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]."

Comments

I wonder what they did with the...

[Anonymous Coward]

...flying cars!

it's the love child

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

of an AMC Pacer and a Delorean

Re:it's the love child

[methano]

I thought the same thing. I first thought of the gremlin, but when I looked it up, I saw that it wasn't rounded enough. I remembered a really nice looking undergrad that worked in our lab in graduate school. She seemed very unapproachable except that she drove a Pacer. So that meant we could make fun of her and she suddenly seemed human again.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[maxume]

They could have combined things like fantastically expensive construction (to make them very light) and unimpressive performance.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[damn_registrars]

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.

Not the first time either

[Drakkenmensch]

Just look at the near fanatical destruction of the blueprints and prototypes of the canadian supersonic Avro Arrow combat jet back in the 50's. This car design getting buried is clearly another case of someone not wanting anyone to manufacture a competing model that could shake the current makers out of their lowest common denominator complacency.

Re:Not the first time either

[Aquitaine]

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.

Re:Not the first time either

[fiannaFailMan]

Nobody in the 1970s was all that interested in a "safe" car except maybe a very small minority. And while these cars might have been safe, nobody is talking about what they cost or what sort of performance they had.

The "right" thing probably would have been for the US Government to nationalize the Big Three automakers and mandate that nobody could buy anything except an official US Government produced car. They could have then made the cars safe and high mileage. Nobody would have anything to compare them to and if they cost $50,000 each that would have just further reduced the dependence on automobiles. The could have used the highways right-of-way for rail lines and torn up most of the concrete.

All we really need is a truely benvolent dictator to tell us what the right way is and shove it down everyone's throats. We might actually be on the road to that, especially if the carbon tax goes through. We won't have to worry about consumer choice anymore - all of those complex decisions will be made for us.

Be careful what you wish for, in a Progressive/Liberal government world you just might get it.

Oh gimme a fucking break. A couple of safety or mileage regulations do not equate to a government takeover of all of society and dictatorship installed in place of elected government. You people have been listening to too much Glenn Beck. Knock it off!

Re:Not the first time either

[$RANDOMLUSER]

The Volkswagon Beetle was a mandated car, developed by a conservative benevolent dictator government, and it didn't turn out so bad - the car, that is.

Re:Not the first time either

[Tekfactory]

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.

Re:Not the first time either

[MsGeek]

I wouldn't exactly call him either conservative (he was a radical corporatist) or harmless. He and Josef Stalin decimated the population of Europe between them.

Re:Not the first time either

[ffreeloader]

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.

Re:Not the first time either

[sgrover]

As an aside, there is a group in Calgary, Alberta, who have re-engineered the Arrow from pictures and whatever sources could be gleaned. Enough sources were found to start the A.V. Roe Canada Heritage Museum (http://www.avromuseum.ca - hmm, seems the domain name has expired or been hijacked. Some images can be seen at http://www.actionhobby.ca/index.php?q=/node/541). This group is in the process of building a 2/3rd scale piloted replica of the Arrow. The fuselage, nose, tail fin, and I think the wings are done. Work is progressing on the internal elements. The Arrow will fly again in the next few years.

Re:Not the first time either

[St.Creed]

The VW was mandated by Hitler. And, not to cast aspirations on the left wing of any current political party, but Hitler was a leftist.

He was the head of the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party, which was very left-wing, anti-corporate, by the standards of the day. Of course, that didn't stop Hitler and his band of criminals from charming corporations when it suited their interests. But please, use proper english. "Conservative" and "benevolent" are two words that should never be applied to Adolph Hitler.

Are talking about the guy that smashed the workers organisations, physically eliminated the entire left wing in Germany and wherever he could find them, killed everyone that was even remotely considered to be aligned with the left (writers, artists, intellectuals etc. and in general killed just about everyone who disagreed with him) all the while providing slave labor to corporations who had funded him liberally? Because if you are, i have to wonder if your use of the term "left-wing" actually has any meaning in common with what the rest of the world uses that word for.

And while there certainly is a discussion possible about the leftist sympathies of the rank and file within the SA, the night of the long knives made very sure that those ideas could never become a factor in the party. That fact alone should provide a clue what Hitlers priorities were.

Re:Not the first time either

[ffreeloader]

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.

Re:Not the first time either

[jafac]

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 - out of control executive compensation.

There. Fixed that for you.

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.

Like Volkswagen. Which began as a government-mandated design; forced by an oppressive socialist-labeled (yet fascist-acting) regime. The VW beetle was produced from 1953 to, I think 1999 (in Mexico). It was the most popular and successful car in the history of the car. If you know anything about them, you know that the basic design concepts worked out by Ferdinand Porsche in the late 1930's did not change in any significant way until the 1973 Super Beetle. And STILL, it was pretty much the same car. It spawned many variations, including the military kubelwagen personnel carrier, the amphibious schwimmwagen, the Karmann-Ghia sports model, the various "type 3" models, the evil and enigmatic microbus, the Myers Manx dune buggy was based off of it, and Formula V racing was spawned from that mighty 4-banger aircooled.
My '72 got 35 mpg on the highway.

I wouldn't want the government being in the car manufacturing/selling business. (because of the inherent power to issue currency, which is very often abused, they should not be involved in commerce in that way).

But there's nothing magical about a private corporation that makes them automatically better at something. Smart people designed cars for GM. Smart people also designed these cars for the government. Smart people figured out safety devices; stupid people wrote legislation to force it in a way that did more harm than good. Smart people designed the Boeing 737. Stupid people wrote legislation that makes it take longer to process through an airport than it does to fly to the destination. Smart people also designed the F-16 for General Dynamics, for the government. (and Smart people working at NASA, worked out the basics of wing aerodynamics, used in BOTH of these planes, and many many others, long beforehand.)

Yay, smart people!
Boo, stupid people.
Boo, knee-jerk, irrational, idealistic pro-and-anti-government arguments.

Re:Not the first time either

[Shihar]

Everything you describe also more or less perfectly describes Stalinist Russia as well. Both Stalin and Hitler merrily killed leftist and intellectuals, broke unions, funneled work, funds, and slaves to corporations controlled by his buddies, and used corporations as an apparatus of the state. The only differences is that Hitler at least kept up the vague pretense that corporations were not state property (they were) while Stalin didn't. It isn't worth getting into a pissing match between who was more evil, but the difference between the two in terms of policy was almost nil and generally cosmetic.

A totalitarian dictator is a totalitarian dictator. Assigning them some sort of left/right allegiance is pointless. They are all the same. They just vary slightly in rhetoric (and even then, not that much).

I've heard of that car before...

[Tumbleweed]

It's the one that also got 100mpg due to the fuel vaporizing carburetor. :)

32MPG - old rating or new?

[Andy Dodd]

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.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[Skarecrow77]

I think you might be surprised if you look into what the economy commuter cars from the 70s and 80s actually got.

They were lighter, and had smaller/less powerful engines.

"30mpg!" has been about the average for good mileage for a long time now. Every time we hit a new development in engine technology that'll give us a more effecient engine, we either use it to make more horsepower with the same given displacement, or the government mandates some other safety/emissions technology that pulls us right back down again.

I'm not saying that we (well, the auto industry) can't do better. Of course they can. Europe has turbodeisel deathboxes that get 70+ mpg. I'm saying that we, as americans, don't WANT better gas mileage. We want the huge rwd musclecar with the 7liter V8, or the tricked out awd import pushing 21psi through what might otherwise be an effecient 4banger.

Note, My father did own one of those "8mpg" 70s cars. It was a 71 challenger with a built 440 with a radical cam and solid lifters in it. it had about 500hp BEFORE the 300hp nitrous shot, and it had 4.90 gears in back. If you know anything about cars, you know that the above is about as bad a reciepe you can have for gas mileage short of towing a boat behind it (which he also did. my dad was a crazy guy), and it took all that to get down to 8mpg.

St Reagan Scuttled Success? Shocking.

[coaxial]

When you elect people that axiomatically believe that government can't do anything right, you get people that intentionally do government badly. Whether it's automobile safety, maintaining an a healthy and stable economy, or maintaining worker and environmental safety standards.

