Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I prefer two stroke motors but those damn eviromentalist nut jobs won't let me run one in my truck. They are the most powerful per ltr.
For example my KX500 has 65HP and it's displacement is only .5L. Imagine if my 7.3L could be two stroke, you do the math.
And I know Tom would'nt mind sitting next to me at a stop light blowing 4" blue clouds out to him because that's capitalism at work. Most power/great fuel economy
Sorry, but me and my old RD400 would leave you gasping for breath! Coffman pipes, DG heads and I stripped all the emission control stuff and put 30MM Mikunis on it.
I raced a Kaw triple for a couple years. H2 750 bored to 1080. Stretched frame, wheely bars......there will always be a soft place in my heart for 2 strokes....Those were the days....Damned exhaust emmission standards killed them!
Another thing is that... Even though 2 cycle engines have less mechanical parts, they're far less reliable than a 4 cycle engine... Even with advancements in lubrication.
Well, reliability is subjective. Two strokes are more easily rebuilt, but if they had water cooling and modern materials I'd bet they would be MORE reliable that four stroke designs. Keeping the heat generated to an acceptable level and being able to adjust spark timing would negate the failings of the classic air-cooled two stroke.
Help me get a little more perspective on this opinion. Tell me, what do you think of the government mandating airbags? Oh, and do you wear a seat belt? Why?
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Eli
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I prefer two stroke motors but those damn eviromentalist nut jobs won't let me run one in my truck. They are the most powerful per ltr.
For example my KX500 has 65HP and it's displacement is only .5L. Imagine if my 7.3L could be two stroke, you do the math.
And I know Tom would'nt mind sitting next to me at a stop light blowing 4" blue clouds out to him because that's capitalism at work. Most power/great fuel economy
Sorry, but me and my old RD400 would leave you gasping for breath! Coffman pipes, DG heads and I stripped all the emission control stuff and put 30MM Mikunis on it.
I raced a Kaw triple for a couple years. H2 750 bored to 1080. Stretched frame, wheely bars......there will always be a soft place in my heart for 2 strokes....Those were the days....Damned exhaust emmission standards killed them!
Another thing is that... Even though 2 cycle engines have less mechanical parts, they're far less reliable than a 4 cycle engine... Even with advancements in lubrication.
Well, reliability is subjective. Two strokes are more easily rebuilt, but if they had water cooling and modern materials I'd bet they would be MORE reliable that four stroke designs. Keeping the heat generated to an acceptable level and being able to adjust spark timing would negate the failings of the classic air-cooled two stroke.
Well.. yeah, reliability is a bit subjective.. But they're just... more picky. A 4 cycle engine can usually run, even with severe internal wear... A 2 cycle engine gets bitchy as soon as the rings start to wear. :frown:
You could also apply what you said to 4 cycle engines. I mean... all engines, in general.. have gotten more reliable. There are some VERY reliable small 2 cycle engines.... But they still aren't reliable on the scale that say, a Honda 4-cycle small engine is.
2-cycle engines are really only practical for small handheld items, it seems. They're just too dirty .. because they must burn their lubrication(oil) with the fuel.
We need cleaner burning(READ: NO GASOLINE) and more advanced 4 cycle engines. Why not switch to an 8 cycle scheme when cruising at highway speeds?
I understand the point of view perfectly.. He's saying that the reason small cars are dangerous, is because there exists bigger cars... Not just because they're a small car.. you know?
Titanium is a poor choice b/c short of some revolutionary technology or a DOD type of budget, Ti remains too difficult to work with for mass application in automobiles.
And contrary to unpopular belief, I am not ignoring the menagerie of crash test/morbidity/mortality data. EVERYONE culls the record for data which favors their preconceived notions. The truth of the matter is that CAFE was instituted for multiple reasons. The federal government in an attempt to avoid a SPECIFIC mandate on design said "here's the goal now make it happen". It is the automakers, particularly the domestic ones, that chose to make unsafe econoboxes. Foreign small cars almost always provide better safety and fuel economy. Why? Better design.
