User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:14:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many Indy car drivers get T-boned by drunk illegal aliens Gotta get the illegal aliens involved so all logic is gone from the discussion, eh? and how many of us drive around with Helmets, Han's devices, chromoly safety cages, arm restraints, neck braces, and 4 layer fire proof suits on? See post about Chevelle vs mini-van Wow another re-inventor of physics that actually believes Al Gore. Don't forget the other point was the added costs of this technology and the fact it will ruin jobs, and cost citizens more on both ends.So lets ruin the environment because it's too expensive. I kind of like being able to breath w/o my lungs hurting from the smog - BTDT in SoCal as a kid. This whole heavier is safer thing is not the only point I was trying to make. Anything they can do to lighter vehicles, they can do to heavier as well WTF does this mean? Are you trying to say my ~7300lb Dodge 2500 4wd can get the same mpg as my Honda Civic? and physics is physics my friend. My BSME would agree - unfortunately that statement appears to be lost on you. Brian Whatever, take illegal out of it, you don't have people running read lights and drunk driving in the middle of an Indy car race. I was hit by 2 illegal aliens and never by any American so perhaps I am biased or perhaps there is something to this? It means that the manufacturers can implement safer technology on all vehicles, not just small ones. What do you mean WTF does it mean? Where the hell did you get that those 2 examples will get the same mileage? It's like trying to talk to a liberal -they believe what the want even though it doesn't make sense. My conversation is over with you - fine you win whatever. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:16:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. A big part of it is the fake problem of global warming. But as far as the finite resource goes, the right way to deal with that is to let the market handle the problem. We should drill anwar and anywhere else there is oil, and when the supply drys up the increased costs will push the market to adapt. The market would find the best answer, the Obama Administration won't. I tend to agree with letting the market decide but I'm not sure that's the best strategy for the long term security of the US. Brian Short term we are best off with as cheap of oil as possible. Because cheap oil is good for our economy, and hurts shitbags like Putin, Hugo Chavez, and the mullahs in Iran (all of whom depend upon high oil prices). Long term I suspect that oil shale is the solution, and that is a solution that will help US security as long as Obama et al don't put it off limits due to missplaced green concearns . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:17:07 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Well, last time I checked BMW 7 series, MB S class and Caddi DTS all have about the safest record of all for cars. A problem with safety ratings is that the shitty small cars get stars for ABS, Airbags and trac contol. When the STHF large and heavy is king, if all other things are generally equal. Crash rating vs safety rating - should be different IIRC The problem with light weight is that it is possible for a car to go in the opposite direction it was heading during a impact. Even if you have lots of crumple zone and airbags, you are still toast due to the negative Gs. Your body organs will separate from the veins and arteries. Decelleration is a problem regardless of the vehicle weight - just look at Dale Earnhardt's crash. For those of you who think smaller is better. My 5000Lb V8 cadillac gets from 25-32mpg on the highway. No way in hell am I going to buy a shitbox to please some dumbass hippy. What year/model and does it really weigh 5K and get an honest 25-32 mpg? Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:17:23 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. Don't even bother calling me a tree hugging liberal - I have 3 4wd trucks, 1 SUV, 1 econobox, 1 street bike, 3 dirt bikes and 2 36ft 5th wheel trailers..... Brian About 1300 lbs. But so what. Racecar != passenger car. All else being equal, a heavier car will be the more survivable one. Physics is a bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:17:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
JasonBikZ06: Heavier is NOT always safer. Imagine if you make the A, B and C pillars out of lead in a car. It's heavier, so it must be safer, right? Make the whole frame out of lead. It's safer, RIGHT?? I mean, you said it yourself. It's physics. RIGHT? Lighter (in cars) is only safer when it is more advanced or better designed. More to the point, bigger (not necssarly lighter) means more potential crumple zone before impacting flesh . . . Not necessarily - really depends on where the weight is/how the components are designed. But in any case, Obama's push for green cars can (and probably will) result in lives lost. Brian That's why I used the word "potential". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:19:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So lets ruin the environment because it's too expensive. I kind of like being able to breath w/o my lungs hurting from the smog - BTDT in SoCal as a kid. I grew up and still live in SoCal. LA had smog back in the indian days, now it is probably cleaner. Lived in Claremont '77-'79, half the time I couldn't see Mt. Baldy (~8K feet for the non SoCal folks) from less than 10 miles away due to smog. Definitely much cleaner now - I wonder why.... Right now, smog isn't the issue, they have another reason to hate internal combustion engines: global warming. And I'm not quite ready to destroy our economy on a theory based upon some computer models that consistently fail to predict the future . . . No argument from me on this one Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:20:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Is it just me or are all of our political leaders complete fucking retards? Holy shit......... Not you...they prove it every day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:20:47 PM EDT
[#8]
I got no problem with cleaner cars, but the "big 3" is not up to the task. We are gonna get hosed when it comes to give up your old car or be fined
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:23:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. Don't even bother calling me a tree hugging liberal - I have 3 4wd trucks, 1 SUV, 1 econobox, 1 street bike, 3 dirt bikes and 2 36ft 5th wheel trailers..... Brian About 1300 lbs. But so what. Racecar != passenger car. All else being equal, a heavier car will be the more survivable one. Physics is a bitch. That's a huge "If". '67 Chevelle vs a '08 Hyundia Sedona mini-van in an off-set frontal impact? I'll take the Hyundai for being able to walk away from the impact - I don't give a shit about the car being able to survive the impact. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:24:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm proud to get 13 MPG. whatever pisses the liberals off, I'll try and do my best at it If you can afford it more power to you - no bad pun intended. Brian Until he thinks about how much money that attitude sends OUT of our country. With our economy going in the shitter, is it really a GOOD thing to send as much money as possible OUT of our economy?  No, but it's his choice to do so. Brian Absolutely. I will say this clearly: I DO NOT SUPPORT CAFE REQUIREMENTS. When gas prices skyrocketed last year, we saw the affect of the free market economy absorbing this - smaller more efficient vehicles sold better, and trucks and SUV sales dropped. There was no regulation, no standards that caused this. It was the market at work. If anything, and I hate saying this - I really do - increase the cost of gas through taxes and the market will regulate accordingly. With gas prices down, if they stay down, and there are no regulations passed, things will stay like they are. Vehicles that get better fuel economy will still be sold, but will not be mainstream. My fear is that something will happen - be it a huge war somewhere, or oil reserves running low, or something that fucks with supply - that makes gas prices rise much higher than they did last year, and we'll be caught with our pants down. I mean, if the cost of just driving to work triples, quadruples, or more... it will put a serious hurt on our economy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:25:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many Indy car drivers get T-boned by drunk illegal aliens Gotta get the illegal aliens involved so all logic is gone from the discussion, eh? and how many of us drive around with Helmets, Han's devices, chromoly safety cages, arm restraints, neck braces, and 4 layer fire proof suits on? See post about Chevelle vs mini-van Wow another re-inventor of physics that actually believes Al Gore. Don't forget the other point was the added costs of this technology and the fact it will ruin jobs, and cost citizens more on both ends.So lets ruin the environment because it's too expensive. I kind of like being able to breath w/o my lungs hurting from the smog - BTDT in SoCal as a kid. This whole heavier is safer thing is not the only point I was trying to make. Anything they can do to lighter vehicles, they can do to heavier as well WTF does this mean? Are you trying to say my ~7300lb Dodge 2500 4wd can get the same mpg as my Honda Civic? and physics is physics my friend. My BSME would agree - unfortunately that statement appears to be lost on you. Brian Whatever, take illegal out of it, you don't have people running read lights and drunk driving in the middle of an Indy car race. I was hit by 2 illegal aliens and never by any American so perhaps I am biased or perhaps there is something to this? It means that the manufacturers can implement safer technology on all vehicles, not just small ones. What do you mean WTF does it mean? Where the hell did you get that those 2 examples will get the same mileage? It's like trying to talk to a liberal -they believe what the want even though it doesn't make sense. My conversation is over with you - fine you win whatever. You're quite the debater - you got illegal aliens and "it's like trying to talk to a liberal" in there. Come back when you can support your claims. Next time maybe you'll get "That's racist" and "You're a Nazi" in there as well...... Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:27:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm proud to get 13 MPG. whatever pisses the liberals off, I'll try and do my best at it If you can afford it more power to you - no bad pun intended. Brian Until he thinks about how much money that attitude sends OUT of our country. With our economy going in the shitter, is it really a GOOD thing to send as much money as possible OUT of our economy? No, but it's his choice to do so. Brian Absolutely. I will say this clearly: I DO NOT SUPPORT CAFE REQUIREMENTS. When gas prices skyrocketed last year, we saw the affect of the free market economy absorbing this - smaller more efficient vehicles sold better, and trucks and SUV sales dropped. There was no regulation, no standards that caused this. It was the market at work. If anything, and I hate saying this - I really do - increase the cost of gas through taxes and the market will regulate accordingly. With gas prices down, if they stay down, and there are no regulations passed, things will stay like they are. Vehicles that get better fuel economy will still be sold, but will not be mainstream. My fear is that something will happen - be it a huge war somewhere, or oil reserves running low, or something that fucks with supply - that makes gas prices rise much higher than they did last year, and we'll be caught with our pants down. I mean, if the cost of just driving to work triples, quadruples, or more... it will put a serious hurt on our economy. Well stated. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:38:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many Indy car drivers get T-boned by drunk illegal aliens Gotta get the illegal aliens involved so all logic is gone from the discussion, eh? and how many of us drive around with Helmets, Han's devices, chromoly safety cages, arm restraints, neck braces, and 4 layer fire proof suits on? See post about Chevelle vs mini-van Wow another re-inventor of physics that actually believes Al Gore. Don't forget the other point was the added costs of this technology and the fact it will ruin jobs, and cost citizens more on both ends.So lets ruin the environment because it's too expensive. I kind of like being able to breath w/o my lungs hurting from the smog - BTDT in SoCal as a kid. This whole heavier is safer thing is not the only point I was trying to make. Anything they can do to lighter vehicles, they can do to heavier as well WTF does this mean? Are you trying to say my ~7300lb Dodge 2500 4wd can get the same mpg as my Honda Civic? and physics is physics my friend. My BSME would agree - unfortunately that statement appears to be lost on you. Brian Whatever, take illegal out of it, you don't have people running read lights and drunk driving in the middle of an Indy car race. I was hit by 2 illegal aliens and never by any American so perhaps I am biased or perhaps there is something to this? It means that the manufacturers can implement safer technology on all vehicles, not just small ones. What do you mean WTF does it mean? Where the hell did you get that those 2 examples will get the same mileage? It's like trying to talk to a liberal -they believe what the want even though it doesn't make sense. My conversation is over with you - fine you win whatever. You're quite the debater - you got illegal aliens and "it's like trying to talk to a liberal" in there. Come back when you can support your claims. Next time maybe you'll get "That's racist" and "You're a Nazi" in there as well...... Brian Wrong - I did support my claims - you did not. I said on multiple posts how I supported my claims and all you can comeback with is a 67 Chevelle with lap belts compared to a new Hyundai with modern safety features? How is that a comparison? I said modern large cars versus modern compact cars. It is like trying to talk to a child. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:44:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Wrong - I did support my claims - you did not. I said on multiple posts how I supported my claims and all you can comeback with is a 67 Chevelle with lap belts compared to a new Hyundai with modern safety features? How is that a comparison? I said modern large cars versus modern compact cars. It is like trying to talk to a child. Your only defense if your logic was 'physics', as if it were an absolute. You were soundly shot down. If you had said "in GENERAL, larger cars may be safer", then you would have been much closer to correct. Throwing it out as an absolute, as in "heavier vehicles are safer, period. It's physics," was logically feeble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:47:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrong - I did support my claims - you did not. I said on multiple posts how I supported my claims and all you can comeback with is a 67 Chevelle with lap belts compared to a new Hyundai with modern safety features? How is that a comparison? I said modern large cars versus modern compact cars. It is like trying to talk to a child. Your only defense if your logic was 'physics', as if it were an absolute. You were soundly shot down. If you had said "in GENERAL, larger cars may be safer", then you would have been much closer to correct. Throwing it out as an absolute, as in "heavier vehicles are safer, period. It's physics," was logically feeble. I must have missed the memo that I was shot down. I said go look up large cars safety statistics (not trucks and SUVs as this is not about roll overs) compared to small cars and get back to me and you come back with this crap again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:55:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? F1: 1300 punds including driver. Indy 1600 pounds excluding driver How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? way better than 99% Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. If every car on the road was 1200-1600 pounds then there would not be a big-car versus small-car crash protection problem––and we could get 50+ MPG with cars that are fun to drive (0-60 under 5 seconds). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:56:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Get your pre ban motors while you can. serious, you'll have to take my V8 from my cold, dead hands... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:58:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrong - I did support my claims - you did not. I said on multiple posts how I supported my claims and all you can comeback with is a 67 Chevelle with lap belts compared to a new Hyundai with modern safety features? How is that a comparison? I said modern large cars versus modern compact cars. It is like trying to talk to a child. Your only defense if your logic was 'physics', as if it were an absolute. You were soundly shot down. If you had said "in GENERAL, larger cars may be safer", then you would have been much closer to correct. Throwing it out as an absolute, as in "heavier vehicles are safer, period. It's physics," was logically feeble. I must have missed the memo that I was shot down. I said go look up large cars safety statistics (not trucks and SUVs as this is not about roll overs) compared to small cars and get back to me and you come back with this crap again? I don't need to. You attributed your original statement to physics. Your statement was false based on that premise. Safety of a vehicle has a LOT more to do with how it is designed and constructed than how much it weighs. I know this. Apparently you do not. Size IS a factor, but not the ONLY factor. You oversimplified the idea in your first post, then backpedaled to something that I already know. Watching you backpedal is fun. Do it more! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 3:59:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Get your pre ban motors while you can. serious, you'll have to take my V8 from my cold, dead hands... Seriously. Who the fuck mentioned anything about banning ANYTHING? Geezus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:01:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Good write up.
California accounts for a huge chunk of America’s new car sales (at least for the transplants). And 13 other states (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) follow its vehicular emissions laws. Put them together and they account for just under half of all American new vehicle sales. And now, thanks to President Obama’s decision to grant California a waiver from federal emissions regulations, they’re going to call the shots for the entire U.S. automotive industry.
President Obama will free California impose its own vehicular tailpipe regulations. Those rules, already drafted, consider CO2 a pollutant. (Global warming and all that.) Manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles in California and its legislative clones will have to meet a new, fleet-wide CO2 standard. As CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel economy, CA et. al. will be, effectively, directing the carmakers to sell higher mileage vehicles. Significantly higher. “The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable,” The New York Times reports. “The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.” There are two schools of thought on the effects of this move. First, not only can Detroit and the rest of them meet the higher standards, but it’s about fucking time. “This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of censoring or ignoring global warming science,” Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, told the Gray Lady. “With the fuel economy measures and clean energy investments in the recovery package, President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.” For environmental activists, the idea that automakers can meet the new California standard is a given. Another shibboleth: carmakers would have already done so if not for their greedy, SUV-pimping, foot-dragging ways. The fact that $4 a gallon gas did more for the environmentalist’s cause than decades of federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards is shoved aside. As is the fact that the electorate voted with their wallets. There’s a planet to be saved; free markets be damned. From this perspective, the federal waiver is a victory for Mother Earth that will be fully vindicated by its non-impact on the auto industry and its immeasurable impact on the earth’s climate. One way and the other, decades hence, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Alternatively, the decision to empower California to set national fuel economy standards will, as the automakers have warned, wreak havoc on a fragile industry, drive-up prices for consumers and, ultimately, fail. There’s no way automakers selling cars in America can meet the California mob’s higher, fleet-wide fuel economy standards within the deadline without chopping low-mileage models from their lineup within the relevant states. (The fuel-sucking CUV halfway house, for example, just became an evolutionary dead end.) Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes described the CA mandate as the involuntary hybridization of the nation’s fleet. That sounds about right to me. Whether manufacturers would offer low[er] mileage vehicles for sale outside of the 14-states is a tricky question, given the intersection of politics, PR and commercial reality. Whether those non-CA-friendly vehicles could be “imported” into the 14-state cabal is even trickier. And speaking of tricky… As The NYT points out, the new laws mean “automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule.” Has anyone looked at the U.S. new car market recently? Who’s got money for that shit? And who’s going to pay cash money to buy these newfangled fuel misers? What if these wonderful machines don’t sell? All of which highlights the small matter of what “we” (i.e. taxpayers) are going to do about GM and Chrysler, currently (and for the foreseeable future) sucking on Uncle Sam’s teat. While the Department of Energy is preparing to dole out dole worth $25b for retooling “loans” to build these more left-coast compliant vehicles, this turn of events suggests that Uncle Sam will be on the hook for even more more money for GM and ChryCo. Hey, you want us to build way cool fuel efficient vehicles? You gotta pay. I mean, loan. I understand the rationale behind California’s zeal and President Obama’s support. But there’s no doubt that they’ve just invoked the law of unintended consequences. Thought politically toxic, a gas tax hike would have been a far more effective solution. As we shall soon see. I would actually prefer a Gas Tax increase over this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:02:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
