Slashdot Mirror
When the US Government Built Ultra-Safe Cars
Jalopnik has a piece on a mostly forgotten piece of automotive history: the US government built a fleet of ultra-safe cars in the 1970s. The "RSV" cars were designed to keep four passengers safe in a front or side collision at 50 mph (80 kph) — without seat belts — and they got 32 miles to the gallon. They had front and side airbags, anti-lock brakes, and gull-wing doors. Lorne Greene was hired to flack for the program. All this was quickly dismantled in the Reagan years, and in 1990 the mothballed cars were all destroyed, though two prototypes survived in private hands. "Then-NHTSA chief Jerry Curry [in 1990] contended the vehicles were obsolete, and that anyone who could have learned something from them had done so by then. Claybrook, the NHTSA chief who'd overseen the RSV cars through 1980, told Congress the destruction compared to the Nazis burning books. ... 'I thought they were intentionally destroying the evidence that you could do much better,' said [the manager of one of the vehicles' manufacturers]."
Is that even real? Most cars from that era I remember hearing about got a solid 8 MPG...
That is in part because most cars from the 70s were running on tremendously inefficient engines - and were rather heavy. The car in question was quite light, and ran on a 4 cylinder Honda engine.
In other words, while many of the Detroit engineers were still looped up on dope and not concerned about terrible mileage, the government managed to find someone with the foresight to build an efficient (and safe) car.
That said, I used to drive a car that was built in Dearborn Michigan in 1978 that got a solid 20mpg. Not bad for a car with a carb.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Generally agreeing, but... in current cars, the firewall is designed to hold the engine when it gets pushed back in a frontal crash. It is an essential part of a force path leading into the tunnel structure and, via the firewall cross-beams, into the frame side members, thereby keeping the passenger cell intact. If the intrusion goes further than that, the engine is to be deflected at a downward angle, keeping the footwells mostly intakt. There is no real problem there. In fact, conversions from gas to electric, which are missing the front engine, have the problem that this force path is not there any more. That said, I am gray with envy for that Delorean!
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
You jest, but while "water burning carburetors" are up there with "magnetic ley-line energy", water injection is actually real and practical especially in forced-induction engines. It essentially converts your car engine partially into a steam engine, using the latent heat of vaporisation to cool the high-pressure intake air (increasing thermodynamic efficiency) without lowering the pressure (increasing overall boost and forced induction mechanical efficiency).
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
The engine was from a 1977 Honda Accord. The 1976 Honda Accord had a 0-60 time of 13.8 s. source. Not spectacular, but it's less than 8 percent of your suggestion.
Engineers shouldn't exaggerate.
There are dozens of cars from the late 70s with that kind of mileage:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-high-mpg-cars-1978-1981/
Not the least of which being the Toyota Corolla, the most popular car of all time. I used to have a Mazda 323 from 1980 or so that got 45 mpg at 55mph or less, which was great until I ruined it by changing the oil and not tightening the plug sufficiently.
And, given the choice between "unimpressive performance" and "living to see your children grow up," it's amazing people continue to be so shortsighted. Investment in vehicle safety could save far more lives than the war on terror.
Lifetime chance of dying in a car accident: 1 in 83
Lifetime chance of dying of terrorist acts: 1 in 45,000
Lifetime chance of dying of a lightning strike: 1 in 80,000
http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized
Watch the movie: "Who Killed the Electric Car". The original EV1 made by GM in the 1990's had a brilliant design and several very advanced (for it's time) features. not only did they take them all back, they destroyed every one. i, for one, believe the conspiracy. they just don't want us to know how awesome cars can actually be.
If you look into the history of the Arrow, you'll find that the soviets had infiltrated Avro pretty heavily and the secrets they stole including specific Titanium parts appeared in the MiG-25.
So if you want to talk conspiracy theory at least get the right one.
If you want to talk about shaking folks out of complacency and need a plane analogy try Burt Rutan's Starship, first plane to be built with Carbon Fiber, All Glass cockpit, typical Rutan Wings, Winglets, Pusher Props and Canards... FAA wouldn't certify the plane for years, and now everybody uses some or all of these technologies.
For Car analogies try all the Big 3 and other car companies that told Elon Musk of Tesla motors he couldn't build a full electric vehicle, because they couldn't do it. Toyota (Prius and Electric RAV4) just gave Tesla $50 million to help Toyota with their new electric vehicles.
Those who have watched the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" know that industry and politics will conspire to do what's profitable, not what's good policy.
That might be true, but it's also the case that they understate the technical limitations keeping pure electric vehicles off the road. Some of these (batteries, fuel cells, motors) are only just now reaching into the realm of practicality.
A good response to Who Killed the Electric Car is a blog entry from a few years ago, Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car.
Both sides make good points, but this is hardly a case of the Evil Oil Conspiracy covering up the 100 MPG carburetor.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Actually, Tucker was accused of fraud. He was operating on a shoe-string, compared to the Big 3, and some minor problems with his display model were blown way out of proportion. Then he was accused of insider stock trading by the SEC, which was never proven even though they tried him more than once. It was dirty politics all the way as his major political opponent, who pushed for all the investigations, was a Senator from Michigan with close ties to the Big 3.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Please. There's also a vast number of people (the majority in the South and Midwest) who vote against their financial best interests because Jesus told them to stop abortions.
Your ad here. Ask me how!