Super duper fuels, eh?

[Taka Mizutani]

Not "armoring" Huw, but my point was that I'd rather drive a 3000lb. car
that had decent crumple zones, used high boron steel in the passenger "cage"
and had side impact protection systems and good seats, seatbelts and airbags
rather than a 2000lb. car that had none of that.

Believe me, survivability is a constant concern of mine- I drive a 2200lb.
car w/ minimal protection for the driver every day. When I replace the OEM
seats with fixed-back Recaros, install a rollbar and 6-point harnesses, I'll
feel a lot safer driving among 5000+ lb. pickup trucks and SUVs. It's really
more of a placebo effect, though, considering that if one of those things
ran into me, I don't have enough crush space before contacting me.

I feel a lot safer driving the 4000lb. Volvo with side-curtain airbags,
reinforced steel door openings, soilidly built seats with solid headrests
and plenty of crush space.

Taka


On 8/6/07, Huw Powell <audi at humanspeakers.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think complaining about the weight of a current vehicle in
> > comparison to vehicles from 20 or 30 years ago is really a valid
> complaint.
> >
> > Due to legislation and consumer demands, the safety systems of a car now
> are
> > far better than what was available 30 years ago. All of that adds
> weight.
>
> As do the many power systems standard on almost all cars (at least in
> the US).
>
> > I don't like heavy cars all that much, but without efficient and
> convenient
> > mass transit, I'd rather drive in a fairly dense car that doesn't have
> great
> > fuel economy rather than a really light car that you'd die in a moderate
> > crash.
>
> I think I would choose nimble (and being a small target/requiring a
> small exit path) over up-armoring.
>
> That said, seat belts, well-designed crumple zones, and paying attention
> don't weigh much.
>
> --
> Huw Powell
>
> http://www.humanspeakers.com/audi
>
> http://www.humanthoughts.org/
>