Mid-Year Upgrade - 2012 Civic

Page 2 of 5  
On 12/26/2011 09:40 PM, JRStern wrote:


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 opinion?
in the mean time, you need to read up on this:
http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/attachments/1st-gear/21241d1179951385-mini-vs-f150-pickup-mini_vs_f150.jpg

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

Regarding people shopping at Wal Mart, I've always said that "more isn't better--BETTER is better."
Now I also have "bigger isn't better--BETTER is better."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ok, and ... ?

doubt it, because I know a thing or two about bullshit when I see it.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/29/2011 08:51 PM, JRStern wrote:

the "and" is that your fears are unfounded and you're very much misinformed - even if you are regurgitating a widely held "opinion" held by people who don't know much about this stuff.

did you follow the link? do you think that's just photoshop?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

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 occupants.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2011 06:21 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:

some major damages too.

indeed they do.

yup.
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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

yes
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 direction.
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.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2011 09:38 AM, JRStern wrote:

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.

see above.

not a lot, but they exist.
<http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2009/04/how-morgan-cars-are-made-by-hand-out-of.html
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.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

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 laminated wood. 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 "composite".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

one more item to note; most small watercraft(boats,pleasure craft) are composites,usually fiberglass. they often get repaired,with no decrease in performance or safety.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/01/2012 01:06 PM, JRStern wrote:

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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/26/2011 09:44 PM, billzz wrote:

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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/26/2011 11:24 PM, billzz wrote:

indeed - that's my point.

"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.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

...and train the hell out of the driver.
Got any ideas of where to send teenagers to learn how to *drive*?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/27/2011 04:25 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

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.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% 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.