DuckThor Evil
Legend
So being safer in a crash is useless assumption, but those things in your list aren't? I'd say you are reaching big time with those silly arguments.
Hybrid cars should be banned
- Thread starter tongue_of_colicab
- Start date
So being safer in a crash is useless assumption, but those things in your list aren't? I'd say you are reaching big time with those silly arguments.
Driving over a corolla = safer then driving under an SUV...
If the collosion is between a heavy and light vehicle the heavy one has an advantage b/c it decelerates more slowly. The other vehicle acts as the crumple zone.
They could make far safer cars that had frames instead of unibody construction, but with a few exceptions they do not. Having a frame does increase the safety of the occupants in an accident. (Like vovlo's have had forever).
That isn't strictly true, I was watching a show here in the UK (I think it was fifth gear) and they crashed a big volvo estate from about 15 years ago into a new small car (I forgot which one it was, maybe a clio) and the small car (and more importantly any occupants it might've had in it) came out of the crash far better.
Sxotty, that is an illusion. Smaller cars are _built_ to be the crumple zone, with a stronger "cell" underneath for the occupants. Talking modern designs here of course, not stuff from 20 years ago.
But surely there is more crap in the smaller car classes, though that's rather about the costs. But you can be sure that an A-Class is just as safe as the biggest S- or M-Class for example.
But surely there is more crap in the smaller car classes, though that's rather about the costs. But you can be sure that an A-Class is just as safe as the biggest S- or M-Class for example.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Yeah, they found that modern, smaller cars are designed to save the occupants. The cars look destroyed because they have absorbed and dissipated the impact, but they effectively sacrifice the car to keep the occupants safe.
Conversly, big, old style SUVs may look like they will come out of an accident better, and on an initial look at the damage, they do. Until you see that the big, heavy engine has been pushed three feet back into the passenger/driver well, usually cutting the occupants in half.
People tend to think bigger=safer, but that's not always the case in reality. Modern smaller cars can come out of crash tests much better than older, larger cars when you concentrate on the survivability of the occupants.
Conversly, big, old style SUVs may look like they will come out of an accident better, and on an initial look at the damage, they do. Until you see that the big, heavy engine has been pushed three feet back into the passenger/driver well, usually cutting the occupants in half.
People tend to think bigger=safer, but that's not always the case in reality. Modern smaller cars can come out of crash tests much better than older, larger cars when you concentrate on the survivability of the occupants.
This is wrong. I already said you have an SUV and a small car in a collision that it the hypothesis.
In that case the engine for the SUV will not be pushed back it will be in the back seat of the small car. And those crumple zones protect both the people in the SUV and the car. The energy dissapated works both ways. The difference is that if the crumple zone is used up the passenger compartment in an SUV with a frame (as opposed to those like jeep cherokees, escapes, rav-4, cr-v and the like which are just glorified minivans) the passanger compartment will be more intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/automobiles/13suv.html?n=Top/Classifieds/Autos/Topics/Motoring
The reason they are changing them is b/c they undoubtedly destroyed those in small cars.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nht...ltimedia/PDFs/Public Paper/ESV/16/98s3o01.pdf
Html version if you hate pdfs
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/980908/980908.html
SUVs are not necessarily stiffer than cars and the displacement is often actually greater since they are bigger to begin with.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv19/05-0413-O.pdf
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/sit...00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=full_view
Sorry but it is just blatant falsehood to try and argue that those in the car are not at a disadvantage. Yes cars could be far safer, but manufacturers have decided it isn't worth their time, and consumers have not demanded it.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Simplest solution, get rid of SUVs
What would it solve? and how should we get rid of them, making it illegal to produce them or with giant orbital cannon? or what.
make them too expensive to drive in ... oh wait, that would never work when some people are so rich. But it does keep their numbers down. And oil prices are helping anyway.
I think there's a place for SUVs, but not in crowded areas that consist of mostly asphalt.
I think there's a place for SUVs, but not in crowded areas that consist of mostly asphalt.
The recent discussion above has been SUV vs. Cars in a crash setup.
Easy, by increasing the price of gas even more.
The recent discussion above has been SUV vs. Cars in a crash setup.
Easy, by increasing the price of gas even more.
Well you also have to get rid of large cars, and trucks and vans, its not just SUV's. A weight and height limit should be more than adequate. Most of the service industries would be screwed, but that's not our problem right?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I'm not defending SUV's in a city, but it strikes me as odd when people are complaining about SUV's fuel consumption and when we get a hybrid SUV that consumes 50 % less fuel in a city driving people go, but! but! it's so big we can't allow it! If the fuel consumption is at acceptable levels then what's the problem?
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
In the UK its allowed to drive a tank on the road I believe, once heard it on a tv program.
Oh, wow, what a missed opportunity: http://www.thorr.eu/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/
It's far lighter, has more power and much better batteries than that Tesla Roadster, and they're totally not even trying to market the stupendous acceleration that should be possible by all accounts.
So, either you burn rubber whenever you try and accelerate a bit, they're totally stupid, or they handle it like a new-born baby, because the batteries alone would set you back about $120,000 if you were to buy them at market prices.
It's far lighter, has more power and much better batteries than that Tesla Roadster, and they're totally not even trying to market the stupendous acceleration that should be possible by all accounts.
So, either you burn rubber whenever you try and accelerate a bit, they're totally stupid, or they handle it like a new-born baby, because the batteries alone would set you back about $120,000 if you were to buy them at market prices.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Autonomy is action range? because how can that be 1500km is the battery will only last you 4 hours? even at topspeed for 4 hours you cant drive 1500km.
Because it's a hybrid. You can fill it up with gas, and it's extremely efficient.
It has a very high-spec battery pack and wheel hub motors (the wheels are just about as heavy as normal ones with brakes attached), and a small, efficient gas engine as generator.
Of course, if you were to go all-out with it, it would get a whole lot less range.
Last edited by a moderator:
