Replies

"Cars can be made light and strong. You just need to work at it.

Anything you can do to a light car to make it better, I can do to a heavier car to make it even better yet. You can't ignore the laws of physics. You run one of those 200 mph cars straight into a barrier (as is required for passenger vehicle safety tests) and tell me how safe it is. I would rather ride a Cadillac De ville into a 35 mph barrier, than an Indi car.

The automobile has remained unchanged in concept since its inception in the late 1800’s: safe, reliable, convenient personal transportation… an engine (otto, diesel, rankine, electric, etc.) married to a chassis (A, T, H, uni-body, etc.) to carry a person from point A to point B. In the beginning of automobile hstory the emphasis on safety, economy and reliability were far less than today.

Nonetheless, historical observation shows that great leaps have been made in auto safety, reliability, convenience and economic operations in the last century. Consequently, arguments about Newtonian physics aside, why is it unreasonable to assume that demands for greater safety, economy, etc. cannot continue to be made and satisfied with appropriate incentives?

Safety enhancements such as crush zones, seat belts, air bags, anti-skid braking, etc., were undreamed of in the beginnings of the automobile. Similarly, these devices are not necessarily the end of safety innovations… What about a radar-activated equivalent of external auto air bags (e.g., an extendable bumper on super shocks) for greater “crush zone” deceleration? …perhaps the addition of radar or laser activated braking without driver intervention, or even (on the wild side) some sort of “reverse thrust” assisted deceleration device.

My point is that increased vehicle weight is not a necessity for increased safety. However, by those very Newtonian physics cited some earlier posters, reduced vehicle weight is a necessity for increased operating economy, even factoring in radical changes in engine economy, alternative fuels or power sources.

Just as in the beginning of the automobile’s history, there will continue to be a price for safe, convenient, reliable, economical, personal transportation. The engineering question becomes how much safety, how much reliability, how much economy, how much convenience, etc., and what will the trade-offs be at what price to the consumer?

Actually, you are largely wrong. The key to crash safety is deceleration speed. If you ran a tank into a solid barrier at 35 mph, you would be dead, because it wouldn’t crumple, and you would immediately decelerate after hitting solid metal.

There are lightweight materials that can be engineered to properly crumple and absorb the energy of a high-speed crash just as well as a heavier object.

The extra weight ONLY helps you in deciding WHAT wins in a collision. Into a brick wall, you will lose, so it’s all about your own crumple zone.

If you run a 4000 pound car into a 2000 pound car, then the 4k car has an inherent advantage because it will actually drive the 2k car backwards. However, if that other person is driving a 4k car, the total energy of collision is greater, and you might both suffer MORE injury.

For the most part, people in bigger cars gain the advantage at the expense of people in smaller cars. It’s better for ALL of us if every car is the same weight and has bumpers at the same height, but if every other car is small and YOU selfishly drive a car twice as big, you make yourself safer while endangering every other driver more.

That kind of “tragedy of the commons” only works if there are only a few selfish people though. Because when you are driving your 4k car, some else buys an 8k armored car, and then YOU lose, until you buy a 10k humvee, and then they buy a 12k tank.