DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:4kvaa29ctp7iur6152mbbhlu2jn1f70m94@4ax.com...
>
> Not true. Take a F1 car - head on crash at 140mph will only crush the
> first what, 8-10".
Ahhhhhh... no. 140mph head on and the F1 car explodes. But, that's the
design intent. The only thing that escapes is the driver's tub. If a car
did not dissipate the energy the driver would. Chances of survival in a
140mph head on impact which only crushed 8-10" of a car would be quite low.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#110
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
> personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
> i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
> the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
> i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>
Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
*slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
cupholders and kill her.
Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
"crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
car...
Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
(around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
the car's "safety" systems". Well, have you ever looked at an actual
"Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
and your steering goes...
Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
younger drivers.
Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
become available, and think for yourself.
Smart is stupid.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> news:2PqdnaKiHuhwMjjZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>
>>personally, as a guy that like to surf junkyards from time to time,
>
>
>
>
> Now that's a cool hobby. And so peaceful...
well, /i/ like it. i'm just a grease monkey.
>
>
>
>
>>i've taken the trouble to examine a fair number of wrecks. i'll take
>>the vehicle that doesn't allow intrusion any day thanks very much -
>>i'll take my chances on the effects of being punted around inside.
>>
>
>
>
> Y'know, they make SUCH a BIG deal about "crumple zones". The term even
> makes it into advertisements. The NHTSA makes dramatic videos (vividly
> displayed in automaker adverts) showing the effect of such "crumple zones".
> The idea of the "crumple zone" is that the energy of the impact will be
> *slowly* absorbed, so that Mrs. PorkPie's internal organs won't suffer
> G-forces sufficient to extrude their liquid contents into her minivan's
> cupholders and kill her.
crumple zones are definitely useful, but the truth is, many cars'
crumple zones "activate" at speeds well below that necessary to prevent
serious injury. it's a /fantastic/ mechanism for ensuring vibrant
health of motor manufacturers and local body shops however.
particularly when they're arranged such that the body shell becomes
irreparable or seriously expensive at say 6mph. "fix or repair daily"
are /experts/ in this. their initial deformation zones are usually
/behind/ the engine, not in front!!! that's BIG $$$$'s and it's hardly
enough of a slam to have even spilled your frappa-latta-mocha-chino.
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
to be honest, i've not seen this particular vehicle up close - it's a
long time since i've been to europe or canadia, but i seriously doubt it
has no crumple zones. the important thing is that it has a sufficiently
strong passenger cell.
>
> Transport Canada rigged frontal impact tests for 1998 model year cars to
> make sure automakers would have to install airbags without having the
> threat of legislation forcing them to do so. At the time of this occurrence
> (around 1996), a major bureaucrat boasted that TC had done this. This
> avoided the need for a vote in Parliament. I think the "Smart" benefited
> from that sort of rigging, and that this particular "rigging" was done in
> order to allow the introduction of the sort of car the commie pinkos liked.
>
> Canada requires (and is the ONLY country that does so) that bumpers be able
> to absorb the forces of a 5 mph impact into a fixed object without damaging
> the car's "safety" systems".
that used to be the case here in the states, but you can bet your sweet
little rear end that the auto and repair industries scotched that pdq
once they felt the bleak wind of dramatically fewer repairs/write-offs
blowing around their sensitive parts. which they did for a few years in
the 70's.
> Well, have you ever looked at an actual
> "Smart" car? The only reason the lighting system is protected from damage
> is because it is quite high up, almost at windshield level. The wheels and
> suspension...hmmm...There is a 5mm layer of plastic between intruding
> objects and the tires and nothing else. Is that "safe"? The slightest bump,
> and your steering goes...
>
> Seems to me that Daimler Chrysler have tugged at the enviro/safety
> heartstrings of the powers-that-be, and have convinced them that something
> as expensive and demonstrative as the "Smart" MUST be a Good Thing.
> Therefore the "Smart" should achieve certification for Canadian roads on
> account of its moral goodness, and nothing else. Seems like US lawmakers
> are now similarly in thrall to this nonsense.
they would be if they weren't much more enthralled at the, er,
"contributions" that big oil still lavishly slops around the d.c. area.
do /not/ misunderestimate the impact this has on current nhtsa policy.
>
> My suspicion as to why the "Smart" shows low collision and injury rates?
> Because nobody under the age of 50 drives one. Nobody under the age of 50
> can AFFORD one. 50-year-olds have collision rates far below those of
> younger drivers.
maybe, but a responsive nimble car probably has something to do with it
too. in addition, if it's lighter, there's less energy to absorb.
>
> Forty inches between your steering wheel and the front bumper. Think about
> that. Go measure it against your own car. Go sit in a "Smart" once they
> become available, and think for yourself.
energy = force x distance moved. for a given impact, if the force
necessary to deform a crumple zone is low, it needs a larger deformation
distance over which to absorb that energy. provided the deceleration
rate does not exceed that which causes injury, and with seat belts and
air bags, it's a lot higher than it used to be, there's no reason to
have large scale deformation if more limited deformation does the job.
>
> Smart is stupid.
>
come on tegger, don't be bashful - how do you /really/ feel?!!!
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a516af$0$12726$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
> Dave and Trudy wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:24WdncWH-8HnCTnZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>>> "F. H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:cJZog.20153$Yk.14009@trnddc06:
>>>>> DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
>>>>> The company's Smart car, available in Europe since 1998, is to go
>>>>> on sale here in early 2008.
>>>>> By John O'Dell
>>>>> Times Staff Writer
>>>>>
>>>>> June 29, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> The tiny Smart car is only two-thirds the size of a Mini Cooper,
>>>>> but DaimlerChrysler has big plans for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>> Canada has these rolling telephone booths since...what? 2003?
>>>>
>>>> Daimler Chrysler loses money on each and every one, in spite of
>>>> their high purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> There are forty inches (I checked) between the front bumper and the
>>>> top of the steering wheel. You wanna bash into something while
>>>> driving a "Smart"? Go check how many inches separate *your*
>>>> steering wheel top from *your* front bumper.
>>>
>>> 40" doesn't necessarily mean a thing. check this out:
>>> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>>> i'd trust 40" from daimlerchrysler more than 80" from ford ANY day.
>>>>
>>>> You know why "Smarts" are officially "safe"? Because there are too
>>>> many dollars between you and the other vehicles.
>> Jim, I would have thought that someone of your experience and
>> intelligence would better evaluate a source such as Bridger. Your
>> link shows the result of two head on crashes, one of which (the F150)
>> is actually a front end offset crash as opposed to the Mini which is
>> a true front end impact...Next the table of data listed were compiled
>> by two "scientists" one of which is from Cal Berkley which has a
>> reputation of being anti-everything establishment/American/or even
>> moderately conservative. These data are misleading and actually of
>> little value as they list number of deaths per 1mil vehicles but they
>> include not only the hitter but also the hitee. This means 10 Yugo
>> drivers hit 10 F150 and all 10 Yugo drivers are killed, then BOTH the
>> Yugo and the F150 are credited with 10 fatalities. Although
>> technically correct, this is a way to skew these data to support (or
>> in this case smear) a particular position or belief. In any such a
>> study one must ask the question; "Do the researchers have a personal
>> agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?".
>
> -SNIP-
>
> Certainly true but hardly exclusive to Cal Berkley - *your* personal
> agenda is showing.
Quite sure it is! However, I would submit that you haven't sussed my
personal agenda in this case, so I will state it so you can comprehend! My
personal agenda was to point out how flawed the study was that was cited. It
was an evalutation of the sources cited. That and nothing more!
Dave D
>
>
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a516af$0$12726$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
> Dave and Trudy wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:24WdncWH-8HnCTnZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>>> "F. H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:cJZog.20153$Yk.14009@trnddc06:
>>>>> DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
>>>>> The company's Smart car, available in Europe since 1998, is to go
>>>>> on sale here in early 2008.
>>>>> By John O'Dell
>>>>> Times Staff Writer
>>>>>
>>>>> June 29, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> The tiny Smart car is only two-thirds the size of a Mini Cooper,
>>>>> but DaimlerChrysler has big plans for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>> Canada has these rolling telephone booths since...what? 2003?
>>>>
>>>> Daimler Chrysler loses money on each and every one, in spite of
>>>> their high purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> There are forty inches (I checked) between the front bumper and the
>>>> top of the steering wheel. You wanna bash into something while
>>>> driving a "Smart"? Go check how many inches separate *your*
>>>> steering wheel top from *your* front bumper.
>>>
>>> 40" doesn't necessarily mean a thing. check this out:
>>> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>>> i'd trust 40" from daimlerchrysler more than 80" from ford ANY day.
>>>>
>>>> You know why "Smarts" are officially "safe"? Because there are too
>>>> many dollars between you and the other vehicles.
>> Jim, I would have thought that someone of your experience and
>> intelligence would better evaluate a source such as Bridger. Your
>> link shows the result of two head on crashes, one of which (the F150)
>> is actually a front end offset crash as opposed to the Mini which is
>> a true front end impact...Next the table of data listed were compiled
>> by two "scientists" one of which is from Cal Berkley which has a
>> reputation of being anti-everything establishment/American/or even
>> moderately conservative. These data are misleading and actually of
>> little value as they list number of deaths per 1mil vehicles but they
>> include not only the hitter but also the hitee. This means 10 Yugo
>> drivers hit 10 F150 and all 10 Yugo drivers are killed, then BOTH the
>> Yugo and the F150 are credited with 10 fatalities. Although
>> technically correct, this is a way to skew these data to support (or
>> in this case smear) a particular position or belief. In any such a
>> study one must ask the question; "Do the researchers have a personal
>> agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?".
>
> -SNIP-
>
> Certainly true but hardly exclusive to Cal Berkley - *your* personal
> agenda is showing.
Quite sure it is! However, I would submit that you haven't sussed my
personal agenda in this case, so I will state it so you can comprehend! My
personal agenda was to point out how flawed the study was that was cited. It
was an evalutation of the sources cited. That and nothing more!
Dave D
>
>
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a516af$0$12726$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
> Dave and Trudy wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:24WdncWH-8HnCTnZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>>> "F. H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:cJZog.20153$Yk.14009@trnddc06:
>>>>> DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
>>>>> The company's Smart car, available in Europe since 1998, is to go
>>>>> on sale here in early 2008.
>>>>> By John O'Dell
>>>>> Times Staff Writer
>>>>>
>>>>> June 29, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> The tiny Smart car is only two-thirds the size of a Mini Cooper,
>>>>> but DaimlerChrysler has big plans for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>> Canada has these rolling telephone booths since...what? 2003?
>>>>
>>>> Daimler Chrysler loses money on each and every one, in spite of
>>>> their high purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> There are forty inches (I checked) between the front bumper and the
>>>> top of the steering wheel. You wanna bash into something while
>>>> driving a "Smart"? Go check how many inches separate *your*
>>>> steering wheel top from *your* front bumper.
>>>
>>> 40" doesn't necessarily mean a thing. check this out:
>>> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>>> i'd trust 40" from daimlerchrysler more than 80" from ford ANY day.
>>>>
>>>> You know why "Smarts" are officially "safe"? Because there are too
>>>> many dollars between you and the other vehicles.
>> Jim, I would have thought that someone of your experience and
>> intelligence would better evaluate a source such as Bridger. Your
>> link shows the result of two head on crashes, one of which (the F150)
>> is actually a front end offset crash as opposed to the Mini which is
>> a true front end impact...Next the table of data listed were compiled
>> by two "scientists" one of which is from Cal Berkley which has a
>> reputation of being anti-everything establishment/American/or even
>> moderately conservative. These data are misleading and actually of
>> little value as they list number of deaths per 1mil vehicles but they
>> include not only the hitter but also the hitee. This means 10 Yugo
>> drivers hit 10 F150 and all 10 Yugo drivers are killed, then BOTH the
>> Yugo and the F150 are credited with 10 fatalities. Although
>> technically correct, this is a way to skew these data to support (or
>> in this case smear) a particular position or belief. In any such a
>> study one must ask the question; "Do the researchers have a personal
>> agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?".
>
> -SNIP-
>
> Certainly true but hardly exclusive to Cal Berkley - *your* personal
> agenda is showing.
Quite sure it is! However, I would submit that you haven't sussed my
personal agenda in this case, so I will state it so you can comprehend! My
personal agenda was to point out how flawed the study was that was cited. It
was an evalutation of the sources cited. That and nothing more!
Dave D
>
>
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a516af$0$12726$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
> Dave and Trudy wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:24WdncWH-8HnCTnZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> TeGGeR® wrote:
>>>> "F. H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:cJZog.20153$Yk.14009@trnddc06:
>>>>> DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
>>>>> The company's Smart car, available in Europe since 1998, is to go
>>>>> on sale here in early 2008.
>>>>> By John O'Dell
>>>>> Times Staff Writer
>>>>>
>>>>> June 29, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> The tiny Smart car is only two-thirds the size of a Mini Cooper,
>>>>> but DaimlerChrysler has big plans for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>> Canada has these rolling telephone booths since...what? 2003?
>>>>
>>>> Daimler Chrysler loses money on each and every one, in spite of
>>>> their high purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> There are forty inches (I checked) between the front bumper and the
>>>> top of the steering wheel. You wanna bash into something while
>>>> driving a "Smart"? Go check how many inches separate *your*
>>>> steering wheel top from *your* front bumper.
>>>
>>> 40" doesn't necessarily mean a thing. check this out:
>>> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>>> i'd trust 40" from daimlerchrysler more than 80" from ford ANY day.
>>>>
>>>> You know why "Smarts" are officially "safe"? Because there are too
>>>> many dollars between you and the other vehicles.
>> Jim, I would have thought that someone of your experience and
>> intelligence would better evaluate a source such as Bridger. Your
>> link shows the result of two head on crashes, one of which (the F150)
>> is actually a front end offset crash as opposed to the Mini which is
>> a true front end impact...Next the table of data listed were compiled
>> by two "scientists" one of which is from Cal Berkley which has a
>> reputation of being anti-everything establishment/American/or even
>> moderately conservative. These data are misleading and actually of
>> little value as they list number of deaths per 1mil vehicles but they
>> include not only the hitter but also the hitee. This means 10 Yugo
>> drivers hit 10 F150 and all 10 Yugo drivers are killed, then BOTH the
>> Yugo and the F150 are credited with 10 fatalities. Although
>> technically correct, this is a way to skew these data to support (or
>> in this case smear) a particular position or belief. In any such a
>> study one must ask the question; "Do the researchers have a personal
>> agenda that may color his perspective, analysis, and findings?".
>
> -SNIP-
>
> Certainly true but hardly exclusive to Cal Berkley - *your* personal
> agenda is showing.
Quite sure it is! However, I would submit that you haven't sussed my
personal agenda in this case, so I will state it so you can comprehend! My
personal agenda was to point out how flawed the study was that was cited. It
was an evalutation of the sources cited. That and nothing more!
Dave D
>
>
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
There is some information about construction if you click on "why are they
safe"
http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartcar.asp#
Click on the MSNBC link or go directly here to see a crash test
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=48...-7b1d97e08a61&
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: DaimlerChrysler to Bring Teeny Two-Seater to U.S.
"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>
> Now -- get this -- all of a sudden, the "Smart" car does not have to have
> "crumple zones"! Somehow, it will violate all the laws of physics while
> protecting its occupants! Instead of slowly converting impact energy into
> deformation, the "Smart" is "bounced around like a pinball", so all the
> energy is dissipated in bouncing the car around. But wait..you're IN that
> car...
There is some information about construction if you click on "why are they
safe"
http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartcar.asp#
Click on the MSNBC link or go directly here to see a crash test
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=48...-7b1d97e08a61&