Version: 2008
Advanced Search
advertisement
advertisement

Forum display:

Car Tech: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars?

by wcunning CNET staff - 6/6/07 1:57 PM
Post 121 of 419

small

by wcoffey81 - 6/26/07 6:29 AM In reply to: Is the small SUV running on air a better choice? by TonyGuitar

the only problem with a vehicle like that is the safty features required here in the USA would probably double the cost and then the added weight of those features would require a total redesign. just think of the 1/2" thick titanium safty shield around the high pressure tank.
air compressors are not very efficient by their nature and they produce a lot of heat. now you need a power source for the compressor and a way to keep it cool

Note: Due to the depth of this discussion thread, no additional replies can be accepted for this post. If you have comments to make, please reply to the original post at the beginning of this thread.
Post 122 of 419

I get what you're saying

by batman823 - 6/26/07 5:15 AM In reply to: suburban by wcoffey81

I understand what you're saying. The suburban, in particular, is one of the most dangerous SUVs out there. Any pickup or SUV larger than a Ford F150 has more blind spots than an 18-wheeler. The only time an 18-wheeler can't see is directly behind him. The sticker stating "IF YOU CAN'T SEE MY MIRRORS, I CAN'T SEE YOU!" is true. Some of the big-rigs even have mirrors on the front hood's corners to cover the few blind spots they have left.

I think the suburban is a good example. But the problem with it is that most of the yuppie-mobiles out there are escalades or the ford,chevy,etc. knockoffs. They actually have less visibility than the newer suburban. The newer suburban is much smaller than an escalade or excursion.

If a person wants to have 5 kids, plus gear, in their car, they could own a subaru legacy or an equivelant wagon. The Mazda whatever is a good one. That 'crossover SUV' gets decent mileage and has plenty of room. There a good selection of minivans out there that are fairly reasonable though. But that just wouldn't show off how much debt your husband's paycheck can handle, so I guess that's just an unreasonable suggestion. Am I right?

till next time,
Chris

Post 123 of 419

saying

by wcoffey81 - 6/26/07 6:20 AM In reply to: I get what you're saying by batman823

there are definitly better choices but i was looking at it from the perspective that they already owned the burban. if it's already bought and paid for, wait until it's time to replace it and then re-evaluate. until then only use it for what it was intended for.

Note: Due to the depth of this discussion thread, no additional replies can be accepted for this post. If you have comments to make, please reply to the original post at the beginning of this thread.
Post 124 of 419

Weighing in

by Avaca - 6/25/07 7:27 AM In reply to: I understand your point. by batman823

I have been reading this forum and thought I'd share some views and experiences.
As far as accidents go, I've been in a few but I'm going to share the two most recent experiences. A year and a half ago I was rear ended by a '02 Toyota Corolla while driving an '03 Hyundai Santa Fe. The other driver hit me doing 65 MPH while talking on her cell phone. I was stopped. The toyota had major damage and my truck escaped with relatively minor damage. As for myself, I have continuing medical problems from the accident, but I was pretty lucky. I need a large vehicle due to the nature of my work, and I love driving an SUV. I did make one concession though, I traded the Santa Fe for a Tucson due to gas milage concerns. Point is that just because you drive a small car, it doesn't make you a better driver.
Just before memorial day this year, my wife was on her way to work. She drives an '05 Scion Xa. She was hit by an '02 International Dump Truck. The driver of the truck changed lanes because he was going to fast in the right lane and swerved to avoid a slower vehicle. His bumper hit just in front of the rear wheel on the passenger side, the momentum caused a kind of pit maneuver that spun her sideways and struck her the full length of her car on the passenger side. His excuse "I never even saw you". The reinforcing bars in the doors did thier job. There was paint on them from the bumper of the truck. Funny aside, the windows did not break which I found quite amazing. She has some back injuries, but she could have been a lot worse. Little car is very well put together.
The point is that it's the people driving that you have to worry about more than what they're driving. Asking the government to step in on anything is a sure way to screw things up worse than what they were in the first place.
On to global warming. This is probably the most controversial topic. I am convinced that there are climate changes taking place, however I don't believe humans are the complete cause. The earth has gone through climate changes throughout it's history, some of them quite catostrophic to the species living here at the time. What factory or car caused the ice ages? My second question: If we have managed to affect the climate of the planet on a global scale, what makes you think we could change it back now? Even the U.N. report (mostly a farce if you ask me, but nonetheless) states that stopping all production of CO2 and other measures being pushed on people would likely have no effect. So what's the point? I believe that people need to be concious of thier enviroment, but trying to push us back into the stone age is not the answer. The worst thing is that all the developing nations get screwed in the process of the industrialized nation going through an attack of concience.

Post 125 of 419

good points, but skew them a little.

by batman823 - 6/25/07 8:34 AM In reply to: Weighing in by Avaca

You're right when you say it's mostly the drivers out there. They are truly the danger on the roads. But that's exactly my point. The title SUV stands for something, Sport/Utility Vehicle. The gas guzzler tax does not apply to them for a reason. That title belongs on vehicles that are intended for work or recreation. That title is not intended to exempt the soccer-mom who's husband is a lawyer or a doctor. But people buy them. The Gas-Guzzler Tax was intended to encourage people to buy more economic vehicles, but I don't know of a single case where somebody actually had to pay that tax. That's because all of the 'SUVs' are labeled as such.

I don't blame you for driving a large vehicle if you need it for work. But just because somebody might work for a construction company doesn't mean they need a Dodge Ram 3500 super-diesel with duelies. They would need a Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10. There should be some discretion in the vehicle according to workload.

The term 'SUV' should not apply to BMWs, Cadillacs, Mercedes, etc... They should require a special liscence to drive, just like other commercial vehicles and be for work only. They require a special skill to drive them safely, just like the big-rigs. And just like the big-rigs, they should require special training, liscencing, and purpose. I've never seen an Escalade or an X5 hauling wood or on the off-road trails. They are just a waste of money, no more than a status symbol.

Global warming. It's been proven, I'm glad you brought up those points though. The earth does go through natural cycles of CO2 and the theory is that that is the main cause. The earth gets hotter over thousands of years, melts the ice caps. Then the ocean currents change and water level goes up. The result is major portions of earth get covered in water and the plants live while the animals die, for the most part. This returns the cycle back to oxygen and the earth cools down because the deminishment of CO2 allows the heat from the sun to radiate out back to space. The north and south poles freeze again because they recieve less sun then the rest of the planet. Temperatures start to come back up and animals can start thriving again.
That's the basic, very simplified cycle.
But there are other things to consider. The levels of CO2 are one thing. By ice core samples dating back olmost 700,000yrs from antarctica, the CO2 level never got above 300ppb. That's in a history of 700 millenia! Right now we're approaching 400ppb by the same measurements. So the theory is that we're already dead. The next ice age is supposedly inevitable. But what we can do is reduce our emissions so we can hold the fort a little longer.

I think of it this way, I know I'm going to die. I don't know how, but I know I will. You will too. But that doesn't mean I shold go out shooting meth and have bycicle races going the wrong way on I-95 over the Goldstar bridge. I'd be considered a suicidal criminal. Why wouldn't you apply the same logic to the planet. We know another ice age is coming. Some projections say that it'll be within the next 50yrs, even less. That's if we don't change what we're doing. CO2 levels will supposedly be over 700ppb. That has alot to do with the cars we drive and the way we use energy. We've already caused the worst ice age that the earth will ever undergo, but we can delay it.

So using that logic, which makes sense to me, people like andy77e and cw(whatever, cwhiner, cwhoopidydoodah) who want to drive tanks because they feel safer and can be a jerk on the roads migh as well just slit their wives' and childrens' throats now. It'll be quick. That'll save them from dying horribly with their children in a flood or whatever catastrophic climate change is coming very soon.

So all that nonsense really does come to a point. For global warming and your own pocket-book, not just safety or the illusion thereof. This forum discusses plastic cars. I think it's a good idea. Your wife's scion is a light-weight vehicle and gets great mileage. But if all that siding, including the hood, roof, and trunk would be replaced with plastic, it would be a lot lighter. You might get a couple miles/gallon out of it. That'll help you a little in the pocketbook. But on a nation-wide scale, it would help the planet a little. People mention safety as an issue. All those cages and crossbars that re-inforce your car wouldn't go anywhere. The siding provides no protection. Those reinforcing parts could be replaced with a carbon-fiber or other light-weight and stronger than steel composite.

Post 126 of 419

Plastic cars and your Global warming thoughts; bravo!

by TonyGuitar - 6/25/07 12:28 PM In reply to: Weighing in by Avaca

Good thinking and it agrees with almost everyone at a leading website for CLEAR thinkers:

SmallDeadAnimals.com

My view is that we have a case of global pollution. The warming trend may be more of a weather shifteng thing.

This morning here on Vancouver island it was 6% C. That is unusually cold for June 26th.

I read somewhere that global warming is more affected by one puff from Mount St. Helens than from our dirty industrial habits.

Looks like plastic for cars is getting quite a lot of credit in this forum. You should see my *87 Wagoneer. Photo:

http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

Still looks good and built **Brinks Truck** strong. Guess the plastic fender liners helped keep the rust away.

The four cylinder motor [239K ] is getting tired. Is the Jeep too heavy to convert to a 10-battery E-vehicle? [similar project];

http://www.driveev.com/jeepev/home.php

= TG

Post 127 of 419

market

by wcoffey81 - 6/23/07 11:03 AM In reply to: Rear End Collision by sharen_s

no one says that we have to "buy in responce to the current market" we , as Americans, can buy what we want as an individual. if someone has the income to feed a monster truck that gets 3 miles to the gallon and that's what they choose to do then so be-it! your injury had nothing to do with what hit you it's because of the accident itself. people make mistakes and sometimes it causes an accident. you made an informed decision to drive that day, knowing the risks. yet instead of walking, taking the bus or riding a bicycle you jumped in the car anyways.
before judging others we need to take at hard look at ourselves!

Post 128 of 419

You attribute blame to the victim!

by sharen_s - 6/23/07 12:04 PM In reply to: market by wcoffey81

First, my injury had everything to do with what hit me. I would have had far fewer injuries if hit by a vehicle that weighted equal to or less than me. Second,I drive a vehicle that gets 26 mpg and holds 7 (a Honda van). I am proud of my compromise choice between safety and green. Third, Yes, I made a decision to drive but someone else made a decision to drive a big truck poorly. Not my choice and I did nothing wrong. I knew this was a possibility, so I planned accordingly, with the best vehicle compromise I could think of. If I lived in the closed community, as some in this chat have proposed, then I would happily take public transportation, bike or drive a plastic mini-car like everyone else. Fourth, before you judge anyone else's choice, please realize that there is no efficient public transportation where I live: the trip that I took that day took 1 hour door to door: public transportation would have been 5 plus hours -which is just not doable. (obviously biking is out of the question). Most Americans live in such places: your worldview needs to acknowledge the compromise we make daily in our choices.

Post 129 of 419

victim

by wcoffey81 - 6/25/07 6:54 AM In reply to: You attribute blame to the victim! by sharen_s

i didn't mean to blame the victim but what i wanted to do is bring up the fact that it takes hundreds/thousands of variables to put us in that exact spot at that very time. plus you said it yourself....."drive a big truck POORLY". what had more to do with your injuries (1) THE BIG TRUCK OR (2) POORLY DRIVEN ???
you also say that public transportation was available but because it was going to take too long it wasn't doable... choices again!!!
i agree 100% that my worldwide view of the way we are living in America is pretty poor. everyone is wanting their own acre lot and nice house as far away from the hustle and bustle of the city as possible. then our groceries are 10 miles to the north, our job is 20 miles to the south, the private school for the kids is 15 miles to the east and the only decent Dr.s are 40 miles to the west. then we ***** because gas is $3 a gallon and it takes 3 hours a day to run the kids around.

Post 130 of 419

Green

by carolina07 - 6/25/07 7:22 PM In reply to: market by wcoffey81

I think people decide that lighter vehicles get better gas mileage and buy one. What happens? They are more than likely to increase how much they drive. How is that better for the environment? You are driving further with less, but then you start driving more and using more than before.

The reason taxes and higher prices do not work is because we are accustomed to comfort. No US resident today wants to be without the luxury of gasoline--and we will pay for it. We will pay for it until we can no longer obtain it reasonably. This is a cultural issue.

I drive a heavy weight volvo wagon. I will drive it until I can no longer drive it. I consider myself a green person. Why? I'm green in many things. However, the way that I am green with my gas guzzlin wagon is that I try not to drive it as much as--YES--even people in light plastic cars.

It is up to you--

You decide how much to spend on gasoline. Don't blame it solely on the vehicle.

Post 131 of 419

green 2

by wcoffey81 - 6/26/07 6:51 AM In reply to: Green by carolina07

i think we all just need to do our part. there's no need to be crazy about things but we need to recycle our paper, glass and plastic. plus keep our vehicles tuned, tires inflated and cut down on excessive driving. i think the state of urban sprawl needs to addressed and quickly. instead of just a gas guzzler tax how about a tax on people who drive over 30 miles (each way) to get to work

Post 132 of 419

before judging others, judge yourself.

by Andy77e - 6/30/07 8:04 PM In reply to: market by wcoffey81

I'd just like to state my 100% support of your statement. How I wish some people on this forum would take that to heart.

To repeat the gem of truth:
"before judging others we need to take at hard look at ourselves!"

Remember that before you start painting everyone who doesn't drive what you want them too, with a broad brush of judgementalism.

Post 133 of 419

HumVee

by picsLator - 6/7/07 7:20 PM In reply to: *C-R-U-N-C-H* You're dead! by tek-ed

What will the HumVee look like after a tangle with a Semi? My solution to, buy a tank. You get my drift?

Post 134 of 419

HumVee

by Andy77e - 6/9/07 8:50 PM In reply to: HumVee by picsLator

Most likely, it will look like a Hummer with a dent in the side, and a driver that's really happy his car wasn't made of plastic.

Post 135 of 419

super structure

by Kurt Saldutti - 6/22/07 11:36 PM In reply to: HumVee by Andy77e

It’s the super structure or cage system that will save your butt not the so-called sheet metal. Hummers included. If a Hummer H2 or H3 had plastic skins, the human would be in no better condition. The skin tin is not a part of collision protection anymore; the engineering of the structure system is your collision protection, period!

Forum legend:
Locked Locked thread
Moderator Moderator
CNET staff CNET staff
Samsung staff Samsung staff
Norton Authorized Support team Norton Authorized Support team
AVG staff AVG staff
Windows Outreach team Windows Outreach team
Dell staff Dell staff
Intel staff Intel staff
Powered by Jive Software