Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

Page 3 of 6  
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:08:21 -0500, Joe


I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be justified.

Perhaps we don't mean the same thing by stress. What I mean is draining the batteries down low and then fully charging them back up.
"A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the battery more often or use a larger battery."
http://batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm
"Fully discharging your Lithium battery frequently can actually be quite harmful to your battery’s health, possibly rendering it completely unusable if energy levels go too low."
http://spicygadget.com/2006/12/24/guide-getting-the-most-out-of-your-lithium-battery /
Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs, and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage. Furthermore, they may be irreversibly damaged if discharged below a certain voltage. To reduce these risks, li-ion batteries generally contain a small circuit that shuts down the battery when discharged below a certain threshold (typically 3 V) or charged above a certain limit (typically 4.2 V).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery

I understand the principle, I just don't think that pure electric cars will have any measurable impact on our energy needs for at lest 10 - 15 years. That will only come when they are economically viable and they aren't even close now.

The first step to treating it with respect is to never consider it benign.

They are until they aren't. And then they are very bad.
Nuclear energy and military force should both be treated with great respect. That could explain why we have had a major nuclear accident and France hasn't (yet).

I agree.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage? You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up.
--
Clive

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Um, is this supposed to be a reply to anything I wrote?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Remember this?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/461446.stm

One Chernobyl destroys your city.
That is the problem with the hazards of nuclear energy; they are very granular. The plant at Chernobyl ran for nineteen years without harming anyone. Then one day it destroyed a city.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 years left at current use.
And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay, there are some things we won't miss.

With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.

--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dillon Pyron wrote:

Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is leadership.

True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which minimizes the impact.

Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...
JT
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered? Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil fields yet,or began producing from them.

All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel. That requires a scientific breakthrough.

Used oil can be used for making plastics. Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.

"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the trend and continue making the same stuff. AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most oil producing countries have already peaked. The US peaked almost 40 years ago. Yes, they find new oil fields every year but they aren't enough to replace what we suck out in a year. And the fields they develop are getting harder and harder to extract.

Leadership can help us stretch what oil we have. The best thing we have right now is conservation. Building mass transit and replacing SUVs with subcompacts do not require scientific breakthroughs.

Most "used oil" is CO2 in the atmosphere. And most plastic products (unlike packaging) can't be recycled as a practical matter.

Only at a far higher price than petroleum.

If we had just paid for Iraq with increased gas tax, we would be driving Priuses and bicycles now.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery construction. BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the environment,from oil production.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Has domestic oil production stopped? I had not heard that. I did hear (WSJ) that US refineries are being shut down because the oil companies are predicting declining demand.

Another good argument for conservation.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did hear that the shale (shell?) sands of Canada contained about 50% of world oil, but at the moment it was to expensive to extract it.
--
Clive

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground is going to be very difficult to extract.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gordon McGrew wrote:

I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with the price of gas less than $3 per gallon.
JT
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. There's oil off the California coast,and some of it NATURALLY bubbles up from the sea floor. There's oil in coastal ANWR. There's oil off the coast of South America,and oil in the South China Sea(a shallow sea,too). there's still enough places we haven't even explored yet,too.
our main problem now is the environuts/socialists who hinder our drilling and refining,and cost us economically and strategically by making us dependent on foreign oil.

with -today's- processes. The use of some of those might even be inhibited by the environuts who want us to do without oil.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even if you were right and these is actually plenty of oil (you aren't but let's just assume), you think it's ok to keep burning it at the rate we do? It's all just a plot of the environnut socialists to keep the poor capitalists from enjoying life? Global warming and the threat of huge damage to the earth is just another plot, right?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There certainly are untapped oil deposits, but they aren't as big as you think. If ANWR came on line next year, it might take US production levels back to 1999, but nowhere near our 1970 peak. The reality of the development process is that, by the earliest time the undeveloped US capacity could come on line, we will be lucky if it would bring us back up to today's production level.

There is no magic recovery process. You can't do it with a microchip. It is very slow, very dirty and very expensive.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and giant scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the point is the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often unfriendly nations. It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies.
(BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements)

And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most urban tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years.

I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want to see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first.

And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember...
JT
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not all of it.The US has known reserves we refuse to produce.

Nuclear is not going to power automobiles.Not without a decent battery.

well,the other folks are ones I killfiled.

sorry,but leadership does NOT bring about scientific breakthroughs.

Not all vegetable oils come from farming. They're working on algae that produce oil.also oils from weeds and other non-food vegetation. And I wouldn't use them for the high volume auto transportation application,but for plastics feedstocks.

CRVs are small compared to most domestic SUVs on the roads today,and have better fuel economy,I suspect. Granted,Toyota,Honda and Nissan all make monster SUVs/PU trucks,too.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm volunteering my weeds. Someone please come get them.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," but one can not escape the laws of physics!
The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain fewer injuries.
In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, or allow my family members to do so.
wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.