One would argue that newer vehicles are safer but this does not change the laws of physics. The heavier the vehicle the safer it is period. Here's what you said. The basic summary is 'heavier cars are safer because of physics'. That statement, at face value, is not true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:04:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrong - I did support my claims - you did not. I said on multiple posts how I supported my claims and all you can comeback with is a 67 Chevelle with lap belts compared to a new Hyundai with modern safety features? How is that a comparison? I said modern large cars versus modern compact cars. It is like trying to talk to a child. Your only defense if your logic was 'physics', as if it were an absolute. You were soundly shot down. If you had said "in GENERAL, larger cars may be safer", then you would have been much closer to correct. Throwing it out as an absolute, as in "heavier vehicles are safer, period. It's physics," was logically feeble. I must have missed the memo that I was shot down. I said go look up large cars safety statistics (not trucks and SUVs as this is not about roll overs) compared to small cars and get back to me and you come back with this crap again? I don't need to. You attributed your original statement to physics. Your statement was false based on the premise upon which you based it. Safety of a vehicle has a LOT more to do with how it is designed and constructed than how much it weighs. I know this. Apparently you do not. Size IS a factor, but not the ONLY factor. You oversimplified the idea in your first post, then backpedaled to something that I already know. Watching you backpedal is fun. Do it more! When the fuck did I back pedal? Watching you make an idiot of yourself is more fun. Stop trying to re-interpret physics. I didn't oversimplify anything - you are trying to argue something that is simply not arguable. I never once said that it was the only safety factor you and Brian are the ones that came up with that statement for whatever reason. I said physics is physics and all things being equal large heavier cars are safer than small lighter ones in collisions and that is a fact like it or not. As long as it gets 7 mpg more who cares though right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:12:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
When the fuck did I back pedal? Watching you make an idiot of yourself is more fun. Stop trying to re-interpret physics. I didn't oversimplify anything - you are trying to argue something that is simply not arguable. I never once said that it was the only safety factor you and Brian are the ones that came up with that statement for whatever reason. I said physics is physics and all things being equal large heavier cars are safer than small lighter ones in collisions and that is a fact like it or not. As long as it gets 7 mpg more who cares though right? Not in your original post you didn't. You made an ignorant blanket statement that is false, and then tried to redefine your words. You can see what I pulled from your original post. You basically said 'heavier is safer because of physics.' When several people pointed out your statement was wrong, you backpedaled by saying 'all else being equal'. So let me ask you this, all else being equal being one Toyota Camry compared to another identical car, but with 1000lb of lead in the trunk... which is safer? There. Your statement fails again. I'd posit the loaded Camry is actually less safe. DESIGN plays more than, if not as much as, physics does when it comes to collisions. Crumple zones, center of gravity, structural rigidity... They all play parts. The dynamics of a crash, and survivability thereof has a LOT more to do with than just the weight of the vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:37:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the fuck did I back pedal? Watching you make an idiot of yourself is more fun. Stop trying to re-interpret physics. I didn't oversimplify anything - you are trying to argue something that is simply not arguable. I never once said that it was the only safety factor you and Brian are the ones that came up with that statement for whatever reason. I said physics is physics and all things being equal large heavier cars are safer than small lighter ones in collisions and that is a fact like it or not. As long as it gets 7 mpg more who cares though right? Not in your original post you didn't. You made an ignorant blanket statement that is false, and then tried to redefine your words. You can see what I pulled from your original post. You basically said 'heavier is safer because of physics.' When several people pointed out your statement was wrong, you backpedaled by saying 'all else being equal'. So let me ask you this, all else being equal being one Toyota Camry compared to another identical car, but with 1000lb of lead in the trunk... which is safer? There. Your statement fails again. I'd posit the loaded Camry is actually less safe. DESIGN plays more than, if not as much as, physics does when it comes to collisions. Crumple zones, center of gravity, structural rigidity... They all play parts. The dynamics of a crash, and survivability thereof has a LOT more to do with than just the weight of the vehicles. I made a true statement and I am not talking about putting lead in your trunk or cinder blocks under your seat. Modern large cars are safer than modern compact cars. if you have to bring up comparing a 1947 