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:\>
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.
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:\>
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.
Never wear a seat belt while driving on a frozen lake.
Which conveniently fits the law "never drive on a frozen lake".
Um, in some places in Alaska and Canada, frozen rivers and lakes are part of the road in winter.
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
SUVs are already safer than most vehicles
What part of "triple the fatality rate for rollovers", "poorer handling", and "longer stopping distance" did you not understand? SUVs are not safer than most vehicles, that's the whole point of all this madness.
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.
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
SUVs [...] are the safest vehicles on the road when judged by the only statistic that matters: occupant fatality rate.
This is exactly the mentality that angers me most about SUV drivers. The only statistic that matters is how likely are they to die. The poor stopping distance, poor handling, higher center of gravity, and larger blindspots on the sides of SUVs add up to a less stable vehicle that is more likely to get into accidents with other vehicles. Worse, their excess weight, high bumpers, and battering-ram ladder frame design makes them more likely to injure other drivers.
Safety is not a one-way street. Driving on the highway should not have to be an arms race.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Correction: People are idiots. They are also assholes. You are both if you purchase an SUV when you don't need one to clear large road obstacles. Why? Because you are ruining the world both for you now, and everyone else now and later. You are consuming more than your share of fossil fuels. In addition, SUVs are more likely to be in single-car accidents than other types of vehicles. Given that you don't drive over large obstacles, you would be much better off in a minivan, but you probably didn't want to be seen in one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"