 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / January 2006Danger of death from Toyota!
Details on a site: http://www.autotrue.com/ Alex, This one was here not long ago. Budd > Details on a site: > > http://www.autotrue.com/ "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in news:43d2e1e8$0 $3564$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com: > Alex, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> http://www.autotrue.com/ Toyotas aren't quality cars???? My brother bought a '86 Toyota truck (22r) in '93 that had 300,000 miles (it was a former parcel delivery truck). Plus it had been rolled by a driver at the parcel company. A family friend who does bodywork bought it at auction for $200 and repaired it and sold it to my brother for $1000 or so. My brother kept it another 5 years and put 200,000 more miles on it. I think he did have to do a minor rebuild on it at about 400,000 (head, bearings, rings), but it had 500K miles and still ran good when he sold finally sold it. I've had several Toyotas myself and always found them to be reliable and durable, but then again I've only owned Toyotas with the 22re/r and rear drive ('94 truck and a '79 Corona). Maybe . . . . I got rear-ended by an 81 Cadillac many moons ago and they towed the Caddy off totaled (it was brand new at the time and the front frame horns bent). The estimated impact speed was about 45 mph ( 135 feet of skid marks from just the Caddy and another 40 feet from both his and my car). I drove home and drove my car for another 5 years. My car at the time? A 64 Valiant 2 door sedan. Something told me to stop well back from the car ahead of me at the stop light ( about 2 car lengths), scrunch down in the seat and put both feet on the brakes. I stopped the Caddy from knocking me into the car in front. Total damage: driver's seat back bent back one inch, one cracked taillight lens, one waved right rear fender, and a slight twist to the bumper. 15 minutes with a power puller and the wave was gone from the fender. Finally swapped out the /6 at over 350K miles for a "fresh" 100K engine. Yeah, sure those foreign cars are safe . . . . I won't own one and I'm not super comfortable with my 95 Lebaron GTC(Mitsubishi V-6, German transaxle, etc.) for that matter. I'd rather have another old Valiant or such. Btw, _my_ point was this stuff on Toyotas had been posted here before and this isn't a Toyota group. Now, that said, if the poster had been looking for help with a Toyota, many here would have tried their best to help or directed him to where the help was available. Budd > "Budd Cochran" <mr-d150@preciscom SPAM.net> wrote in news:43d2e1e8$0 > $3564$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- > Total damage: driver's seat > back bent back one inch, one cracked taillight lens, one waved right rear [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > super comfortable with my 95 Lebaron GTC(Mitsubishi V-6, German transaxle, > etc.) for that matter. I'd rather have another old Valiant or such. One point only... do we care about the CAR damage, or the potential PASSENGER injuries? It is true that older cars took less impact damage... Who then received the excess kinetic energy? The reason newer cars get so easily totaled is that the CARS absorb the kinetic energy and NOT the passengers. Of course it was nice to have a car that would drive nicely after an accident (and pay less for repairs, hehe) what about having to pay for the hospital bill (and what about having to BE in a hospital in the first place? ) Well that is my 0.02$... Stelios id have to agree here. better to replace the car. i'd ruther walk away from a totalled vehicle than to be carried away on a stretcher from a car with little damage.  Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango > > Total damage: driver's seat > > back bent back one inch, one cracked taillight lens, one waved right rear [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well that is my 0.02$... > Stelios Neither of you were there, neither of you know exactly what happened. And apparently, neither of you have been a 64 Valiant during an accident. Budd > id have to agree here. better to replace the car. i'd ruther walk away > from [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> Well that is my 0.02$... >> Stelios no i wasnt there nor did i claim to be. but i did agree with the statement of the car absorbing more impact because of crumple zones being a good thing. you dont have to worry about any more of my responces because twice i have responded on simple comment to a thread you were in and twice with the attitude. so live well bud. may God be with you in your travels. Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango > Neither of you were there, neither of you know exactly what happened. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >> Well that is my 0.02$... > >> Stelios Good job Budd SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > no i wasnt there nor did i claim to be. but i did agree with the statement > of the car absorbing more impact because of crumple zones being a good [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > >> Well that is my 0.02$... > > >> Stelios Stuff it, Tom. Budd > Good job Budd > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >> > >> Well that is my 0.02$... >> > >> Stelios Then don't write in a manner as to cause another to feel like you know more than they do about a situation you were not in. IIRC, the other time you acted like you knew more than I about something I had experienced. No matter, I won't miss your replies if you're that thin skinned anyhow. Budd > no i wasnt there nor did i claim to be. but i did agree with the statement > of the car absorbing more impact because of crumple zones being a good [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> Well that is my 0.02$... >> >> Stelios no im not that thin skined i just dont have time for pompus responces. and no i did not intend to come acrost as if i "knew more" as i stated last post i simply agreed that crumple zones is a good thing. i have not ever stated that i knew more than anybody here, or have a cared to argue with anyone here. i simply have better things to do with my time. im sorry you dont care to get to know me better but oh well. now as far as my time i have wasted enough of it. Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango > Then don't write in a manner as to cause another to feel like you know more > than they do about a situation you were not in. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >> >> Well that is my 0.02$... > >> >> Stelios Nor do I claim to be more knowledgeable, but I have had experiences that don't follow the accepted norm. Either accept it or call me a liar. To assume that crumple zones are the perfect lifesaver is to deny the benefit of the 40 feet between my car and the car ahead of me. To say I shouldn't be driving an older car like the other guy said is pompous to the max. It doesn't allow for an economic status below the yuppie level or a personal preference to drive something less complicated, more dependable and less expensive to keep. Chris, you do what you want. My original point was that the Toyota crap was not on topic for this group. 'Bye. Budd > no im not that thin skined i just dont have time for pompus responces. and > no i did not intend to come acrost as if i "knew more" as i stated last [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >> >> >> Well that is my 0.02$... >> >> >> Stelios > And apparently, neither of you have been a 64 Valiant during an accident. And when were you were a 64 Valiant, LOL? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> And apparently, neither of you have been a 64 Valiant during an accident. > > And when were you were a 64 Valiant, LOL? Gee, Tom, how darn stupid are you? Do you need someone to remind you to breathe, go to the bathroom? Read the freakin thread, or do you need someonre to do that for you too? Budd This doesn't answer the question Budd. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> And apparently, neither of you have been a 64 Valiant during an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Budd Like I said, stuff it, Tom. Budd > This doesn't answer the question Budd. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Budd It still doesn't answer the question. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Like I said, stuff it, Tom. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> > >> Budd > Neither of you were there, neither of you know exactly what happened. > > And apparently, neither of you have been a 64 Valiant during an > accident. I used to have a '65 Dart that was real, real tough (I think they used thicker sheetmetal and structural elements back then). Well, I never was in an accident with it, but it probably would have held up well. Sure, the newer cars are designed to "give" to get rid of the kinetic energy, but I've seen a lot of cars that have been in fatal accidents and it seems the car "gives" too much and the passenger ends up getting smashed by the sides of their car. Best bet is to drive defensively and stay off your cell phone whilst driving and keep adequate space cushions. I've been driving 18 years and never had an accident (not even a fender bender). And due to adequate space cushions, I've never been hit by anyone else. I've only had 2 insurance claims, both for damage done to my car while it was sitting in parking lots, and both times were hit and runs. The number of hit and runs is staggering. My mother was almsot killed by a hit and run driver. She had been sitting at a red light and was rear ended by a full size truck doing 50 or so. He managed to drive away and never stopped to render aid or anything. She couldn't manage to get his license plate # due to her neck being virtually broken. My little sister was also rear ended while she was waiting at a red light -- another hit and run. It's an epidemic. It sure pisses me off. Thank you for proving the point, JD. Budd >> Neither of you were there, neither of you know exactly what happened. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- I had a 65 Dart myself and yes, they were tuff little cars. I had a GT with a 225 and it was fairly fast for what it had. A 273 would have been better but I was not the one who bought it. While they were pretty tuff in an accident there low back bucket seats offered NO neck protection so if you got rear-ended hard, you got hurt. As for the hit and runs, you can blame some of that on the BS lawyers and their bogus law suits that make it almost a requirement to run if you can or risk losing everything due to an accident. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > Neither of you were there, neither of you know exactly what happened. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- >> Total damage: driver's seat >> back bent back one inch, one cracked taillight lens, one waved right rear [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > One point only... do we care about the CAR damage, or the potential > PASSENGER injuries? Well, now, did you bother read the estimated speed at impact? How much good would your five-mile-per-hour bumpers done? My wife is the night E.R. / Adsmissions clerk for the local hospital and from the description of injuries sustained in newer vehicles imapacted at slower speeds, I'm darn glad I was in the Valiant. A couple years back a car with side impact beams and bags was t-boned on I-70 making an illegal turn into a media crossover, both drivers and two passengers died and the skid marks gave an impact speed of 35 mph (clear, dry pavement). > It is true that older cars took less impact damage... Who then received > the excess kinetic energy? Not me. The seat back in my car bent 1" backward and I had only a lap belt (OEM), the people in the Caddy were buckled in with the three point system (no airbags, iirc), and the man's (64) mother (82) only got a small cut on her forehead from a loose inkpen. IMHO, I mentioned that I stopped a couple car lengths behind the car ahead of me, a Chevy Vega coupe belonging to a fellow sergeant from my National Guard Unit. After impact, he came back to check on me, I sent him to call the police, and I went back to check on the Caddy's occupants, who were both concious. The investigating officer, a man I went to high school with, said that there would have been deaths if I had not stopped so far back from the light. Now, whether you8 believe or not, I believe God told to stop where I did. > The reason newer cars get so easily totaled is that the CARS absorb the > kinetic energy and NOT the passengers. The lady got a cut from a flying ink pen, I got nothing from the accident, explain that . . . > Of course it was nice to have a car that would drive nicely after an > accident (and pay less for repairs, hehe) what about having to pay for > the hospital bill (and what about having to BE in a hospital in the > first place? ) No hospital stay, no examination for me, and the elderly lady was sent out in an ambulance because she was so shook up she couldn't stand up. The cut did not require stitches. Her son was fine . . .so much for that theory. > Well that is my 0.02$... > Stelios The question I have for you is what prompted you to make a negative comment about a man driving what he could afford . . .or preferred? That car averaged over 30 mpg, handled as well as a Corvette (accident avoidance capability) and often out accelerated V-8 cars. Hey, if you want to pay outrageous monthly payments for the vehicle and the insurance / license costs to cover it, that is your choice. I'll just drive my old cars that don't cost an arm and a leg, drive defensively to keep out of accidents, pay $25 / mo for my car insurance and $35 / year for my plates, if you don't mind. Budd > The question I have for you is what prompted you to make a negative comment > about a man driving what he could afford . . .or preferred? Where in my message is the negative comment? I also have owned and driven cars that predated me (and was scared to death about the way they handled AFTER I started driving modern cars). My message was meant to say EXACTLY what was written in it and had no "hidden" meaning. Come on Budd, I have been reading (and sometimes -rarely- writing in) this newsgroup since 1998 and have noticed a VERY distinct change of attitude from you. You take EVERYTHING personally... Relax, and allow some other fellow to politely disagree with you... Further more, try and READ what the threads say... There was not ONE hint of disagreement in my message about the specifics of the accident you had participated in... Stelios >> The question I have for you is what prompted you to make a negative >> comment >> about a man driving what he could afford . . .or preferred? > > Where in my message is the negative comment? Uh, let's see . . .yep, the whole darn thing. > I also have owned and driven cars that predated me (and was scared to > death about the way they handled AFTER I started driving modern cars). Must have been GM products. I never found one that handled right. My little white Valiant was a canyon carver even on 13" tires. Oh, and yes, I have done some racing so I know what setting a line thru a corner is, apexing, the difference between a drift ( four wheel, not tire wasting) and a slide. The biggest limiting factor for car handling years ago was tire development, expecially for Mopars, AMC's and Fords. > My message was meant to say EXACTLY what was written in it and had no > "hidden" meaning. I didn't say you hid the meaning, I called it what it was; a negative comment about driving an older car. > Come on Budd, I have been reading (and sometimes -rarely- writing in) > this newsgroup since 1998 and have noticed a VERY distinct change of > attitude from you. You take EVERYTHING personally... You seem to think I don't have any right to be offended . . .guess again. If I want to take a slam about my car personally, I have the right and the choice. I can also be offended when a slam is made against older cars without justification. > Relax, and allow some other fellow to politely disagree with you... Polite, no problem...slamming of a guy's ride for no justifiable reason, big problem. > Further more, try and READ what the threads say... Ja, Herr Diktator!!!!! Try it yourself, ok? > There was not ONE > hint of disagreement in my message about the specifics of the accident > you had participated in... I did and you did say, "One point only... do we care about the CAR damage, or the potential PASSENGER injuries?" Then you proceeded to slam my older car as being a death trap. All negatives. YOU missed my point, that newer cars are not as safe as their cracked up to be. If I had been in my 95 Lebaron, for example, I would be dead in that accident. Did you read the comment of the side impact beam? The car had a 4 star rated impact safety, iirc. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROTECTED THE DRIVER ACCORDING TO THE "EXPERTS" (caps for emphasis only) Last year (my wife just reminded me of this) another accident left a young person in a wheelchair when their ricer was rear-ended by a semi when it pulled out in front of it IN A THIRTY MPH ZONE. That car was only three years old. Where's the rear crumple zone now? Where the back seat used to be. Looking at the car the next day as I drove by one of the body shops, I'm surprised he lived at all. Yes, the truck may have been speeding, but I've never seen one go thru town faster than 40. An engineering trivia you should consider: only two people have ever survived the trip over Niagara Falls even with a steel barrel filled with padding. Some of those clowns that died were engineers. The two that survived weren't, they were just lucky. The point being there are some things man is incapable of engineering safety into. Budd > >> The question I have for you is what prompted you to make a negative > >> comment [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Uh, let's see . . .yep, the whole darn thing. Like he said, where???? > > I also have owned and driven cars that predated me (and was scared to > > death about the way they handled AFTER I started driving modern cars). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > done some racing so I know what setting a line thru a corner is, apexing, > the difference between a drift ( four wheel, not tire wasting) and a slide. Hey Jerry, here is a new one for you, now he is a race car driver. > The biggest limiting factor for car handling years ago was tire development, > expecially for Mopars, AMC's and Fords. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I didn't say you hid the meaning, I called it what it was; a negative > comment about driving an older car. Only in your mind Budd. > > Come on Budd, I have been reading (and sometimes -rarely- writing in) > > this newsgroup since 1998 and have noticed a VERY distinct change of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > choice. I can also be offended when a slam is made against older cars > without justification. Nobody said anything negative about your vehicle. > > Relax, and allow some other fellow to politely disagree with you... > > Polite, no problem...slamming of a guy's ride for no justifiable reason, big > problem. Please show exactly where he said that the 64 Valiant was a POS or anything about it at all for that matter? > > Further more, try and READ what the threads say... > > Ja, Herr Diktator!!!!! Try it yourself, ok? Now you have a problem with the Germans????? > > There was not ONE > > hint of disagreement in my message about the specifics of the accident [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > PASSENGER injuries?" Then you proceeded to slam my older car as being a > death trap. All negatives. LOL, you have one hell of an imagination there Budd. > YOU missed my point, that newer cars are not as safe as their cracked up to > be. If I had been in my 95 Lebaron, for example, I would be dead in that > accident. I doubt it and you have no proof otherwise. In order for this to be true, the people in the other car that hit you should have been significantly injured and they were not according to you. > Did you read the comment of the side impact beam? The car had a 4 > star rated impact safety, iirc. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROTECTED THE DRIVER > ACCORDING TO THE "EXPERTS" (caps for emphasis only) And the car that hit it also had people die so your point is meaningless. Obviously, these people would have probably died regardless of what they were driving in this particular accident and that does not discount the added protection that the car with the side beams provided. People die in motorcycle accidents while wearing their helmets so does this mean that the helmet provides no valid protection? > Last year (my wife just reminded me of this) another accident left a young > person in a wheelchair when their ricer was rear-ended by a semi when it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > surprised he lived at all. Yes, the truck may have been speeding, but I've > never seen one go thru town faster than 40. The reason that he survived at all was due to the car absorbing as much of the impact as it did. You must really be getting desperate to come up with total BS like this. An econo-box against a semi, LOL!!! Do you really think that your Valiant would have done any better being hit by a semi at 40MPH? You probably would have wound up with a broken neck. > An engineering trivia you should consider: only two people have ever > survived the trip over Niagara Falls even with a steel barrel filled with > padding. Some of those clowns that died were engineers. The two that > survived weren't, they were just lucky. The point being there are some > things man is incapable of engineering safety into. And do you think that the padding in their vessels did nothing to help them. Do you think that your Valiant or any other old car would do any better, LOL? This truly has to be just about the dumbest statement to come out of you in quite a while. There is a big difference between engineering safety and making something indestructible. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > YOU missed my point, that newer cars are not as safe as their cracked up to > be. If I had been in my 95 Lebaron, for example, I would be dead in that > accident. Did you read the comment of the side impact beam? The car had a 4 > star rated impact safety, iirc. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROTECTED THE DRIVER > ACCORDING TO THE "EXPERTS" (caps for emphasis only) The 95 Le Baron had a 4 star rating, but only for a frontal crash. Side impact was not rated by NHTSA for 1995 Le Baron. John Where did I say it was rated for side impact? Read it again; I said if I had been in my Lebaron I would have been dead ... yet the Lebaron has side impact beams. They might stop an angry Bumblebee . . . . I got news for you, I would not want to be in that car in any crash because I've seen a few similar cars after accidents and that "four star" and "five star"ratings crap fails in the real world at impact speeds over 35. Good grief, don't you listen to your local news about all the people getting clobbered in those five star rated vehicles? It's simple kinetic force. Stand an empty soda can (your crush zone) up and smash it with another soda can . . .and you get a certain amount of damage. Stand another can up and smash it with a sledgehammer . . . .your crush zone just flattened out and the bench just got MOST of the force. So much for that 35 mph rating system. The cans would flatten just as much if the collision speed were increased as that increases the kinetic energy. Now, repeat the experiment with a couple pieces of 4" diameter 0.125" wall tubing with plates welded on the ends. . . . . Yep, low speed impact bounces off ( that is not where the most deaths / injuries occur), but the cylinder now absorbs more of the sledgehammer's impact. Yeah, that tough old Valiant withstood hitting a Mule Deer Doe, A full size standard Poodle ( a little larger than a German Shepard), and being hit by a 81 Caddy. . . and I never got a scratch. Budd >> YOU missed my point, that newer cars are not as safe as their cracked up >> to be. If I had been in my 95 Lebaron, for example, I would be dead in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John > standard Poodle ( a little larger than a German Shepard), and being hit by > a 81 Caddy. . . and I never got a scratch. But those repeated impacts????? Ah, I think there might have been some damage.<G> Roy Sure there was. Never said there wasn't. I'm the one without a scratch, Roy. <VBG> Valiant damage; left headlight trim ( Poodle) right headlight trim and grill pushed in about 1/2" at the Valiant logo ( Mule Deer. Btw, that doe was just out of spots and would have dressed out to about 125-150#) and the 3 waves in the right rear fender / broken taillight lens ( Caddy) Budd >> standard Poodle ( a little larger than a German Shepard), and being hit >> by a 81 Caddy. . . and I never got a scratch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Roy > Where did I say it was rated for side impact? Read it again; I said if I had > been in my Lebaron I would have been dead ... yet the Lebaron has side > impact beams. They might stop an angry Bumblebee . . . . Once again, you utter complete BS. How do you know that you would have died. Why didn't the people in the Caddie (which did have a front crumple zone) die then? As for the side impact beams, I bet it would do every bit as well as your God like Valiant. > I got news for you, I would not want to be in that car in any crash because > I've seen a few similar cars after accidents and that "four star" and "five > star"ratings crap fails in the real world at impact speeds over 35. You really do make yourself look ignorant when you spew out crap like this. I worked in a wrecking yard for about 2 years just out of high school and saw a lot of cars from the late 60's and 70's come in and although many of them didn't look all that bad, a high percentage of them had serious injuries and / or deaths related to the accident that sent them to us. Why do you think that was Budd? > Good grief, don't you listen to your local news about all the people getting > clobbered in those five star rated vehicles? It was no different back then either except for the possible fact that there were less accidents due to less cars being on the road and people being less in a rush to get everywhere. Percentage wise, cars are safer than ever. Did you ever read the book called Unsafe at Any Speed? Perhaps you should. > It's simple kinetic force. Which you simply don't seem to understand. > Stand an empty soda can (your crush zone) up and > smash it with another soda can . . .and you get a certain amount of damage. > Stand another can up and smash it with a sledgehammer . . . .your crush zone > just flattened out and the bench just got MOST of the force. So much for > that 35 mph rating system. This is just about the dumbest example from you that I have seen. Comparing a sledge hammer to a soda can is about the same as comparing your Valiant to a freight train. The fact is that if you did take a measurement of force against the bench from the hammer blow both with and without the soda can, you will see a reduction in force with the can which indicates that crumple zones do work but like anything, there are limits to what they can do and protect you from. > The cans would flatten just as much if the collision speed were increased as > that increases the kinetic energy. Yes Budd, once you reach somethings limits, increasing the force still further will produce similar results. And your point is??? > Now, repeat the experiment with a couple pieces of 4" diameter 0.125" wall > tubing with plates welded on the ends. . . . . Yea, now the bench gets hit with the full force of the blow because the pipe you created transfers the full force and absorbs next to nothing. > Yep, low speed impact bounces off ( that is not where the most deaths / > injuries occur), but the cylinder now absorbs more of the sledgehammer's > impact. You once again show that you don't know WTF you are talking about. In order for the cylinder to absorb any of the force, it would have to either compress or collapse, otherwise all it can do it is either reflect the force back and / or transfer it to other objects. Now for a real test, lay your cylinder on it's side and place an egg against it then hit the other side of the cylinder with something with an increasing force until the egg breaks. Then place another egg in front of a soda can and hit it with the same force that caused the egg to break with your cylinder