Go to autotrader.com or any other site where you can compare used car statistics. I compared base sedans from GM (Cavalier) and Honda (Civic) in the years 91, 95, 99, 03. As usual GM statistics are fishy (they report the same wt 2676lbs for each year).
1991 GM 24/35 95hp 2.2L 2676lbs NHTSA 4-star
1991 Hon 31/35 92hp 1.4L 2368lbs NHTSA 2-star
Based on this data it is reasonable to infer that lighter cars are more dangerous. But let's see what happens over time.
1995 GM 25/36 120 2.2L 2676 3-star
1995 Hon 34/40 102 1.5L 2313 3-star
If there's any validity to the testing one could conclude lighter AND more fuel efficient vehicles have comparable safety.
1999 GM 24/34 115 2.2L 2676 4-star
1999 Hon 32/37 106 1.6L 2339 4-star
Same outcome as 1995 but at least both improved.
2003 GM 25/33 140 2.2L 2676 IIHS Poor
2003 Hon 32/38 115 1.7L 2449 IIHS Good
Now all this demonstrates is that Honda makes lighter, more fuel efficient, and safer vehicles compared to GM . . . granted Saturn might fare better in comparison to Civics. Design clearly matters. Now take highway accident data and correct it for variable designs (ie control for innate vehicle safety characteristics). In all likelihood, Civics perform much better overall and over time. The disparity between vehicles and over time means comparisons that use vehicle class within a given year and certainly over time cannot attest to the comparative safety of vehicles and that to chose a vehicle just b/c it is heavier or in a different class does not impart a certifiable safety benefit.
Now if a 2003 Honda Pilot collides with a 2003 Honda Civic (4400lbs vs 2400lbs). I want to be riding in the Pilot. The Civic will fare better than a Cavalier b/c it is designed better. The Civic will fare better than if it was hit by a GM (or Ford) design that lacks a lowered bumper. But you can't escape the physics of having a larger mass to distribute forces and greater space.
That in no way negates the overriding principles involved. Desgin likely matters more than mass. Fuel efficiency standards as a mandate do not make vehicles less safe; that's caused by poor design . . . Gremlin, Nova, Bronco, Explorer. Domestic automakers did not invest more in safer small cars b/c they could not compete with superior products from abroad. It made more sense (to some) to make cheap econoboxes with mileage sufficient to offset Caddies and LTDs than develop better small cars to sell at a loss.
That in no way negates the overriding principles involved. Desgin likely matters more than mass. Fuel efficiency standards as a mandate do not make vehicles less safe; that's caused by poor design . . . Gremlin, Nova, Bronco, Explorer. Domestic automakers did not invest more in safer small cars b/c they could not compete with superior products from abroad. It made more sense (to some) to make cheap econoboxes with mileage sufficient to offset Caddies and LTDs than develop better small cars to sell at a loss.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
The testing methodology in the star ratings is hitting a brick wall not another car.
In a typical crash (read with another car) the heavier car always wins. Also a higher COG helps like a truck has vs. an automoble. In order to drive that heavier vechile or higher profile vechile you need more fuel.
I left that bone to see if any one say hey "we can make better cars" versus "well that's just a test, not the real world".
You are absolutely correct in your statement. And your point is . . .?! The physics of single car accident makes my argument stronger not weaker. If you plan to hit a fixed object do you want your vehicle to have more mass or less? The intelligent answer is you want a vehicle with the lowest total mass (therefore less energy to disperse in a crash AND a greater likelihood that you could stop or maneuver around the obstacle) but designed with the greatest amount of mass available for protection (ie a solid passenger compartment, drop out chassis, front/rear crumple zones, reinforced doors, and pillars).
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
point...you stand a good chance of goiong though most objects you hit with a very hacvy vechile.
Explain what happens with "your less energy to disperse" when a 8000lb truck hits a civic head on. Also when a civic hits my nieghbors brick wall vs. that same truck. Can you make an argument the civic is better?
