Will,
You won't get me to back down on this one. While I'll admit that in
theory the crumple zones are brilliant. It's the application that
troubles me. What they do is reduce a very expensive piece of equipment
to a pile of scrap in a collision that would otherwise do little damage
to the car's occupants if they are strapped in properly. I have too
many examples of this to list, but I'm sure you know of what I speak.
And to further the "ripoff" argument, guess who has paid for all the
wonderful design that went into the creation of "disposable cars"? You
guessed it, we, the consumer. Not only do you now have to pay much more
for new cars, but you have to pay much more to have them repaired in
minor accidents (if they are at all repairable). It's just another
example of Naderism run amok. "You gotta protect the public from
themselves, because they don't have enough sense to to it on their own."
Climbing down from my soapbox,
Joe Curry
Will O'Brien wrote:
>
> I just gotta say this...
>
> He who thinks crumple zones are rip offs should study physics a little bit.
> Particularly inertia.
>
> Patrick Barber wrote:
>
> > GatesDavid@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A "modern" car is actually designed to be destroyed in an accident. The
>front
> > > and rear of the car are intended to smash in and act as a giant shock
>absorber
> > > thus sacrificing the car and saving the people. This is called the
>crumple
> > > zone for obvious reasons. Older cars were built with the idea that the
>more
> > > rigid the car is, the safer it would be. Hey, if the car survived, so
>would
> > > the people. In fact what happens is the car comes to a very sudden stop
>(no
> > > shock absorption) and the passengers fly forward. The car may survive
>with
> > > minimal damage but the passengers could suffer far worse injuries than the
> > > newer car that is now totaled.
> > >
> > > David Gates
> > > '73 Spitfire 1500 (rigid, but love it anyway)
> > > Hawaii
> > >
> > > In a message dated 98-07-31 21:10:07 EDT, you write:
> > >
> > > > This whole safety issue hit home yesterday when I was driving home. As
> > > > I started around a bend in the road, I noticed all sorts of flares
> > > > burning on both sides of the road. As I rounded the bend, I saw the
> > > > rear of a chrome bumper MGB on one side and the front of some
> > > > nondescript modern car on the other. The modern car's bumper and grill
> > > > were well caved-in. As I passed the MGB, I noticed that very little
> > > > damage had occurred to it even though the accident was obviously a
> > > > head-on.
> > > >
> > > > So, I must conclude that although safety standards have been updated in
> > > > recent years, the cars are not necessarily any stronger because of it.
> > I am glad to see that this thread has been started. Last Wednesday
> > 7/29, I totaled out my 74 Spit in an crash at a local intersection (only
> > 5 days since I was at VTR in Hudson). Both vehicles involved in the
> > crash were in pretty bad shape. The Frame and Bonnet on the Spit were
> > completely destroyed. I believe that if the accident involved a heaver,
> > stiffer framed vehicle (such as my 98 F150) the Other vehicle would most
> > certainly have sustained much greater damage. As it turns out, nobody
> > was injured in the slightest way. I will greatly sacrifice any
> > automobile for the safety and security of me or my passengers.
> >
> > BTW, I have seen crash videos from the 60's and 70's. I truly believe
> > that car and trucks are much safer due to crumple zones and energy
> > absorbing designs. Just watch a CART Indy car hit the wall at over 200
> > MPH and tell me that if the car had remained in 1 piece that the driver
> > would have as well...
> > --
> > Patrick Barber
> > 74 Spitfire 1500 (FM14774U)
> > "Go Red Wings" ... 1998 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
--
"If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
-- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
|