Car Tech: What are the pros and cons of plastic cars?
- 6/6/07 1:57 PM
Cost of repairs vs. benefit to the environment
by nycenigma - 6/21/07 8:19 AM In reply to: young people are funny by tek-edYour post brings up a good point. I was once involved in a collision where my Delta 88 a/k/a "Das Boat" hit the rear of a 1972 VW. It appeared that there were some scratches to the plastic bumper protectors while the rear of the VK was squashed down. Luckily no one was injured and I simply paid for the repairs.
If a larger car such as my Delta 88 (Das Boat), similar in size to your typical SUV where to hit a plastic car the cost to repair the plastic car would be significant. Spending thousands of dollars on repairs, not to mention having to repaint the area repaired or the entire car (spewing more VOC's into the air) and the time/labor involved far outweighs any savings on gas milage/carbon emissions.
However I do recall the the GM Saturn was supposed to have bendable panels that could easily be replaced. What ever happened to the bendable panels? If a plastic panel breaks in a minor fender bender and the cost to replace the panel is $1,000+ I fail to see the beefits.
Your delta 88
by bilbo4 - 6/21/07 12:11 PM In reply to: Cost of repairs vs. benefit to the environment by nycenigmaI would hate to see what would happen to you if your delta 88
was to say hit a ford F250 @ say 45 mph.You would likely not be here.
Why dont you compare apples to apples.Newer cars with crumple zones
are much safer than any car made in the 90s,80s,70s,60,50s,40s, well you get the point.
yeesh lets talk facts
by PanthersClaws4 - 6/23/07 5:58 AM In reply to: Cost of repairs vs. benefit to the environment by nycenigmait would be nice if in any of these threads people quoted facts and statistics not conjecture or feelings --- and the car magazines don't all have it right --- nor is the story about safety alone --the push toward these plastic cars is full of special interest groups concerns for their own bottom line -- we need hard facts to discuss this -- cost analysis of fossil fuel -- how these plastics degrade and affect our environment -- large vs small cars -- actual death rates(which climb with lighter cars not fall as is constantly implied here) -- when we are talking hard facts we can then begin to discuss apples to apples--
Rear End Collision
by sharen_s - 6/22/07 9:02 AM In reply to: I agree but disagree, ironically enough. by batman823Please see my comments under "Physics-6/21"; do not discount "minor" accidents. Sure I lived after a truck on car accident, but I have had constant pain every day since the accident. Do you really want to risk that result? Until you personally have been in an accident, you have no idea what your vehicle will protect. I didn't go out and buy a SUV although I was tempted, but I will never buy a plastic car or even a lightweight car. I too am angry about all the SUVs (and trucks) on the road but Americans will never allow limitations on their "right" to a SUV, so pragmatically, in 2007 we must buy in response to current market.
I understand your point.
by batman823 - 6/22/07 10:30 AM In reply to: Rear End Collision by sharen_sI have 2 ruptured discs and am currently taking 50mg of oxycontin each day just to maintain the pain level to a somewhat tolerable level. I feel your pain.
I know it's tough to deal with an injury when it's not your fault.
The point I was trying to make is that the siding of almost all cars provide no protection. The frame and cage are not as sturdy as they used to be, but they are still fairly rigid. I basically said that if the frames match in height, the neither car is likely to get smashed in low-speed collisions.
The difference between plastic and metal cars is really only in the siding. With the aluminum, plastic, or tin siding, it's really just to keep the weather out. They provide a housing for the windows, locks and controls but they fail to provide any protection in an accident.
I also made a point about giant cars/SUVs being on the road. I don't think that people should be able to drive giants like that for many reasons. Fuel economy is one reason. Inexperience with large vehicles is another. In general, people are just rude on the road and have little or no concern for their safety, or anybody else's for that matter.
Trucks are the safest vehicles on the road. They have more fail-safe safety features and better controls than most of the cars out there. The drivers also have to have specialized training and an extensive exam, including a thorough driving test, just to get that class C liscense.
But I am not stupid. I realize that you can't take the irresponsibility out of somebody with a school and a test. But for the general population, to include SUVs with the category of truckers, the realization of a higher responsibility occurs when people go through training. I think SUVs should require the same style of liscense to operate.
Truckers have to pay anywhere from 6-10 times the fine for the same violation that a car would get ticketed for. They also have driving regulations that cars do not. I would like to see large pickups and SUVs undergo the same process. This would prevent many accidents like yours, or worse ones. Even if not for safety, then for the fear of steep fines and jail time.
I agree that we have the right to drive an SUV. But we don't own the roads, the states do. So nobody has the right to do anything on the roads that the public or lawmakers oppose to. If you are a danger to others, you should not be on the roadways that we all share. With rising gas prices, people are gearing to more fuel efficient vehicles, which brings me to the original point. People, in general, don't have a conscience. They have no concern for their fellow man's safety or well-being. You get cut off or see somebody dirving recklessly every day. You don't see doctors and lawyers buying Nissan Sentras so they can afford to share their money with poor sailors like me. No yuppie in this hell-hole of a state would consider selling thier BMW X-5 to help the little old poor guy out, yet they still vote democrats in so they can feel like somebody's taking care of the "less fortunate"
Essentially, gas prices, and gas guzzler taxes actually applying to the yuppie-mobiles, are the only realistic ways of discouraging people from driving the civilian tanks. The wallet is the only place people can hurt now-a-days. That means the auto manufacturers should come up with more inventive ways to increase fuel efficiency. That means plastic siding, hybrids, smaller engines, lightweight chassis, and so on.
Once again, I not only empathize with your situation, but I am in a similar one. I am sorry for your pain. I hope there is more the doctors can do for you than they can do for me.
Agreed on SUV but not on conclusion
by sharen_s - 6/22/07 5:02 PM In reply to: I understand your point. by batman823Thanks, batman,for the good thoughts. No, I have suffered a "permanent and stable" partial disability from a "minor" accident. Did you know 20% of cervical sprain injuries result in permanent pain and 5% result in complete disability? Read the physics post on the weight difference between steel and plastic - there impact of the heavier reinforced vehicle has too go somewhere - so its into your body. Yes, you are right about most commercial drivers being safer but it only takes one to hit you or me. I also agree that SUVs (in a right thinking world) would be restricted to those who can prove need, BUT you know and I know that's not going to happen anytime in the next 10 years if at all. I reiterate, buy the heaviest vehicle your conscience can allow.
There are other points besides weight.
by batman823 - 6/25/07 6:44 AM In reply to: Agreed on SUV but not on conclusion by sharen_sI have read your response to 'physics' and that post, as you suggedted in two other posts. But there are many other points to consider.
I'll cover the spinal injuries first. Since you read my post, you know that I have a spinal injury as well. The two crushed discs are L4-L5 and L5-S1. I have done a lot of research and I understand that I'm in the lower portion, near that 5% but lumbar instead of cervical. But lumbar injuries are generally much more painful and continually get worse because most of your body's weight is supported by the bottom discs. The disadvantage to having a cervical injury as apposed to a lumbar one, is that you can lose a lot more from nerve damage. That's simply because the cervical spine is so much higher, containing nerve bundles for everything below the neck. It's rare that a person dies from a lumbar injury but it gets much more likely the higher up the injury gets.
But about the physics of the impact. I discussed, in detail, some of the factors that go into cars and the accidents. I am a nuclear engineer, so I'm fairly familiar with physics and material density. We have to understand plain physics before we get into nuclear physics and nuclear kinetics.
I completely understand your sentiment and your opinion. But it's a false sense of secutiry. If the frame and general construction of a car is very rigid and sturdy, the car/SUV will absorb little of the impact when greatly outweighed by a truck. You were driving a small car, and the crumpling effect of the body and chassis, as well as the crumple zones, are likely what saved your life. If you were driving a "legal urban civillian tank"(andy77e), your body would have been thrashed around much more violently because your car would have recieved alot more energy from the big-rig. This just means that your car would have accelerated faster, causing more force to be exerted against your body.
Trucks greatly outweigh any civilian vehicle. They will trash any vehicle that collides with them. The only thing you do when buying a large vehicle is protect yourself from collisions with vehicles smaller than your own. You widen that area. You sacrifice a little part of the planet and our descendants' future and a significant amount of your paycheck for a false sense of security.
Bigger cars are more likely to be in single car accidents and those are more deadly than most kinds of collisions. So in all reality, you're less safe in a bigger car than you are in a small one. That's one of the major reasons that insurance premiums are higher for larger vehicles. They have more expensive and bigger parts. They do more damage when they hit another car. And they are just more dangerous.
I sympathize with your situation but I have made the decision to go the other route. I bought a mid-size sedan that gets roughly 34mpg and has good crash-test ratings. I save a lot of money in fuel, isurance, and cost of the vehicle. I feel safe because I drive safe and because I know that my car is more maneuverable than "civilian tanks". I can more easily avoid or reduce the severity of a crash than any SUV out there. If an SUV makes a quick maneuver to avoid an accident, they are likely to roll over or go out of control. Smaller cars, on the other hand, tend to handle the quick turns and a skilled driver will maintain or regain control because of the low center of gravity.
I disagree with your choice of vehicle, but this is America. Buy whatever you want. I will be praying for your health and safety. You sound like a good person.
suv's
by wcoffey81 - 6/23/07 10:34 AM In reply to: I understand your point. by batman823i don't think anyone driving a tiny little car should be allowed to always blame the SUV's when something happens. you have simply made a different choice when buying transportation. if you don't want to get run over by a 4X4 suburban you have choices to make. one is don't drive at all take public transportation, another is to buy yourself a 4X4 surburban and car pool, can you get 8 people in your insight?? or do everyone a favor and move closer to where you work so you can walk or ride a bicycle. we are a nation af freedoms and choices so don't tell me what i can or can't drive!!!!!
Freedom rings
by batman823 - 6/25/07 7:12 AM In reply to: suv's by wcoffey81You are mistaken about your 'freedoms'. As of now, you have the privelage to drive on roads that the states own. I can tell you that you can't drive your rediculously oversized yuppie tank. But you don't have to listen. They are not fuel efficient and they are a danger to others. So I think you should not be allowed to drive it on a road that I have to share with people like you.
Since you believe so strongly in our inalienable rights, I'm going to tell you something. We all have the freedom of speech. We can say whatever we want, whenever we want, withing certain limits. But I can tell you that I think you're mistaken. I can tell you that you're misinformed, or that you're simply rude and ignorant. Be offended if you want, that's your right. But driving is not you right.
I agree that public trasportation, walking, bycicles, etc., are great for saving money and keeping cars off the road. But one thing that people assume is that it's their right to drive. It's merely a privelage and can be taken away. In a moments notice, a state can ban all vehicles that are top-heavy like your suburban. They can ban any vehicle for many reasons. The VW lupo gets excellent mileage but it's not allowed in the states because it didn't meet EPA emission standards. The EPA measures emissions by volume of fuel used, not by greenhouse gasses emitted vs miles traveled. It would make much more sense to measure them by the latter.
Any state can ban your suburban because it's top-heavy and danger to others. It can tell you as an individual that you can't drive if you are an unsafe driver.
Another point I wanted to touch on is size. The tiny car vs SUV thing exists for many reasons. People who drive SUVs are less attentive, their SUVs don't stop as fast, and when they do collide, they do much more damage. It's not fair to say that the accident is the SUV driver's fault, but it is fair to say that they kill and injur people because of the unnecessary size of their vehicle. They are being irresponsible economically, environmentally, and concerning safety.
But your suburban is no match for that 18-wheeler. So when you drive like you own the road because your SUV is bigger than the other cars around you, and you try to cut off that big-rig because you're so important, you deserve to and definitely will get crushed. But don't blame the truck driver, he has fewer blind spots than you do. He's not responsible for your actions and most truck-car accidents are the car's fault. The big-rigs belong on the road. In fact, one of them brought all of those cars to a dealership. They are required, your oversized, inconsiderate, murder-mobile is not required and should not be allowed on public roads.
But that's just my opinion and it's my right to express it. I'm sure you don't agree with my opinion, but as you said "we are a nation af freedoms and choices."
rings again
by wcoffey81 - 6/25/07 9:14 AM In reply to: Freedom rings by batman823i'm not offended at all by your post. you seem educated and make informed points about what you beleive in and so i find it kind of inspiring!
you are absolutly correct. i did lump driving into the "freedoms" column. we have the freedom to make the choice and because driving is regulated it is something we earn.
the other point i take is: that the size of the vehicle is not always the largest factor in accidents, it's what sits behind the wheel that counts. every motorized vehicle has the potential to be a deadly weapon and WE have lost sight of that! it's very unfortunate but when mistakes are made people die
i drive with the same respect no matter what i am behind the wheel of and i give far more than i take. i don't own a yuppie tank. right now i am driving a 4cyl fiero while my 1/2 ton two wheel drive chevy truck is being repaired
keep on ringing
by batman823 - 6/25/07 9:39 AM In reply to: rings again by wcoffey81I appreciate your honesty and compliments. I was wrong to assume you drove a suburban. You mentioned suburban a couple of times(or I may have mixed up your post with somebody else's) so I thought it was a safe assumption.
I agree with your most recent post completely. I do think I've thrown in a different point of view, but it betters the discussion. The principle behind the statement about the yuppie tank still stands. But I apologize for having pointed towards you.
For safety's sake, it's definitely the driver who's the danger.
For the economy, it's largely the construction and size.
Those two statements can be intertwined and widely discussed, but I think a lot of us are saying exactly that with a different bias.
suburban
by wcoffey81 - 6/25/07 11:36 AM In reply to: keep on ringing by batman823i do use the suburban as a point of reference because everyone can relate to the name and size. people just need to stand back and balance their driving habits. if mom is hauling 6 kids to football practice with all of their gear put them in the tank, but if it's only her going to pick up a few groceries or driving to work then there are far beeter choices.
i think the common sense gene has mutated because people just don't have it anymore.
school run
by colin1935 - 6/25/07 3:31 PM In reply to: suburban by wcoffey81I feel is the worst run anyone can make in a high vehicle as kids dart around outside schools maybe going to their Mothers car after school Tomorrow test for yourselves and see how tall a child has tobe for you to see them from your rear view mirror and wing mirrors that childs you can see willbe between 9and 11 younger ones donot stand a chance if you reverse to pass the car in front..
PLEASE..... OH PLEEEEEEAASSE
by batman823 - 6/26/07 5:03 AM In reply to: school run by colin1935I understand the point you are trying to make. I actually agree with it. But please read your post before you submit it. Please check your grammar and spelling before you click that button. None of us are perfect, but nobody takes you seriously when your post is hard to read. If I have to decipher a long post, I simply ignore it.
Spelling and grammar aside, use spaces and punctuation to separate your thoughts. I do so, and even for that fact alone, people read my posts and consider me intelligent. So if you actually want to be heard(read) then take a few extra seconds to make sure your posts are easier to read.
Is the small SUV running on air a better choice?
by TonyGuitar - 6/25/07 4:48 PM In reply to: suburban by wcoffey81Small S.U.V. for about $13K??
125 mile range
68 MPH speed
No gas or oil
No Battery Pack!
No I. C. Engine
** What*s it run on, hamsters in a wheel cage?
No, oh dubious one, Compressed air.
Made in France... Franchise also in India.
http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com
Compressed air motor runs like a steam motor without the heat or boiler.
Plug in a compressor at night instead of a batterypack charger. Drive all day.
MDI.lu [click UnionJack for English ]
I want one for around town. Wouldn*t you?
= TG
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
