Is Bigger Better?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Jun 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Harry K

    Harry K Guest

    "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:56:14 +0000, Dave Simpson wrote:
    > >
    > > > Safety is defined in terms of the relative risk to the occupants of vehicles.
    > >
    > > That is a myopic definition. It should include the relative risk to those the damn thing
    > > hits, too.
    >
    > That's not the manufacturers responsibility... That is up to the maker of the other vehicle. Geo
    > wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH head on collision (100MPH combined impact
    > speed) with a Ford Excursion it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to make that happen. It's
    > also going to make their Metro heavier, which will necessitate a larger engine. After that the
    > Metro is not a cheap econo-box. It's still tiny, but now it's heavier and doesn't get all that
    > great mileage.
    >
    > When you buy a vehicle and decide to drive it you are accepting the risk involved in a collision
    > of any type with any sort of vehicle on the roads. If your vehicle can't ensure your survivability
    > when slammed into a full-size SUV or 18-wheeler then that's your problem. If that's a big issue
    > for you in a car then you need to look for a car that will address your concerns. Stop bitching
    > about what everyone else is driving and do something about your problems, buy a car that you feel
    > safe in.
    >
    > > > Pickups, SUVs, and cargo vans are heavier and in addition, they are more sturdy (you can
    > > > review safety studies which refer to their stiffer frames and such if you are interested),
    > > > and they overall are safer to their occupants, in all kinds of accidents.
    > >
    > > Again, this is a matter of definition. "Safer in all kinds of accidents" restricts attention to
    > > the results of accidents, not the likelihood of having one. Rollover statistics are swept under
    > > the rug in this calculation, and SUVs are notoriously prone to rollover. In a given situation,
    > > had the driver been driving a sensible vehicle, he/she would not be in the accident statistics
    > > at all, since it would not have rolled over.
    >
    > The rollover is usuall the result of an accident (i.e. collision, contact with another vehicle or
    > object). Sometimes it is the result of an attempt to avoid a collision and even less often it's
    > the result of simply over-driving the vehicle. For the latter two cases that is the responsibility
    > of the driver to know the capabilities of his vehicle. My Galaxies are more prone to a rollover
    > than a Civic, but who cares. That's my problem, not yours... I know the capabilities of my cars
    > and don't exceed them. If I flip my car on it's roof in a stupid maneuver I'll deal with the
    > consequences without bitching about how my vehicle was more prone to rollover than a Civic, as I
    > accepted the risk. I'm not gonig to start bitching about how my car sits higher than most, and I
    > won't sue Ford for designing a great car that has proven it's reliability over 35 years and
    > 100,000 miles but flipped over wehn I did something stupid in it.
    >
    > > > Where there is a greater, not smaller, relative risk with the vehicles ... is that their
    > > > higher centers of gravity present a higher risk of rollover.
    > >
    > > but then you go on to ignore this effect:
    > >
    > > > In typical safety studies, the smallest cars are, as expected, at the very bottom and far
    > > > riskier than the bigger vehicles. As far as the secondary element of risk to other vehicles
    > > > (the issue which the
    > leftists
    > > > currently are flogging to death, and being silly when not irritating or outrageous) is worst
    > > > with cargo vans, not pickups or SUVs.
    > >
    > > Well, excuse me for voting Democratic, but that is irrelevant. Actually, the "worst" interms of
    > > risk to other vehicles would be logging trucks. But the number of logging trucks on the road, or
    > > cargo vans, is a small fraction of the number of Ford Explorers.
    >
    > In this country we have the freedom to buy and drive any vehicle we want to. I chose a '68 Ford.
    > My aunt chose a '02 Durango. If I get into an accident with my aunt and I die (or vice versa),
    > oh well, that's life (or death, in this case, heh heh). You won't find anyone suing anyone over
    > the death,

    > because of their own mistakes. If you feel unsafe in your current vehicle and it bothers you as
    > much as it seems to, then go buy a vehicle you'd feel safer in. Your best bet is probably a larger
    > car with modern safety features like the Crown Vic. It's still a car, and is relatively large
    > which means in an accident with a heavy vehicle there is more around you that other vehicle must
    > get through before touching you.

    Well there is a post from Cory that I agree with. One exception is as follows:

    quote:
    > Geo wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH head on collision (100MPH combined
    > impact speed)
    unquote.

    The force of impact on each vehicle of equal mass, both moving 50 mph, is 50mph, not 100mph. With
    two vehicles of disimilar mass the one with less mass will experience something more than 50mph, the
    other something less but nowhere near 100mph until the mass discrepancy approaches infinity, e.g., a
    Metro against a loaded semi.

    Harry K
     


  2. Cory Dunkle

    Cory Dunkle Guest

    "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:D[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Paul" <[email protected]_sucks.don'temailme.net> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > Larger vehicles, the argument goes, may guzzle more gas but they
    > > offer
    > > > > > > more protection, whether one hits a tree or another car. The
    > > argument
    > > > > > > has been a central one when efforts emerge in Congress to raise
    > fuel
    > > > > > > economy standards.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > The two ton mom mobiles are safer, eh. Tell that to the dead girl. See the following.
    > > > > >
    > > http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/met_12884481.shtml
    > > > >
    > > > > Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and
    > 80s
    > > > > were station wagons, which weighed at least two tons, except maybe
    the
    > > > > compact station wagons like the falcon which probably weight a few
    > > hundred
    > > > > pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight
    in
    > > the
    > > > > neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs,
    > > > because
    > > > > cars used to be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days
    > that
    > > > > still are two tons or more.
    > > >
    > > > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever
    design )
    > > are
    > > > dead and the roads are safe. Remember that SUVs kill more in two car collisions and yet are
    > > > not safer for their drivers or passengers
    because
    > > of
    > > > roll instability and vision blockage. This has nothing to do with
    > history
    > > or
    > > > what went before. It has to do with creating an unnecessary threat to
    > > life,
    > > > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler. It is just ANOTHER bad design.
    > >
    > > In that case _every_ vehicle on the road is "an unnecessary threat to
    > life,
    > > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler". In times of old people used to live close to work, and for
    > > those that lived fartehr from work they rode a
    > horse.
    > > Cars are _not_ needed at all to survive. Any time a human moves faster
    > than
    > > he was designed to (i.e. faster than he can run) he risks his life, as
    the
    > > human body wasn't made to take the impact of such high speeds. Anything
    > that
    > > uses more gas than a horse is wasteful.
    >
    > It is indeed all relative. Check the safety rating of cars before 'Unsafe
    at
    > any speed". The citizens of 1905 were horrified at the breakneck speed and dangerous recklessness
    > of these new 'horseless buggies'. We have improved the safety and regulation to a point where it
    > is acceptable. But like the Chevy Corsair and it's dangerous handling, there are issues where we
    > say 'not good enough' which is what is being applied to SUVs.

    There is nothing inherantly dangerous about the way a SUV handles. Just as there is nothing
    inherantly dangerous about teh way a Chevy Corsair handles. The driver must simply know how his
    vehicle handles and waht it is capable with and drive accordingly.

    > > The only reason people die in car accidents is because the accidents occurred in the first
    > > place. Attack the problem at it's root, unsafe
    > drivers
    > > and unsafe laws. The type of vehicle someone drives is irrelevant.
    >
    > Unless you are going to 'perfect' humans you are talking through your
    anus.
    > Is this some sort of bioengineering proposal? Otherwise we just have to minimise the danger by
    > improving the instrument. Shit happens and you will not get a better breed of human to cut down on
    > the danger. That is really far out and weird logic even for you.

    I'm not talking about a better breed of human, or even a smarter human. I'm simply talking about
    engineering our roads, traffic signal, traffic control devices, and traffic laws entirely for safety
    and expedious travel. Do that and you drop traffic accidents by a huge amount simply from making the
    roads safe. Now make stiffer requirements for written and road tests and throw in good, logical
    enforcement and you've greatly reduced the amount of bad drivers getting on the roads as well as the
    number of accidents due to unsafe roads.
     
  3. Cory Dunkle

    Cory Dunkle Guest

    "Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > quote:
    > > Geo wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH head on collision (100MPH combined impact
    > > speed)
    > unquote.
    >
    > The force of impact on each vehicle of equal mass, both moving 50 mph, is 50mph, not 100mph. With
    > two vehicles of disimilar mass the one with less mass will experience something more than 50mph,
    > the other something less but nowhere near 100mph until the mass discrepancy approaches infinity,
    > e.g., a Metro against a loaded semi.

    Would not a Geo Metro heading East at 50 MPH and a Geo Metro heading West at 50 MPH which collide
    head-on have the same effective impact speed and force as a Geo Metro headed north which hits a
    concrete barrier at 100 MPH?

    Oh, nevermind... I just figured it out. I feel stupid. :) The decelleration from the 100 MPH Geo
    would be much greater than that either 50 MPH Geos experienced. Esseentially it's as if in the first
    scenario both Geos hit a concrete barrier.

    In any case, when I wrote that I was thinking of a Geo Metro colliding head on with a Suburban/H2 or
    Excursion at 50 MPH. Either way you're right though.
     
  4. Harry K

    Harry K Guest

    "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > quote:
    > > > Geo wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH head on collision (100MPH combined
    > > > impact speed)
    > > unquote.
    > >
    > > The force of impact on each vehicle of equal mass, both moving 50 mph, is 50mph, not 100mph.
    > > With two vehicles of disimilar mass the one with less mass will experience something more than
    > > 50mph, the other something less but nowhere near 100mph until the mass discrepancy approaches
    > > infinity, e.g., a Metro against a loaded semi.
    >
    > Would not a Geo Metro heading East at 50 MPH and a Geo Metro heading West at 50 MPH which collide
    > head-on have the same effective impact speed and force as a Geo Metro headed north which hits a
    > concrete barrier at 100 MPH?
    >
    > Oh, nevermind... I just figured it out. I feel stupid. :) The decelleration from the 100 MPH Geo
    > would be much greater than that either 50 MPH Geos experienced. Esseentially it's as if in the
    > first scenario both Geos hit a concrete barrier.
    >
    > In any case, when I wrote that I was thinking of a Geo Metro colliding head on with a Suburban/H2
    > or Excursion at 50 MPH. Either way you're right though.

    Yeah, the 100mph misconception is common. Just picturing what is happening clears it up tho.
    Question, from what speed does each decelerate? Ansewer 50mph. When phrased that way, even the
    hardcore holdouts seem to get it.

    Harry K
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...