Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
    Results 21 to 40 of 51
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Location
      Phoenix
      Posts
      464
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
      Erik - you make a wonderful case for these systems being installed in "other peoples' cars". Sure, I'd certainly appreciate an oncoming sleepyhead being nudged back where he belongs. The flip side is that I there are situations where I absolutely don't want any interference - construction zones where the lane markings are temporary, merge zones where you need to use a little more distance, or driving as close to a 'racing line' as your lane width permits. All of these situations are going to occur regardless of the vehicle being driven.

      Think about this for a moment - if a passenger were to attempt a similar level of interference, they'd probably get backhanded on the spot and/or tossed out of the car as soon as it could be stopped. Been there, not as either the driver or the interfering passenger.


      Norm
      Norm, I most certainly agree with you that there are times when such systems are not desirable. The lane keep assist system I'm familiar with though is not active if a turn signal is used and can also easily be turned off and on at will. Most dynamic vehicle control systems can also be turned off with a button. ABS is always on though and some are much smoother than others.

      I do have to say, when I first put a radar cruise system to the test by quickly pulling behind another car and buzzers went off and the car rapidly slowed down on it's own it was unnerving to say the least. Then try a car that parks itself.

      It's kind of strange to think though that there are cars on the road right now that have technology on board that would enable them to drive themselves from one point to another, if they just had the software in them to do it. It will be here soon.



    2. #22
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by ErikLS2 View Post
      I do have to say, when I first put a radar cruise system to the test by quickly pulling behind another car and buzzers went off and the car rapidly slowed down on it's own it was unnerving to say the least.
      I really, really hate to be startled like that, so I'd be on a search and destroy mission with a fuse puller and a pair of wire cutters . . . ASAP

      In larger scope, I fear that these active interference measures are only going to make for drivers with (on average) even poorer driving skills.

      Not to mention that they can be used to place artificial limits on vehicle performance, render the installation of grippier tires ineffective and pointless, and prevent the driver from learning how his vehicle really behaves (should he wish to do so). That such systems may currently have an 'off' switch does not guarantee that this will continue to be the case, and I'm not even sure that some systems today can't reactivate themselves based on some combination and perhaps timing of driver control inputs. Remember that we now have TPMS due to the unfortunate combination of marginal stability in an SUV, mfr-specified lower tire pressures as a crutch for that, and typical lack of attention - that ultimately bit a relative handful of drivers.

      Even ABS is something that I accept only grudgingly, being aware of (and having experienced) some of its downsides as well as (less frequently) its benefits.


      It's kind of strange to think though that there are cars on the road right now that have technology on board that would enable them to drive themselves from one point to another, if they just had the software in them to do it. It will be here soon.
      Just not in my driveway.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    3. #23
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Posts
      40
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I

      If I remember right there was more info on the original version I watched, i think they said the driver of the '59 would have likely died almost instantly, and the driver of the 09 would have sustained minor neck injury.

    4. #24
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Rustburg, Virginia
      Posts
      3,695
      Country Flag: United States
      Larger cars fair better...can't argue with the laws of physics..LOL

      1970 RS/SS350 139K on the clock:
      89 TPI motor w/ 1pc rear seal coupled to a Viper T56 via Mcleod's modular bellhousing w/ hydraulic T/O bearing from the Viper, 12 bolt rear w/ 3.73 gearing, SC&C upper control arms, factory lowers with Delalums, C5 brakes at all four corners, Front Wheels 17x8's with Sumi 255/40/17 and Rear Wheels 17x9's with Sumi 275/40/17.
      Brief description of the work done so far can be found here: http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112454


