Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lightweight, Fuel-Efficient Cars Not Necessarily Less Safe
rmi.org ^ | 5-19-09 | Mike Simpson, Kristine Chan-Lizardo, Cory Lowe, and Cameron M. Burns

Posted on 05/23/2009 5:09:48 AM PDT by ovrtaxt

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
Before you flame this article, understand who this organization is. They primarily consult for the military to increase fuel efficiency of their fleet. The more efficiently they use fuel, the less dependent and vulnerable they are upon supply line problems, and the more manpower they can dedicate to achieving their objectives rather than worrying about supporting roles.

They GAVE AWAY FOR FREE the technology that led to the Prius. Toyota took them seriously, the rest did not.

They have great ideas that more car companies should be listening to.

1 posted on 05/23/2009 5:09:49 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ping


2 posted on 05/23/2009 5:10:17 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Truly Constitutional money isn't just backed by gold and silver- it IS gold and silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Problem is, they're consulting for the military.

Expense no object.

Race cars use the ultra lightweight materials, but they're far too expensive for production cars. Nobody could pay the freight.

If extreme fuel economy is mandated, we'll just get shoeboxes on roller skates and the consequent increased fatality rate. And Zero and his minions will continue to ride around in armored limos, so what do they care?

3 posted on 05/23/2009 5:14:17 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Economies of scale. Once you start cranking out thousands upon thousands of these things the price drops.


4 posted on 05/23/2009 5:16:02 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Truly Constitutional money isn't just backed by gold and silver- it IS gold and silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the gist of the article seems to indicate that lighter is not less safe, but smaller is.

So a large but light and fuel-efficient auto doesn’t compromise safety.

If this is truly what they are saying, I don’t think this is a big revelation. I also think it doesn’t invalidate those who criticize Obama’s proposal on fuel standards. The solutions that will be proposed will inevitably be smaller cars, not lighter, big cars.

People can clearly understand that a Smart Fortwo isn’t very safe in a collision with a Tahoe, but a lighter Tahoe won’t necessarily compromise safety vs a heavier Tahoe.

I don’t see how the article is ground-breaking.

Am I missing something?


5 posted on 05/23/2009 5:18:25 AM PDT by Rammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Lightweight cars will be safe after 0bama mandates everyone drive one. They’ll be the only car on the road.


6 posted on 05/23/2009 5:18:54 AM PDT by CriticalJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Lightweight, Fuel-Efficient Cars Not Necessarily Less Safe

Yeah, they are just as safe as larger cars ... until they get into an accident.

7 posted on 05/23/2009 5:20:45 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

“The time is now ripe, and we are in the midst of a major national push for the adoption of these cars.”

If the time is ripe then we don’t need the government forcing auto makers and consumers to “adopt” these cars, the market would take care of it. Any time the government decides things that the market is best equipped to handle everyone pays a huge price. The auto makers will have to make cars the consumers may not want and the consumers may have to buy cars they don’t want. Our problem isn’t a lack of oil, our problem is a prohibition against drilling for it. The government outlaws drilling which forces us to import more oil, then to solve that problem they force us to drive smaller cars. What’s next when this doesn’t work, forcing us to ride motor scooters?


8 posted on 05/23/2009 5:21:23 AM PDT by yazoo (was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Economies of scale. Once you start cranking out thousands upon thousands of these things the price drops.

You are still looking at far more expense for lightweight materials, as opposed to good ol' fashioned steel.

9 posted on 05/23/2009 5:21:45 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
. They primarily consult for the military to increase fuel efficiency of their fleet.

Which explains why one word was missing from the article.....a word that only a military subcontractor would rarely use in their world.

What is that word?

COST

It is cheaper to build a small, vunerable car to meet CAFE standards than to use exotic materials and build a lightweight, safer car to meet CAFE standards.

But like most people who want to make a point by ignoring the elephant in the room, this author ignores cost as a factor.

Do a search on the article. The word "cost" is nowhere to be found.

10 posted on 05/23/2009 5:23:36 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Everyone is forgetting the TRUCKS!

Even the lightest trucks are 2 + TONS. Will Ra'am Ahmanuel and his puppet ban all trucks/tractor trailers from the roads?

And, I suppose the electric (plug-ins) cars will only use the electricity produced by the non-polluting coal & oil. Sheesh.

11 posted on 05/23/2009 5:24:32 AM PDT by Thom Pain (Defending the Constitution is CENTRIST; not RIGHT WING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rammer

Nope, that’s pretty much it. The mass of the vehicle is the critical element, not a smaller size in terms of dimension. Using composites for structural elements rather than steel makes all the difference. You can then scale down the engine. Adding advanced energy management systems (like the brakes on the Prius) allows a further reduction in engine size.

It’s not incredibly earth shattering, but why isn’t anybody doing it on a mass scale?

This is why old, crusty companies need to be allowed to fail, and newer, more agile players need to enter the market. WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.


12 posted on 05/23/2009 5:26:53 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Truly Constitutional money isn't just backed by gold and silver- it IS gold and silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
The problem is also short supply of the exotic materials needed.

Really this can't be mandated because the market will not be able to catch up.

If this were practical and cost-effective, the market would respond. It hasn't, ergo . . . .

13 posted on 05/23/2009 5:27:22 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Indeed, a lighter vehicle can achieve the performance of a conventionally designed vehicle, but because it can do so with a smaller engine, there is more room in the engine compartment for crush space and, ultimately, a better crumple zone design.

There is another aspect of safety not considered when using conventional logic: the safety of the people outside the car.

This is all well and good if the vehicle hits another vehicle or object, but It won't get you through a snowdrift. That takes momentum, a function of mass. I have seen quite a few vehicles this spring with front end damage (which amounts to expensive broken plastic) from last winter--just from getting through snowdrifts on the highway. Lighter vehicles seem more prone to being deflected from their intended course by snowdrifts as well.

Now before you say, "So what?", here it is 120-130 miles between major towns along the main roads, winter temps are commonly below zero, and cell phone service, while slowly improving, is far from universal. In short, a trip to the ditch, especially one which disables your engine (and thus, your heater) can be a death sentence.

While this may be appropriate for warmer latitudes, I don't consider anything 'efficient' if it can't be counted on to get you there and back.

14 posted on 05/23/2009 5:27:27 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Certainly smaller vehicles tend to be more maneuverable and handle better than the largest ones. That makes it easier to avoid the accident in the first place and makes you less vulnerable to single car crashes.


15 posted on 05/23/2009 5:27:28 AM PDT by DemonDeac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Light is going to generally mean smaller. One major cause of injury and death in an accident is the sudden deceleration. The longer the front of your car in a head-on, the lower the deceleration. And, of course, the shorter the greater. Yes, seat belts and airbags help, but when the distance is short, you're going to have more problems.

As far as light but large, in a head-on you are going to be pushed back the way you came. A Smart car and an SUV head-on at 50 will see the Smart's velocity change by more than 50 (maybe +50 to -20 for a change of -70) while the SUV's changes less than 50. Which would you rather be in?

Shorter and/or lighter both kill.

16 posted on 05/23/2009 5:28:41 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ( Obama, you're off the island!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Do a search on rmi.org. They do not ignore cost.

I might seem like a cheerleader for them, but I honestly like this organization. They have genuinely good solutions.


17 posted on 05/23/2009 5:30:15 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Truly Constitutional money isn't just backed by gold and silver- it IS gold and silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
I'm thinking, why not just cut to the chase...


18 posted on 05/23/2009 5:31:24 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yazoo
If the time is ripe then we don’t need the government forcing auto makers and consumers to “adopt” these cars, the market would take care of it.

Yep.

In my neighborhood, the state is considering lightrail to run 150 miles to the Twin Cities area. Problem is, the Great Northern (now Burlington Northern Sante Fe) stopped this run in the 1960s because it was unprofitable. Now tax dollars will go to fund it. But, guess what? There is a mega-casino located exactly half way on the rail line.

Follow the money.

19 posted on 05/23/2009 5:31:50 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Oh, the market is responding. Have you seen the sales figures for the industry as a whole?


20 posted on 05/23/2009 5:32:01 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Truly Constitutional money isn't just backed by gold and silver- it IS gold and silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson