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]."
People consistently rant that newer cars don't seem to be getting significantly better mileage ratings than older vehicles.
Problem is you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison because in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the EPA changed the standards for the mileage test to be more realistic (more stringent).
For example, in the old EPA tests, you could run your test without the air conditioner running even if the car had it. New EPA tests require that the AC is run for a certain portion of the test unless the car doesn't have any AC unit.
Also, in general, engine power outputs have gone up significantly since the 1980s and mid-1990s while keeping the same gas mileage.
So a vehicle that scored 32MPG in the 1970s might only be able to score 20-25 MPG on the new EPA tests.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"Current cars the engine get's shoved into the firewall which then has a chance to crumple the footwell area that your feet are in."
The engines are up-front to absorb impact energy and function as part of the overall structure. This IMO works very well (I do lots of vehicle salvage and get to cut up wrecks using a Sawzall) and I'd rather have a drivetrain up front than a "trunk". Some engine mounts incorporate aluminum members whose controlled failure absorbs energy while guiding the drivetrain where it should go.
Have a look at large salvage yards if you get the chance. The WAY vehicles behave in crashes is interesting.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
How does that make sense? The conspiracy required for the type of scheme you're describing would mean that the Japanese, American, Korean, and European automakers would all have to be colluding to keep this stuff out of their vehicles. It's also why imports have been routing American cars for so many years -- they've had a lot more of this kind of stuff than American cars. Though one possible reason for that is that they have more money to throw around, since it costs a lot more to design and build a car in the US, thanks to the UAW.
This may finally be changing thanks to Ford, whose new Focus and Mustang are both noteworthy accomplishments in terms of features, performance, and safety, but I don't buy the argument that 'the government should've been in the car business all along and a Reagan/Republican/Auto company conspiracy is the only reason they weren't.'
There have been (and still are) a lot of government-run car companies over the years. You won't see many of the cars they produce today because they're typically totalitarian and/or socialist regimes that make them, and they're usually rubbish. The auto industry in the US (and in most of the industrialized world) is very heavily regulated, with a couple thousand dollars added to the cost of most cars to pay for all the stuff we're requiring the auto companies to do over the next few years. That's not a bad trade-off for a lot of people.
I bought my first real car in 2002, sold it in 2004 to move to NYC, and just bought a new car a couple months ago after leaving the city. It's amazing how much has changed just in that time. Up until very recently, I would never have thought of buying an American car (I never have) but hopefully that will change, though I suspect it'll be Ford and not GM driving that change.
Do some research at what the Big Three did to Tucker in the late 40's. He had a car that would do 120 mph, a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs and had 116 bhp and 372 ft-lbs of torque, 0-60 times around 10 secs, got 20 mpg, had disk brakes, 4-wheel independent suspension, and great aerodynamics--drag coefficient of .27, along with many major safety innovations.
Tucker was decades ahead of his of time in car design and features. He envisioned 15 minute engine swaps if you had engine problems.
My old man lived in Michigan during that time and had brothers living and working in the Detroit car business. They all swore the Big 3 ran Tucker out of business, and were still talking about what happened to Tucker in the 60's. That's how I learned about Tucker automobiles as 10 year old kid.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Newt Gingrich made a "Contract with America". 10 bullet points that he kept on a card on a string around his neck (for the two minutes it took to show it to the cameras that one day).
He totally failed to live up to it, too. But what got him thrown out of office was a scam involving "selling" copies of his book in bulk to people who really just wanted to donate more than the legally allowed amount of money to his campaign.
So contracts and politicians are immiscible. Better to saddle them up daily and ride them with the pointy spurs on until they go where you tell them to.
I watched the Reagan administration destroy the large Carter administration solar power program at JPL in 1981, so this does not surprise me at all. They literally did not want any competition for petroleum.
I want that guy's name off of National Airport in the worst way.
Actually, the "Contract with America" was an agreement to bring 10 things up for a vote. I'm not sure what the pass/reject rate was, but they (the Republicans) did live up to that part.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
"I'm an American living in the US, I vote Democrat (usually), and I drive a Chevy. So there."
In regards to parent post, your statement simply backs up his. General Motors, the maker of your Chevy, is also the company investigated in the documentary of which parent speaks.
The Saturn EV1 was created by General Motors in response to California's new requirement that a certain amount of new vehicles sold in the state be ELECTRIC vehicles. GM created the EV1 as a precursor for cars they intended to sell. But then GM realized that profits would be low and found it more profitable to simply lobby against the laws and have them changed. They did so...then crushed all the evidence of the technology they had produced(they literally crushed all the EV1s they had leased out)--technology that in today's market would have prevented them needing a bailout (the Saturn EV1 would have been selling like hotcakes a couple of years ago).
This a perfect example of the general stock-holder's preference of "This will be good for us in the long run..." taking the back-seat to "I want my money now!"--a mindset that has driven yet another company into the ground, not to mention completely subverting the lawful, good-intentioned, will of the people (less smog, less reliance on foreign oil, etc).
This sole fact, the entire Saturn EV1 charade, is the main reason I did NOT think GM deserved a bailout. They should have been marketing cars like the EV1 years ago(and NOW!), yet still cling to such over-priced, gimmick-infested cars like the Cobalt. STILL, even after we bailed them out.
Grrrr.
Am i the only guy in the world here who can see that government regulation has contributed to the lack of doctors in the US?
Probably, because you made that up. The US has 2.50 doctors per 1000 people. England has 2.30, and France has 3.3 per 1000 citizens.
I HATE it when people complain how free markets fail and they point to very regulated industries like medicine or banking. I mean the banking industry is the most regulated this side of child porn, yet all those laws and oops still another crises every ten years.
In the 19th Century there were Panics about every ten years. Then there was the Great Depression, and virtually no banking failures until the Savings & Loan scandals of the 80s, which were caused by deregulation of savings and loan banks. The current banking crisis can be directly traced back to repealing Glass Steagall, which was done in 1999 with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Glass Steagall kept the US free of major bank failures for 70 years.
The Canadian Banking system, which is actually regulated, suffered virtually no bank failures, and is now voted the soundest in the world.
In summary, you are flat wrong. Strong government regulation has a long history of success, because it's the only way you can create a market. Markets depend on rules, just like physics. When the rules are not enforced and not followed, there is too much uncertainty, and that almost always leads to a crash once people return to reality. There can be no accountability without enforcement, and no enforcement without regulation.