    5. #25
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Location
      Calgary, Canada
      Posts
      663
      Quote Originally Posted by DoABarrelRoll View Post
      ABS is for people who don't know how to use brakes, or panic easily.
      An old car will cut through a new car, regardless of how many air bags, crumple zones, and how fast the windows automatically get rolled up.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I
      I was just looking for this utube to show how wrong the above statement is , besides this video, there is tons of evidence the old " big steel" is just not as safe. I wish it was not true.
      The ABS comment ...it's already being debated.
      Dave
      FUeL 69 Camaro RS BuilD by G-Force Design & Concept
      68 Corvair coupe
      65 Impala SS
      64 Corvair Rampside
      62 Corvair Greenbrier
      Asst. daily drivers

      http://www.sourceboards.com/

    6. #26
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      The structural improvements are without doubt beneficial, even as they add mass. A stronger and more rigid passenger cell also benefits the ability to tune the handling.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    7. #27
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Los Angeles, CA
      Posts
      174
      Just my two cents...

      On December 10, 2009, I was involved in a horrible head on collision in my 1968 Camaro against a 6,000 pound work van.

      It was a bright afternoon, I was cruising at the speed limit with my friend in the passenger seat. We were on a single lane canyon road, making a left hand sweep in the outer lane. Upon corner exit, my car entered an uncontrollable state of oversteer, and ended up crossing into the center lane.

      From then I remember nothing until I woke up in the hospital 5 days later.

      My injuries are severe: broken left tibia (shin bone), broken and dislocated left hip which was operated on, two broken left wrist bones, a torn right hand ligament, a broken nose, a minor broken skullbone under my right eye, and plenty of lacerations everywhere.

      Yes, these are bad injuries, but I should make a full recovery and be walking in 3 months from the collision.

      Now to my point: my car saved my life.

      If you look through all those injuries, they are all outboard limb injuries, my core is 100% intact. The only safety measures I had were a brand new frame, frame connectors, and the amazing Morris 3-point belts which saved mine and my passenger's life.

      After the impact, I was trapped in the car and paramedics were forced to cut the roof off and cut the steering column behind the wheel to get me out. The steering wheel was 6" from my chest...had I had an airbag it would have snapped my neck and killed me.

      The fact that the car had such frontal structural strength meant that nothing came into the interior area to impale me. It hit a vehicle double the weight at a force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph, and my core and head were safe, aside from the hood coming slightly into the interior and kissing my nose and right eye.

      My passenger walked away with nothing, just a mark where the three point belt stopped his movement. He did not need an airbag, in fact it may have injured him further.

      The tow truck driver said this was one of the worst collisions he's seen in his 30 years of experience.

      Furthermore, the only reason for my broken limbs is because I braced myself in the collision and locked my left leg against the floorboard, and grabbed the wheel with all my force. Yes the rigid frame transferred a ton of force causing these breaks.

      But the car did its job, it did not trap my legs under the dash, it did not hit me in the head or knock me unconscious, it did not impale my core with anything, it protected my passenger on the other side, it did not catch fire, and my back, ribs, and neck feel just as they did before the accident.

      A newer car would have crumpled much harder, would most likely have impaled me due to cheap lightweight materials, and would have snapped my neck with the airbag thereby ending my life abruptly.

      The pain is tough to deal with, but these are all recoverable injuries. Talk to a guy who hits a 6000lbs van head on (with each vehicle moving 40mph) on the driver's side in a Honda or Toyota with a short hood and no steel, if you can even still talk to him

    8. #28
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      400
      Not to mention that they can be used to place artificial limits on vehicle performance, render the installation of grippier tires ineffective and pointless, and prevent the driver from learning how his vehicle really behaves (should he wish to do so). That such systems may currently have an 'off' switch does not guarantee that this will continue to be the case, and I'm not even sure that some systems today can't reactivate themselves based on some combination and perhaps timing of driver control inputs. Remember that we now have TPMS due to the unfortunate combination of marginal stability in an SUV, mfr-specified lower tire pressures as a crutch for that, and typical lack of attention - that ultimately bit a relative handful of drivers.
      Look at a modern laptop computer. There is no mechanical link to ANYTHING. You can't even mute the volume or turn the entire thing on & off until the software agrees with your decision. And that's assuming the software isn't still lagging 5 steps behind your commands, struggling with software that was supposedly state of the art wa-a-ay back in the dark ages when you bought the machine (3 months ago).


      I have absolutely no doubt that they will be doing this stuff to our cars soon enough.

      If we're lucky the cars will still at least keep some manual door locks/handles on the outside. At least that way our wives won't be relying on the key remote to automatically soleniod-pop the door open for them in a hurry when they're being accosted by a thug in a dark parking lot.

    9. #29
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Location
      Phoenix
      Posts
      464
      Quote Originally Posted by kryptik View Post
      Just my two cents...


      The fact that the car had such frontal structural strength meant that nothing came into the interior area to impale me. It hit a vehicle double the weight at a force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph, and my core and head were safe, aside from the hood coming slightly into the interior and kissing my nose and right eye.

      My passenger walked away with nothing, just a mark where the three point belt stopped his movement. He did not need an airbag, in fact it may have injured him further.
      First of all, I'm very sorry for your accident. However, I would argue that all that "frontal structural strength" probably contributed to your injuries. All that engergy from the accident had to go somewhere and the less of it that's absorbed by the car the more of it that goes into your body. That hood that almost hit you in the face would have been stopped by large hooks at the base of the windshield and folded right in the middle on a modern car.

      An airbag that deploys 6 inches from your face most certainly will do damage. An airbag attached to a modern collapsible steering column on a car with designed crumple zones will virtually always reduce injuries.

      Again, very sorry for your misfortune. We can have fun debating this for a long time but the bottom line is your going to be OK and another car can always be built. Good luck in your recovery!

      Erik

    10. #30
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Los Angeles, CA
      Posts
      174
      Thanks Erik!

      I just purchased a 1970 RS split bumper as my next project, partially due to engineering and safety improvements in the second gen camaro vs. the first gen.

      I agree that the rigid body did contribute to broken bones due to the extra energy transfer. At the same time though, I have seen many instances of a car which crumples and severely impales or traps the driver, causing core body injuries which are the most important to avoid. The dashboards on new vehicles are much closer to one's knees I have noticed, and are notorious for trapping the driver in the vehicle by his legs. I was fairly easily removed from the car, as even after the force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph the dash did not crumple down onto my knees.

      Many drivers walk away from accidents in new vehicles with mild to severe injuries on the face, neck, and core simply because of the airbag deployment, not from the collision itself.

      Because my car didn't crumple, it made removing me from the vehicle and getting me onto the medical helicopter a very simple task for emergency workers, and got me to medical treatment much faster.

      Broken bones heal, but neck and core injuries are something which should be avoided at all costs.

      Furthermore, I have been seeing more and more cars with solenoid controlled door locks which can be a serious hazard upon electrical failure, especially if a fire breaks out around the vehicle.

      Regardless, there are trade-offs to both old and new vehicles. I honestly can't say I would have been okay in a new vehicle, as thousands die a year in collisions far less severe than mine.

      I guess the safest vehicle is one that doesn't end up in a collision, but we all know the world isn't perfect, sh*t happens. Just drive safe and avoid the canyons in these cars at all costs, a straightaway is one thing (and these cars are the kings of straightaways), but a canyon is just a deathtrap and an unnecessary risk, where one wrong move or pothole can put you into a spin with no room to correct.

      In fact, I corrected my spin, but it was too late as I ended up in the inner lane right in front of a 6000lbs van...figures. Guess we all gotta learn our lesson sometime.

      Drive safe and don't end up like me is all I gotta say...and we all know that an accident isn't gonna turn any of us away from that beautiful sound, smell, and feel of raw American torque

      Happy driving and best regards,
      Matt

    11. #31
      Join Date
      Jan 2005
      Location
      Netherlands
      Posts
      1,012
      Kryptic, having read your acsidend.
      I know that modern cars are disignd to ubsorb the impact with crumble zones ecetera.
      BUT they are also disighned to colide ""together"". .
      I had more then one discusion , Where i stated i belive that when a modern car colides with a late 60,s early 70,s muscle car with the goodies that are around today. wil be safer, and that the modern car wil take the ""blund"" of the impact sins the older car hase no real crumble zones and hase a more solid structural mass /frame ectera, i acspect that the driver and the pasenger of the older car to walk away with lesser trauma then the newer car . sins that car wil be the one thats going to be teard ore torn up!!.
      When i drive a 69 GTO with a roll cage strengtend ladder frame ectera ecetera with a big Endura bumper up frond a hood that is a mile long . colide with a modern Toyota camry witch is build to crumble up. i rather be in the GTO. corect me if im wrong. but u truly belive im safer in the GTO.

    12. #32
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      I really don't think that relative crash performance can be evaluated quite that simply. Specific structural geometry and energy management matters as well as mass.

      The longer hood on an older car tends to improve its crash performance, but only if the energy dissipation along that length is at least comparable to any newer car being compared to. It doesn't make it better simply by being longer.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    13. #33
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Los Angeles, CA
      Posts
      174
      The body CAN survive extreme forces, bones are extremely strong and resilient, and repair relatively easily and quickly, and broken bones are for the most part non-life threatening.

      The body CANNOT survive being impaled. A torn or ruptured artery, puncture wound, head trauma, etc are life threatening.

      Although these old cars transfer extreme forces to the body upon impact, the tough steel is resilient and bends rather than crumples and does not enter the passenger compartment as pieces of broken or cracked shards of metal.

    14. #34
      Join Date
      Jan 2005
      Location
      Netherlands
      Posts
      1,012
      WARNING 18 +GRAFIC IMAGES http://www.ehowa.com/features/smartcarvssemi.shtml
      Altho i belive that iven with a bigger ore older car with al the structural improvemends that you can put in it, its hard to sirvive this one. i do prefeur the bigger older cars.. Those crumble zones aint worth anything when you meet a lump of solid iron....

    15. #35
      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Location
      San Francisco, CA
      Posts
      809
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Roadrage David View Post
      WARNING 18 +GRAFIC IMAGES http://www.ehowa.com/features/smartcarvssemi.shtml
      Altho i belive that iven with a bigger ore older car with al the structural improvemends that you can put in it, its hard to sirvive this one. i do prefeur the bigger older cars.. Those crumble zones aint worth anything when you meet a lump of solid iron....
      Yuck that was unnecessary.

      This past weekend, we were 1st on the scene of an accident where a late 80's pickup truck went head-on into a tree at what I estimate at 30-40mph. The truck was mangled up front but the cab appeared relatively uncrushed. The driver and passenger were easily freed and injuries appeared not life threatening. Both of them had injuries relating to their heads being smacked around inside, and the passenger probably had a broken leg.

      That accident was a real gut-check to myself about minimizing injury in older cars in accidents, since I am just starting to drive my Camaro again. It seems like occupant movement during a crash is the primary way people get injured. I have always planned to cage my car, and always run 5 pt belts with a proper seat that allows a low seating position to keep me far away from the browbar. Seems to me the 5pt belts would hardly allow any body movement (which is why the drivers in a lot of closed-cockpit cars like nascar, ALMS, rally, etc hardly move when you watch in-car replay footage). Would this be considered safe for my car, even if I wasn't wearing a helmet?
      Steven

      1968 Camaro: Project "TRACKDAY"

      Latest Track Weekend Video

      Build in Progress

    16. #36
      Join Date
      Jan 2005
      Location
      Netherlands
      Posts
      1,012
      Quote Originally Posted by sik68 View Post
      Yuck that was unnecessary.
      I beg the differ sir!. its as realistic as everyday drama is!!.
      Talking about safty is one thing, showing the hard facts
      is another.
      I belive that in todays divelopmend of car safty and crumple zones, Tha they dont take in acound that there are riged bigger old heavy cars from the past on the road today , its a calculated risk that the chanse of meeting a lump of iron is a small one.
      So I belive that the crumple zone,s and car safty today is divelopt with a colision of simulair modern cars in mind of today, so that both cars ubsorb the energy of a impact. making it safer for the people involved in a acsident, but
      In my mind i cant see the safer platform of a modern car that is ""made"" to crumble up, when it meets a older car like the ones we have with ful cage and everyting in it!!.
      The modern car with ubsorb more energy then its disignd for. especialy now that the car industry is going to make a lot more smaller cars..

