Parallel parking
04-03-2008, 08:05 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Parallel parking
On Apr 3, 4:26 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>
> news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Zeppo wrote:
> >>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
> >>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
> >>>> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>
> >>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
> >>>> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
> >>>> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
> >>>> parking slots or valets.
>
> >>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps
> >>> about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on
> >>> new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
> >> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
> >> car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2"
> >> dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> >> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and
> >> I'd have been hurting.
>
> >> Jon
>
> > i wouldn't bet on that.
>
> >http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> > what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
> > detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only good at
> > making hamburgers.
>
> This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a 1,000 ton
> boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into a 1,000 ton
> boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash between a Cooper
> and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cushion. The Mini would
decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.
Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
passed for brakes in those old cars.
> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>
> news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Zeppo wrote:
> >>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
> >>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent.
> >>>> Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>
> >>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier
> >>>> than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is
> >>>> age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have
> >>>> parking slots or valets.
>
> >>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps
> >>> about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on
> >>> new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
> >> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
> >> car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2"
> >> dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> >> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and
> >> I'd have been hurting.
>
> >> Jon
>
> > i wouldn't bet on that.
>
> >http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> > what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
> > detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only good at
> > making hamburgers.
>
> This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a 1,000 ton
> boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into a 1,000 ton
> boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash between a Cooper
> and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cushion. The Mini would
decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.
Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
passed for brakes in those old cars.
04-03-2008, 08:52 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Parallel parking
Zeppo wrote:
>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>
>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a
>>> dent. Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>>>
>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot
>>> easier than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today.
>>> Part of it is age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go
>>> these days have parking slots or valets.
>>>
>>
>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps
>> about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash
>> on new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of
> the car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left
> a 2" dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled
> and I'd have been hurting.
>
> Jon
I was sitting in my '79 Accord hatchback at a red light with a car in front
of me one drizzling evening, when I looked up in my mirror and saw that the
car barreling down on me wasn't going to stop (or even slow down). I laid
back in the seat and put my head against the headrest and just kind of
relaxed, and next thing I know, I'm in the back seat, but the back seat is
where the front seat should be (or at least close to it) and the car in
front of me is in the middle of the intersection.
The car that nailed me was a '70 Chrysler Newport doing about 60 MPH (drunk
driver, suspended license, no insurance). The impact wrapped the entire
back of the car down under the tires (it was no longer a "hatchback"!). I
don't know how I was so fortunate as to not get hurt (or why the tank didn't
rupture and/or blow).
Hardly a dent in the Newport.........
I don't think I'll ever forget the sound and feel of that impact....
>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>
>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a
>>> dent. Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.
>>>
>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot
>>> easier than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today.
>>> Part of it is age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I go
>>> these days have parking slots or valets.
>>>
>>
>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps
>> about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash
>> on new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of
> the car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left
> a 2" dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.
>
> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled
> and I'd have been hurting.
>
> Jon
I was sitting in my '79 Accord hatchback at a red light with a car in front
of me one drizzling evening, when I looked up in my mirror and saw that the
car barreling down on me wasn't going to stop (or even slow down). I laid
back in the seat and put my head against the headrest and just kind of
relaxed, and next thing I know, I'm in the back seat, but the back seat is
where the front seat should be (or at least close to it) and the car in
front of me is in the middle of the intersection.
The car that nailed me was a '70 Chrysler Newport doing about 60 MPH (drunk
driver, suspended license, no insurance). The impact wrapped the entire
back of the car down under the tires (it was no longer a "hatchback"!). I
don't know how I was so fortunate as to not get hurt (or why the tank didn't
rupture and/or blow).
Hardly a dent in the Newport.........
I don't think I'll ever forget the sound and feel of that impact....
04-03-2008, 08:56 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Parallel parking
ACAR wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:26 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Zeppo wrote:
>>>>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving
>>>>>> a dent. Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in
>>>>>> damage.
>>
>>>>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot
>>>>>> easier than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today.
>>>>>> Part of it is age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I
>>>>>> go these days have parking slots or valets.
>>
>>>>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel,
>>>>> perhaps about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph
>>>>> bumper crash on new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
>>>> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back
>>>> of the car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It
>>>> left a 2" dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth
>>>> fixing.
>>
>>>> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled
>>>> and I'd have been hurting.
>>
>>>> Jon
>>
>>> i wouldn't bet on that.
>>
>>> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>>> what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
>>> detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only
>>> good at making hamburgers.
>>
>> This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a
>> 1,000 ton boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into
>> a 1,000 ton boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash
>> between a Cooper
>> and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
> you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
> a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
> would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cushion. The Mini would
> decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
> high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
> head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
> live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
> two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.
>
> Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
> crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
> easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
> other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
> into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
> not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
> passed for brakes in those old cars.
Why on earth would you want to do something foolish like decelerate or stop?
;-)
> On Apr 3, 4:26 pm, " Frank" <norep...@nothome.net> wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Zeppo wrote:
>>>>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving
>>>>>> a dent. Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in
>>>>>> damage.
>>
>>>>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot
>>>>>> easier than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today.
>>>>>> Part of it is age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I
>>>>>> go these days have parking slots or valets.
>>
>>>>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel,
>>>>> perhaps about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph
>>>>> bumper crash on new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
>>>> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back
>>>> of the car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It
>>>> left a 2" dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth
>>>> fixing.
>>
>>>> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled
>>>> and I'd have been hurting.
>>
>>>> Jon
>>
>>> i wouldn't bet on that.
>>
>>> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>>> what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
>>> detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only
>>> good at making hamburgers.
>>
>> This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a
>> 1,000 ton boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into
>> a 1,000 ton boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash
>> between a Cooper
>> and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
> you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
> a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
> would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cushion. The Mini would
> decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
> high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
> head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
> live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
> two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.
>
> Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
> crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
> easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
> other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
> into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
> not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
> passed for brakes in those old cars.
Why on earth would you want to do something foolish like decelerate or stop?
;-)
04-03-2008, 09:00 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Parallel parking
On 2008-04-03, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>
> That may be so but in so doing, modern engineering may have defeated the
> Darwin principle. The result, a dumber society.
>
> Yes, Walt Kelly was right... "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That may be the case, but I'll take the added safety when some dumbass
crosses the line and crashes into me.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
>
> That may be so but in so doing, modern engineering may have defeated the
> Darwin principle. The result, a dumber society.
>
> Yes, Walt Kelly was right... "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That may be the case, but I'll take the added safety when some dumbass
crosses the line and crashes into me.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
03-25-2009, 11:07 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Parallel parking
Frank wrote:
> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
> to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
> son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
> car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
> Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>
>
Hi,
Learn to use mirrors.
> In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
> like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
> confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
> to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
> son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
> car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
> Wondering if its just me and getting too old?
>
>
Hi,
Learn to use mirrors.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Tempest56
Motorcycle Section
1
09-30-2007 01:25 PM
azn_outlaw
Miscellaneous Stuff For Sale
0
09-20-2005 12:37 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)