|
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Michael Pardee wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>> "good for america"! >>> >> >> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >> fragile, expensive piece to repair. > > i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a > 10mph collision? > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of today's bumpers. The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. Mike |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>> "good for america"! >>>> >>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>> fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >> 10mph collision? >> > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > but dude, 2.5mph bumpers mean that the frame starts to deform at 2.6mph. the plastic bumper cover may be cheaper as a single item, but the frame of the vehicle is not!!! [honda stuck with 5mph btw even though it's no longer mandated, so 5.1mph for honda.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>> "good for america"! >>>> >>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>> fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >> 10mph collision? >> > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > but dude, 2.5mph bumpers mean that the frame starts to deform at 2.6mph. the plastic bumper cover may be cheaper as a single item, but the frame of the vehicle is not!!! [honda stuck with 5mph btw even though it's no longer mandated, so 5.1mph for honda.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>> "good for america"! >>>> >>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>> cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>> were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>> collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>> fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >> 10mph collision? >> > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > but dude, 2.5mph bumpers mean that the frame starts to deform at 2.6mph. the plastic bumper cover may be cheaper as a single item, but the frame of the vehicle is not!!! [honda stuck with 5mph btw even though it's no longer mandated, so 5.1mph for honda.] |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >> would be totalled in today's steel technology. > >that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >"good for america"! As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the game changes. >> 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. J. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >> would be totalled in today's steel technology. > >that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >"good for america"! As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the game changes. >> 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. J. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >> would be totalled in today's steel technology. > >that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >"good for america"! As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the game changes. >> 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. J. |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > >>Michael Pardee wrote: >> >>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy .net... >>> >>>>that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>>killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>>disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>>"good for america"! >>>> >>> >>>I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>>cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>>were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>>collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>>fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> >>i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >>10mph collision? >> > > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) has 5 MPH bumpers, and they don't use any kind of hydraulic mounts, as far as I know. They use spring steel mounts. |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > >>Michael Pardee wrote: >> >>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy .net... >>> >>>>that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>>killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>>disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>>"good for america"! >>>> >>> >>>I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>>cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>>were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>>collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>>fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> >>i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >>10mph collision? >> > > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) has 5 MPH bumpers, and they don't use any kind of hydraulic mounts, as far as I know. They use spring steel mounts. |
Re: 5 MPH Bumpers (was: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?)
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > >>Michael Pardee wrote: >> >>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy .net... >>> >>>>that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >>>>killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >>>>disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >>>>"good for america"! >>>> >>> >>>I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean >>>cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers >>>were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of >>>collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another >>>fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> >>i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a >>10mph collision? >> > > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw > had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of > today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over > those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) has 5 MPH bumpers, and they don't use any kind of hydraulic mounts, as far as I know. They use spring steel mounts. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >>> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >>> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >>> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >>> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >>> would be totalled in today's steel technology. >> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >> "good for america"! > > As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. > And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the > game changes. > >>> 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. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >>> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >>> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >>> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >>> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >>> would be totalled in today's steel technology. >> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >> "good for america"! > > As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. > And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the > game changes. > >>> 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. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
JXStern wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:09:52 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as >>> repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender >>> damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of >>> components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear >>> quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that >>> would be totalled in today's steel technology. >> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry >> killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly >> disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is >> "good for america"! > > As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph. > And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the > game changes. > >>> 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. |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto >>>> industry killed those asap because the fender bender repair >>>> business suddenly disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs >>>> for minor damage is "good for america"! >>>> >>> >>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the >>> mean cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that >>> the bumpers were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole >>> lot of collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers >>> became another fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> >> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair >> in a 10mph collision? >> > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones > I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic > mounts of today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement > over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > > One of my neighbors had a rear end collision,and the bumper bar underneath was mounted on crushable spacer brackets;the bar withstood the crash,but the spacers need to be replaced,along with the urethane plastic bumper cover.(that was already removed when I saw the car) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: (Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@sedona.net: > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:eJ6dnQh03rvDpgHbnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Michael Pardee wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:lb6dnUd64f2crgHbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto >>>> industry killed those asap because the fender bender repair >>>> business suddenly disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs >>>> for minor damage is "good for america"! >>>> >>> >>> I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the >>> mean cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that >>> the bumpers were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole >>> lot of collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers >>> became another fragile, expensive piece to repair. >> >> i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair >> in a 10mph collision? >> > > Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones > I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic > mounts of today's bumpers. > > The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had > stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement > over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't. > > Mike > > > > One of my neighbors had a rear end collision,and the bumper bar underneath was mounted on crushable spacer brackets;the bar withstood the crash,but the spacers need to be replaced,along with the urethane plastic bumper cover.(that was already removed when I saw the car) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands