[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spridget wanted.. rant..

To: "Spridget List" <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Spridget wanted.. rant..
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:25:40 -0500 with any abuse report
References: <33972e3bc73b9434dbf07a8de19e06f9@valentinephoto.net> <002901c54880$9c65faf0$5620ea3f@D1PWFG61> <7a9c1fd081692ad6accc77aceceb41d7@sport.rr.com> <426C45BE.9000600@exit109.com> <000801c5499c$4968d4e0$0ef3bec0@NilesAD.von.gov> <00c601c549a5$ea7e3ba0$6400a8c0@dave> <002101c549a8$dbfa6240$0ef3bec0@NilesAD.von.gov> <abb8688a05042509052396cd7c@mail.gmail.com>
I agree with a lot of your points. I am confident that an IRL race car is
much safer in an accident than my Midget (also a lot more expensive to
replace). I do not necessarily agree that a 2005 Pontiac is any safer in an
accident than my Midget. As I pointed out, the Midget does have crumple
zones that do work. They were not exactly designed to conform to a
government regulation, so they probably do not . On the other hand, a car
that has been designed to meet regulations in a 35mph crash test is VERY
unsafe in a 55mph crash. Unlike IRL, street cars do not have that essential
CF cocoon surrounding the occupant. It would make a big difference if it was
there. Designing a car to absorb impact as it collapses is wonderful, but
there has to be SOMETHING to keep it from collapsing too far when the
accident exceeds the design parameters. IRL worries about that a lot more
than GM does. IMHO, government crash testing as currently implemented
creates the illusion of safety and very little more.

I also noted that the "occupants" of that Spitfire in the video were not
wearing seatbelts and that the damage observed to the frame did not appear
to match that observed in the previous part of the video.
David Lieb
1972 RWA Midget

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