 70 MPH
Hachiroku ハチク wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote: > > >>>>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... > > > > LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost). > > But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like > how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do > with the removable roof section...) > > Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars > into their cars... > > To the best of my knowledge, the Studebaker Avanti was the only American car with an integral roll bar as part of the design. This car which was introduced in the spring of 1962, also had a fiberglass body, front disk brakes and a completely padded safety interior. And driving was a pleasure as it sure was glued to the road. I loved that car and sure wish that I did not sell it but unfortunately, I had to thin the herd when I accepted overseas employment back in 1989... JT |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands