Of course people will show old cars hitting new cars etc just to skew things in their favor, since old cars were not designed for offset-impact collisions. Even if those are common, my old tank crushed the back seat of a new econobox right up tight to the front seats.
If a 2-ton car is designed to have the same level of impact damage at the same speed compared to a 1-ton car, the 2-ton car must be fortified to compensate for the extra weight. This is a rather simple concept that escapes most of the geniuses in here. The damage might look similar when the two have a head-on collision, but the big difference is what happens inside: The person inside the small car experiences much higher g-forces as the lighter object bounces off the heavier one. Put that into a 2-ton vs 1-ton debate and the 1-ton car is going backwards while the 2-ton car simply slows down.
It almost makes you wonder if the automakers may have exaggerated the costs of compliance, the way they always do.
I mean really. Was there ever anyone who actually thought that 25mpg was really the best a small sedan could muster?
This response will never stick because it's honest and realistic.
Internal combustion engine efficiency approximately peaked around 1988 when engine management was good-enough. Remaining efficiency can only be sufficiently extracted by reducing friction. Beyond that we need a different engine.
1.) A full-sized Buick could get 38 MPG highway. We had one. It also got around 22 in town.
2.) Cars got heavier after that in order to comply with newer safety standards. You lose mileage.
3.) People who needed to carry more passengers quit driving minivans. You lose around 30% to drive a small SUV instead.
4.) Average means for all passenger vehicles sold by a company. A company can sell one 75mpg mini car and one 25mpg SUV to get there.
Having said that, anything over 50MPG is impossible in today's consumer environment, so to do this the government must control you rather than the car companies.
1.) They must force you not to buy SUVs. Buying an SUV to carry a family is stupid anyway, but this is supposed to be a free-market economy.
2.) They must force you not to buy cheap cars, because making a car of lighter materials is expensive.
3.) They must take away the "privilege" of allowing poor people to drive to work. The infrastructure to provide public transportation for non-urban areas is horrific, in cost-per-ride terms, so get ready for your taxes to double unless you'd rather just give these people welfare checks and have your taxes double anyway.
4.) They must make drivers willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good.
Number 4 is the real killer. Of course you can sacrifice A/C, but what about putting low-friction tires on a car? And the safety test are kind of a sham because they put a car into a wall under it's own weight...physics dictates that the outcome of a heavy-vs-light collision favors the heavier vehicle.
So we create a society where only the wealthy can afford to drive. Oh, and anyone less wealthy won't even be able to rely on used high-efficiency vehicles unless they're free, because changing the batteries on a hybrid costs as much as the car is worth.
I could go on, but this is what happens when you put the question in front of technology geeks. They always see the benefits without the costs, the good without the bad, and dream up conspiracy theories about perpetual motion machines when confronted by practicality.
I live in an area where poor people use light bulbs to heat pump houses and water meter covers. Only in extreme cold, since nearly everyone's pretty well insulated down to around -10 Celsius. A 100W bulb is the cheapest, easiest and probably the safest way to heat a small area and no I don't think it would be fair to force these people to buy a more-expensive heating device.
Let the leftists attack me now, we all know that deep under their do-gooder personas they really think the poor are inferior, inept and should be rounded up in prison-like housing projects.
You're right. The progressives that flood the tech sector descend directly from those who involuntarily sterilized the "feeble minded" around 80-years-ago. Or to put it another way, the kind of people who create such hacking incidents are the same kind of people who overwhelm technology forums.
Several prominent National Socialist Party members credited American Progressives for their ideas on the "final solution", yet somehow the same people who created this mess have managed to brand the leftist Nazis as "right wing". It's time to take away their control of the narrative by "speaking truth to power", since the people who created that slogan now have the biggest bullhorn.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course people will show old cars hitting new cars etc just to skew things in their favor, since old cars were not designed for offset-impact collisions. Even if those are common, my old tank crushed the back seat of a new econobox right up tight to the front seats. If a 2-ton car is designed to have the same level of impact damage at the same speed compared to a 1-ton car, the 2-ton car must be fortified to compensate for the extra weight. This is a rather simple concept that escapes most of the geniuses in here. The damage might look similar when the two have a head-on collision, but the big difference is what happens inside: The person inside the small car experiences much higher g-forces as the lighter object bounces off the heavier one. Put that into a 2-ton vs 1-ton debate and the 1-ton car is going backwards while the 2-ton car simply slows down.
It almost makes you wonder if the automakers may have exaggerated the costs of compliance, the way they always do.
I mean really. Was there ever anyone who actually thought that 25mpg was really the best a small sedan could muster?
This response will never stick because it's honest and realistic. Internal combustion engine efficiency approximately peaked around 1988 when engine management was good-enough. Remaining efficiency can only be sufficiently extracted by reducing friction. Beyond that we need a different engine. 1.) A full-sized Buick could get 38 MPG highway. We had one. It also got around 22 in town. 2.) Cars got heavier after that in order to comply with newer safety standards. You lose mileage. 3.) People who needed to carry more passengers quit driving minivans. You lose around 30% to drive a small SUV instead. 4.) Average means for all passenger vehicles sold by a company. A company can sell one 75mpg mini car and one 25mpg SUV to get there. Having said that, anything over 50MPG is impossible in today's consumer environment, so to do this the government must control you rather than the car companies. 1.) They must force you not to buy SUVs. Buying an SUV to carry a family is stupid anyway, but this is supposed to be a free-market economy. 2.) They must force you not to buy cheap cars, because making a car of lighter materials is expensive. 3.) They must take away the "privilege" of allowing poor people to drive to work. The infrastructure to provide public transportation for non-urban areas is horrific, in cost-per-ride terms, so get ready for your taxes to double unless you'd rather just give these people welfare checks and have your taxes double anyway. 4.) They must make drivers willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Number 4 is the real killer. Of course you can sacrifice A/C, but what about putting low-friction tires on a car? And the safety test are kind of a sham because they put a car into a wall under it's own weight...physics dictates that the outcome of a heavy-vs-light collision favors the heavier vehicle. So we create a society where only the wealthy can afford to drive. Oh, and anyone less wealthy won't even be able to rely on used high-efficiency vehicles unless they're free, because changing the batteries on a hybrid costs as much as the car is worth. I could go on, but this is what happens when you put the question in front of technology geeks. They always see the benefits without the costs, the good without the bad, and dream up conspiracy theories about perpetual motion machines when confronted by practicality.
I live in an area where poor people use light bulbs to heat pump houses and water meter covers. Only in extreme cold, since nearly everyone's pretty well insulated down to around -10 Celsius. A 100W bulb is the cheapest, easiest and probably the safest way to heat a small area and no I don't think it would be fair to force these people to buy a more-expensive heating device. Let the leftists attack me now, we all know that deep under their do-gooder personas they really think the poor are inferior, inept and should be rounded up in prison-like housing projects.
This is your corporate account. How does this happen?
They probably had multiple people in control of the account and wanted a password that was easy to remember like "hail_rupert_full_of_grace"
You're right. The progressives that flood the tech sector descend directly from those who involuntarily sterilized the "feeble minded" around 80-years-ago. Or to put it another way, the kind of people who create such hacking incidents are the same kind of people who overwhelm technology forums. Several prominent National Socialist Party members credited American Progressives for their ideas on the "final solution", yet somehow the same people who created this mess have managed to brand the leftist Nazis as "right wing". It's time to take away their control of the narrative by "speaking truth to power", since the people who created that slogan now have the biggest bullhorn.