and see what happens. I bet that it survives. > Yeah, that tough old Valiant withstood hitting a Mule Deer Doe, A full size > standard Poodle ( a little larger than a German Shepard), and being hit by a > 81 Caddy. . . and I never got a scratch. Big deal, none of the above was anything major and your Lebaron would have protected you just as well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Stuff it, Tom All you're trying to do is argue and I won't. Budd >> Where did I say it was rated for side impact? Read it again; I said if I > had [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > Big deal, none of the above was anything major and your Lebaron would have > protected you just as well. It is not an argument Budd, it is simple facts and you are wrong this time. BTW, how is it that you scream and cry when you think that somebody is criticizing what you prefer to drive but it seems to be perfectly ok for you to do it back? I don't expect an answer nor am I trying to start an argument, just something for you to think about. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Stuff it, Tom > > All you're trying to do is argue and I won't. > > Budd Stuff your lies where the sun don't shine. Budd > It is not an argument Budd, it is simple facts and you are wrong this > time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Budd Once again, you respond like an angry child. Oh well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Stuff your lies where the sun don't shine. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > >> Budd > I got news for you, I would not want to be in that car in any crash because > I've seen a few similar cars after accidents and that "four star" and "five > star"ratings crap fails in the real world at impact speeds over 35. Good > grief, don't you listen to your local news about all the people getting > clobbered in those five star rated vehicles? What did the cars look like when you saw them? Crumpled? If so, then they were probably doing what they were designed to do and minimizing the force of the impact by compressing. The important thing is not what the cars looked like, but how the passengers made out. Yes, I do watch and read the local news. What surprises me is the videos of some horrific looking accidents that people just walk away from. That didn't happen in my younger days. Just the other day they showed a lady driving a small import that was rear ended by an inattentive utility truck driver. She was stopped on the interstate. The back of the car was crumpled to the point that there was nothing sticking out of the back of the car past the top of the rear roofline. The driver and her baby in the infant seat (which was in the back seat) were unharmed except for some scrapes and didn't even need hospital treatment. Most of the motor vehicle fatalities that we hear about in this area are from people running off the road and being ejected from the vehicle because they didn't wear a seat belt. Seems like the only fatal collisions we hear about are those head-on collisions that happen on 2 lane roads with a closing speed of 120 plus MPH, or the high speed intersection impacts that occur during police chases or running red lights. > It's simple kinetic force. Stand an empty soda can (your crush zone) up and > smash it with another soda can . . .and you get a certain amount of damage. > Stand another can up and smash it with a sledgehammer . . . .your crush zone > just flattened out and the bench just got MOST of the force. So much for > that 35 mph rating system. Let's see; an empty aluminum can vs a sledgehammer. I guess this would be equivalent to a 4000 pound car being struck by a planet? I don't think your Valiant would survive that. > The cans would flatten just as much if the collision speed were increased as > that increases the kinetic energy. > > Now, repeat the experiment with a couple pieces of 4" diameter 0.125" wall > tubing with plates welded on the ends. . . . . Now try a different test. Place an empty soda can on the bench, put your hand on top, and then place another empty soda can on top of your hand. Drop a bowling ball on top of the top can. Ouch! After that, place a solid cylinder the size of a soda can on the bench, put your hand on top, and then place another solid cylinder the size of a soda can on top of your hand. Drop a bowling ball on top of the top cylinder. Double Ouch! Now, which test do you think would hurt the most? Not that I expect you to do that, but I think you can visualize that one test will hurt more than the other test, although they would both be painful. The empty cans allows the force of the impact to slow down and dissipate over the length of the cans, reducing the force of the impact. With the solid cylinders, your hand is the only thing dissipating the force of the impact. > Yep, low speed impact bounces off ( that is not where the most deaths / > injuries occur), but the cylinder now absorbs more of the sledgehammer's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > standard Poodle ( a little larger than a German Shepard), and being hit by a > 81 Caddy. . . and I never got a scratch.\ I'm not disputing that old cars could take a beating. I was driving a 73 Torino wagon that got T-boned by an Old Mack tow truck that was towing a fully loaded grain truck (that's why he lost his brakes and couldn't stop at his stop sign). Fortunately some swerving on both our parts lessened the impact and he hit on the pillar between the front and rear doors. If he had impacted the center of the doors, I believe the penetration into the Torino would have been much worse. Having lived through that, if I was to be involved in a head on collision with another vehicle or a frontal collision with an immovable or stopped object, I would prefer to be in a new car than to be behind the wheel of that Torino. Of course we all have our own opinions of what is better and we have to be the ones that live with our decisions. I prefer new cars over old for safety. JPH >> I got news for you, I would not want to be in that car in any crash >> because I've seen a few similar cars after accidents and that "four star" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the impact by compressing. The important thing is not what the cars > looked like, but how the passengers made out. Crumpled? Yeah, a little. How about needing a set of Jaws to get the bodies out? Sheesh. > Yes, I do watch and read the local news. What surprises me is the videos > of some horrific looking accidents that people just walk away from. That > didn't happen in my younger days. Wanna bet? I've got three friends that walked away from a head-on at 60 in a 54 Caddy. > Just the other day they showed a lady driving a small import that was rear > ended by an inattentive utility truck driver. She was stopped on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > back seat) were unharmed except for some scrapes and didn't even need > hospital treatment. They were lucky, yes, but what was that impact speed again? Sounds to me like it was a lot less than the 45 I got hit at. > Most of the motor vehicle fatalities that we hear about in this area are > from people running off the road and being ejected from the vehicle > because they didn't wear a seat belt. How about this one: 1972, Franklin, Indiana, two guys, both three sheets to the wind, install a Grant steering wheel on the 69 Charger (440 Magnum / 4-speed) one of them owns. THEY OVER-TIGHTEN THE SHAFT NUT ( now, remember that part, ok?) and then after a few beers more, decide to make a fast run down to Bean Blossom to pick up some 'Shine from a cousin, according to a neighbor. Three miles out of town, the steering wheel comes off at an estimated 140 mph. The car leaves the road over a 30' embankment and begins an end for end tumble. Both occupants were ejected, one hits a telephone pole and snapped his neck, the other flew head first into a concrete corner post in the field. The car tumbled, end for end 18 times and landed on it's roof. The engine and trans ejected, as designed by Mopar, under the car and did not intrude in the passenger compartment. The trunks and sub frame collapsed enough during the tumbles to put a 180 bend in the spring mainleaf. The radiator support was wrapped around the remains of the wiper motor. The steering shaft and housing was bent down at the firewall. The roof caved in 3". And if the two occupants, one being a second cousin of mine, had been strapped in the probably would have walked away. . . .since the doors still opened and closed. I didn't believe it either, but I went with my first cousin to see the car and I opened the doors myself. Yes, they would still be alive if they had used the seatbelts, but that car, according to your experts, FAILED the 35 mph crash tests, which shoves the steering wheel into the driver's face. But at 140, the passenger compartment remains intact . . . . . > Seems like the only fatal collisions we hear about are those head-on > collisions that happen on 2 lane roads with a closing speed of 120 plus > MPH, or the high speed intersection impacts that occur during police > chases or running red lights. DUH! Those conditions, JUST LIKE WHEN I GOT REAR ENDED, are outside the test envelopes...you know, the kinds of situations I've been talking about. >> It's simple kinetic force. Stand an empty soda can (your crush zone) up >> and smash it with another soda can . . .and you get a certain amount of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > equivalent to a 4000 pound car being struck by a planet? I don't think > your Valiant would survive that. The Valiant weighed in at 3100 curb weight, the Caddy was 5400 at the curb. The analogy chosen was to give a dramatic example that would be easy to visualize. As a further comparison: a 55 grain, .223 bullet traveling at 3000 ft/sec will easily drop a 1500 pound Elk . . .it's the kinetic energy, folks. >> The cans would flatten just as much if the collision speed were increased >> as that increases the kinetic energy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hand on top, and then place another empty soda can on top of your hand. > Drop a bowling ball on top of the top can. Ouch! You first. Unlike suicide bombers, I insist on a demonstration. > After that, place a solid cylinder the size of a soda can on the bench, > put your hand on top, and then place another solid cylinder the size of a > soda can on top of your hand. Drop a bowling ball on top of the top > cylinder. Double Ouch! > Now, which test do you think would hurt the most? Now, weld two 1/2"X2"X4" straps to the cylinders, spacing the cylinders 2" apart and park on tire of your truck on it with your hand inside it . . . > Not that I expect you to do that, but I think you can visualize that one > test will hurt more than the other test, although they would both be > painful. Sorry, I need to see you demonstrate that. > The empty cans allows the force of the impact to slow down and dissipate > over the length of the cans, reducing the force of the impact. With the > solid cylinders, your hand is the only thing dissipating the force of the > impact. So . . . you drive solid steel cars? Must get horrid gas mileage as well as needing a calender to measure you 0-2 mph acceleration runs. >> Yep, low speed impact bounces off ( that is not where the most deaths / >> injuries occur), but the cylinder now absorbs more of the sledgehammer's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > collision with an immovable or stopped object, I would prefer to be in a > new car than to be behind the wheel of that Torino. As long as you can choose to be inside the test parameter envelope . . outside of it, you're a statistic. And how many of those folks killed in those head on accidents had the chance to set up the accident and control the combined speed of impact? > Of course we all have our own opinions of what is better and we have to be > the ones that live with our decisions. I prefer new cars over old for > safety. > > JPH And I disagree with your choice since I do as much highway driving as local. I'd rather have a car with the strength to handle a high speed impact over one that's designed to fold up at low speed. . . .good grief, the analogy given was to demonstrate the crush zones don't dissipate a 70 mph head on impacts . . . Oh, well. Budd > >> Total damage: driver's seat > >> back bent back one inch, one cracked taillight lens, one waved right rear [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > both drivers and two passengers died and the skid marks gave an impact speed > of 35 mph (clear, dry pavement). Your example really means nothing as you only described 1 vehicle as a possible crumple zone type and yet the drivers from both were killed. I would say that the vehicle with the side impact beams was actually stronger than your Valiant and the driver still died which would indicate that if he / she were driving a Valiant they would still be dead so what exactly is your point? > > It is true that older cars took less impact damage... Who then received > > the excess kinetic energy? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > me, I sent him to call the police, and I went back to check on the Caddy's > occupants, who were both concious. The Caddie that you have mentioned has front and real crumple zones and them and the fact that you stopped so far back saved your a.s. Had it been my buddies 71 Fleetwood that hit you at 35 MPH, they would have been burring you with what would have been left of your Valiant as that car had NO crumple zones and would have probably shot you into the back of the car in front of you like a flee being hit with a tennis racket. > The investigating officer, a man I went to high school with, said that there > would have been deaths if I had not stopped so far back from the light. Now, > whether you8 believe or not, I believe God told to stop where I did. I'm sure that it did but what does this have ti do with crumple zones? Perhaps the officer was referring to deaths in your car. > > The reason newer cars get so easily totaled is that the CARS absorb the > > kinetic energy and NOT the passengers. > > The lady got a cut from a flying ink pen, I got nothing from the accident, > explain that . . . Because the crumple zone in the front of the Caddie did its job. > > Of course it was nice to have a car that would drive nicely after an > > accident (and pay less for repairs, hehe) what about having to pay for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in an ambulance because she was so shook up she couldn't stand up. The cut > did not require stitches. Her son was fine . . .so much for that theory. His theory is completely in tact as the car that hit you had crumple zones. Had that Caddie been even 5 years older the results of that accident would have been much different. > > Well that is my 0.02$... > > Stelios [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > averaged over 30 mpg, handled as well as a Corvette (accident avoidance > capability) and often out accelerated V-8 cars. Where did he do this?????? He simply gave his personal opinion as to what HE preffered, not what others need to do. > Hey, if you want to pay outrageous monthly payments for the vehicle and the > insurance / license costs to cover it, that is your choice. I'll just drive > my old cars that don't cost an arm and a leg, drive defensively to keep out > of accidents, pay $25 / mo for my car insurance and $35 / year for my > plates, if you don't mind. And who said that you should do anything different? Oh that's right, nobody. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Stuff it, tom. Budd <argumentative flatulence snipped> IOW, once again you can't validly defend your childish BS, imagine that. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Stuff it, tom. > > Budd > > <argumentative flatulence snipped> No, Tom, I'm no longer wasting my time with your idiotic, commie-liberal, argumentative ways. Now go play with what ever comes to hand. Budd > IOW, once again you can't validly defend your childish BS, imagine that. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> <argumentative flatulence snipped> >No, Tom, I'm no longer wasting my time with your idiotic, commie-liberal, >argumentative ways. commie liberal? commie-liberal? commie-liberal? didn't think i'd see that again. where the f.ck did that come from? >Now go play with what ever comes to hand. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> <argumentative flatulence snipped> I'm sorry, what parts of "Commie-liberal", "Communist" and "Liberal" do you not understand? They all dance the same dance. And I'm telling Tom to "stuff it" because I don't wish to converse with him. Plain and simple. Budd > >No, Tom, I'm no longer wasting my time with your idiotic, commie-liberal, > >argumentative ways. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >>> > >>> <argumentative flatulence snipped> Mine, LOL, PKB!!!! SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > No, Tom, I'm no longer wasting my time with your idiotic, commie-liberal, > argumentative ways. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> > >> <argumentative flatulence snipped> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.