    17. #37
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Not all old cars have a full cage. If anything, they've lost a measure of structural rigidity to the effects of corrosion on panel thickness. Never mind that all the frame stiffness in the world isn't going to help much if the newer car rides up and over some really rigid separate frame and scrapes/peels the body off of it.

      With respect to the "full cage" and generally higher stiffness chassis - current thinking in NASCAR is to maintain some measure of crumple at least in front for the very reason of reducing the amount of energy transferred into occupant movement and belt/harness/seat loading.


      sik - I strongly recommend getting Alan Blaine's opinion on the details of cage construction vs the expected use(s). He's a very knowledgeable individual in the business of fabricating cages for cars used in a variety of road course competition series (that require sactioning body technical acceptance and logbooking), but understands the unhelmeted street side of it as well. Blainefab over on corner-carvers.com, and IIRC there are separate race and street oriented discussions in which he has taken part.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    18. #38
      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Location
      San Francisco, CA
      Posts
      809
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post

      sik - I strongly recommend getting Alan Blaine's opinion on the details of cage construction vs the expected use(s). He's a very knowledgeable individual in the business of fabricating cages for cars used in a variety of road course competition series (that require sactioning body technical acceptance and logbooking), but understands the unhelmeted street side of it as well. Blainefab over on corner-carvers.com, and IIRC there are separate race and street oriented discussions in which he has taken part.


      Norm
      Thank you very much, Norm. Will do!
      Steven

      1968 Camaro: Project "TRACKDAY"

      Latest Track Weekend Video

      Build in Progress

    19. #39
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Location
      Los Angeles, CA
      Posts
      174
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
      Not all old cars have a full cage. If anything, they've lost a measure of structural rigidity to the effects of corrosion on panel thickness. Never mind that all the frame stiffness in the world isn't going to help much if the newer car rides up and over some really rigid separate frame and scrapes/peels the body off of it.

      Norm
      My 42 year old Camaro retained plenty of structural integrity. I finally went to see the salvaged car in person, and let me tell you its quite a sight. But in terms of safety, the car truly impressed me.

      Remember, my vehicle had a full frontal impact on the driver's side fender/framerail with a 6,000+ lbs solid steel work van; and both vehicles were moving 40mph.

      Upon inspection, I noticed that the steel subframe (which I replaced with a new OEM unit) bent and twisted to absorb energy, but in no way, shape, or form crumpled, retaining the vehicle's structure; aka exactly what it was designed to do. In fact, the distributor at the rear of the block is in the exact position in relation to the firewall, meaning nothing really "crumpled".

      Moving rearward, I noticed that the door did exactly what it should have done as well: it buckled outward meaning nothing to injure the driver from the side. The dash moved a little bit towards me, but retained integrity as well. My knees had plenty of room and were by no means trapped.

      The floor pan which caused major injuries to my leg hardly even buckled, only bent inward slightly. My leg took the brunt of the impact because while countersteering the car my reaction was to brace myself.

      There were absolutely no abrasive edges, things that could impale me, etc in the passenger compartment. In fact, if I had just let go of the wheel and tucked my leg inward, rather than locking them to brace myself, I would most likely WALKED AWAY.

      Tell me that isn't safe. Don't try this in your Honda Civic. And don't let the government fool you into thinking these new tin cans are safe.
      From the straits I called G-d; G-d answered me with a vast expanse. Psalms 118:5

    20. #40
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Location
      Phoenix
      Posts
      464
      Matt, as much as I hate to see crumpled up old cars, do you have any pictures of it we could see? Might help some folks working on improving the safety of their cars.

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast