Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#621
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> You have got to be kidding if you think that auto exhaust isn't toxic. But
> obviously you do, and your going to keep believing it no matter that the
> facts are otherwise.
>
> For the non-morons in the group that are actually willing to listen, see the
> following:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html
That isn't the issue here--CAFE deals only with fuel _efficiency_ standards.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The only thing that that regulates--and
indirectly--is CO2 emissions, as they are directly tied to the amount of fuel
burned.
Actual pollutants, defined as such by the EPA, including oxides of nitrogen,
etc., are regulated in grams per mile, _regardless_ of engine size or amount of
fuel used. Which means that theoretically at least, it is actually easier for a
smaller-engined car to meet those standards. Less fuel burned, so the relative
emissions level, per gallon, can actually be _higher_ and still meet the
requirements.
--Aardwolf.
#622
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> You have got to be kidding if you think that auto exhaust isn't toxic. But
> obviously you do, and your going to keep believing it no matter that the
> facts are otherwise.
>
> For the non-morons in the group that are actually willing to listen, see the
> following:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html
That isn't the issue here--CAFE deals only with fuel _efficiency_ standards.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The only thing that that regulates--and
indirectly--is CO2 emissions, as they are directly tied to the amount of fuel
burned.
Actual pollutants, defined as such by the EPA, including oxides of nitrogen,
etc., are regulated in grams per mile, _regardless_ of engine size or amount of
fuel used. Which means that theoretically at least, it is actually easier for a
smaller-engined car to meet those standards. Less fuel burned, so the relative
emissions level, per gallon, can actually be _higher_ and still meet the
requirements.
--Aardwolf.
#623
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> > most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
>
> Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
> the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much.
As do many bantamweight unit-bodies I've seen.
> A full
> frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Can be.
I've thought for some time that a really well designed vehicle would have a sort of
old-school, very heavy-duty frame (or unit-body, my preference is for a separate
frame) but one that would be _designed_ to crumple--_just_ enough to prevent
significant injuries at low speeds, and progressively, stiffer inboard, so it would
still have plenty (?) of impact resistance at upper highway speeds. Good belts and
really ergonomic seats should be able to mitigate effects of lower-speed impacts as
well.
--Aardwolf.
#624
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> > most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
>
> Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
> the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much.
As do many bantamweight unit-bodies I've seen.
> A full
> frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Can be.
I've thought for some time that a really well designed vehicle would have a sort of
old-school, very heavy-duty frame (or unit-body, my preference is for a separate
frame) but one that would be _designed_ to crumple--_just_ enough to prevent
significant injuries at low speeds, and progressively, stiffer inboard, so it would
still have plenty (?) of impact resistance at upper highway speeds. Good belts and
really ergonomic seats should be able to mitigate effects of lower-speed impacts as
well.
--Aardwolf.
#625
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> > most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
>
> Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
> the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much.
As do many bantamweight unit-bodies I've seen.
> A full
> frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Can be.
I've thought for some time that a really well designed vehicle would have a sort of
old-school, very heavy-duty frame (or unit-body, my preference is for a separate
frame) but one that would be _designed_ to crumple--_just_ enough to prevent
significant injuries at low speeds, and progressively, stiffer inboard, so it would
still have plenty (?) of impact resistance at upper highway speeds. Good belts and
really ergonomic seats should be able to mitigate effects of lower-speed impacts as
well.
--Aardwolf.
#626
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
>
> It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
> more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
simply do
> to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
Charger,
> running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
> anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
> car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
directly
related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
However, let's explore your argument a bit.
Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
car.
Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
are gonna
get a half pound of air pollution.
Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
CAFE
forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
putting
double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Ted
#627
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
>
> It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
> more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
simply do
> to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
Charger,
> running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
> anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
> car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
directly
related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
However, let's explore your argument a bit.
Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
car.
Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
are gonna
get a half pound of air pollution.
Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
CAFE
forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
putting
double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Ted
#628
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
>
> It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
> more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
> vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
simply do
> to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
Charger,
> running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
> anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
> car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
directly
related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
However, let's explore your argument a bit.
Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
car.
Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
are gonna
get a half pound of air pollution.
Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
CAFE
forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
putting
double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Ted
#629
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.
Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.
Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#630
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.
Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.
Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"