[s-cars] S-CAR-List Digest, Vol 74, Issue 41

Wed Dec 9 16:00:36 PST 2009

this book is sensible: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/minddriving.html
also, from the 2-wheeled world, David Hough's books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Hough

2009/12/9  <s-car-list-request at audifans.com>:
> Send S-CAR-List mailing list submissions to
>        s-car-list at audifans.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        s-car-list-request at audifans.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        s-car-list-owner at audifans.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of S-CAR-List digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re:  Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins? (djdawson2 at aol.com)
>   2.  Teen drivers and texting.. (jeff postupack)
>   3. Re:  Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins? (chris chambers)
>   4. Re:  Teen cars (LL - NY)
>   5. Re:  Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins? (Brett Dikeman)
>   6. Re:  Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins? (Brett Dikeman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:55:33 -0500
> From: djdawson2 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
> To: t44tqtro at gmail.com, larrycleung at gmail.com
> Cc: erikaddy at yahoo.com, s-car-list at audifans.com
> Message-ID: <8CC47078E05A6C1-5158-266BC at webmail-m014.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>  Sorry... but I have to admit being humored when this topic comes up... as it regularly does.  "What is the safest tank I can put my kid in?"
>
> At the end of the day, I think this is still the wrong question.  The real question should be how to adequately train the young driver.  Prevent the accident rather than planning for its eventuality.
>
> I have my own empirical evidence...  My oldest girl was carefully trained by me.  Stick car, Colorado winters and a long commute to school, some of it interstate highway.  She was the first driver, and training her was somewhat of a novelty for me, so I was careful and spent plenty of time with her.  She's been driving for 6 years now, and has yet to have any incident.
>
> The younger girl got less of my attention... probably because the "fun factor" of training one of the kids to drive had already been experienced, and I felt that some of the task could be passed along to her sister.  Most of the time I spent with her was related to driving the stick, and less on safety and observing the surroundings.  Big time fail!  This young lady started off by backing into another car within months of getting her license... and then 2 totaled cars in less than a year.  I serious effort to "retrain" her was required.  These experiences were *my* fault, not the car's fault.
>
> Personally... I grew up driving go-karts and learned to drive a stick at age 12.  My dad spent lots of time with me driving WAY before I got a license.  Driver's Ed was comical compared to what I learned from my dad and from driving go-karts.  I've now been licensed to drive for just shy of 30 years (driving for 34), and have not yet had an accident, except for one bad experience with 3 deer.  There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with the actual car I was driving.
>
> At the end of the day... we can talk about what car is the "safest" until we're blue in the face.  I'll still argue that it's the that driver that makes driving safe... not the car.  Yeah... buy smart... but remember to focus on what's really important.
>
> Anywho........
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com>
> To: LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com>
> Cc: erikaddy at yahoo.com <erikaddy at yahoo.com>; s-car-list at audifans.com
> Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:28 am
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
>
>
> You're simply wrong, Larry. The way the car is constructed makes a huge
> difference. The impact can be redirected around the passenger compartment in
> a well designed car.
>
> The Renault supermini that hits a Volvo 940 is a clear case of the smaller,
> lighter car prevailing over the big, heavy tank of a car.
>
> Take a look at Chevy's offset crash of a '59 Impala vs. a '09 Impala and
> you'll see the same thing. Energy absorption and redirection are crucial in
> crash safety.
>
> On the same fifth gear link, the next two videos are of a Renault Espace vs.
> a Land Rover Discovery- the Disco is a much heavier vehicle- guess which one
> wins?
>
> You guys are all theorizing about stuff when there is empirical evidence
> that clearly shows that you're wrong.
>
> Taka
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM, LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mass wins.  Since Newton's 3rd Law guarantees the force of impact is the
>> same on both vehicles, from F = ma, the acceleration of the more massive
>> vehicle, reduced by nearly 25% in the case of absolutes, but a whopping 67%
>> compared car to car, (assuming back of the napkin road weight of 4000# for
>> the UrS, 3000# for the Mini) means the passengers in the Audi experience
>> 67%
>> less collision force than those in the Mini. Airbags in both vehicles
>> mitigate that difference substantially, however, but you're going to be
>> hurting more (assuming survivable impact speeds) stepping out of the Mini
>> than the Audi. Side impact, if Mini's have side bags of some form, I'd bet
>> on the Mini.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM, chris chambers <
>> fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Gentz,
>> >
>> > I can't help but wonder how one of our UrS4/S6 cars would fair in a head
>> on
>> > with a Mini or the Renault.
>> > I may be completely ignorant and uninformed but I think the S would win.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> > > From: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>
>> > > To: qshipq at aol.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
>> > > Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 10:07:49 AM
>> > > Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars
>> > >
>> > > 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
>> > > Sent from a mobile device.
>> > >
>> > > ----- Reply message -----
>> > > From: qshipq at aol.com
>> > > Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 00:10
>> > > Subject: [s-cars] Teen cars
>> > > To: ,
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > S-CAR-List mailing list
>> > > http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>> > > http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > S-CAR-List mailing list
>> > http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>> > http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> S-CAR-List mailing list
>> http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>> http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>>
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
> http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:53:27 -0500
> From: jeff postupack <jeff.postupack at gmail.com>
> Subject: [s-cars] Teen drivers and texting..
> To: S-Cars <s-car-list at audifans.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <b42df8ac0912090853y86d28c8y314b6fcdfc694297 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So I'm side stepping the vehicle choice- crash threads  all very good convo
> mind you.
>
> My question is:  How are your teens -  disabling use of TXTing while driving
> ?
>
> Having done that a few times, and now I swear never to do it again.  I think
> TXT'ing is the most distracting e-gizmo to a driver than anything ever
> invented.  Plus if an insurance carrier ever finds out driver was TXT'ing
> before an accident, forget about coverage!
>
> Jeff Posto
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:04:45 -0800 (PST)
> From: chris chambers <fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
> To: Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com>
> Cc: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>, s-car-list at audifans.com
> Message-ID: <861076.51969.qm at web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Taka,
>
> it's the video you posted which has me thinking.
> Combining that with the photos I've seen of wrecked S cars leaves me curious.
>
> The S cars seem to be very well designed/built to protect the occupants in an acident.
> But crumple zone technology has changed, when we wrecked our Allroad I learned that
> the drive train is now designed to move (limited amount) during an accident absorbing energy from the crash.
>
> Anybody have a spare mini we can wreck?? ;-)
> Chris
>
>
>>
>>From: Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com>
>>To: chris chambers <fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com>
>>Cc: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>; qshipq at aol.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
>>Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 11:20:00 AM
>>Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
>>
>>If you watch the video that I linked to in a post, you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not crazy, although some might think so.
>>
>>Taka
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:14 AM, chris chambers <fastscirocco_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gentz,
>>>
>>>I can't help but wonder how one of our UrS4/S6 cars would fair in a head on with a Mini or the Renault.
>>>I may be completely ignorant and uninformed but I think the S would win.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>
>>>> To: qshipq at aol.com; s-car-list at audifans.com
>>>> Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 10:07:49 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> Sent from a mobile device.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Reply message -----
>>>> From: qshipq at aol.com
>>>> Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 00:10
>>>> Subject: [s-cars] Teen cars
>>>> To: ,
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> S-CAR-List mailing list
>>>> http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>>>> http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>S-CAR-List mailing list
>>>http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>>>http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500
> From: LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars
> To: Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com>
> Cc: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>, s-car-list at audifans.com
> Message-ID:
>        <85e5c2670912090910s2608a65bnce36d79235528255 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> It's action/reaction. Since the earth cannot hit the car any harder than car
> can hit the earth going at the same rate, the effect is that the barrier
> acts like the car is hitting something of equal mass to itself. Due to the
> relatively small force on the earth, it essentially does not accelerate. An
> Escalade would. Backwards, but not by much. An equal mass car would
> accelerate backward at a greater rate than the Escalade.
>
> That was the concept of that allowed the barrier crash to be practical, the
> car would only be compared to hitting something of the same mass, which
> allows for a uniform, within class tests. Makes things much simpler for the
> tester, no multiple crashes nor methods of applying those crashes to get a
> relative idea of vehicle crash performance. Newton's 3rd law is one of the
> more difficult concepts to grasp, so perhaps the NHTSA site can help with a
> better explanation that I can do at the moment.
>
> And, in terms of engineering, new materials, modelling methods, etc, what
> those techniques have done has allowed better *optimization* of material for
> a given strength, not the actual strength of the structures themselves. It
> is entirely possible to emulate the boron steel crash structure of the
> modern car (think standard racing roll cages, which for at least the SCCA
> MUST be made of mild steel) at the expense of typically weight. FEA existed
> when I was in college, and I learned the fundamentals of it, and that was
> just shy of 30 years ago. It had been used primarily in the aircraft
> industry for years already (where materials optimization was much more
> important than in cars, although it's obviously trickling down due to
> economy/emissions concerns). The greatest change in terms of engineering *
> capability* (as opposed to actual application) I've seen in automobile
> safety, really does lie in the interior safety devices, (airbags, interior
> impact design, anti-submarine devices), as the space frame concept has
> existed for quite awhile. Whether or not it was profitable enough for
> manufacturers at the time to do the "safety thing". From marketing
> literature at the time, I do know that Saab actually was applying aircraft
> engineering principles in their perimeter frame, which I do know from
> personal experience existed in their cars frames from the 99 series up to
> GM.  As for the UrS, I don't personally know, so I will accept that I *could
> * be entirely wrong on the Mini/UrS point. However, if one had to rely on
> empirical evidence alone, then the only way we could be sure is to test
> every car on car combination. What the video did state was that their
> results should result in a re-examination of the mass/mass concept being the
> primary factor as a matter of principle for multi-vehicle crashes (it still
> matters not in single vehicle crashes), it didn't state that this was a
> total principle to apply in all cases. Sure, a well designed smaller vehicle
> can "win" vs an older heavier vehicle. But, what if (again, I don't think we
> can fairly say all) the heavier vehicle had a better design (I don't recall
> 740's ever being exceptional in this area, from my recollections of CU
> magazine, even all Volvo's aren't necessarily equal) which is entirely
> possible. If we had to do it empirically, we'd have to crash every one.
>
> LL - NY
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:10:29 -0500
> From: Brett Dikeman <brett.dikeman at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
> To: djdawson2 at aol.com
> Cc: erikaddy at yahoo.com, s-car-list at audifans.com
> Message-ID:
>        <9d9c4a330912090910sa449a87w258aee54e1947dba at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM,  <djdawson2 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have my own empirical evidence... ?My oldest girl was carefully trained by me.
>> ?Stick car, Colorado winters and a long commute to school, some of it interstate highway.
>>?She was the first driver, and training her was somewhat of a novelty for me, so I was careful
>> and spent plenty of time with her. ?She's been driving for 6 years now, and has yet to have any incident.
>
> You can train your kid to be the best driver in the world, and it will
> do jack when they get broadsided by some asshole checking his
> blackberry, or some idiot driving with bald tires.
>
> The Mini was a good answer. Reasonably priced used (I think?) for the
> base models, slow, safe, good handling, and reasonably practical.  The
> only shame is that your kid will throw up every time they get in and
> look at the interior.
>
> Other good candidates: second-generation a4, P2 Volvos.
>
> -B
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:14:27 -0500
> From: Brett Dikeman <brett.dikeman at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Teen cars Mine vs UrS4 .. Who wins?
> To: LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com>
> Cc: "erikaddy at yahoo.com" <erikaddy at yahoo.com>, s-car-list at audifans.com
> Message-ID:
>        <9d9c4a330912090914s7d1accfcnc4fcf4cf11b6ae34 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM, LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mass wins.
>
> No, lowest maximum acceleration of internal organs wins.  There are
> known typical limits for how much acceleration the human body can
> take.  Have you seen the videos of Chinese-made vehicles?  They
> practically fall apart.  They weigh about the same as the vehicles
> they're cribbed off of:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAN2cx2UIE
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3363869073309161115
>
> On the opposite end, we have F1 drivers who routinely walk away from
> serious crashes because their cars do a fantastic job of managing the
> impact.
>
> The important things are:
> 1)Preventing intrusion into the passenger compartment
> 2)Energy absorption.
>
> Head-on crashes are amongst the safest because everything happens the
> way it's intended to- the most impact area for the car to absorb
> energy with, the seatbelts hold you, and there's lots of room in front
> of you in the compartment.  The dangerous ones are the side-impact
> collisions and offset crashes, and the really fatal ones are tree
> hits.  Remember this?  It's a miracle the driver walked away.
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3105304
>
> There's an old thread somewhere of an S2 coupe in Portugal where the
> driver and passenger were not nearly as lucky (and the car was in
> about 30 pieces, not 2.)
>
> I'll take the Mini over the C4 any day; the C4 had abysmal crash-test
> ratings even back in the day.  In general people seem to be waaaaay
> over-impressed with the crash-worthiness of Audis pre-late-90's.  I've
> seen photos of 200q20v avants that rolled, and the car wasn't taller
> than the doorhandles afterwards.
>
> Put your kid in something German made after '97, and something Asian
> made after 2000-2002 or so.
>
> -B
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>
>
> End of S-CAR-List Digest, Vol 74, Issue 41
> ******************************************
>