[s-cars] Teen cars

[Taka Mizutani]

Again, you're wrong- offset crash tests into a concrete mass are effectively
infinite mass, far more than an Escalade. How do you explain that one?

Also, how do you figure that the engineering in a 30+ year old design is
better than 30 years later? There was no FEA or other computer modeling back
then, steel alloys were not as advanced and safety systems were not as
advanced. Comparing an old car to a new one and saying the old car is safer
is simply foolish.

I will not discuss how a Saab 99 will do against an Audi Coupe GT, that's
not what the original discussion was about.

Taka


On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM, LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com> wrote:

> One thing not being taken into account (boron steel, non-withstanding) is
> design. Saab used a similar, for the lack of a better term, perimeter frame
> on the 99/900 series. It's a rather complicated section tubular frame that
> surrounds the sides of the passenger compartment, very similar to what the
> Impreza "perimeter frame (which is the boron steel section), but it's of
> rather heavy section tubing on the Saab (I was able to inspect it when
> doing
> body work on the car). WHAT boron steel (and other higher tech materials)
> allows for is to make the perimeter frame considerably lighter than the
> likely heavier similar design/construction framework on the Subaru. As I
> recall, the failings of the Saab 99 series (up until about '78, when they
> finally installed a proper collapsing steering column) was in frontal
> barrier crashes, where Saab's attempt to "hinge away" the steering column
> didn't quite work in barrier tests. Seemed to work better in more "real
> world" situations.  My point is side penetration of the 99/900 would be
> MUCH
> better than a CGT or 4K, from my estimations, as a former mechanical
> engineer, and I think passenger compartment *integrity* would be reasonably
> contemporary. *Survivability*, without the impact mediators such as side
> airbags and curtain airbags, as with any vehicle without them, would be
> less
> than contemporary, however, as our bodies would still flop around (greatest
> issue, head and neck injuries) inside the mostly intact passenger cell.
> Hell, that's even an issue with the UrS, (mAC) however, in vehicle/vehicle
> crashes, mass will always win, which is why Mini still looses (no matter
> how
> well it does in single car crashes) when it takes on a 'Sclade. Still, the
> slicability of the CGT/4K (and it's corresponding lightweight, I think
> they,
> even in quattro form, are outweighed by a Mini) pretty well regulates it to
> be comparatively less safe in terms of crashability, assuming an accident
> can't be avoided.
>
> LL - NY
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, erikaddy at yahoo.com <erikaddy at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Not a leap at all.  The construction in a mini will destroy the late 70s
> > tech in the cgt (or any other car from that era).
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting a mini for a teen, I just used that for illustration
> as
> > it is a small car available in the US.  You were mentioning the
> construction
> > of the cgt in terms of safety and I'm saying almost any 2000+ car makes a
> > cgt look like a death trap.
> >
> > Erik Addy
>