fool crunch

[cobram at juno.com]

6 month old rice burner, about a year ago, Brett.  Actual experience, not
some experiment or controlled simulation.  

Current crash tests are highly open to interpretation, even auto
engineers have trouble figuring out which of the 3 scores to use. 
Regulations, tests and methodology have changed so much over the years,
that you cannot compare the results of tests performed 15+ years ago to
tests of newer cars today.  The numbers become just that, numbers.  

If given a choice between sitting in a brand spanking new econobox with
outstanding crash test numbers and my ole V8Q in a collision, I know
which fine Teutonic beast I'll settle my butt into for that duel.  

BCNU,
http://www.geocities.com/cobramsri/
"God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything."


Brett Dikeman <brett at cloud9.net> writes:
> 
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 2:50 PM, cobram at juno.com wrote:
> 
> > Since this was in reference to motorcycle riders on the list,  
> the
> > perceived safety aspect is kind of a moot point.  From a strictly 
> real
> > world anecdotal point of view, I intimately know that when an Audi 
>  
> > V8Q is
> > struck at high speed by a modern techno-safety high end Rice 
> burner,  
> > the
> > veteran V8Q has the definite advantage.
> 
> What year "modern" japanese car?  Prior to about 2000-2002 or so, 
> they   had so-so safety.  Afterwards, top marks.
> 
> Go check out the Insurance Institute ratings and NHSTA crash tests, 
> if  you don't believe me.
> 
> Brett