Mid-Year Upgrade - 2012 Civic

But it's not about stopping distance. It's about control--and keeping the wheels turning while at their optimum traction level for braking at least allows the driver the ability to turn the car to try to avoid the accident.

ok, and ... ?

doubt it, because I know a thing or two about bullshit when I see it.

J.

hmm. well, I guess I have seen some of those, then.

I thought maybe the Honda ABS was cutting in a little too early, maybe there could be some more tuning parameters, driver-selectable?

J.

somehow i doubt it. the whole point of abs is that it presumes to be able to do a better job than you. pretty much by definition, if you get to choose how it works, then it becomes redundant.

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?

some things i've learned:

1. abs is completely ineffective if you happen to have wheels off the ground...
2. abs doesn't help even slightly when you crest a blind hill at speed only to find some doofus double-parked in your lane and someone else beside you so you can't change lane.
3. abs is simply dead weight if #2 is related to #1.

yeah, that's the one.

you should try the unhinged stalker girlfriend next time. you know, the one that sets up a false social website account in your name and starts photoshopping pictures of you and her together. then begins calling your wife with all the scary psycho stuff...

oh, please tell me you're not speaking from experience here.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news:elmop- snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

problem is,most "drivers" don't even try to avoid an imminent collision,they stomp and pray. no attempt to steer around or dodge. most driver's are "straight line" drivers. any curve,and they immediately slow down,even if not necessary. Particularly SUVs.

jim beam wrote in news:jdjqj5$1uk$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

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.

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.

maybe "not necessary" with more modern suv's. but the old ones, with leafspring suspension, you had no choice. anyone who grew up driving stuff like that is never going to trust a car on a bend ever again.

Yes!

JT

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.

jim beam wrote in news:jdmcof$plj$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

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 beam wrote in news:jdmcp4$plj$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Their habit of no maneuvering is ingrained in the typical SUV/PU-truck driver.Even with a better vehicle,they still will not maneuver,just jam on the brakes and pray.(or ram and count on the airbags.)

One good trend is the "crossover" SUV,that are lowered SUVs,and also have better suspensions,along with electronic stability controls. They are less of a hazard to other vehicles.

But your average driver -of most cars- doesn't have any "maneuver reflex",it's total and blind reliance on brakes. And a reluctance for cornering.

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.

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.

jim beam wrote in news:jdnmup$q0q$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

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".

i've lived in europe, and found their small engined cars taught you a completely opposite set of driving skills. don't use the brakes unless you absolutely have to - because to takes so long to get up to speed in the first place, the last thing you want is to slow down again. this in turn teaches you the "maneuver reflex" in a big way.

then again, most of their cars handle and can be relied on to maneuver in the first place - unlike some of the crap we have here. the fact that it took the frod exploder fiasco and thousands of deaths [corporate homicides] to finally wean detroit off leaf springs is a complete disgrace.