Studebaker to a 2009 Camry then you are an idiot with too much free time and you know damn well what the point is. Did you go look up the statistics yet or are you going to continue to discuss purple fairy dust snorting unicorns driving cars with lead pillars and gold bullion bars in the trunks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:46:17 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:58:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: WOW, How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. Don't even bother calling me a tree hugging liberal - I have 3 4wd trucks, 1 SUV, 1 econobox, 1 street bike, 3 dirt bikes and 2 36ft 5th wheel trailers..... Brian You have enough money for all of those vehicles. Yet you don't have enough money to be a paying member, since 2002, no less.I'm sure you must be an 0 supporter. Sponging off others, huh? Oh I see where you're from.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:01:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the fuck did I back pedal? Watching you make an idiot of yourself is more fun. Stop trying to re-interpret physics. I didn't oversimplify anything - you are trying to argue something that is simply not arguable. I never once said that it was the only safety factor you and Brian are the ones that came up with that statement for whatever reason. I said physics is physics and all things being equal large heavier cars are safer than small lighter ones in collisions and that is a fact like it or not. As long as it gets 7 mpg more who cares though right? Not in your original post you didn't. You made an ignorant blanket statement that is false, and then tried to redefine your words. You can see what I pulled from your original post. You basically said 'heavier is safer because of physics.' When several people pointed out your statement was wrong, you backpedaled by saying 'all else being equal'. So let me ask you this, all else being equal being one Toyota Camry compared to another identical car, but with 1000lb of lead in the trunk... which is safer? There. Your statement fails again. I'd posit the loaded Camry is actually less safe. DESIGN plays more than, if not as much as, physics does when it comes to collisions. Crumple zones, center of gravity, structural rigidity... They all play parts. The dynamics of a crash, and survivability thereof has a LOT more to do with than just the weight of the vehicles. I made a true statement and I am not talking about putting lead in your trunk or cinder blocks under your seat. Modern large cars are safer than modern compact cars. if you have to bring up comparing a 1947 Studebaker to a 2009 Camry then you are an idiot with too much free time and you know damn well what the point is. Did you go look up the statistics yet or are you going to continue to discuss purple fairy dust snorting unicorns driving cars with lead pillars and gold bullion bars in the trunks? Jason, What are your credentials - college degree, actually designed cars, crash tested cars, etc? You made a stupid absolute statement and you were called on it - get over it. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:03:37 PM EDT
[#28]
HAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA! Truck owners = suck it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:04:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a time when our manufacturing base is failing Obama tells all the manufacturing companies they need to redesign all of their product. Wow, what a genius. I'm sure the almost bankrupt companies will jump right on it and do that, especially since people are night buy new vehicles right now. Obama is going to put this country into the toilet fast. The Big 3's products aren't selling as it is, maybe they do need to redesign a large part of their product line. Brian The big 3 still sell over HALF of the vehicles sold in this country.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:05:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. Don't even bother calling me a tree hugging liberal - I have 3 4wd trucks, 1 SUV, 1 econobox, 1 street bike, 3 dirt bikes and 2 36ft 5th wheel trailers..... Brian F1 cars cost about $1,000,000 each and how many of them are getting t-Boned by Suburbans? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:09:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? F1: 1300 punds including driver. Indy 1600 pounds excluding driver How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? way better than 99% Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. If every car on the road was 1200-1600 pounds then there would not be a big-car versus small-car crash protection problem––and we could get 50+ MPG with cars that are fun to drive (0-60 under 5 seconds). Just how do you tow a landscaping trailer with a 1200 pound car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:12:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
WOW, How much do F1 and Indy cars weigh? How many drivers have walked away from horrific crashes? Light weight does not necessarily mean lower survivability - there are lots of variables in the equation(s) and you're ignoring that fact just like Obama is ignoring facts. Higher efficiency/lower emissions isn't necessarily about saving each driver $1-2K/year in fuel costs - it's about having clean air and prolonging a finite (within our lifetimes) resource. Don't even bother calling me a tree hugging liberal - I have 3 4wd trucks, 1 SUV, 1 econobox, 1 street bike, 3 dirt bikes and 2 36ft 5th wheel trailers..... Brian You have enough money for all of those vehicles. Yet you don't have enough money to be a paying member, since 2002, no less.I'm sure you must be an 0 supporter. Sponging off others, huh? Oh I see where you're from.
Maybe I have enough money for all those vehicles because I don't spend money on things I don't have to...... The Avila's made a business decision to allow people access to their site without paying a fee - I chose to use that option. Glad to see stupidity is alive and well in other parts of the country. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:13:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the fuck did I back pedal? Watching you make an idiot of yourself is more fun. Stop trying to re-interpret physics. I didn't oversimplify anything - you are trying to argue something that is simply not arguable. I never once said that it was the only safety factor you and Brian are the ones that came up with that statement for whatever reason. I said physics is physics and all things being equal large heavier cars are safer than small lighter ones in collisions and that is a fact like it or not. As long as it gets 7 mpg more who cares though right? Not in your original post you didn't. You made an ignorant blanket statement that is false, and then tried to redefine your words. You can see what I pulled from your original post. You basically said 'heavier is safer because of physics.' When several people pointed out your statement was wrong, you backpedaled by saying 'all else being equal'. So let me ask you this, all else being equal being one Toyota Camry compared to another identical car, but with 1000lb of lead in the trunk... which is safer? There. Your statement fails again. I'd posit the loaded Camry is actually less safe. DESIGN plays more than, if not as much as, physics does when it comes to collisions. Crumple zones, center of gravity, structural rigidity... They all play parts. The dynamics of a crash, and survivability thereof has a LOT more to do with than just the weight of the vehicles. I made a true statement and I am not talking about putting lead in your trunk or cinder blocks under your seat. Modern large cars are safer than modern compact cars. if you have to bring up comparing a 1947 Studebaker to a 2009 Camry then you are an idiot with too much free time and you know damn well what the point is. Did you go look up the statistics yet or are you going to continue to discuss purple fairy dust snorting unicorns driving cars with lead pillars and gold bullion bars in the trunks? Jason, What are your credentials - college degree, actually designed cars, crash tested cars, etc? You made a stupid absolute statement and you were called on it - get over it. Brian Again I must have missed that memo as I do not recall it being a stupid statement. You apparently assumed I was comparing a 67 Chevelle to a 09 Camry or an Indy car or some other non realistic example to try to prove my statement invalid when laws are laws. What is the point of all of this besides stirring shit up? What does my college degree have to do with any of this when it is common sense and not related to anything else but the size of your penis perhaps? No, I am not a car designer, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. Maybe you should sell one of your 12 non fuel efficient vehicles and help support this site? I am sure as a car designer or physics professor you can afford to. You win the internet bad ass award, congrats! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:14:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a time when our manufacturing base is failing Obama tells all the manufacturing companies they need to redesign all of their product. Wow, what a genius. I'm sure the almost bankrupt companies will jump right on it and do that, especially since people are night buy new vehicles right now. Obama is going to put this country into the toilet fast. The Big 3's products aren't selling as it is, maybe they do need to redesign a large part of their product line. Brian The big 3 still sell over HALF of the vehicles sold in this country.
Selling an item at a loss isn't good business..... You can have all the market share you want but if you aren't making money on those products it isn't doing you any good. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:20:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Tomorrow I am going to pour used motor oil out the window everywhere I drive. I'm just going burn it and let it drip out of my truck. Obama must be missing the point that not many people can afford to buy a new car as it is adding 2-10k on top of that is not going to help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:28:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Again I must have missed that memo as I do not recall it being a stupid statement. You apparently assumed I was comparing a 67 Chevelle to a 09 Camry or an Indy car or some other non realistic example to try to prove my statement invalid when laws are laws. Weight does not necessarily equal safety What is the point of all of this besides stirring shit up? You mean like you're doing? What does my college degree have to do with any of this when it is common sense If it's common sense why aren't you getting it? and not related to anything else but the size of your penis perhaps? No, I am not a car designer, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. Maybe you should sell one of your 12 non fuel efficient vehicles and help support this site? I am sure as a car designer or physics professor you can afford to. See previous reply to this assine statement. Can't defend your position? Attack the opposition. You win the internet bad ass award, congrats! http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2546/lolintvm4.jpg |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
