Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/26/2009 1:19:44 PM EST
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_bi_ge/obama_automakers

I watched the press question the white house spokesman dude today on this and not 1 question as to how many lives would be lost and or changed from these new less safe vehicles (lighter). 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.  If new safer production standards are to be implemented at additional costs they can be applied to larger heavier vehicles as well.  Additionally, Not one person asked how much it would add to the cost of a new vehicle, how many more jobs would be lost due to less vehicles sold as a result of these added costs, and how much more would be needed to bailout the auto industry as a result of these new laws which the tax payer pays for. So, they pay $4-10K additional for a vehicle up front plus interest, plus higher registration and insurance costs on which will save them $1K-2K in fuel spread out over how many years?  4-7 years? Then they pay higher income taxes to the gov to pay for these bailouts? Wake up!
He also couldn't answer what "green jobs" meant - 1 million new green jobs. All he could come up with is windmills. Gee - 1 million people making windmills?
-Jason

"Obama's plans could bring smaller cars, more hybrids and advanced fuel-saving technologies to showrooms, but car shoppers will probably pay more upfront because the new rules are expected to cost the hamstrung industry billions of dollars.

"The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles," said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Her firm estimated the upgrades could add $2,000 to $10,000 to the price of a vehicle."

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:21:43 PM EST
But its for the economy
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:23:13 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:23:30 PM EST
More money for the unions!  

Less money for the rest of us!
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:26:45 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:27:49 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:28:09 PM EST
Get your pre ban motors while you can.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:38:42 PM EST


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
Let us know how many F1 cars you can afford.



It'll be 20+ years before today's F1 technology makes it to the production line, in an affordable package.





 
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:41:33 PM EST
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


Tree hugging liberal.

How many Indy car drivers get T-boned by drunk illegal aliens 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? Wow another re-inventor of physics that actually believes Al Gore.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said "man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis".

Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Izv&q=global+warming+myth&btnG=Search

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:46:09 PM EST
I almost choked on potato salad when i heard the brief. The last thing anyone needs right now is more regulation.




This is going to be a long 4 years.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:47:58 PM EST
So far in under a week, the MPG standards has to be one of the dumbest ideas from the chosen idiot yet.

Except that the idea to let each state set its own emissions standards must the absolute worst.

All under a week from inaguration. Its going to be a damn long 4 years.

BTW, how many F1s do you see getting hit by a big american pickup from the side. There is no technology that applies to a passenger car that is viable from F1.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:49:03 PM EST
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
Let us know how many F1 cars you can afford.

It'll be 20+ years before today's F1 technology makes it to the production line, in an affordable package.

 



I can probably afford as many F1 cars as you can.......

My point is weight is not the sole basis for safety/survivability - there are too many variables and the OP was being disingenous with his statements.

Brian
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:49:53 PM EST
I'm proud to get 13 MPG.  whatever pisses the liberals off, I'll try and do my best at it
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:49:54 PM EST
Quoted:
I almost choked on potato salad when i heard the brief. The last thing anyone needs right now is more regulation.




This is going to be a long 4 years.



This.  

First thought that entered me gulliver - "Stop selling cars in CA."


Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:50:23 PM EST
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.



Obama will  bail 'em out. When they are socialized, they will do what he says. If they loose money, hey, no big deal––it will just be tax $ at work.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:50:41 PM EST
I think I'm going to put a blower on my Yukon to counterract their efforts
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:50:58 PM EST


Quoted:



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
Let us know how many F1 cars you can afford.



It'll be 20+ years before today's F1 technology makes it to the production line, in an affordable package.



 






I can probably afford as many F1 cars as you can.......



My point is weight is not the sole basis for safety/survivability - there are too many variables and the OP was being disingenous with his statements.



Brian

Yeah, the industry(F1 and racing in general) over come all that through huge budgets.



When you need to sell a vehicle at a certain price point, certain technologies become un-available.





 
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:52:26 PM EST
So........the .gov mandates what kind of cars Detroit makes, never mind that their isn't a market for that type of vehicle, then they wonder why the big three need a bailout?


Ah fuck it!  We're so screwed!  
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:52:34 PM EST
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?
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:53:35 PM EST


Is it just me or are all of our political leaders complete fucking retards?
Holy shit.........


Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:53:52 PM EST
Tomorrow I am going to pour used motor oil out the window everywhere I drive.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:53:54 PM EST
Don't forget the mortgage bailout he mentioned!


More government spending with a side of regulation sounds great!
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:54:27 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:54:30 PM EST
Quoted:
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
Let us know how many F1 cars you can afford.

It'll be 20+ years before today's F1 technology makes it to the production line, in an affordable package.

 



I can probably afford as many F1 cars as you can.......

My point is weight is not the sole basis for safety/survivability - there are too many variables and the OP was being disingenous with his statements.

Brian


How many Indy car drivers get T-boned by drunk illegal aliens 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? 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. 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 and physics is physics my friend.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:55:02 PM EST
Scrap CAFE and add fuel tax so fuel is back at $4.00 per gal.

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:55:18 PM EST
you all know what will happen, the more the car is fuel efficient the higher gas prices will be because no one is buying gas. the more gas a car uses the more demand is for gas so they also raise the price, its a loose loose situation.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:55:23 PM EST
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

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:56:02 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
I almost choked on potato salad when i heard the brief. The last thing anyone needs right now is more regulation.




This is going to be a long 4 years.



This.  

First thought that entered me gulliver - "Stop selling cars in CA."




Too big of a market and 13 other states are looking at doing the same/similar as CA.

Brian

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:57:37 PM EST
Quoted:
you all know what will happen, the more the car is fuel efficient the higher gas prices will be because no one is buying gas. the more gas a car uses the more demand is for gas so they also raise the price, its a loose loose situation.


Maybe the situation should be tightened because it's so loose?

Supply and demand economics dictates that if demand goes down and supply stays the same, price goes DOWN, not up.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:57:44 PM EST
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?


Are you freaking serious? Wow, I am at a loss for words.

Go look up highway death statistics for compact cars compared to large cars (no, not trucks and SUVs as this is not about roll overs) and get back to me with your retarded bullshit.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:57:57 PM EST
Who is John Galt?
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:58:42 PM EST
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.




This global warming is such BS.  You all remember when in school they talked about the ice age , well how did it all melt, global warming. The earth goes through cooling and heating cycles, its been proven. Al Gore is just trying to make money off of this just like everyone else involved in this scheme.

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:58:56 PM EST
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?  

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 1:59:38 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
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
Let us know how many F1 cars you can afford.

It'll be 20+ years before today's F1 technology makes it to the production line, in an affordable package.

 



I can probably afford as many F1 cars as you can.......

My point is weight is not the sole basis for safety/survivability - there are too many variables and the OP was being disingenous with his statements.

Brian
Yeah, the industry(F1 and racing in general) over come all that through huge budgets.

When you need to sell a vehicle at a certain price point, certain technologies become un-available.

 


Do you honestly believe a '67 Chevelle has a better crash survivability rating than a 5 star crash rated Hyundai/Toyota/Honda mini-van?

Being hit by a 40-80K lb UPS truck will fuck up any passenger car regardless of the pass cars weight.

Brian

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:00:20 PM EST
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?


That ain't gonna buff out......

Brian

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:01:44 PM EST
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?


Are you freaking serious? Wow, I am at a loss for words.

Go look up highway death statistics for compact cars compared to large cars and get back to me with your retarded bullshit.


You argued 'physics' as if it were an absolute.  I shot you down on that absolute.  Your statement is inherently flawed.  Heavier is NOT always 'safer'.  

Heavier might mean that a heavy vehicle, when colliding with a lighter vehicle may sustain less damage, and may absorb more energy due to it's moment of inertia, but does that alone really indicate survivability is greater?  

You're oversimplifying a complex interaction.  

If you're happy with that oversimplification, that's fine.  It's your ignorance, and you are welcome to it.  

If it were true, trucks and SUVs would have five star crash ratings, and every smaller vehicle would have proportionally less stars based on their weight compared to the larger vehicles.  This isn't the case, thus you are wrong.  

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:03:53 PM EST
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 . . .

But in any case, Obama's push for green cars can (and probably will) result in lives lost.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:04:54 PM EST
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... [/quote]


 Which laws of physics would those be?

While your rant had some merit, any merit was cancelled out by the ignorant statement above.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:05:25 PM EST


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 . . .



But in any case, Obama's push for green cars can (and probably will) result in lives lost.
Yup, because I'll be still driving my 7700# Ford F250 and god help someone if they cut me off in their Prius.






 
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:05:55 PM EST
Quoted:
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... [/quote]


 Which laws of physics would those be?

While your rant had some merit, any merit was cancelled out by the ignorant statement above.


Lots of read between the lines and believe what part of reality they want going on here like the rest of the country.

Go look up highway death statistics for compact cars compared to large cars (no, not trucks and SUVs as this is not about roll overs) and get back to me.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:06:03 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:06:59 PM EST
Quoted:
Scrap CAFE and add fuel tax so fuel is back at $4.00 per gal.



Probably not a bad idea.

Brian

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:07:48 PM EST
Guess I need to buy that Shelby GT500 that I have been lusting after.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:07:59 PM EST
Quoted:

If it were true, trucks and SUVs would have five star crash ratings, and every smaller vehicle would have proportionally less stars based on their weight compared to the larger vehicles.  This isn't the case, thus you are wrong.  




The crash ratings are effectively normalized for weight, since they are crashing against a fixed barrier. In fact, in a barrier crash the weight is a disadvantage, offset by increased vehicle size. In a real life crash, however, it is usually not fixed barrier vs SUV, it is usually more like miata vs SUV, and the miata doesn't win, even if it has better crash rating . . .
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:08:42 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:09:48 PM EST
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

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:11:04 PM EST
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.

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.


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.
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:11:19 PM EST
Quoted:
Quoted:
Scrap CAFE and add fuel tax so fuel is back at $4.00 per gal.



Probably not a bad idea.

Brian



And the devil is in the details.  I would love to actually have copies of these damn proclamations and exec orders he is signing.  He is appeasing the base.  Fine print probably is not as bad as most think.  I don't trust that guy.  He DID say the global warming is real.  Did I mention I don't trust the guy?

Actually, I guess we can read the exec orders.  Aren't they posted somewhere???

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:11:52 PM EST
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

Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:12:44 PM EST
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.

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 . . .
Link Posted: 1/26/2009 2:13:43 PM EST
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


I'm buying gas on base, where AAFES buys its gas from Flying J's.  Its headquarted here in Ogden UT.  Sure they might buy foreign oil, but I'm still supporting a local company.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top