small cars are unsafe?

[pocketfullofshells]

http://www.startribune.com/business/51270817.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4OW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUss

Small in stature, a group of 2009 two-door cars are providing good safety value to car shoppers, according to crash tests released Tuesday.

-----------------gh ----------------------------------


I thought small cars where all death traps , I was told so by right wingers who thing GM needs to keep building things that it went under building...

 

[PLC1]

I saw that in today's paper.

Here is more:

Size & Weight Matters - All cars must meet US Department Of Transportation standards for crash-worthiness. Larger and heavier cars, however, are usually safer in a collision than smaller ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars account for more than twice as many deaths as large cars. If a heavier vehicle collides head-on with a lighter one, the lighter vehicle and its occupants will suffer substantially more damage.

But, there is more to the story:

It appears that, when you compare cars, SUVs, and pickups of similar size, the former are a lot safer than the latter.

The other consideration is how likely a vehicle is to kill someone else.

Trucks & SUVs Kill - The following chart is from an IIHS News Release dated 2-10-98. The left-most column gives the weight class of the vehicles in the first column of each pair (that is, " cars," "pick-ups," & "SUVs"). Columns 1, 3, and 5 show the death rates (per million vehicles per year) for cars, pick-ups, and SUVs of different weights; columns 2, 4 and 6 show the death rates for the occupants of the other vehicle in the two-car collision.

Not only are trucks and SUVs of similar size to cars more dangerous to the occupants, but they are also more dangerous to other motorists.

SUV-to-car collisions are six times more likely to kill the occupants of the smaller vehicle when compared to a normal car-to-car collision. You may be safer inside an SUV, but you're at greater risk of killing others in the event of an accident.

And, don't forget, their heirs can still sue you.

So, if safety is your primary concern, it appears that a medium sized passenger car is the best bet overall, not only for personal safety but for that of others.

Why is it, then, that I feel less intimidated by Ziggy the zig zagger who is constantly changing lanes passing everyone, or by Sally the Stupid tailgater, or by the idiot talking on the cell and eating his lunch while driving, if I'm in my big pickup than I do if I'm in my Camry?

The Camry should qualify as a medium sized car, while the pickup is just big, and prone to roll over.

Maybe feeling safer and being safer are two different things.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Automakers chose to build the cars with the greatest profit margin. Those were the large ones. The problem was, their overhead costs were bloated by promises to employees and retirees. They also didn't have the vision to move past oil buring combustion engines. It was easier for them to enter the financing business instead of changing their model to become the leader in fuel-cell or battery technology.

 

[GenSeneca]

Automakers chose to build the cars with the greatest profit margin.

That was true before Government and the Unions took control.

They also didn't have the vision to move past oil buring combustion engines.

It wasn't lack of vision. They got burned by the EV1 back in the day and sticking to the combustion engine is still a more economically viable option. This of course won't be the case if they manipulate the market to artificially inflate the price of carbon fuels but that's another story.

It was easier for them to enter the financing business instead of changing their model to become the leader in fuel-cell or battery technology.

Fuel cell and battery tech are way too expensive, have considerable costs for upkeep, only last for about 5 years and the range is pathetic.

Small cars are less safe than large vehicles. If you careen off the road into a tree or retaining wall, your odds of survival are far greater in a larger vehicle. In just about any scenario, the larger vehicles offer their drivers far more safety than the toy cars the government and left wing loons are trying to push us into buying.

 

[Andy]

Automakers chose to build the cars with the greatest profit margin. Those were the large ones. The problem was, their overhead costs were bloated by promises to employees and retirees. They also didn't have the vision to move past oil buring combustion engines. It was easier for them to enter the financing business instead of changing their model to become the leader in fuel-cell or battery technology.

Um... it's not that they didn't have the vision to move past oil burning cars. It's because people didn't want the crap that didn't burn oil. They lost tons of money on electric cars when they tried it.

As for fuel-cell, just an FYI, hydrogen power is a joke, and a cruel hoax.

 

[Andy]

http://www.startribune.com/business/51270817.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4OW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUss

Small in stature, a group of 2009 two-door cars are providing good safety value to car shoppers, according to crash tests released Tuesday.

-----------------gh ----------------------------------


I thought small cars where all death traps , I was told so by right wingers who thing GM needs to keep building things that it went under building...

Once again, you are proved wrong within 2 posts. But it's funny, I could have swore I already covered this before. Let me say once more...

Small cars and large cars, are measured by different standards.

A tiny crap mobile can get a A+ rating on every single test, and still be a death trap compared to a large car the that gets a B- on every single test... because... THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT

The very fact that the standard is different for different size cars should be a clue that larger cars are safer, given they have higher expectations for larger cars.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Um... it's not that they didn't have the vision to move past oil burning cars. It's because people didn't want the crap that didn't burn oil. They lost tons of money on electric cars when they tried it.

As for fuel-cell, just an FYI, hydrogen power is a joke, and a cruel hoax.

I beg to differ...hydrogen power is a viable power source. The challenge is infrastructure. As far as electric cars are concerned, they are actually more powerful if the power is equally distributed to each wheel. The challenge comes when we don't change the engineering paradigm regarding the general construction of a car.

The other point I would like to make is that instead of chasing the automobile body structure business; GM and Chrysler could have changed their direction and became the battery or fuel cell company of the future. Let Toyota, Honda, and Nissan build the cars, but have them come to GM and Chrysler for the power source. Then you don't have to fight for an ever shrinking market.

 

[top gun]

http://www.startribune.com/business/51270817.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4OW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUss

Small in stature, a group of 2009 two-door cars are providing good safety value to car shoppers, according to crash tests released Tuesday.

-----------------gh ----------------------------------


I thought small cars where all death traps , I was told so by right wingers who thing GM needs to keep building things that it went under building...

That's just the old delay, delay, delay progress thing pocket.

Nothing stacks up against a Semi or a dump truck so all cars are unsafe... if we didn't look at things rationally and just bought into the "must drive biggest gas hog to be safe" crowd's logic.

I heard this exact same lame argument back in the 70's. My Mom had a 1977 or 1978 Chrysler New Yorker (I remember reading it was the most quickly losing in value car at one time). The thing was ridiculous big. But Oh they were safe because THEY WERE BIG... said the old folks.

I had a 65 Mustang Fastback most of my friends with cash had 68 or 69 Z28 Cameros or the 68 or 69 Boss or GT Mustang... they were no kidding about half the length of Mom's land yacht. They did just fine.

Half the size we all survived.

 

[GenSeneca]

I beg to differ...hydrogen power is a viable power source.

There is a HUGE difference between being Technologically viable and Economically viable.

GM and Chrysler could have changed their direction and became the battery or fuel cell company of the future.

Again, without the economic viability factor, such technology will sink a company - no matter how advanced it is.

 

[Andy]

I beg to differ...hydrogen power is a viable power source. The challenge is infrastructure. As far as electric cars are concerned, they are actually more powerful if the power is equally distributed to each wheel. The challenge comes when we don't change the engineering paradigm regarding the general construction of a car.

The other point I would like to make is that instead of chasing the automobile body structure business; GM and Chrysler could have changed their direction and became the battery or fuel cell company of the future. Let Toyota, Honda, and Nissan build the cars, but have them come to GM and Chrysler for the power source. Then you don't have to fight for an ever shrinking market.

Well, you are wrong. The challenge is that hydrogen power is not efficient, and doesn't solve any problems, and is more costly without any real benefit. But other than those minor issues, yes, infrastructure is a problem.

Issue one: Most industrial hydrogen is produced from refined oil. So we're going to stop using oil burning cars, to use hydrogen from oil, which releases the same amount of "so-called" pollutants per barrel.

Issue two: Hydrogen power is not as efficient as gasoline because of the laws of energy conservation, and the first law of thermal dynamics. To put it bluntly, each time energy changes forms, you lose some of that energy. In a hydrogen cycle, the energy changes forms two more times than in the gasoline cycle. This amounts to more energy lost. If you wish, I can explain that in more detail.

Issue three: Hydrogen cycle costs tons more. You have a very expensive reactor system that could be easily damaged by dirty hydrogen. Some fuel cells cost as much as a small car. Further, the refinement process for hydrogen is also horribly expensive, meaning that you will not only pay more for the hydrogen car, but likely pay more for the fuel too. Moreover, the energy density is very low compared to gasoline, meaning that comparing a hydrogen car to a gas car, with similar sized fuel tanks, the gas car will go much farther.

And again, not much real benefit.

Beyond that, you are right. Infrastructure isn't there for hydrogen either. But compared to other problems, that's the least of the worries.

Back to electric cars. They suck. They are too expensive. The closest thing to a usable electric car is the Tesla Model S. It's roughly $60,000 dollars. Not a bad car. But nearly identical to a Toyota Corola which is 1/4th the price.

Again, GM tried electric cars, and lost billions on the misadventure. Further, if electric cars were the end all by all that you claim, then why did Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, all cancel their electric cars too? If they really were going to make massive money on selling battery cars, why'd they cancel all of them?

Answer: they sucked, and no one wanted to pay enough for them to make money off of selling them.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Well, you are wrong. The challenge is that hydrogen power is not efficient, and doesn't solve any problems, and is more costly without any real benefit. But other than those minor issues, yes, infrastructure is a problem.

Issue one: Most industrial hydrogen is produced from refined oil. So we're going to stop using oil burning cars, to use hydrogen from oil, which releases the same amount of "so-called" pollutants per barrel.

Issue two: Hydrogen power is not as efficient as gasoline because of the laws of energy conservation, and the first law of thermal dynamics. To put it bluntly, each time energy changes forms, you lose some of that energy. In a hydrogen cycle, the energy changes forms two more times than in the gasoline cycle. This amounts to more energy lost. If you wish, I can explain that in more detail.

Issue three: Hydrogen cycle costs tons more. You have a very expensive reactor system that could be easily damaged by dirty hydrogen. Some fuel cells cost as much as a small car. Further, the refinement process for hydrogen is also horribly expensive, meaning that you will not only pay more for the hydrogen car, but likely pay more for the fuel too. Moreover, the energy density is very low compared to gasoline, meaning that comparing a hydrogen car to a gas car, with similar sized fuel tanks, the gas car will go much farther.

And again, not much real benefit.

Beyond that, you are right. Infrastructure isn't there for hydrogen either. But compared to other problems, that's the least of the worries.

Back to electric cars. They suck. They are too expensive. The closest thing to a usable electric car is the Tesla Model S. It's roughly $60,000 dollars. Not a bad car. But nearly identical to a Toyota Corola which is 1/4th the price.

Again, GM tried electric cars, and lost billions on the misadventure. Further, if electric cars were the end all by all that you claim, then why did Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, all cancel their electric cars too? If they really were going to make massive money on selling battery cars, why'd they cancel all of them?

Answer: they sucked, and no one wanted to pay enough for them to make money off of selling them.

You make a lot of valid points.

I'm not an expert, but it is my understanding that the most efficient method of mass Hydrogen production is by using Natural Gas as the base component. Yes, oil can be used, but that just leaves us the opportunity to use waste oil.

Also regarding hydrogen, like any other technology, the more accepted it is the lower the costs become. Part of the high cost is tied to very limited production. Just like the one-up manufacturing of cars and engines, until you improve mass production systems, costs will always look out of reach.

This is also one of the problems with electric cars. They are very efficient and powerful, but the cost is prohibitive due to the one-up manufacturing. Also, the battery technology is the key. GM and all of the other auto makers can't move forward until the storage technology catches up with expectations. My key point is that the company that breaks through in the power storage business will be the one making all of the money at the end of the day.

 

[PLC1]

Once again, you are proved wrong within 2 posts. But it's funny, I could have swore I already covered this before. Let me say once more...

Small cars and large cars, are measured by different standards.

A tiny crap mobile can get a A+ rating on every single test, and still be a death trap compared to a large car the that gets a B- on every single test... because... THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT

The very fact that the standard is different for different size cars should be a clue that larger cars are safer, given they have higher expectations for larger cars.

According to the graph I posted in post #2, which rates cars not on government tests, but on deaths per passenger mile, the medium sized car is safer than the large car. Why that would be, I have no idea, maybe because medium sized cars tend to be more agile? Cars, if you compare apples to apples, and size to size, are generally safer than pickups and SUVs, except for large SUVs as compared to large cars. The reason for that is obvious: Trucks and SUVs are more prone to roll over.

The safest vehicles for the occupants are the medium sized cars, followed closely by the large SUV. Of course, the latter is the most dangerous for other drivers, especially when driven by idiots who seem to think that they're invulnerable and able to simply roll over other vehicles like armadillos. That's a whole other problem, though.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Pocket : Report shows small cars to be safe

Andy: your a idiot Huge SUV would do better! You suck

Pocket: odd, I just said they where safe , not the safest thing you can drive,...for that would be a M1 tank...that however is not very good on MPG

Andy: my god your right, you did not say that they where in fact safer then a new larger car. It seems I am a idiot

Pocket: for once I do agree with you andy




some small cars do well in tests to simulate being hit by larger vehicle...andy cant wrap head around fact that cars even small are better now then 20 years ago...