is this stuff something you've "heard" from others? stuff you've made
up? seriously, where does it come from?
i ask because i'm a materials guy - i know a thing or two about steel,
aluminum, and composites.
again, where do you get this stuff? why do people that know nothing
about anything always have opinions that they feel qualified to "share"?
and why would an underinformed personal fear even classified as an
in the mean time, you need to read up on this:
I note that many airforces have aircraft that use a lot of composites,and
manage to tolerate minor damages and do repairs major and minor quite well.
And their performance standards are much stricter than any automobile.
I also note that many pickup trucks(and SUVs) get FLIPPED by smaller cars
hitting them in the sides,with often disastrous results for the truck's
returning to composites, in past conversations with others that are
fearful of what they don't know, i've learned that people don't have any
such misgivings about another class of composites with which they are
much more familiar, and thus, comfortable. that class of composites is
called "wood" and has been used by humans for millennia with great success.
bottom line, this stuff is just fear of the unknown. once people get up
to speed with the information and get some experience so they know what
they're doing, their fears disappear.
you *try* to line up the bumpers on a mini and an F-150.
and what did they do, put a ton of bricks loose in the back of the
F-150 for the (bogus) test?
I'm happy if the mini is built with a super-strong box around the
passengers, that's what one would hope for, but given the small size
otherwise it means the rest gets crushed that much more quickly to a
total loss as a vehicle. not to mention the extra g-forces
transmitted to the passenger in his box.
you see a lot of wooden cars out there?
it's not unknown, it's quite well known, except apparently to you.
it's known to Honda, and it's why they haven't moved in that
or else, why do you think they have not?
I'm hoping it can be done, if at modestly higher purchase price and
with a higher risk factor for damage but maybe it wins anyway on
mileage, and I wish they would give it a shot and then we could all
see how it goes. You seem to have missed the idea that I am *for*
this "unknown" stuff.
if you think that's photoshop, then you have a serious barrier to being
able to have an informed opinion. and you apparently also have a
serious barrier to doing your own google search to see independent
verification of that testing and who did it.
that test was not loaded. you should check your facts.
it is. [apart from being obvious from the pic of course.]
total loss and passenger protection are mutually exclusive. you cannot
protect passengers without having energy absorption, and energy
absorption requires deformation of the region outside the safety cage.
that is exactly what you see in those pictures of the mini.
not a lot, but they exist.
the point is not whether wooden cars exist, but the use of wood as a
material for important, reliable, repairable structures. like planes.
the point is that people that don't know materials bleat about
composites like they're some kind of unknown evil. yet they have no
problem relying on wood as a material, not realizing that wood is in
fact a composite!
it's odd that you'd assert that someone with a materials background
doesn't know about materials!
honda used to use composites on the mk1 crx actually.
but they have. see above.
it's not a higher risk factor for damage. in fact, it's more commonly a
lower risk factor for damage. but where is the profit in having body
panels that just spring back into shape rather than dent and need to go
to the shop?
forgive me - when you were using language like "bullshit", "less safe"
and "the repairability is majorly less than steel, and small damages
hard to judge", i thought you had a negative opinion about composites.
Wood Magazine did an article a few years ago on a nifty high
performance sports car made almost entirely out of wood,mostly epoxy-
laminates,with a Northstar V-8 for power. Even the wheels were made of
the article can probably be found on the Wood Magazine website.
Hughes Spruce Goose. bigger than a 747.
with 8 3000-HP Wasp radial engines.
it could carry over 100,000 lbs of cargo,takes off from and lands on water.
a shame it only had one short flight.
GM/Saturn's sheet molded compound used for Saturn body parts is sort of a
I know you like to see keywords and spike your blood pressure, but I
said what I said. All materials have their properties that have to be
considered in deciding what and how to use them. I was discussing the
tradeoffs involved in promoting more composites, towards the goal of
much lighter cars and much better mileage.
Didn't the Corvette come with fiberglass panels for a year or two back
in the 1960s?
But yes, fiberglass has long been used for structural purposes on
boats, but not for cars. Has to do with the nature of shock, load,
and vibration required I guess - even if it is still used on some
high-zoot motorboats as well as low-shock sail.
And some high-end sports cars are built with modern composite frames.
But that still leaves me somewhat unclear and speculating about why it
isn't used more on the big auto fleet cars, the Civics and Accords.
as i've said, but obviously not communicated, it's because easily
dented/damaged/marked vehicles create much more downstream revenue than
resistant ones. it's EASY to dent/damage/mark a steel panel. you can
do it with your thumb. composites just spring back into shape.
My military operations research/systems analysis background validates that in terms of both army tank and navy aircraft carrier design. Proponents of "bigger is best" argue that there is inherent safety in a larger design. And it is true. There was some dozen design criteria, like maneuverability, reaction time, whatever, but when push came to shove the cheapest survivability criteria was size.
that in terms of both army tank and navy aircraft carrier design. Pro
ponents of "bigger is best" argue that there is inherent safety in a la
rger design. And it is true. There was some dozen design criteria, li
ke maneuverability, reaction time, whatever, but when push came to shov
e the cheapest survivability criteria was size.
if bigger is safer, will an osprey loaded with marines kill fewer on
impact with the ground than an f16 doing the same thing? how about a 747?
it's not size, it's deceleration rate. a mass with large inertia
decelerates more slowly when impacting lighter objects than a light one.
but that's what crumple zones are for. and a crown vic hitting a
bridge pillar at 90 will kill you just as effectively as a mini hitting
it at 90. an exploder rolling because it's inherently unstable, and
having its roof pillars collapse doesn't help its occupants survive, a
mini in the exact same situation wouldn't roll in the first place, and
if it did the cabin wouldn't crush.
i'll take maneuverability and good design over cheap and dumb heavy any
day. the dirty little secret of the modern "safer" car is that their
increased weight has a significant negative impact on braking distances
and maneuverability. this /increases/ their propensity to get involved
in an impact.
I agree with everything you have to say. If you can maneuver (and I drove an XK-140 at Laguna Seca) then you avoid the premise of the study. The study was that if an impact is unavoidable then the bigger the better. Large tanks survive better than small tanks. Sure small tanks are more maneuverable. But, over time, in any computer simulation, or historical analyses, bigger tanks do better. "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. - Damon Runyon"
"billzz" wrote in message
I agree with everything you have to say. If you can maneuver (and I drove
an XK-140 at Laguna Seca) then you avoid the premise of the study. The
study was that if an impact is unavoidable then the bigger the better.
Large tanks survive better than small tanks. Sure small tanks are more
maneuverable. But, over time, in any computer simulation, or historical
analyses, bigger tanks do better. "The race is not always to the swift, nor
the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. - Damon Runyon"
I always thought brakes were a weak point on XK 120/140s -- although I liked
both cars. I remember trying a friend's 120 out -- right after getting out
of an E I owned. What a difference. The 120 was tank-like. He had it up
for sale (1966) at the time and wanted $800 for it and it was in good shape
except for the interior. Talk about hindsight.
"but "unavoidable" is a function of weight and maneuverability. as
discussed before, increased weight has a significant negative impact on
braking distances and maneuverability, and this in turn questions the
basic assumptions on which these studies are based.
[this is an important point - so often, people look at study results,
they don't examine or consider the primary assumptions that predicate
the whole landscape on which a study is based. you can no more use
study results without considering the initial assumptions than you can
say you know a house when you've only ever been in one room - and you
arrived and left at night.]
> Large tanks survive better than small tanks.
right, but that's on the basis that they're being hit. a tank that's
not getting hit is not getting hit!
and small tanks are recon, much more forward of the mbt's.
yeah. needs separation. have someone else teach them. preferably one
of those "adult driver" schools. you can't teach your own kids to drive
- it's at that crucial time when they don't listen to dad so it really
is a relationship problem.
skid pan and/or military vehicle driver training are great too if it
doesn't send them off the deep end into "i'm a rally driver" mode.
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.