1.6 cars, which is better?
- Thread starter kyheng
- Start date
- Replies 123
- Views 6K
-
See what others are reading now! Try Forums > Current Activity
Well...what can I say but good luck to you, mate.kyheng said:
kyheng, first of all, you have misunderstood the purpose of me posting the video.
the video is to show you that light cars does not mean less safe. the demonstration is to show that a well designed car can withstand high speed collisions but the passangers may not survive. but at 70mph or 126 kph, i guess a lot of saloons would result in death.
safe cars are not expensive. it is only in malaysia that the cars are expensive. Toyota Altis has 2 airbags, GOA design, stability controls, brake distribution and numerous active and passive safety items built into it. in thailand an altis would be the equivalent of a Waja in malaysia.
your previous arguement that euro spec and asian spec is not exactly true. JDM (japan Domestic Market) cars have always been known to have better accesories and quality than their export models.
don't even mention about cost of car towards the safeness of the car. safety features on a car is only a small part of the car's cost. the cost of transportation, government tax structures, reduced economies of scale all contribute towards the extra cost of a CBU versus Locally assembeled cars.
once again i would like to emphasize, safe cars doesn't mean expensive cars, the humble Toyota corolla Yr 2003 scored an impressive 4 star in the euro Ncap rating while the Proton Impian aka Waja Yr 2002 scores 3 star.#
Regarding the more armor the better concept, Yes, if your car has thicker panels your car is safer, for the same fact that a tank has it's thick armor. but modern cars must be designed for the safety of the car's occupants AND pedestrians. with such thick shell as the Volvo 240, the Volvo would simply mow the pedestrians down in the event of an accident.
Finally, the new Merc E230 Yr 2003 model scored Euro Ncap of 5 stars. the Proton knight? in the event of he same crash, would you want to be in the proton with minimal damage but unknown safety, or the E class with the lost engine but certified safety function. the impact of the E-class to the proton is from the back, rear accidents have high cases of neck whiplash which could break your neck, impaling your torso towards the steering column, head smashed on the steering wheel, legs crushed towards the dashboard. knowing that the proton does not have airbags, whiplash protection like in newer volvos, collapseable steering column, survival of bad accidents are very grim indeed.
so kyheng, what would be your counter arguement?
Ingolstadt, me and my family are avid car enthusiasts as well, and i do understand that a car must meet certain standards, my family have owned local and imports, jap and euros, pistons and rotary, turbos and NAs, 4WD, RWD, FWD.
as the famous Ah Shu in Initial D stage 1 said ( translated) " my fathers car is FF with auto, if seriously considered, it cannot even be called as a car."
the video is to show you that light cars does not mean less safe. the demonstration is to show that a well designed car can withstand high speed collisions but the passangers may not survive. but at 70mph or 126 kph, i guess a lot of saloons would result in death.
safe cars are not expensive. it is only in malaysia that the cars are expensive. Toyota Altis has 2 airbags, GOA design, stability controls, brake distribution and numerous active and passive safety items built into it. in thailand an altis would be the equivalent of a Waja in malaysia.
your previous arguement that euro spec and asian spec is not exactly true. JDM (japan Domestic Market) cars have always been known to have better accesories and quality than their export models.
don't even mention about cost of car towards the safeness of the car. safety features on a car is only a small part of the car's cost. the cost of transportation, government tax structures, reduced economies of scale all contribute towards the extra cost of a CBU versus Locally assembeled cars.
once again i would like to emphasize, safe cars doesn't mean expensive cars, the humble Toyota corolla Yr 2003 scored an impressive 4 star in the euro Ncap rating while the Proton Impian aka Waja Yr 2002 scores 3 star.#
Regarding the more armor the better concept, Yes, if your car has thicker panels your car is safer, for the same fact that a tank has it's thick armor. but modern cars must be designed for the safety of the car's occupants AND pedestrians. with such thick shell as the Volvo 240, the Volvo would simply mow the pedestrians down in the event of an accident.
Finally, the new Merc E230 Yr 2003 model scored Euro Ncap of 5 stars. the Proton knight? in the event of he same crash, would you want to be in the proton with minimal damage but unknown safety, or the E class with the lost engine but certified safety function. the impact of the E-class to the proton is from the back, rear accidents have high cases of neck whiplash which could break your neck, impaling your torso towards the steering column, head smashed on the steering wheel, legs crushed towards the dashboard. knowing that the proton does not have airbags, whiplash protection like in newer volvos, collapseable steering column, survival of bad accidents are very grim indeed.
so kyheng, what would be your counter arguement?
Ingolstadt, me and my family are avid car enthusiasts as well, and i do understand that a car must meet certain standards, my family have owned local and imports, jap and euros, pistons and rotary, turbos and NAs, 4WD, RWD, FWD.
as the famous Ah Shu in Initial D stage 1 said ( translated) " my fathers car is FF with auto, if seriously considered, it cannot even be called as a car."
With higher speed, sure the chances of driver and front passenger to survive will be lower. That's why if the metal used in a certain car is harder type, it can make the impact time longer thus they have higher chance to survive. If that car in the video is using harder type of metal include the bar, I think the damage will be less.
For the Merc story, the Proton Knight driver after the accident still can make noise , but the Merc driver sent to hospital already. I have even read newspaper that 1 guy died in his BMW during an accident. The BMW got most of the safety features that you mentioned, but he still die.
For the Merc story, the Proton Knight driver after the accident still can make noise , but the Merc driver sent to hospital already. I have even read newspaper that 1 guy died in his BMW during an accident. The BMW got most of the safety features that you mentioned, but he still die.
For those random cases, who knows how the accident happened. Too many variables. I also can tell any cock and bull story about some fella in his XXX car that survived after crashing against XXX car but this fella didn't survive.
Modern cars are made with the safety of the occupants in mind, not the car. Harder metal not equals longer impact time. At least not in the way you think. Manufacturers come up with crumple zones for a reason.
An old "hard" car (hard as in your definition of harder metal), would transfer a lot of the impact energy in a crash to the occupants. Because it doesn't absorb the impact as much. Furthermore, a lot of your preferred "hard" metal will intrude into the passenger cabin, reducing the chances of survival.
New cars, try their best to cushion the impact so that less of the force of impact affects the occupants. The strong bits is the pasenger cell. Everything else is made to absorb impact and reduce the possibility of any intrusion into the cabin.
Come on lar, manufacturers spend billions into R&D for automotive safety. EuroNCAP test cars with exact science. It isn't as simple as harder, thicker metal = safer.
In my hypothetical question of the 2 Volvos, I would say the driver in the S40 would have a higher chance of survival (its got a 5 star EuroNCAP safety rating, ok). The S40 might look the worse but it would have served its purpose to try and save whomever is inside. The 240 might look like it took less damage but the driver would probably suffer from the brute force of the impact more and probably have the steering wheel right in his face.
If you still disagree, there isn't much I can say, only thank god car manufacturers don't think like you do.
Modern cars are made with the safety of the occupants in mind, not the car. Harder metal not equals longer impact time. At least not in the way you think. Manufacturers come up with crumple zones for a reason.
An old "hard" car (hard as in your definition of harder metal), would transfer a lot of the impact energy in a crash to the occupants. Because it doesn't absorb the impact as much. Furthermore, a lot of your preferred "hard" metal will intrude into the passenger cabin, reducing the chances of survival.
New cars, try their best to cushion the impact so that less of the force of impact affects the occupants. The strong bits is the pasenger cell. Everything else is made to absorb impact and reduce the possibility of any intrusion into the cabin.
Come on lar, manufacturers spend billions into R&D for automotive safety. EuroNCAP test cars with exact science. It isn't as simple as harder, thicker metal = safer.
In my hypothetical question of the 2 Volvos, I would say the driver in the S40 would have a higher chance of survival (its got a 5 star EuroNCAP safety rating, ok). The S40 might look the worse but it would have served its purpose to try and save whomever is inside. The 240 might look like it took less damage but the driver would probably suffer from the brute force of the impact more and probably have the steering wheel right in his face.
If you still disagree, there isn't much I can say, only thank god car manufacturers don't think like you do.
i'll be more aggresive here.
A car's crumple zones do the real work of softening the blow. Crumple zones are areas in the front and rear of a car that collapse relatively easily. Instead of the entire car coming to an abrupt stop when it hits an obstacle, it absorbs some of the impact force by flattening, like an empty soda can. The car's cabin is much sturdier, so it does not crumple around the passengers. It continues moving briefly, crushing the front of the car against the obstacle. Of course, crumple zones will only protect you if you move with the cab of the car -- that is, if you are secured to the seat by your seatbelt. source www.howstuffworks.com
Cars with crumple zones, however, do not have a rigid body. One can think of them as springs being compressed against a wall. Although the front bumper of the car immediately becomes stationary, it takes some time for the metal work to collapse. This allows the middle and rear of the car to continue in motion for a short time.
source : http://www.visionengineer.com/mech/crumple_zones.shtml
Fact 1 : no one knows if harder metal on those 2 cars would have better results.
Fact 2 : the harder the metal, lesser the shock absorption.
Fact 3 : not properly straped in would render all safety function useless.
i saw a comment in www.jeffooi.com blog which applies here very well.
"Your arguements hold no grounds, where are your sources?"
A car's crumple zones do the real work of softening the blow. Crumple zones are areas in the front and rear of a car that collapse relatively easily. Instead of the entire car coming to an abrupt stop when it hits an obstacle, it absorbs some of the impact force by flattening, like an empty soda can. The car's cabin is much sturdier, so it does not crumple around the passengers. It continues moving briefly, crushing the front of the car against the obstacle. Of course, crumple zones will only protect you if you move with the cab of the car -- that is, if you are secured to the seat by your seatbelt. source www.howstuffworks.com
Cars with crumple zones, however, do not have a rigid body. One can think of them as springs being compressed against a wall. Although the front bumper of the car immediately becomes stationary, it takes some time for the metal work to collapse. This allows the middle and rear of the car to continue in motion for a short time.
source : http://www.visionengineer.com/mech/crumple_zones.shtml
Fact 1 : no one knows if harder metal on those 2 cars would have better results.
Fact 2 : the harder the metal, lesser the shock absorption.
Fact 3 : not properly straped in would render all safety function useless.
i saw a comment in www.jeffooi.com blog which applies here very well.
"Your arguements hold no grounds, where are your sources?"
Last edited:
huh? where where? which paragraph indicated that newer cars are not safe to drive?
i was putting up an arguement with kyheng.
kyheng : harder metal better safety
omnikron : harder does not mean safer since hard metal contradicts with the function of crumple zones.
maybe you were refering to this "Cars with crumple zones, however, do not have a rigid body"? a rigid body like a volvo 240 does not flex, and therefore transfers a lot of energy to the occupants = very dangerous.
i was putting up an arguement with kyheng.
kyheng : harder metal better safety
omnikron : harder does not mean safer since hard metal contradicts with the function of crumple zones.
maybe you were refering to this "Cars with crumple zones, however, do not have a rigid body"? a rigid body like a volvo 240 does not flex, and therefore transfers a lot of energy to the occupants = very dangerous.
Yeah, a 240 dosen't have a rigid body, but if compare to newer models that have rigid body, which is safer? If the collison take wrong place, such as side, the rigid body also cannot help you. If you have read Chinapress before, got a Merc cut into 2 piece on side by a tree, and the driver died on the spot.
For the random cases that I mentioned ealier, they are speeding, the Merc is beacuse the road is straight, where the Proton Knight coming out from junction. The BMW is because he take sharp corner and hit side divider then only front hit the divider direct and the length from headlight till dashboard become 25%. The airbag is there, but he died because of side impact. Both of the accident I was there, is after the thing happen and the people over told me the story. New technology is good, but if can gobackwards abit, it will be better, by combining old school and new technology, this type of accident will result to less casualties. Not to say I don't like new technology, but if the technology is towards safety I don't mind, but some of them is actually to reduce cost and increase their profit margin.
The main point here is, people will tend to trust fully on this so-called new technology and drive faster than 110km/h, as inside the car 110km/h for them is like 80km/h. So when accidents happen, the actual speed is more than 110km/h. I have read an artical on speed, anything more than 80km/h is beyond our control.
Another things is, the way of we driving also can contribute alot. If we can sit more behind, with the hand is straight while holding, it does help when involve in accident. If sit too front with the head is very near to steering, even the car have air bag also cannot help you much, as it takes time to deflate. If this happens, the head will hit the steering first, then only the air bag comes out.
For the random cases that I mentioned ealier, they are speeding, the Merc is beacuse the road is straight, where the Proton Knight coming out from junction. The BMW is because he take sharp corner and hit side divider then only front hit the divider direct and the length from headlight till dashboard become 25%. The airbag is there, but he died because of side impact. Both of the accident I was there, is after the thing happen and the people over told me the story. New technology is good, but if can gobackwards abit, it will be better, by combining old school and new technology, this type of accident will result to less casualties. Not to say I don't like new technology, but if the technology is towards safety I don't mind, but some of them is actually to reduce cost and increase their profit margin.
The main point here is, people will tend to trust fully on this so-called new technology and drive faster than 110km/h, as inside the car 110km/h for them is like 80km/h. So when accidents happen, the actual speed is more than 110km/h. I have read an artical on speed, anything more than 80km/h is beyond our control.
Another things is, the way of we driving also can contribute alot. If we can sit more behind, with the hand is straight while holding, it does help when involve in accident. If sit too front with the head is very near to steering, even the car have air bag also cannot help you much, as it takes time to deflate. If this happens, the head will hit the steering first, then only the air bag comes out.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 676
- Points
- 3,018
kyheng said:
I do have to agree on this statement. Whatever technology nowadays have a limitation even though they got so called crumper zone...etc...
If they travel above certain speed limit and crash no safety feature in this world can save you.
On the smart car ..the material is not plastic la. it look like plastic not the same plastic you use for water bottle.
On the question on metal density/hardness on car, it is important even u got so called crumple zone. I think the question is does the car manufacturer put the right amount of thickness coupled with it crumple zone thingy.. If thickness/hardness of metal does not contribute to safety then the bmw metal wont be thicker la..
Another thing i have in mind is the humvee (donno how it is spell) i dont think it got nice crumple zoen but due to the car metal thickness and strong body...any car that crash to it sure become sardine.
This is the difference between clever people asking questions and receiving opinions, and stupid asses throwing questions everywhere. shit, i've wasted my time enough on this thread trying to teach monkeys that they can actually eat bananas with ice cream .... forget it then.
kyheng said:
Trusting the safety equipment or not is beside the point. The point here is that newer cars with properly designed safety equipment, the passanger will more likely survive than a poorly designed car.
kyheng, you bring in a case from the paper where the driver did not survive. Do u know how he was seated? did he use seatbelts? how did the accident occur? was he drunk? these unknown cannot be brought into the arguement. how about the numerous other accidents not reported where the people say " thank god i'm in a 5 series and not a proton?"
"On the question on metal density/hardness on car, it is important even u got so called crumple zone. I think the question is does the car manufacturer put the right amount of thickness coupled with it crumple zone thingy.. If thickness/hardness of metal does not contribute to safety then the bmw metal wont be thicker la.." Quote from jasonchan
again too many factors affect the thickness of the metal. a larger car can have thicker metal simply because it needs more metal to absorb the higher momentum of the car. what about prestige? paying close to half a million you won't buy a tin can will you? what about high speed stability? BMWs in germany are expected to travel on the Autobahn, with no weight, cars travelling at close to 250kph is very scary.
the best test to test all cars to the same test such as the Euro Ncap, where the ratings are given when the cars crash at a specific speed and condition. if more metal is better why does a Ford focus yr 2004 ( 5 star) scores far better than an Audi A6 Yr 1998 (3 stars).
kyheng, if you are gonna argue using another accident example again, then once again i would ask, how was he seated in the car? seat belts? did he hit something other than a tree? did he die from the internal injuries or did he die before the accident (example heart attack?). was the car properly serviced?
you have not argued in an objective manner, if my arguements are incorrect or inaccurate, i am willing to eat humble pie and say sorry, or else i will push on with the points i have.
Kudos to omnikron for the patience.
I gave up trying to convert dinosaurs.
I gave up trying to convert dinosaurs.
kyheng said:
What the hell...?
In *any* case, whatever you may think of, the guys at the crash safety departments know better. They are the professionals for goodness sake.
If they compromised some safety to cut costs, it had to be done. You dont want to pay 7-series money for a 3-series do you?
Anyway I dont mean this in a rude way, just stating my opinion.
Last edited:
jasonchan said:
Yarloh, some people trying their best to tilt this thread by bringing up all the technology, my point very simple, will you pay more to get some low quality material? Only some people try to say the new technology is good and save, so no need to use heavier metal. Thus nowadys most of the car manufactures main goal, reduce cost, maximum return. As now steel is getting more expensive than few years back.
Last edited:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0108/fig9.gif
if you see properly, thats the cost of manufacturing a car. its roughly 30% but varies from car to car. before u say WOW 30% thats a lot.
thats only 30% of the manucaturing cost, cost such as R&D, marketing, initial investments, taxes, etc, all contributes towards the overall cost of the car.
even then, look at the total cost of manufacturing an Audi A8, its only $3100 (the chart is scaled down). 3100 x 3.8 = RM11700 to manufacture the car. we are buying audis at over RM150K.
just by saving a feww hundred grams of steel and aluminum from each panel will not affect the price of the car.
if you see properly, thats the cost of manufacturing a car. its roughly 30% but varies from car to car. before u say WOW 30% thats a lot.
thats only 30% of the manucaturing cost, cost such as R&D, marketing, initial investments, taxes, etc, all contributes towards the overall cost of the car.
even then, look at the total cost of manufacturing an Audi A8, its only $3100 (the chart is scaled down). 3100 x 3.8 = RM11700 to manufacture the car. we are buying audis at over RM150K.
just by saving a feww hundred grams of steel and aluminum from each panel will not affect the price of the car.
Last edited:
| Similar threads | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Marketplace Latest
-
BMW F30 Bodykit/Tailpipe
- Started by jeff6126
- Exterior and Body
The Marketplace Top Posts
-
Top Secret Nissan R35 GTR GTR35
- Started by aycy
- Cars for sale
A thread every 60 seconds
Recent Posts
Search
Enjoying Zerotohundred?
Log-in for an ad-less experience