spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spit safety question...

To: Joe Curry <spitlist@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Spit safety question...
From: Patrick Barber <sailnbail@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 22:26:51 -0400
Joe Curry wrote:
> 
> Patrick,
> Does this mean I remove your "Black Beauty" from the database?
> 
> As for the safety issue, The likelihood of the Indy or F1 cars hitting
> the wall or another car at that kind of speed is far greater than in a
> passenger car.  What galls me is it seems that there is an intentional
> effort by automakers to see how much damage can be caused in a low speed
> collision.  Safety when it matters is really the important issue.  Your
> Spit didn't have crumple zones, but apparently was well enough designed
> to protect its occupants.  But to have a highly over-priced car fold up
> like a cheap envelope is to me completely unnecessary.
> 
> Case in point:  A few years back I was involved in a 3-car rear end
> collision.  It was my fault, but I ran up the rear of a new Honda Civic
> that in turn hit an older Civic.  Both civics were total losses.  The
> one I hit (about 25 mph) couldn't even get the doors open.  My Chrysler
> LeBaron GTS (also a small car) received about $2000 front end damage.
> The only people who won were the body shops and new car dealers who
> could move another hunk of expensive metal.  I can't imagine that the
> insurance companies let the auto manufacturers get away with this.
> 
> Joe
> 
> P.S. Let me know if you are gonna revive the Spit.
> 
> 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
Joe, Keep it in the database.  I still haven't decided what to do with
it.  I may rebuild it, I may part it out.  All of my money is in the
Engine and Suspension which I can still salvage.  The Body Tub is still
good.  Both doors still open and close. The block does not seem to be
affected.  I think the engine will still run for a short period of time
(due to the lack of coolant).   Not all hope is lost...
-- 
Patrick Barber
74 Spitfire 1500 (FM14774U)
 "Go Red Wings" ... 1998 Stanley Cup Champions!!!


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>