IIHS
Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2000 occurred in single-vehicle crashes, 59 percent in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, percentages for pickups and utility vehicles combined were 60 and 40 percent. Single-vehicle crashes were highest among utility vehicles (65 percent).
Your statement is not very reasonable. There is no typical crash. By your rationale most deaths for pickup trucks/SUVs occur in single vehicle crashes so the heavier vehicle is actually losing . . . more mass (particularly poorly distributed) results in an increased risk of fatality.
I believe car vs light truck/SUV (together) is the most frequent accident. If it isn't it is only a matter of years b/c of the popularity of SUVs and light trucks.
I disagree on the win. You can design SUVs, light trucks, and cars to better avoid and withstand accidents. The CAFE/safety argument is garbage designed to avoid heavy lifting. And if the automakers (primarily domestic) had not opposed upgrades in light trucks/SUVs to meet the same safety/crash standards as cars my argument might be more difficult. Their duplicity has meant more deaths in side impact (reinforced doors) and rollover (emergency maneuver stability and reinforced roof).
As for car versus car, I can't argue with my fiance's 4.0L V8 Aurora in a head on with my 1.8L GSR means I'm in much deeper poo than her. But my car pollutes less per gallon and per mile, better capable of avoiding the accident, more capable at coming to a stop which may actually make matters worse for me, and less likely to rollover b/c mass closer to ground.
Unreasonable scenario but I will bite. Assuming someone driving a Ford Excursion hits a Honda Civic: 1) Ford designed the Excursion to have its bumper actually meet the bumper of a standard passenger car; so at impact the Civic is more likely to bounce off the Excursion than be ridden over (a major cause of car fatalities when meeting SUVs/trucks), 2) the Civic is designed with a crumple zone and drop out chassis . . . albeit they will not do the job against an Excursion . . . but it will provide better protection then say a Cavalier.
It depends on the height/depth of your neighbor's wall. If the wall is of sufficient design to cause the Civic and Excursion to come to a halt . . . both are going to get really messed up. At some heights the Excursion will have a greater risk of flipping over the wall at impact as well. Now if the wall is strong enough to stop the Civic but gives way at impact with an Excursion then the safer vehicle would be the Ford Valdez.
But using IIHS data single vehicle accidents (your scenario included) are more likely to result in fatalities in a SUV/light truck (although your truck weighs more than two).
All things being equal, larger may be safer; however, since all things aren't equal, we can't sustainably have an automotive fleet of large vehicles. Let's think about it.
Your linked statement above claims that lowering vehicle weight from 3700# to 2700# has produced 2000 deaths and 20000 serious injuries. But what if we kept vehicle weight at 3700#? Do you have any idea how much more fuel we would have consumed over the same time period? I don't know the exact number but I do know it takes more energy to move more mass. And the production of fuel is not free from harmful effects. Remember that gasoline does not exist naturally; it must be refined through a polluting process. If we need, say, 20% more fuel to power a larger automotive fleet, there's 20% more pollution to deal with. And added air pollution does indeed lead to increased deaths and health problems (LA anyone?) not to mention arguably less stable national security because we would be more reliant on foreign oil to produce the additional gasoline.
A problem with the death rate statistics above is that it doesn't tell you anything about the drivers of those cars. I don't think I'm generalizing when I say that younger, less experienced drivers own smaller, more affordable cars and older, more experienced drivers own larger, more expensive cars. So while vehicles with wheelbases <95" may carry fatality rates almost 3 times that of vehicles with wheelbases >114" that might have much to do with who's driving them.
I'm not necessarily debunking that larger, ideally, is better but we must realize that it is no panacea and we cannot pragmatically go back to the days of huge, heavy vehicles.
"...we cannot pragmatically go back to the days of huge, heavy vehicles..."
We NEVER should have left! The biggest reason consumers jumped on the econobox bandwagon, was because of the inflated price of fuel during the early '70s oil embargo. Nothing to do with pollution, finite resources or any other "save the planet" mentality. In the process, our consumers handed Japan a HUGE market that Detroit wasn't prepared to compete in at all. Since then, Detroit has done away with nearly all their RWD sedans. How ironic that, as Detroit has been downsizing, Japan's cars have been getting larger and larger! Fickle consumers...
Now it's all about saving oil and cutting pollution, eh? Tell ya what I'll offer to do. Have a fuel rationing program instead of mandating ever smaller, more anemic cars (via CAFE). Give every driver in the country rationing stamps for fuel. 500 gallons per year, 800... I don't care, you name it. Now, everybody is free to use that amount of fuel in any vehicle they choose, without causing any more consumption of oil, or polluting any more than their neighbor. Fair enough?
We NEVER should have left! The biggest reason consumers jumped on the econobox bandwagon, was because of the inflated price of fuel during the early '70s oil embargo. Nothing to do with pollution, finite resources or any other "save the planet" mentality. In the process, our consumers handed Japan a HUGE market that Detroit wasn't prepared to compete in at all. Since then, Detroit has done away with nearly all their RWD sedans. How ironic that, as Detroit has been downsizing, Japan's cars have been getting larger and larger!
Fickle consumers...
Now it's all about saving oil and cutting pollution, eh? Tell ya what I'll offer to do. Have a fuel rationing program instead of mandating ever smaller, more anemic cars (via CAFE). Give every driver in the country rationing stamps for fuel. 500 gallons per year, 800... I don't care, you name it. Now, everybody is free to use that amount of fuel in any vehicle they choose, without causing any more consumption of oil, or polluting any more than their neighbor. Fair enough?
mithrandir2001, you make an excellent point on why these statistics are meaningless as an aggregate but may provide valuable information if it was properly analyzed.
IMO, even the aggregate numbers will change as more kids 16-25 (yeah I know I'm barely out) wind up in SUVs. Graduated licenses will help but there's going to be millions of SUVs built in the 90s piloted by teens hopped up on hormones. States have responded to the killing spree in general with graduated licenses and regulating passengers. I believe most of the SUVs built before 1998 did not have to meet passenger car standards for side impact. A rollover standard does not exist to this day (the largest single category of SUV/light truck fatality).
best method of calculating rates
The reason fatality rates and fatal accident rates are a more accurate measure of highway safety trends is because they are based on the concept of "exposure." A motorist who drives 50,000 miles a year has 10 times the accident exposure risk than a driver who logs 5,000 miles in a year. Fatality rates measure the risk of being killed in an accident based on the number of miles traveled, or exposure.
Unfortunately, fatality figures are the numbers most often quoted by the media, insurance industry lobbying groups and even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Organizations and individuals that quote raw fatality statistics claim "rates" are too complicated for the public to understand. Actually, fatality rates and fatal accident rates are very simple to determine and understand.
IMO, even the aggregate numbers will change as more kids 16-25 (yeah I know I'm barely out) wind up in SUVs. Graduated licenses will help but there's going to be millions of SUVs built in the 90s piloted by teens hopped up on hormones. States have responded to the killing spree in general with graduated licenses and regulating passengers. I believe most of the SUVs built before 1998 did not have to meet passenger car standards for side impact. A rollover standard does not exist to this day (the largest single category of SUV/light truck fatality).
As I stated previously these vehicles are dangerous by design.
Could someone explain to the egghead what 2-door cars weighing less than 3500 are designed for and how that explains why they are often found in utility poles, K-rails, trees, etc?!!
best method of calculating rates
The reason fatality rates and fatal accident rates are a more accurate measure of highway safety trends is because they are based on the concept of "exposure." A motorist who drives 50,000 miles a year has 10 times the accident exposure risk than a driver who logs 5,000 miles in a year. Fatality rates measure the risk of being killed in an accident based on the number of miles traveled, or exposure.
Unfortunately, fatality figures are the numbers most often quoted by the media, insurance industry lobbying groups and even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Organizations and individuals that quote raw fatality statistics claim "rates" are too complicated for the public to understand. Actually, fatality rates and fatal accident rates are very simple to determine and understand.
