(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

you can do a lot of damage even at that speed. the thing is, what are
the /relative/ speeds. if i'm braking and am at 45 the moment of
impact, and the guy behind me is doing 55, relative speed is only 10.
that's a very common scenario. the dangerous ones are trees and
bridges. they're doing exactly zero mph when you hit them and are
completely unyielding.

that's a hot button topic. there are indeed bumper height standards,
but highway patrol never enforce it. as to dive, most modern cars have
anti-dive geometry so it's not the issue it may have once been. maybe
perpetuating the myth that "dive makes bumper height enforcement
pointless" is the deal with the hp.

 

yes,the VW Golf that rear ended my 94 Integra nosed under my bumper and
struck the exhaust system,bending the pipe at the "zigzag",and only
damaging the bumper cover where the license plate mounted.
the VW had far more damage to it's nose than my Integra had to its rear.

Now,if it had been a full-size SUV,I'd probably have been crushed when my
roof caved in....when the SUV climbed over it.

 

often,the most expensive part of the repair is if plastic tailight
assemblies are broken.Those often cost a lot.

 

I don't believe autos should be engineered to withstand impacts with
trees,bridge abutments,or other immovable objects.
They are not supposed to be tanks.

IMO,jacked-up SUVs and PU trucks ought to be ticketed every time for being
an unsafe vehicle.

 

*I had a '73 1800ES...

http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html

Much more like this:

http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg

And even more like this:

http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falth2/images/1800es.jpg

FUN!!!!

 

I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the
side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got
a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy
bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it,
let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we
will see how many people *really* need a truck.

 

to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door
and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window
area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models.

AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body
auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum.
IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not
rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special
coatings/fasteners.

 

I'll bet you wish you still had it...

 

not true for all new vehicles:
http://www.edmunds.com/lotus/elise/review.html

this thing cruises in at under 2,000lbs too.

adds to the price too.

bottom line, i think safe is good, but the weight penalty to "protect"
against side impact, the current hot ticket, is pretty much pointless.
any time you have your head right next to a nice inflexible piece of
bodywork, and no distance in which to decelerate moving objects, you're
going to have injury. period. racing bucket seats, 5 point harness and
helmets otoh /would/ make a significant difference to side impact
safety. but they weigh nothing. just wait another 30 years and see
whether they become mandatory! [not.]

 

like it! but it may not make as much difference as you'd like. my ex
was fixated on pink. /any/ vehicle that came with a huge pink fluffy
bumper, she'd buy it. i'm not joking either.

 

legally, they should be. but it's not enforced. write your congress
critter!

 

you'd be surprised. i've seen a lot of crashed hondas in a lot of junk
yards and they survive pretty damned well.

 

LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost).

But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like
how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do
with the removable roof section...)

Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars
into their cars...

 

I think that's mostly style.

Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the
high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now,
the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and
cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in
the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly)
overengineered instead.

J.

 

The new 787 is largely constructed of carbon fiber.

The first big aerospace application was carbon fiber rotor blades that
were pioneered by Kaman in the 1960's. The company is the world's
largest producer of rotor blades today.

OTOH, the L1011 while sporting an aluminum fuselage had no stringers as
it was constructed of thicker aluminum sheets which in turn really
provided for an airframe that did not have a dated life time expectancy.
Construction and maintenance were greatly simplified.

JT

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Studebaker Avanti was the only American
car with an integral roll bar as part of the design. This car which was
introduced in the spring of 1962, also had a fiberglass body, front disk
brakes and a completely padded safety interior.

And driving was a pleasure as it sure was glued to the road. I loved
that car and sure wish that I did not sell it but unfortunately, I had
to thin the herd when I accepted overseas employment back in 1989...

JT