@akwaman writes "People kill people, cars kill no one."
You are certainly right ... people promoting, writing and enabling legislation to create more cars that kill people are COMPLETELY and FULLY responsible for that action, certainly not the unsafe cars. Guns do not kill people either, the person pulling the trigger knowing the gun will kill someone is the killer. Those pushing for fuel economy over safety, knowing that will force the production of small cars that kill people, are in fact the ones pulling the trigger on those small car drivers. People that have an environmental agenda, that ignores safety concerns and the value of human life.
To quote you again ... With your mentality, only people with enough money for the largest cars will be safe. Oh how true. Because if the car manufactures are forced to produce unsafe small cars with high MPG's to meet averages, then you are absolutely right, because with your mentality supporting CAFE, the bigger heavy expensive cars WILL be the only ones safe.
To quote/paraphrase you again (from another forum) ... you are either not an engineer, or are a very poor one. (as you choose to insult another poster, again violating your own stated rules about proper manors in these forums). You have failed to provide the magic technical solution to make tiny small cars safe when challenged to state a method that works today to do so. As far as any of us can tell, you are just a trash collector that has been reading too many discarded SciFi novels, without any grasp on what real world engineering limits are. Basing your researched opinions on SciFi is NOT the same as actually being informed. Real world solutions are those that have been tested, and are ready to deploy in the near future. Not something that might mature in a few hundred years, or even two decades. Those people forced to drive an affordable unsafe car, do not have two decades, or two hundred years, before they are likely to be killed .... they need solutions today, or at least in the next few years.
I asked ... just what is your fields of formal training, and what has been your real world industry experience been for the last 40 years? So far, it appears just reading SciFi novels.
"The first priority is safety". This is complete rubbish. You only have to take a short drive to realize that this is the last thing on people's mind. It's an excuse to keep driving giant wasteful vehicles. European people are just as large and don't need an F350 to go to work. Their accident rates are lower.
American SUV's give a sense of detachment from the outside world, people drive while talking on the phone, they drive motorcycles with no helmet or shirt or gloves, they modify their suspension.
No - global warming is real and material resources are finite. Do something and quit whining.
The Jetta TdI has no tradeoffs - it's a great car. I just recently drove in a Ford pick-up, what a wallowing joke filled with plastic.
Ok ... I'm ROTFL that "stop making cars so big," will somehow make small cars safer in single car accidents, and accidents with other cars less than 3,000lbs, which are the vast majority of accidents with injuries and deaths.
Mandating speed limits back to under 35mph where these cars are safe, is simply not a public supportable choice ... feel free to try and mandate that.
Automous robotic cars, are at least two decades away for a lot of reasons. That does nothing to stop CAFE induced deaths because of smaller cars, and micro cars, flooding the market in the next 15 years.
Collision avoidance systems which can prevent a driver from driving into a bridge abutment, tree, stopped car, or other sustantial object at 75mph are unlikely to appear much before fully automous robotic cars.
So that leaves my original question that you avoided and simply restated as " improve safety standards". The question I asked of you, is how??? When the best technology we have today is unable to protect smaller car, and micro car, occupants in a collision because of excessively high G forces and rotation from impacts.
Unless you have a magic solution to this nearly impossible technical problem, then CAFE forcing an increased number of smaller and micro cars into the market, will KILL a LOT of people and KIDS.
If you mandate stronger safety, then CAFE as written today, is not the deal that was agreed to by all parties.
First, let's focus on a SINGLE issue, the safety of exceptionally light cars, and how CAFE regulations are going to potentially promote the production of a large number of smaller cars, and micro cars, which have a proven track record todate of significantly higher injury and death.
Pushing this discussion into guns, tractor trailers, SUV safety and a lot of other off topic issues, is simply trolling. I started my posts in this forum on the single issue of small car safety, and the impact that CAFE has on that. That is the topic I will debate here.
If you are confused, please reread my posts where my activism focuses on this single primary of safety issue and CAFE's impact on on the markets. Other back ground material, only seems to confuse you.
Again, to understand this, one does needs to review the effects that previous CAFE regulations had on down sizing cars, and resulting increases in deaths, especially in single car accidents where the driver hits some other objects. To a lesser degree deaths and injury where other similar sized smaller cars are involved, which are below 2,200lbs. That will require some homework. I last posted this issue on usenet, probably in one of the colorado general forums about 10 years ago, and in that series of postings is pretty detailed data that is very clearly damming for small cars under 2,200lbs. Current statisics are a little better, for "mid-sized" cars a little over a ton, but the introduction of micro cars again, is taking the data worse. DO your homework.
Previous to CAFE, the 9 passenger station wagon was the dominate "car" of choice for families with kids. CAFE regulations forced that vehicle out of production, and the result was rapid growth of the 6 to 9 passenger SUV market as a replacement. I will not debate the clear issue that high centered SUV's have roll over problems, when CAFE effectively forced the safer 9 passenger version of station wagons off the market.
Oh, to answer your question, stop making cars so big, stop making them so fast, work harder to make cars drive themselves, collision avoidance systems, improve safety standards... Oh, and your other contradiction: You complain that small cars are unsafe and we shouldn't have them, but you are supposedly building one like the Folding car mentioned here in this forum. Go Gadget Go! More power to you! I think it is a great idea. You are right in saying that some things need to be ironed out. How do YOU plan to make your car more safe?
Your recent posts are much more sensable (not entirely) and I'm glad you have toned down your rhetoric, because you do make some interesting points, however they conflict. I have seen some merit in what you say, but you need to be a little more PC when you write, but blaming government standards and "tree-huggers" and "do-gooders" for deaths is like blaming Smith and Wesson when someone get shot with their gun, should we get rid of guns because people (many innocent) get kiled with them (probably, but that is a discussion for somewhere else)? Automobile deaths can be attributed to many different factors. If I slam a compact car into an SUV at 85 mph, I'm not sure if it would protect the person in the SUV (certainly the smaller car person would not fare well). What about SUVs and large trucks that kill people because they flip over because they are top heavy? Should we outlaw trucks that can be lifted or are top heavy? What confuses me about you, is on one hand you think we shouldn't make standards like this so high saying it is unattainable without safety issues, but on the other hand you fight about a car that already gets that kind of gas milage, and you say you have already figured out how to make these hybrids more efficient. To you, this goal should be a no-brainer and easily attainable. It should have nothing to do with safety. The only real answer to your problem is to either make all cars bigger or make all cars smaller, then there are tractor trailers, which would flatten any suv, even a hummer. Maybe we should outlaw tractor trailers. Maybe we should only allow 18 wheelers on the highway. There is also speed, and alcohol and drugs. Let's face it, no matter what you are driving you can get killed on the highway. If you don't want to take that chance, don't drive.
You state, "With your mentality, only people with enough money for the largest cars will be safe."
So tell this forum how to design a smaller car, or micro car that will have the Prius level of safety. Current small cars, especially micro cars, have significantly higher death and injury rates than nearly all heavier high end cars.
So tell this forum how CAFE regulations are written to prevent flooding the market with smaller cars, and micro cars, like the last rounds of CAFE regulations have.
I believe that governement regulations should promote safety, over fuel economy ... not fuel economy over safety, as the past and current CAFE mandates did.
If using the term "tree huggers" is your excuse for the character assasination you posted, and the continued deep personal attacks and jabs ... you are really really digging deep to justify your rude, offensive conduct, and exceptionally poor choices in this forum.
You really need to reflect on your poor conduct, especially the lecture you tried to give me about such conduct a few posts ago .... shall I repeat your words to you? It was your choice to follow analyst's rude offensive personal attacks, without provocation.
And, you really need to watch your tone, as you continue the persoanal attacks in a less direct way.
Again akwaman you are completely wrong. I do not own a mountain house, I do own an older rural home in a valley. I run another business that provides internet for people that do live in the mountains, and that business requires year round access to mountain tops where we have repeaters at commercial tower sites, and to residents that live remote, frequently off grid.
And you are completely wrong about CAFE regulations in the past that promoted the production of a large number of small unsafe cars at discount prices to meet the CAFE averages .... and those cars less than 2,200lbs killed thousands of peope unnecessarily during the 1980's and early 1990's.
During the 15 years around and following these new CAFE regs going into effect, we are going to see discounted micro cars flood the market, which are also going to kill thousands of people needlessly.
The mandate for average fuel economy, does force the production of exceptionally light vehicles, that needlessly kill. Those will be sold with smaller margins, and discounts, which targets the poor and young families.
Take a look at the statistics from 1980 to 1995 --- I have -- in depth. Many of the do-gooder safety advances claimed in previous posts, are to correct the causes of deaths and injury in light vehicles that were triggered by CAFE in the first place. Most of those safety advances are good things ... but many lives were lost by CAFE, and later safety regulations were just to minimize the loss of additional lives, and a huge number of injuries that leave people disabled for life. The statistics today, are that small cars continue to cause injuries, with the most common point of contact in the car, being the safety restraints because decellerations are too high for cars lacking long crumple zones.
I took a month to study detailed accident reports for vechiles under 2,200lbs, after pulling down and mining the summary database. I was expecially interested in deaths and injuries for single car accidents, which were exceptionally high for cars less than 2,200lbs at the time. Do your homework, and we can debate the details if you wish.
again ...do your homework about light car injuries from 1980 to 1995 if you want debate this
I worked and went to school for 11 years before graduating, and have a lot more college classes and breadth of both formal training and experience than most people I started out a electrical engineering student in 1970, and later, got interested in computers and took a lot of computer science course work. I also have plenty of additional course work in business, philosophy, physics, chemistry, graphic arts, too. I was forced to choose a discipline to graduate in, when they told me I would be expelled for academic performance if I didn't graduate, and computer science was the easy choice, only requirng a few general education classes to graduate. When I did graduate I had about twice the units necessary for graduation, and graduated with a salary that was better than twice the typical EE or CsC grad. I had already been working at the top of my field for a few years.
Upon graduation I joined four others to start Fortune Systems, which was a wild three year ride. We went from five of us, to 900 heads in 1`8 months and a $100M IPO just before the market crashed in late 1982. In the crash, the new Wall Street board, replaced the management to recover stock options, and killed the company by "no new product develoment" to contain very minor losses during the down cycle. With $80M in the bank, we should have done the next generation system, and been ready to completely own the market as it recovered. That was the second startup I did, where the investors purged the management team to recover stock options ... so let's say, I'm not interested in doing another public company at this point.
Today student's have the option to do get a "computer engineering" degree, which combines the main two disciplines I studied and have primarily worked in. I've done nearly as much EE design work as CsC work over the years, often combined doing both the electronics design and firmware/software development for microprocessor based systems projects. I've also done mechanical design, material handling systems, robotics, and some Chem Engr work.
For a number of personal reasons, mostly travel requirements while my kids were growing up, I backed off on the DMS Design consulting business starting in 1999, and focused on another business, some more grad school, a lot of personal research, and some retraining. I took the time to bring current old classes and learn a few new things, that I avoided as an EE student, like power electronics and motor design. DMS Design as a business entity has been pretty dormant, and I just started upgrading it's servers and turning things like the web site back on that have mostly been off for a few years. That resume is from late 1999.
I avoided starting a new business, pending a divorce from a 22 year marriage, that was completed last year. Having your Ex being combative in your business post divorce, isn't pretty, so I left all but some T&M service contracts go for a few years so the business wasn't an asset of significant value in the divorce. I had the business at a similar level when I got married in 1989, so that worked out well.
I'm 61 today, have a lot of breadth and experience, significantly more than most engineers that have spent their lives working in one narrow field. I hire addition breadth and experience as needed ... which has been mostly mechanical engineers for the last year. So NuTrike isn't just my skill set, like any other company it's the composite of it's staff.
It's pretty lame to question my experience, and nobody knows anything about yours.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
Using Siemens NX software, a team of engineering students from the University of Michigan built an electric vehicle and raced in the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge. One of those students blogged for Design News throughout the race.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.