I've been an advocate of a fairly substantial gasoline tax...one that would cover the hidden societal costs of gasoline production and consumption. No fuel efficiency or vehicle size mandates. Just a tax to correct the inefficiencies of the current "cheap gas" system. It's better than your (allegedly satirical) rationing system because there are no set quotas. I continue to believe that an added gasoline tax of $1 or maybe more would be a wise solution to the we-want-larger-vehicles vs. we-need-a-cleaner-environment problem...assuming that the proceeds from this tax would go entirely to offset the income tax.Originally posted by: Ornery
"...we cannot pragmatically go back to the days of huge, heavy vehicles..."
We NEVER should have left! The biggest reason consumers jumped on the econobox bandwagon, was because of the inflated price of fuel during the early '70s oil embargo. Nothing to do with pollution, finite resources or any other "save the planet" mentality. In the process, our consumers handed Japan a HUGE market that Detroit wasn't prepared to compete in at all. Since then, Detroit has done away with nearly all their RWD sedans. How ironic that, as Detroit has been downsizing, Japan's cars have been getting larger and larger!
Now it's all about saving oil and cutting pollution, eh? Tell ya what I'll offer to do. Have a fuel rationing program instead of mandating ever smaller, more anemic cars (via CAFE). Give every driver in the country rationing stamps for fuel. 500 gallons per year, 800... I don't care, you name it. Now, everybody is free to use that amount of fuel in any vehicle they choose, without causing any more consumption of oil, or polluting any more than their neighbor. Fair enough?
"Just a tax to correct the inefficiencies of the current "cheap gas" system. It's better than your (allegedly satirical) rationing system because there are no set quotas."
Inefficiencies of the current "cheap gas" system?
Allegedly satirical? Nope. Dead ass serious, and COMPLTELY fair. Also meets the goal of greenies to cut pollution and lower oil consumption. Adding a tax puts an unfair burden on the poor. You wouldn't want THAT, would you?
Inefficiencies of the current "cheap gas" system?
Allegedly satirical? Nope. Dead ass serious, and COMPLTELY fair. Also meets the goal of greenies to cut pollution and lower oil consumption. Adding a tax puts an unfair burden on the poor. You wouldn't want THAT, would you?
Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
I've been an advocate of a fairly substantial gasoline tax...one that would cover the hidden societal costs of gasoline production and consumption. No fuel efficiency or vehicle size mandates. Just a tax to correct the inefficiencies of the current "cheap gas" system. It's better than your (allegedly satirical) rationing system because there are no set quotas. I continue to believe that an added gasoline tax of $1 or maybe more would be a wise solution to the we-want-larger-vehicles vs. we-need-a-cleaner-environment problem...assuming that the proceeds from this tax would go entirely to offset the income tax.Originally posted by: Ornery
"...we cannot pragmatically go back to the days of huge, heavy vehicles..."
We NEVER should have left! The biggest reason consumers jumped on the econobox bandwagon, was because of the inflated price of fuel during the early '70s oil embargo. Nothing to do with pollution, finite resources or any other "save the planet" mentality. In the process, our consumers handed Japan a HUGE market that Detroit wasn't prepared to compete in at all. Since then, Detroit has done away with nearly all their RWD sedans. How ironic that, as Detroit has been downsizing, Japan's cars have been getting larger and larger!
Now it's all about saving oil and cutting pollution, eh? Tell ya what I'll offer to do. Have a fuel rationing program instead of mandating ever smaller, more anemic cars (via CAFE). Give every driver in the country rationing stamps for fuel. 500 gallons per year, 800... I don't care, you name it. Now, everybody is free to use that amount of fuel in any vehicle they choose, without causing any more consumption of oil, or polluting any more than their neighbor. Fair enough?
What effect do you think a dollar a gallon tax would have on our economy?
All it would do is enable bigger and more intrusive government. Every tax ever enacted promised to cure some ill of society or another or provide a service that we were told was essential. Government subsists first and foremost to use tax money for political reward.
I'm also against using a pump tax to entirely correct for environmental impact. I say $0.10/gallon and then double or triple the gas guzzler tax . . . oh hell, since it's my dream QUADRUPLE the gas guzzler!
See? Again, we wouldn't have to penalize anyone unfairly, if we just rationed a certain amount of fuel per driver. If some needed more fuel than we're all allotted, THEN charge them an exorbitant fee for that extra fuel. Now that's fair!
Whoops. I say the word "tax" and the Robotical Republicans engage their gears and start complaining. You clearly aren't thinking this through.
I am an economic conservative (If you think I'm liberal it's because I am socially progressive) and I support a much steeper gasoline tax because I think it is more economically efficient than our current tax system. You must understand that I said this gas tax would not be added taxation but would offset another tax, the income tax.
Taxes are PENALTIES. And since it doesn't look like we can get out of paying taxes, let's penalize activities that have downsides. I hate the income tax because wage earning and economic production are good, valued activities and our progressive tax system penalizes success. Creating a gasoline tax to lower income taxes would allow two things to occur: make it less penalizing to earn a lot of money and make it more penalizing to engage in an activity that has harmful societal effects (gasoline production and consumption). This isn't an effort to hurt the American motoring tradition but rather to say, "why are we taxing the daylights out of wage earners, who are paying more taxes than they would if we had a higher gasoline tax?"
Since pollution is a negative burden on society, we should tax activities that create this negative. Even if modern cars emit very little harmful pollutants, they still create CO2 and the process of gasoline refinement is dirty. By creating a gasoline tax, you are telling the economy: use less gas. Now some people find this offensive because they don't want to be told what to do, but they are mistaken. When they face 31%, 35%, and 39.6% marginal tax rates, they are already being told: make a lot of money? You better pay, pay, pay!
Must the income tax be such a large burden? Should we not tax activities that are more harmful than earning a buck?
Now I have heard it before that if we created a gasoline tax Washington would find ways not to reduce the income tax (as my plan demands). That's the Beltway's fault, not mine. My armchair economic analysis is quite sound, thank you very much, and I tire from the continual "can't do" attitude that prevades the current American political environment.
I am an economic conservative (If you think I'm liberal it's because I am socially progressive) and I support a much steeper gasoline tax because I think it is more economically efficient than our current tax system. You must understand that I said this gas tax would not be added taxation but would offset another tax, the income tax.
Taxes are PENALTIES. And since it doesn't look like we can get out of paying taxes, let's penalize activities that have downsides. I hate the income tax because wage earning and economic production are good, valued activities and our progressive tax system penalizes success. Creating a gasoline tax to lower income taxes would allow two things to occur: make it less penalizing to earn a lot of money and make it more penalizing to engage in an activity that has harmful societal effects (gasoline production and consumption). This isn't an effort to hurt the American motoring tradition but rather to say, "why are we taxing the daylights out of wage earners, who are paying more taxes than they would if we had a higher gasoline tax?"
Since pollution is a negative burden on society, we should tax activities that create this negative. Even if modern cars emit very little harmful pollutants, they still create CO2 and the process of gasoline refinement is dirty. By creating a gasoline tax, you are telling the economy: use less gas. Now some people find this offensive because they don't want to be told what to do, but they are mistaken. When they face 31%, 35%, and 39.6% marginal tax rates, they are already being told: make a lot of money? You better pay, pay, pay!
Must the income tax be such a large burden? Should we not tax activities that are more harmful than earning a buck?
Now I have heard it before that if we created a gasoline tax Washington would find ways not to reduce the income tax (as my plan demands). That's the Beltway's fault, not mine. My armchair economic analysis is quite sound, thank you very much, and I tire from the continual "can't do" attitude that prevades the current American political environment.
Well, that's a thought, but each gallon would have to cost about $8.00 if they're going to get the same amount of taxes out of me! Once they have us all driving teenie-weenie-mobiles, they'll have to bump the tax to $16 or $32 per gallon!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter