Slashdot Mirror
Engineers Design Safer SUV
vex24 writes "Engineers from the Union of Concerned Scientists have unveiled blueprints for a "safer, more fuel efficient" SUV using "off-the-shelf technology". Looks like good stuff if the big automakers decide to pay attention."
I'm glad it was the Union of Concerned Scientists and not the Association of Technically Trained Busybodies doing this research.
Now someone just has to take the plans and use them, not just have them in concept design only. Would the oil and gas industries try to fight something like this? You betcha. If we ever got to a point where reducing gas/oil consumption here was a priority, we could not only save people financially, but reduce our need for foreign resources. But, we have corporate fiends who want to exploit people for profit, so I don't see these designs being put into use for a while.
C:\>
Engineers from the Union of Concerned Scientists have unveiled blueprints for a "safer, more fuel efficient" SUV using "off-the-shelf technology".
I didn't RTFA but I'm going to take a wild guess here that "safer" refers to improving the protection to the driver and not minimizing the damage/destruction/injury/death done to the poor, hapless soul who gets rammed by one of these overpowered vehicles when driven by a soccer-mom or yuppie chattering away on their cell phone.
GMD
watch this
Can you name the car with four-wheel-drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down.
It's a country-fried truck endorsed by a clown.
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Twelve yards long and two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports!
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super-high beam.
She a squirrel-squishin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's called a Minivan.
The lions share of SUVs are being sold, not to Off Road, not to climb every mountain, but to hold Mother and Child as they go to the market.
This may get some traction for people who actually use 4x4's to go offroad, or the people that need the trendiest of the trendy, but the very aspect of Fuel Efficiency pretty much gaurantees it's lighter, which means it's not going to be as sturdy in an accident, and thus, won't sell to the soccer mom market.
Safer to everyone else on the road, yes. Not the inhabitants however.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
"I, for one, welcome our new Hummer overlords"
"In the Soviet Union, UAZ you!"
"The new Suzuki Goatse. Your gateway to the back country".
"What could you do with a beowulf cluster of VW Touaregs'"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"Would the oil and gas industries try to fight something like this? You betcha"
Why would they fight something like this now when they have never before fought the production and use of vehicles that use much less gas?
The article mentions safety features to protect not only the driver of the SUV, but other drivers as well (lower bumpers). It does not minimize the threat of a moron behind the wheel on their cell phone, which often happens in smaller vehicles as well. Today, had I assumed that a young female yapping on her cell phone and reaching for something across the car was going to stop and let me walk across the street (as required by drivers on campus), I would have been run down and unable to post this.
C:\>
"Concept-form only" means that we have no idea how safe this vehicle will actually be. SUVs are already safer than most vehicles. The rollover danger you hear about only make up a small fraction of accidents, and can be avoided by safe driving practices.
The Government should not be making decisions about which vehicles consumers can choose to drive. Politicians get sidetracked about actual safety of vehicles because environmentalists spread misinformation about safety. This sort of thing kills people. If you would like the US to start using less fossil fuels, the price of gas will have to go up. This can be done with a tax. It will also happen inevitably when world oil supplies start to run out. It is possible that we have already hit world peak oil production in 2000. Like, that's all, folks.
New defenition for combining intuitively obvious, annoying, and foolish.
Intuitively obvious: lower bumpers on SUVs, I didnt need to have my car totaled to learn that one.
annoying: set-belt indicators that beep, its annoying enough when the indicator flashes at you.
foolish: describing this SUV as more fuel efficient than the explorer (21.2 mpg for explorer, 27.8 for guardian).
you are now free to mod me as flamebait.
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
Just making SUV's that weren't jacked way up would help a lot. There's lots of models of SUV's that are really tall but have the same or less ground clearance than a Subaru Outback station wagon--which is nice and low like a normal sedan. A taller SUV or truck is supposed to look intimidating, not add any real function. I am not always able to resist the urge to point and laugh at the grocery store when some slob's trying to load groceries into some huge "little dick compensator" SUV or fullsized Dodge pickup monstrosity. Especially when I'm with my friend in his little Ford Ranger--the bed's nearly a foot lower than theirs and yet the Ranger's probably got them beat for ground clearance. Alas, even work trucks are being hit by the higher/more agressive = more sales BS. Comparing my friend's 1990 Ranger to a 2002, the 2002 is appreciably taller but has a half an inch less ground clearance, and looking at what Ford's done to the F150 for 2004 just makes me want to cringe--they don't even offer it with a V6 anymore.
Of course, ground clearance only matters if you're driving offroad or on really bad roads, not anytown suburbia where 99.9% of all SUV's reside. Even then, my POS Oldsmobile sedan's been fine on most of the logging roads and desert washboards it's seen.
I'd design the new vehicle with a short range, directional cellphone jammer that would prevent cell phones being used from the driver's seat while the car is any gear other than 'park'!
:)
I'd also consider some kind of IR based ranging device that would make sure the person's head is within a certain location to ensure, at least, they their head is above the level of the dashboard and roughly centered with the steering wheel. If not, a very loud and obnoxious tone will be emitted from the sound system and the cell phone jammer will block phone being used ANYWHERE in the vehicle.
Alternatively, I'd settle for a cell jammer that I can mount on my car and aim at other vehicles... just for the fun of it of nothing else.
=Smidge=
That's really the key paragraph.
Folks, it's easy to snipe at something you know nothing about. Thing is, it's one thing to design something on paper. It's quite another to have something that can actually be built and pass the stringent safety standards of both the US and Europe.
That "efficient engine" may fail to meet acceleration guidelines, or noise guidelines, or emissions guidelines, or who knows what else. And no matter what, since a full car cycle from initial idea through design through testing to actual models in the showroom can easily be five years (and maybe more), this "blueprint" isn't really competing with the cars of today, but the cars of five(+) years from now. In fact, I would not be at all surprised that the cars entering the design phase now in the real automakers are superior to this group of "Concerned Scientists" in every significant way.
There's no conspiracy in the auto industry; they are just selling the cars people want that meet government standards, and a whole lot of other concerns to. (A car is less complicated in most ways then the largest computer programs but they are still not trivial and require a lot more components to be working at ~95%+ of theoretical efficiency to function properly; cars have long since diminishing returns whereas software developers routinely accelerate their routines by factors of 100 or more with an hour's work.)
It's easy to design a car that doesn't have to be driven and score rhetorical points. It's even easier to be a bystander that knows nothing about car design and assume that this new design is being "suppressed". Making cars that meet all of the requirements of the government AND the market AND making a profit, now that's hard.
I read the artical. Not much there, don't waste time on it...
That said, this appears to be a one size fits none situation. It assumes that SUVs are only about appearence and image. So it gives you a bunch of things that make the SUV useless off road. (as if most were not already useless off road, but that is a different topic). It assumes you only uses it for people or light cargo.
Unibody has advantages and disadvantages. For a car the compromise is different than for a truck. SUVs sit in the middle, sometimes you need the full frame under for a task, and other times you don't. Guess what, you can already buy small SUVs with unibody construction. They are all image machines with no SUV abilities that I would want, but you can get them.
Note that some things are a good idea. I like the idea of seat belts that lock in a roll-over. Side airbags again are a good idea - IF they don't harm children. I like that idea in cars, trucks, mini-vans, buses, SUVs, and semis.
The buzzer until everyone is buckeled up is a stupid idea. Everyone has it in their car, and everyone hates it. Those who don't buckle up because it just annoys them for 10 seconds, those who do because there are many times where you start the car before buckling up. (My habbit is to let oil pressure stablize for the time it takes to buckle before driving) Note that their design calls for seat belts that buzz until everyone buckles up. That has been tried, and turns out tha everyone includes that package in the passanger seat too big for the seat belt to reach around, so you get the annoying buzzer distracting the driver (dangerious) for the entire trip. Those that never wear their seat belt will just disconnect this, or buckle all the seat belts in the car and never unbuckle them.
Speaking of seatbelt buzzers that don't turn off. There are times when wearing a seat belt is dangerious. Never wear a seat belt while driving on a frozen lake. If the car breaks through the time it takes to get a seat belt off could be the difference between getting out of the car while it is floating, and having to figgure out how to get out and up while it is under water.
You can buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee with Unibody construction right now. Great off road (no Wrangler or Range Rover, but still better than an Explorer or Tahoe).
So to say that unibody SUV's are all image with no ability is wrong, unless you are only referring to cargo capacity. In that case, get a van.
I've got it, here's how we'll build a safer SUV. Go get a pencil, I'll wait.
We start with a ordinary huge ass gas guzzling urban assault vehicle. Lower it way down to the ground, put smaller tires on it, cut off the huge cow-catcher bumpers so it won't mangle the Pinto you just ran over, shrink the frame so it'll fit in a parking spot and save weight, and put in a smaller engine. Perfect!
I call it a "car".
--riney
I always wanted just one thing: One big neon sign on my rear window, that I can program with whatever message I wanted at the moment.
My most used macro would probably be:
HANG UP THE DAMN PHONE AND STEP ON THE GAS, YOU MORON!
I *hate* people who get on the freeway at 40 MPH just because they want to concentrate on their phone conversation. And I can't even give them a dirty look, I got tinted windows!
repeat after me... the only thing that should replace those damned SUV are the smart...
Remove the magnetron and power unit from your microwave and mount behind the grille in the front of your car. Switch that on and you can jam just about anything with 800-1000W of 2.4GHz microwave goodness. You don't have to be too close to scramble their phone /car's ECU / brain with *that*! That'll fuck 'em!
Caution : do not aim at face, or operate in any area where you could be mistaken as a SAM launch site.
(Incidentally , I vaguely recall the UK police were trialling microwave 'guns' that would have the same effect on car's ECU's. Dunno if anything ever came of it though)
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
He was talking about how his vehicle was safer for his family. I mentioned the Child Killers that he had fitted, and he never spoke to me again after that. However, with that kind of attitude, I don't miss him.
Those of us that use SUVs for the 'U' part would prefer that you don't make them useless, thank you. When you can't afford to have multiple vehicles, it's nice to have a vehicle that you can fit either several sheets of plywood or four passengers in. You can't do that with a pickup (4 door extended cab with a 3' bed isn't a truck) or sedan, and you can't drive a mini-van at a job site (that's off-road, folks).
Instead of phyhsically transforming SUVs into pure status symbols (instead of them just being such in practice), why not teach people how to drive them safely? Your vehicle weighs more than 4000 lbs? You should need special training and a special license. Your bumper more than 18" off the ground? Yet other special training and licensing. I'm sure states would love to collect the additional fees, and the need for the training will reduce the number of vehicles on the road while increasing (at least slightly) the safety of the ones that are out there. Best of all, those of us that do actual work with our SUVs won't be stuck in a world where an SUV is a station wagon with big tires.
Well at least they got the fuel efficient part right ;-P
..........FULL STOP.
We live in the country off 2 miles of dirt road that tends to turn impassible in poor weather. A 4WD with high ground clearance is essential if we need to get to/from our home. Add to this that we often carry my brothers kids with us (his 3 plus our 3) means we need to seat 8 people for an average of 3-4 days / week.
If my wife wants to do any grocery shopping while she is in town then nothing short of a suburban will do. The alterantive of making multiple trips is simply silly and would use more fuel anyway.
If anyone can build a vehicle that meets my needs without the disadvantages I will buy it - till then I wish people would think before they dismiss SUVs out of hand.
KK4SFV
800-1000W of 2.4GHz microwave goodness. You don't have to be too close to scramble their phone /car's ECU / brain with *that*!
You'll scramble the DRIVER's brain with that. Hell, you'll probably scramble your OWN brain when two-thirds of the wattage reflects off their trunk and back into your face.
Kilowatt magnetrons certainly make for entertaining toys, but they are also a good way to win a Darwin Award.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"If they can build this Guardian, why don't they do it?" said Shosteck, with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It's nice to put something in blueprint form, but we have to build vehicles that go on pavement."
Because, your master will do to it what it did to mass transit back in the 50s, you corporate lapdog.
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
Heh. I can explain all of that.
Manual transmissions aren't prevalent in the US becuase drivers here are too stupid to use them. We are all too stupid to use them because of the poor drivers' education we receive in public schools. Most of the drivers' education in the US is taught by athletics coaches. These are mostly football coaches who aren't qualified to teach any subjects other than driving, yet are required to be teachers in order to coach. These are the same football coaches who are also instrumental in fielding the US military with healthy, attentive, destructive, well-trained 18-year-olds. Said 18-year-old destructo-autometons maintain the US military hegemony over the rest of the world, especially the Middle-East. US military dominance ensures us the upper-hand in international trade relations and guarantees that the Dollar is the currency of choice to back foreign banks. Said economic and military factors work to reduce the cost of foreign goods to USians, especially oil.
It's a vicious cycle.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The politicians are afraid of the people who drive these things and they will do nothing to mandate more fuel efficiency nor safety (unless it's the SUV's occupants).
SUV's have been around since the 60's. Chevy Suburbans and Blazers have been made for over 30 years, it's only when they've become some kind of bizarre status symbol has the popularity soared. I resist taking them off the roads because of the 5% that actually *need* these monsters.
Makes you wonder the price of this status... while filling up my 30+mpg Jetta the other day, the previous customer left their receipt. It was $39. That's what I spend in a month on gas!
The politicians are afraid of the people who drive these things and they will do nothing to mandate more fuel efficiency nor safety (unless it's the SUV's occupants).
This fear that you mention is strogest at a national level. Local politicians aren't typically afraid of they're consitiuents, in fact they're typically members of the vocal minority. That's why I think the training and license programs can work; they wouldn't be introduced at the national level. Of course, you'd have a problem introducing such a plan in areas where the politicians are the same types of people that drive these things for status, but if you start where it's easy the idea should gain support - even in areas where initially it would be less popular. It worked with boating regulations...
Yes, it's their, not they're... Gah. Need to proofread better....
Seriously, the current "ooh, big" trend may have gotten out of hand in large cities, but there are many people with valid reasons to have SUVs in this country.
Here in Appalachia, there are many sub-par roads, and much bad weather. It's amazing how all those people I know who think it's weird, impractical, or politically incorrect to own an SUV or truck mysteriously forget all their objections when they need me to help them move furniture, etc. with my truck, or when our lovely winter weather means they can't get to the grocery store and I can. After years of driving a truck, hauling more passengers may be nice, so my next vehicle in a few years may be an SUV because I'm not willing to give up the conveniences of the truck form factor to seat those few extra passengers, or to live without 4 wheel drive in these mountains.
And if I had children? An SUV for me, as minivans scrape the pavement on uneven hilly drives.
What I'm really waiting for is for GM to get in gear and put out a hybrid truck and a hybrid SUV. Yeah!
(flame retardant suit duly donned.)
"'d also consider some kind of IR based ranging device that would make sure the person's head is within a certain location to ensure.."
As in, not up their ass?
What about when black men drive SUV's? In our case it can't possibly be to compensate for little dicks...
Also what about sportscars? Are they no longer little dick compensators?
Or could it be, that the self-righteous think they know whats best for the entire world can't stand it when anyone chooses to drive a non-average car?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Why are bullbars called child killers?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Before we begin I have to ask do you get dizzy from being so high up on your horse when looking down on others?
Ok how can you suggest a mini-cooper to somene who is possibly interested in a SUV? They're polar opposites. A Mini-Cooper is tiny and weak with the SUV being big and small. Subaru Outbacks look too much like station wagons. Not masculine enough.
Next I have no problem with SUV owners being taxed and insured at higher rates due to their higher usage of gas and rates of accidents. No problem, I'll still drive a SUV.
Now lets get onto the topic of NEED. We're in the United States of America. Its citizens are independent and free to own what they want. You don't need to have a reason for buying any type of vehicle. If I wanted to buy a 16 wheeler rig for suburban driving, I can do that. I suppose no one should buy or live in a 5000sqft home because they don't NEED that much space or not everyone should live in the suburbs because no one NEEDS to be so isolated from their neighbors or no one should be able to recieve cable television because no one NEEDS 300 channels and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong with conspicious consumption. There is something wrong however with elitist attitudes which lead some to think they know whats best for everyone else.
Lastly where do you get your demographic assumptions from? First SUV's are for those with little dicks now their owners buy cheesy poofs and diet pepsis. I have don't eat that stuff and my dick isn't small. Then you go on to suggest a sports car which is the very height of hypocrisy considering that sports cars were the class of vehicle with the honor of having the distinction of being the car for men with little dicks, people going thru mid-life crises and those who wish to keep up with the joneses.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.