Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-22-2008, 05:29 PM   #197
Well Preserved

 
1993 21' Sovereign
Colfax , North Carolina
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 20,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheel interested View Post
When the two cars involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars. When they're not identical but are still pretty similar to each other, adding mass to your car protects you. It tends to hurt the occupants of the other car, but its net effect overall is more protection, and so society benefits from added mass.
With all the mass I have, I should never be injured again...
__________________

__________________
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Terry
overlander63 is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 05:32 PM   #198
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
If you divide 300,000,000 Americans into $25,000,000,000 the answer is $83.33 each. This won't pay for the title and dealer stuff they tack onto the price. It's the $700,000,000,000 bank bailout that is something over $2,000 per person.



Gene
Narrow it down to adult tax payers and what do you get. Not just adults but those that pay taxes. Then it's more like 40-50 million adults. Plus these bailouts will go over a trillion, we all know it. See then you get about 20,000-25,000 per person. Now we're talking. I could buy a new work truck and another mower for my business, that would not only stimulate the economy but it would stimulate me as well. Oh.....this needs to be done without raising my taxes either.
__________________

__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 05:33 PM   #199
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Upperco , Maryland
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,087
Blog Entries: 22
The UAW contracts would not be a problem if the productivity of UAW workers was substantively greater than the productivity in foreign-owned, non-union plants. The contracts would be less of a problem if the increased cost of union labor was offset by the increased quality of union-made vehicles. The problem for GM and UAW members is that they can't beat foreign auto makers on quality or cost.

This is not a new argument, folks. We've had the same argument about "saving" manufacturing jobs for decades. It's happened with steel, textiles, etc. Yet despite the fact that a great deal of manufacturing now occurs in other countries, the standard of living in American is higher than ever. The level of income is higher than ever. Life expectancy is higher than ever. The great command economies of the world have failed (the former USSR) or slowly morphed into market economies (China). All you have to do is compare North Korea and South Korea to understand the different outcomes of a command economy and a market economy.
hampstead38 is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 05:44 PM   #200
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheel interested View Post
What about a different direction here. Do small cars kill? I burn more gas but drive fewer miles because of it. But I do feel more protected. Alot of that safety being built into the cars is heavy as well, as with side air bags, isn't it? But just having a big car it isn't going to crumple up as tight and small, is it? And there will be plenty of older vehicles still around to reak havoc, won't there. I drove a Geo once, rented it. I felt I was sitting on the ground. High speed driving and the interchanges and I felt more like a sitting duck in a little put-put.

About 50 percent of all occupant deaths occur in single-vehicle crashes. Extra mass in a car involved in a collision with a tree or a bridge abutment or a brick wall is incredibly protective. You find differences in survival rates between sub-compacts and large cars on the order of four times as great or eight times as great, a four to eight times DELETE 'THE' higher death rate in very small cars as in the larger cars. There is simply no question whatsoever that in single-vehicle crashes larger, heavier cars are safer.

The other half of all occupant deaths, however, occurs in multi-car collisions, largely in two-car collisions, and there the issue gets a little more complicated.

In multi-car collisions adding mass to your car protects you more but it does put the occupants of the other car at somewhat greater risk. And so the question is, what is the net effect?

When the two cars involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars. When they're not identical but are still pretty similar to each other, adding mass to your car protects you. It tends to hurt the occupants of the other car, but its net effect overall is more protection, and so society benefits from added mass.

Carol you are correct. I will try and find the study done by the Fed. dept. of transpo. it is very telling. But here is this from a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Here ya go:

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2007. Source: IIHS
Vehicle Size
Rate
Car — Small
96
Car — Midsize
62
Car — Large
64
Car — Very Large
35
Pickup — Small
104
Pickup — Large
90
Pickup — Very Large
86
SUV — Small
48
SUV — Midsize
41
SUV — Large
43
SUV — Very Large
47


My Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon is very safe.
__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 06:29 PM   #201
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,840
But the larger and heavier, the more fuel of some sort, whether gas, diesel or electric. Obvious to me if Newtonian physics still rules on Earth, more mass costs more to move. A giant MOHO or a bus has even more mass and an Abrams tank would be the ultimate. Individual vehicles of the same mass are different in safety ratings and some smaller vehicles are engineered better for safety than some larger ones.

Death rates aren't necessarily a measure of safety. Part of it is the type of drivers who drive certain kinds of vehicles (some of them are called "teenagers") and I suppose somewhere out there is a survey of who are the safer drivers and what they buy. I think there's something to learn from the death rates of pickups compared to SUV's since many SUV's are built on pickup platforms. Others are cars underneath, so statistics should differentiate between platforms. I can't figure out why pickups are so much more dangerous—bad drivers buy pickups? Light rear end causes spin outs in snow? The big ones are certainly heavy, so the death rate should be comparable to cars and SUV's the same weight if mass rules. The numbers are interesting and, to me, raise more questions.

I once rented a Ford Aspire. It was cheap to rent and so small and built so badly, it was scary. It was so low to the ground that when I ran over a pot on a Florida interstate (I couldn't get out of the lane at that moment), it sounded like I ripped the engine out before I stopped. I don't know why a pot was on the road, maybe it fell out of an RV. My wife wasn't happy with that rental. I never rented anything like that again, although a Mitsubishi car I rented another time had the worst brakes I've ever experienced. If those were the only small cars I ever drove, I'd never ride in another one.

If the vehicle fleet gets smaller, small vehicles become safer because there are fewer big ones to crush them. Given that energy is going to get more expensive, most vehicles will be smaller. There will still be vehicles big enough to tow a trailer or bring a pallet of cinderblock to a construction site, but they'll have to be more fuel efficient.

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 06:32 PM   #202
Well Preserved

 
1993 21' Sovereign
Colfax , North Carolina
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 20,191
The pickup accident problem is twofold. The bed is light, which can result in spinouts, and the cab roof is not reinforced very well, resulting in collapse of the roof in a rollover.
SUVs built on pickup chassis tend to be more top heavy, as you are taking an already heavy vehicle, adding more weight higher up with seats, roof, etc, and then usually jacking the whole works up in the air several inches besides. That was a big issue with the Ford Explorer, it was a Ranger with several hundred pounds more weight in the roofline, jacked up another 6 inches in the air.
__________________
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Terry
overlander63 is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 07:02 PM   #203
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by 53flyingcloud View Post
Greetings Larry~
My experiences was so much different than yours. When I was a teenager, due to relatives, I got to visit one Nike site in the Tidewater, Va. area. It was manned by the ARMY personnel, not the US Air Force.
ciao
53FC
You're right! For some reason, I was sure it was the Air Force. I called my older sister in Nevada and she affirmed your statement and added that some were run by the Army National Guard, as well.

Thanks for correcting me!
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 07:11 PM   #204
Rivet Master
 
2007 25' Classic
Hydes
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 705
I'd like to see more of these. My 96 Mini Cooper. Sold it last year and really miss it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	mini3 (2)1.jpg
Views:	54
Size:	227.3 KB
ID:	71665   Click image for larger version

Name:	mini3.jpg
Views:	56
Size:	552.8 KB
ID:	71666  

__________________
craftsman is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 07:23 PM   #205
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperhawk View Post

How about this. Instead of giving the money to the auto industry, Let's offer every American citizen several thousand dollars if they will buy a vehicle from one of the big 3.
It would work, Hawk, until the people that don't have any money would wonder why they could not get a new car like the rest of the folks that have jobs. It would escalate to "elitism" and class warfare, etc.
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 08:22 PM   #206
Rivet Master
 
wheel interested's Avatar
 
2007 23' International CCD
Lapeer , Michigan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,039
Instead of several thousand how about 7 thousand? It was in the energy speech.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/facts...ech_080308.pdf

Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin
Electric Vehicles on the Road
by 2015. As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in
advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over
150 miles per gallon of gas As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in
advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The
increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers
to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Barack Obama and
Joe Biden will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as
well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in
purchasing highly efficient cars, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will commit to:

o
Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to

plug‐ins as security permits; and

o




Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric

by 2012


And here's a part for you'll like Redshed





Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities.
Over the long term, we know that the

amount of fuel we will use is directly related to our land use decisions and development patterns.

For the last 100 years, our communities have been organized around the principle of cheap

gasoline. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we must devote substantial resources to

repairing our roads and bridges. They also believe that we must devote significantly more

attention to investments that will make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access other

transportation alternatives. They are committed to reforming the federal transportation funding













and leveling employer incentives for driving and public transit

You all might want to give it a look see and we can all start over and approach it all from the president elect's standpoints. There is very much germaine to the previous discussions in this thread.

Such as

Senator Obama pushed for $50 billion in loan guarantees to help the auto industry retool, develop new battery technologies and produce the next generation of fuel efficient cars here in America. Congress passed only half of this amount.

Probably explains why during the hearing the big 3 could not say why they asked for 25, they did not, as noted by one of them. that was the appropriated amount. What they want is a lifeline and they will be as prudent as possible but it all depends how long the economic downturn lasts how much is needed to bridge the gap.

Their failing was not due to inferior or undesired products or mismanagement, (not to say it could not have been better, leaner and more friendly to workers) it was due to credit drying up to front production and consumer loans.

Ford came in with a profit first quarter before the economy plummeted and GM had been downsizing. Ford and Chevies are good products. The new Chevy SUVs are more stable than ever lowering the platform and responded with smaller engines and increased safety features.
__________________
Caroljb



photography
wheel interested is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 09:38 PM   #207
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
[quote=CrawfordGene;640897]But the larger and heavier, the more fuel of some sort, whether gas, diesel or electric. Obvious to me if Newtonian physics still rules on Earth, more mass costs more to move. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post

Not necessarily true. There are many variables that can allow a larger car to get better mileage than a smaller one. I.E large displacement, low rpm, very high geared rearend,etc. For example my Roadmaster gets better mileage than several if not most midsize cars. If a motor has to work harder to move its mass because of less displacemnt, hp, torque, etc. it will use more fuel. Now granted all things being even except for mass then the vehicle with less mass will get better mileage.


Death rates aren't necessarily a measure of safety. Part of it is the type of drivers who drive certain kinds of vehicles (some of them are called "teenagers") and I suppose somewhere out there is a survey of who are the safer drivers and what they buy.

Granted in individual cases there could be many more variables that cause a fatality but over a large number of samples the average will sift out the other variables, so to speak.


I can't figure out why pickups are so much more dangerous—bad drivers buy pickups? Light rear end causes spin outs in snow? The big ones are certainly heavy, so the death rate should be comparable to cars and SUV's the same weight if mass rules. .

Most pickups have a higher center of gravity than cars even than SUVs, even SUVs built on the same platform. Trucks tend to have much stiffer suspensions as well, coupled with a much lighter rearend you have a higher probability of a rollover or spinout and since the cabs aren't reinforced as well you have a higher probability of a fatality.


If the vehicle fleet gets smaller, small vehicles become safer because there are fewer big ones to crush them.

In two accidents where everything is identical except for mass, where in one accident two 2800 lb. cars collide and in the other two 4800lb. cars collide the people in the larger vehicles with more mass still have a higher probability of surviving. Here is some more data:

According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
Gene
I guess I haven't mastered editing within a qoute it said I had to enter more words, that's what this is.
__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 09:47 PM   #208
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
I know this is off topic but for anyone interested in the safety aspects of the "green" econoboxes and subsequent "savings" to you and our society then here you go.


According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimate, implementing this change will cost American consumers over $6.71 billion in added vehicle expenses from 2007-2011.5 Yet Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, calculates that the fuel savings will be a mere 0.44 billion gallons of gasoline annually.6 On average, U.S. cars and light trucks consume some 11 billion gallons of gasoline each month.

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed burdensome across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017.

But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants.

A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.
* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13

* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15
* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16
* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17
* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18
__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 09:52 PM   #209
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
Here are some very interesting quotes from experts in the field:

In addition to the above studies, the following quotes provide a quick reference point of safety experts' results and statements on the consequences of CAFE regulations as they relate to vehicle safety.
* "The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution, and John D. Graham, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health19

* "Why Does CAFE kill? It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
-Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute20

* "[I]n terms of just the total number of lives, when I purchase a larger car, there is a reduction of risk. I'm safer, and so is society overall... We can conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that when weight is reduced, as it must be under CAFE, we will increase casualties."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and president of Science Serving Society21

* "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat."
-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration22

* "If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars."
-Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety23

* "CAFE is a solution in search of a problem."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution24

* "The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths."
-Charli E. Coon, J.D., Heritage Foundation25

* "The conclusion is that CAFE has caused, and is causing, increased deaths.... CAFE kills, and higher CAFE standards will kill even more."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and President of Science Serving Society26

__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Old 11-22-2008, 09:54 PM   #210
Rivet Master
 
mrmossyone's Avatar
 
1975 Argosy 24
Collierville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 727
Images: 10
Okay here is some more....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding, I'm done...................for now...................
__________________

__________________
Different strokes for different folks!

I never learned from a man who agreed with me.
Heinlein
mrmossyone is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
70's era Metal Ceiling Specs and R & R (Remove & Replace) Facts Distantdrummer General Interior Topics 3 06-22-2008 04:04 PM
The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest 85MH325 Off Topic Forum 0 03-23-2006 07:24 AM
Univolt FACTS smily Electrical - Systems, Generators, Batteries & Solar 69 08-19-2005 12:47 AM
Interesting facts excelladep Our Community 8 06-08-2002 10:11 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.