You wouldn't hire a janitor that said he was morally opposed to cleanliness and didn't believe that brooms worked. Why would you be shocked when everything goes to hell when you hire someone that says they don't believe government?

act of treason

[zugedneb]

If government develops things, then it is tax payer money.

If what was developed gets distroyed, or hidden for no apparent reason, other than lobby or corporate pressure than that is TREASON.
TREASON is punishable by death...

Since one can not become politician on "competence" only, but on slimyness mostly, one has to accept he fact that the governors are not thinking like sane and technical minded people do... We have to accept this, and then find ways to live with it by regulating it :-) (i love that word)

To regulate this, I propose the introduction of death penalty for incompetence at political missions and corruption...

Re: act of treason

[Black Parrot]

If what was developed gets distroyed, or hidden for no apparent reason, other than lobby or corporate pressure than that is TREASON.

The Reagan campaign committed treason with Iran in order to get him elected. You can hardly expect a baseline of good government after that.

Re: act of treason

[zugedneb]

I am not from USA, but Sweden...

Look what the swedish have done with Barsebeck, the nuclear pant... They bught with tax payer money, in times of no replacement, a fully functional and "relatively" safe plant, only to fill it up with concrete... Why the waste? 10 digit sums of taxpayer money went into the decommissioning of it...

There is a lot of other seriously bad decisions that I will not mention, where the price is a lot grater then many (most) good investments...
As example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallandsås_Tunnel is one really pathetic one... yet again 10 digit sums...

Go buy a Passat

[bill_mcgonigle]

Really, if you want all this stuff, you can go buy a Passat, or an Accord with a bit lower mileage. That rig from the 70's wouldn't pass emissions tests today, so it would have to get heavier and the mileage would go down. A 70's Honda engine isn't exactly what people are looking for when they need to get on an Interstate, so you couldn't sell them easily either. Giant bumpers are nice until you need to parallel park in Chinatown.

I totally want a Delorean, emotionally, but I'm not actually going to buy one for daily driving - I was in a roll-over accident once; side-opening doors are nice.

Really, though, somebody should FOIA the plans and build a factory and see what happens, any patents have expired. Prove that Reagan's goons were wrong...

Re:Go buy a Passat

[haruchai]

You're missing the point. By destroying this or not letting it be produced in the US, it allowed for innovation to be almost entirely to go
to the European or Japanese manufacturers
Notice that the options you provided didn't include any from a US manufacturer.
Which "rig from the '70s" would pass any modern emissions test?

And the giant bumpers quip is also a red herring - there were a dozens of wide, long and difficult to park cars back in the '70s.
Did none of their owners eat Chinese restaurant food?

Re:Go buy a Passat

[Mindcontrolled]

On a recent job I got some insight into current designs on handling gull-wing doors in rollovers. There are loads of concepts to handle the situation now, some of them fascinating exercises in overengineering. I have seen concepts up to explosive bolts to detach the doors...

Re:Delorean Similarities

[couchslug]

"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.

Godwin

[tygt]

told Congress the destruction compared to the Nazis burning books

I've heard of threads getting Godwin'd..... but this one had it in the summary.

Doesn't that, by itself, mean that no further replies are necessary?

Re:Delorean Similarities

[Mindcontrolled]

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!

Re:Anonymous Coward

[fractoid]

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).

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

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

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

Many of those improvements have been spent on dragging around safety systems, rather than discarded for better fuel economy.

This is true, and both the rate of vehicle deaths and number of deaths per year has been declining for 20 years.

So how do you translate "unimpressive performance" into "less safe"?

Because if everyone drove a small and light car with a smaller, more fuel efficient engine, we would have less fatalities and much less fuel consumption nationwide. We could also save an immense amount of money on replacing infrastructure, since hauling around 4,000 lb SUVs to get a single person from one place to another has more externalities than just the waste of metal and oil resources. Not to mention the increased danger to other, smaller vehicles.

This is why libertarian movements may be the nail in the coffin of the United States. The more a society refuses to pool easily shared resources, the more costs go up for individuals subjected to each other's externalities, and the more efficiency goes down for the society as a whole. If China can turn one gallon of fuel into a few hundred miles of transport per person, and we can only turn one gallon of fuel into twenty miles per person, guess who wins.

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

If there was no finite limit to the oil supply, sure. Whoever is more dependent on more finite resources eventually loses, even if you don't run out. If the price of oil went to $500 a barrel, it would basically make America a non-competitive economy, because we would have no cheap, fast way to get our workers to their jobs, or to move resources around our highway system.

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[sdpuppy]

IMHO Nukes are the only way forward.

Yeah, but didn't the guy who put a nuke into his car go backward in time?

:-)

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

No, I'm assuming that will be enormously expensive when all pieces of equipment used to transport and construct new infrastructure use oil as their primary fuel source, and that for every calorie of food consumed in the US, 3500 calories of petroleum are expended to produce, harvest, transport, and process it. In 1970 the ratio was 1 to 1.

That, and the fact that the average American lives tens of miles away from their workplace, and has no way to get there without using a highway. Just project in your head what Sean Hannity would say if, to pull through such a shortage, we needed to legalize bicycles on interstates and put quotas on oil usage to preserve them to build rail stations and non-motorized vehicle lanes. He'd try to get everyone in line to invade Venezuela, which of course will only put off the inevitable and entrench our dependence on foreign resources.

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

Or by vastly more efficient freight rail services and electric vans with enough range to cover the the majority of Americans who live near urban areas. Last I checked, 70% of the population lived in 3% of the same land mass.

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

According to NationMaster: Oil usage per capita

#23 United States:
68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people

#144 China:
5.733 bbl/day per 1,000 people

And China is the #1 exporter in the world, and we are #179.

I know (from CSX commercials, of all places) that a ton of freight can be moved over four hundred miles with a single gallon of diesel fuel, so I don't think moving a person on multi-stop rail would be much worse than that. I couldn't find any good data on breakdown of usage, but I did find an interesting article here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6126

This suggests that while America may be making bad choices now, China is trying it's best to catch up. Apparently they could overtake our car count by the year 2020 (meaning 1/5 of their population would own one, though), and have a larger highway system within a few years. Still, they are making massive investments in electrified rail, and from what I can tell, have a long way to go before they waste as much energy as we do to perform the same work.

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[aliquis]

It's always so fun with all the Americans on Slashdot speaking about how much oil/coal/energy they use in China without understanding that it's consumption of items/services which drives demand/resource usage and not actual production / out of nothing.

There's no fucking way the Chinese PEOPLE consume more resources or generate more waste than their American counterparts. Not per individual and I would be very surprised if they even did it on country level.

It's not the Chinese people who pollute / use up all resources / whatever ... it's the consumers of the products produced under those conditions.

China builds items for more or less everyone, including the US.

If we talk electricity or heat generation in general I'm sure they build out their infrastructure and capabilities to produce more and cleaner energy in whatever way possible. Give them 10-20 years ..

Re:30MPG was not uncommon

[copponex]

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.

For similar outrage...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[jbezorg]

Engineers shouldn't exaggerate.

Except when giving time estimates to their captain.

Disheartening

[mollog]

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. It is disheartening to hear that, once again, politicians supported by industry killed an effort to do what's good for the public interest.

Re:Disheartening

[blair1q]

industry and politics will conspire to do what's profitable, not what's good policy.

Then as a member of a democracy it's your job to make sure that such behavior is not profitable, and good policy is.

Re:Disheartening

[nmb3000]

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.

Re:Disheartening

[NFN_NLN]

industry and politics will conspire to do what's profitable, not what's good policy.

Then as a member of a democracy it's your job to make sure that such behavior is not profitable, and good policy is.

What country do you live in that has a democracy? Seriously. Most countries have a republic at best. That system involves voting a member into government based on promises. Then having those promises reneged upon without consequence other than not being re-elected again.

You know what I'd like to see: Politicians sign a binding contract based on their platform promises with clearly defined sanctions for not following them. Sanctions up to and including personal liability.

Re:Disheartening

[blair1q]

I was a Republican and I drove an Audi. Then I was a Democrat and I drove a Chrysler-built Jeep. Then I became an Independent and drove a Lexus. Now I drive a Prius.

Showed him.

Re:Disheartening

[Lemmy Caution]

Is an American car a car made in Mexico with the word "Ford" printed on it, or one made in Alabama or Kentucky with the word "Toyota" on it?

Re:Disheartening

[blair1q]

See? You're abrogating your responsibility (and the privilege) of being the ultimate power in America with your "we don't have a democracy" attitude.

Your voice alters what your representatives see as being in their best self-interest. If the lobbyist's money is talking, you need to talk louder.

binding contract based on their platform promises with clearly defined sanctions for not following them. Sanctions up to and including personal liability.

Already exists. It's called "having to get elected next time". The trick is to make sure you find out what their real agenda is so that they have to campaign on that, instead of letting them carpet-bomb your district with litmus-test issues and fear-mongering.

Re:Disheartening

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Disheartening

[Dishevel]

The problem is that the number of brain dead fuckers who just want the government to give them stuff completely outnumber the rest of us. Therefore all the politicians have to do to get re-elected is to promise more free shit on TV to get elected. It's the people with the money to buy TV ads that have the real voice.

Re:Disheartening

[Big Smirk]

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

Re:Disheartening

[rtfa-troll]

Switzerland. Because they have referendums which the people can call almost at will. This seems to mean that the politicians are afraid of contradicting their electorate because their decisions can simply be reversed if they accidentally wake up the people. Unfortunately this seems to mean that they still live in the 18th century and are racist and xenophobic as hell so it's not the advert for the benefits of democracy that I like to use.

Various Scandinavian countries, and to a small extent some Germanic countries are more or less democratic. This is because their politicians still have some lvel of honour and do more or less what the electorate voted them in to do. From at technical point of view I'm really not totally sure why it works, but it sort of does.

Re:Disheartening

[Anachragnome]

"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.

Re:Disheartening

[BourneTolouse]

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.

Really? Here is a quote from that blog: "Although I have not seen the movie or received an advanced DVD as others have from the film’s producers, I can tell you that based on what I have heard there may be some information that the movie did not tell its viewers."

Re:Disheartening

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The problem is that the number of brain dead fuckers who just want the government to give them stuff completely outnumber the rest of us. Therefore all the politicians have to do to get re-elected is to promise more free shit on TV to get elected.

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.

Re:Disheartening

[blair1q]

The lemon laws generally state that the vehicle has to be in the shop N times for M days over X months.

The buyer here was being unreasonable. Electromechanical parts have nonzero failure rates, and the probability of failure is a bathtub curve. The first real-world stresses on a new part and aging are obviously going to be the major causes of faliures.

One part breaking, identified and repaired quickly, covered by warranty, is not a reason to return a vehicle, and certainly not to involve the law. The dealer was totally right not to take it back.

The buyer no doubt lost several thousand dollars in one day by trading it in; while the guy who ended up with a car with 10 miles on it, plus a shakedown, inspection, and rework over and above the factory quality process, at a used-car price, got a screaming deal.

Re:Disheartening

[slapout]

Depends. Which country does the money go to?

Impossible

[weston]

another case of someone not wanting anyone to manufacture a competing model that could shake the current makers out of their lowest common denominator complacency.

If it's not straight out fiction.

Maybe you've heard this one, folks, but I think it's time to tell it again:

If Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, An Efficient Government, and a Private Corporation are at a four way intersection, and in the center, there is a nice crisp 100 dollar bill, who will get to the money first?

The Private Corporation, of course, because the first three are figments of your imagination! Ha!

It's just good common sense. Everybody knows it. It's been scientifically, irrefutably proven, so anybody who tells you differently has an agenda: there is no such thing as a government ever producing anything better than private industry, and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we'll be free of all the problems we've got here in modern socialist America -- and particularly free to ignore or simply be amused by obvious fictions like this article.

Re:Impossible

[hondo77]

Everybody knows it. It's been scientifically, irrefutably proven...

[citation needed]

Re:Impossible

[Kjella]

It's just good common sense. Everybody knows it. It's been scientifically, irrefutably proven, so anybody who tells you differently has an agenda: there is no such thing as a government ever producing anything better than private industry, and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we'll be free of all the problems we've got here in modern socialist America -- and particularly free to ignore or simply be amused by obvious fictions like this article.

Here's the first best thing you should know about a private corporation:

A private corporation is not in any way interested in providing you with a good, cheap, modern product. If they could charge you exorbitant prices for a product with poor quality and old technology, slowly pacing it out to generate constant new purchases and maximize their profits they would. The only reason they improve is if they are exposed to competition, and only if there is no cheaper way to block it using market barriers, regulatory barriers, lock-in, price dumping and a host of other dirty tactics. If there is no anti-trust with teeth, if there are no government regulations all you get are extremely exploitative private monopolies, which are far worse than the government. You do realize that the US is the country with the most liberal rules and has been hit the hardest by the financial crisis right?

modern socialist America

Guess not. Guess you want it to hurt even more.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[Skarecrow77]

the "fall apart in a wreck" is somewhat by design. the car takes the brunt of the impact instead of the driver.

It does mean though that what would have been a dent to hammer out and repaint in the 60s is now a shattered and exploded front end, bent frame, and "car is totaled" assessment by your insurance.

I get more and more disheartened

[axl917]

told Congress the destruction compared to the Nazis burning books

I've heard of threads getting Godwin'd..... but this one had it in the summary.

Doesn't that, by itself, mean that no further replies are necessary?

by the continuing use and misuse of something a lawyer said in a Usenet post, what, 20 years ago?

A single invocation of a Nazi comparison, in the original post/article no less, is NOT running afoul of the Magic Pixie Dust of the Godwin Line. And it isn't even a comparison to Nazism in general, just an analogy to one particular thing that they did; rewriting history by obfuscating the truth. Some bad things that people do today *gasp* realy can be as bad as some bad things done by Hitler's government; not every comparison is an automatic beeline to the Holocaust.

Get over yourselves and these witty "OMG GODWIN!" bon mots.

Re:I get more and more disheartened

[Luke Wilson]

Then you don't understand Godwin's Law. Sure actions can be reprehensible. But saying 'You know who else had evidence burnt? Hitler!' means the discussion has suddenly taken on a screeching tone and rational discourse is derailed. Far fetched comparisons to Hitler's regime are not constructive and you have not showed how they are.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[mcgrew]

32 would have milled heads, and dual exhaust that got 19 on the highway (when I didn't have my foot in it -- that was a FAST car). And it was a big car. Smaller cars regularly got up to 25.

However, the safety features weren't there. No air bags, no ABS, no crumple zones (much like modern SUVs), not even padded dashes. Cars from that era were death traps, even worse than today's SUVs.

The SUV was a giant step backwards.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[StayFrosty]

It amazes me that people have all these funny ideas about old cars all having terrible fuel mileage. A 1953 Plymouth Cranbrook easily could push 32mpg on the highway. Ramblers and Studebakers from the 50's and 60's got between 30 and 40MPG as well. Even cars with V8s weren't always the gas guzzlers they are made out to be. 25MPG with a small block Chevy 350 is no where near unheard of. The trick is matching the power of the engine to the weight of the car. Well, that and keeping the accelerator off the floor.

32MPG, 50MPH safe crash, but at what cost?

[Culture20]

Sure, it has all those fancy features, but could it have sold for $10,000 in the 70's? Could it sell for $20,000 now? Did it cost a million per car in the 70's? Cost is an extremely important factor here.

Safety

[olau]

In Denmark there's a so-called "council for more traffic safety", financed by the state. They keep track of where accidents happen and initiate public campaigns. Last year, 406 out of a population of app. 5.5 million died in a traffic accident. So that's about half the probability of being killed compared to the numbers for the US in the article you quote, but still 0.57% over a lifetime of 78 years.

That's actually a bit scary, I had no idea it was so high.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[fiannaFailMan]

Let's assume a collision:

VW lupo
-vs-
the lady in the ford expedition that she bought so she could feel "safe" on the road

=

healthy dent on the expedition and horrible crushed doom to the lupo.

Have you seen american highways lately? people who can't drive their way out of a paper bag are routinely crusing around in 3 ton tanks, and you have to be in another 3 ton tank to survive the impact with them.

Ah, the 'SUVs are safer' myth.

Did you know that since SUVs are so much more likely to roll over, you actually lose all the safety benefit and are actually in more danger? It takes two cars to collide, it only takes one SUV to roll over.

Also, they have pretty stringent crash safety standards in Europe where gas is so expensive ($7/gallon last time I checked) that nobody but wealthy egotists can afford to drive gas-guzzling oversized vehicles that are too big for European city streets anyway. (Does Ford even sell the Expedition in Europe?) Get into a collision in Europe and it's more likely to be with another small car.

So the description of European cars as 'deathboxes' is a load of nonsense.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[drinkypoo]

Except that the VW Lupo would likely avoid the accident since it's more agile on the road.

My brother's truck got rear-ended at a red light by some twat in an Accord or similar who was fiddling with her stereo, bent the bumper and mounts, totaled her car. Got to love having a hitch in the receiver. My grandfather got run over by a bus and lost his leg while waiting for a light on his motorcycle. A VW Lupo lies somewhere in between these, but a lot closer to the motorcycle than a three quarter ton pickup. If you get run over by something gigantic you're a lot more likely to die in it, and it can happen while you're not even moving. Cars don't dodge so well while stopped. Further, no matter how slick you think you are, there's always someone slicker. And no matter how badly you think someone else can't fail, they can fail worse. Yes, by all means, drive something agile, and be careful. But driving something safe is good, too.

With that said, can we please get some meaningful side impact protection in our cars? All it takes is some more steel. The technology is well-understood. If we're going to be adding weight, let's spend it someplace useful.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[PingSpike]

Its a well known fact that people from all other countries are consistently killed when attempting to get onto the highway. This natural culling effect is the main reason other nations drive less than their less horse-power challenged American brethren.

As indicated in this thread horse power has doubled over the past 20 years while traffic deaths have gone down. The numbers speak for themselves, horsepower saves lives!

Not a problem for trips

[zogger]

A pure EV using even (relatively) cheap batteries today can suffice for your day to day commuter, recharging at night at home. For long trips trips, there is this concept, the range extending generator trailer.

If you need to do that sort of hundreds a mile a day driving, no, EVs are not for you. Under one hundred miles a day, which hits like 90% of most folk's driving, the tech is here now and a number of places have after market kits to convert cars and light trucks. Run you around 20 grand or so plus the donor vehicle you get used, then you decide what flavor of batteries you want to invest in first. Kits for like a ford ranger or chevy s-10 or some sedan, all sorts have been made so far. And you can put together your own generator trailer for that trip to see the relatives, etc., just stop and fillerup like normal at any gas station.

Waiting for the three hundred mile range on batteries and five minute recharge option, that I see people saying all the time, means they really aren't interested in them unless they are a millionaire or close to it and can get like a tesla or something with their toy budget, and you still won't get a five minute recharge.
But, 50 -100 mile range and falling into the normal joe sixpack range of cost for a new midrange normal vehicle, you can do it now. You can't do it brand new from some dealer, it will be years and years before they get that cheap, but you *can* do it with the kits.

http://www.google.com/search?electric+conversion+kits

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[RenderSeven]

My 70's Triumph still gets 48mpg. Of course it's a death trap, but its a hoot to drive. The powerplant was based on a 1956 tractor engine. And 30+ years later the automakers crow about 32 mpg efficiency.

Re:Price?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Prototypes always cost more than mass market production runs.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Actually, MIniCars developed several models of RSV. It was a research program, after all. One was 1700 lbs, another was 2500 lbs.

The previous SV program produced three ton monsters-- but the participants weren't all that imaginative.

Re:woo

[Loki_1929]

The parent was modded a troll because the comment is a troll.

The car didn't die "due to libertarians". The car died because it cost too much, drove too slow, and was determined by apparently every car manufacturer in the world to be roughly the equivalent of the Nissan Shitbox.

What has happened is that as manufacturers have found ways to squeeze more power out of their engines, some of that power has been siphoned off to haul around the kinds of safety features this car had. A lot of these kinds of features went into the high-end, super expensive cars much earlier than mainstream vehicles because when you add $3,000 to a $70,000 car, it stings a lot less than when you add it to a $9,000 car. When the cost of safety feature X went from the $3k cost at inception to a mature product's cost of $300, it found its way into that $9,000 car.

The only conspiracy here is the conspiracy of consumers who want bigger, faster, and more powerful 90% of the time. When times are tough, some of them start to value efficiency. When you look at most of the market (especially the market 20 and 30 years ago), safety doesn't generally rank very high. It's more of an "oh look, it even got 4 stars on some safety thing, that's cool too!". People seem to forget that Toyota only managed to get the Prius R&D'd with the huge profits coming from their trucks. They correctly realized that fuel efficiency actually does pop up on the radar every so often and so they didn't sink every dime they had into making bigger and more badass looking trucks like certain other manufacturers. And even then, if Toyota had been pushing the 2010 Prius in 1980 or 1990 instead of the vehicles they had at the time, they'd be just another footnote in the history of failed vehicle manufacturers.

Each kind of car has its own time and this car was a solid 30 years too early. It does nobody any good if nobody can mass produce it without going bankrupt. It's easy to look back now and say "you people were stupid for not buying them like crazy", but people in 2030 will be looking back at us saying the same thing about something we, today, consider ridiculous.

Re:St Reagan Scuttled Success? Shocking.

[mdarksbane]

It makes sense when you realize that the "clean" janitor screams at you for an hour if you miss the waste basket and introduces a charge to use the bathroom to keep people from making a mess. Oh, and somehow the place doesn't really look any cleaner...

Beyond the basic "what makes you think people who want to run everything will therefore be good at it" question, you big government types need to remember that no matter what you do, the giant rambling apparatus you create *will* later be driven by someone who completely disagrees with you. The benevolent dictator idea only really works when you've got a perfect system for choosing dictators.

More Reagan Crap

[mbone]

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.

Maybe Tom Lehrer was Right

[weston]

People like you make me angry. You're so stupid

I'm not stupid, but apparently I need to work on my deadpan delivery.

Either that, or Tom Lehrer was right when he said satire is obsolete.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[vlpronj]

MIRRAR - when you look up at the rear-view MIRRAR and there's a high-pitched noise coming from your mouth, the vehicle in the rear-view MIRRAR is likely to rear-end you.

educate yourself: politicalcompass.org

[bussdriver]

Stalin and Hitler were not all that far to the left/right but they were both about the same level of authoritarian. go look them up on the chart. Its not a left/right false dialemma its a 2D system not a 1D spectrum; the best model is 2D and we only hurt ourselves trying to cram a 1D line into a 2D plane without losing a great deal of IMPORTANT information.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[ray-auch]

Performance (acceleration) on a low end to mid range car is near the same - or not too far off to make it undriveable... the VW Dasher did 12 seconds 0-60, or 19 with the diesel engine. Not bad for almost FIFTY mpg.

I'd be happy with a bit better performance, and say... 35-45mpg (instead of 40-57mpg) highway... but the car companies seem to have forgotten how to do that...

VW haven't forgotten. I have a ten yr old golf that gets 60+mpg (UK = 50+ US mpg) highway mileage (in real life, tank to tank on long trips) and does 0-60 in about 12s. Looking at the new ones today, I could get 60+ mpg(US), 9.3secs 0-60 and more than 30% extra HP.

The problem is that if you are in the US, you probably can't buy these cars. Someone a few years ago decided that americans didn't want to buy them, so they aren't designed for US regs (or US regs are designed to exclude them in favour of Hummers, depending on who you believe).

The engineers haven't forgotten how to build what you want (if you are in the US) - marketing (and politics) told them you didn't want it.

Re:1970s and 32MPG...?

[wardred]

If a big rig hits you, and it's more than just a love tap, it doesn't really matter what you're riding in.

Further, while I've seen some crazy stuff from big rigs, mostly it's the idiot cars around the big rigs that are the danger. If you respect them and give them room, you're not likely to get hit by them. If you squeeze into that spot that a car might have trouble stopping for, but it's a semi you've just cut off...

Or an even better maneuver. That tipple trailer hauling rock trying to make a right turn? Yeah, just slide into that "space" to the right of him for your turn...go for it.