SickBeast's Fuel Economy Guide

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Because it's trolling and irrelevant. Stop attacking me and stick with attacking my ideas or simply agree with me because you have realized that I am right. I don't ask about what your religious affiliation is so why should you ask about equally private information?

It's quite relevant. The opinion of a highly experienced driver carries more weight when it comes to driving techniques, as would someone with experience designing, testing or working on cars.

We're not talking about driving techniques and even if I was, I'd cite various sources and testimonials of people who are agreeing with my assertion with the OP included, so case closed.

Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this. The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed. Risking an accident to try and save a bit of gas isn't really a good way to save money. Even if you could guarantee you'd never get in an accident the inconvenience you'd cause to everyone else is pretty rude.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this.

People who do this drive in the right lane. Of course, it's not something that can be done in heavy traffic.

Originally posted by: Bignate603
The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed.

No, the safest way is to be no closer than 3-4 seconds behind the vehicle in front. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people on the road not doing this. People even tailgate semis for some reason.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this.

People who do this drive in the right lane. Of course, it's not something that can be done in heavy traffic.

Originally posted by: Bignate603
The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed.

No, the safest way is to be no closer than 3-4 seconds behind the vehicle in front. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people on the road not doing this. People even tailgate semis for some reason.

Drafting?

 

[thescreensavers]

5 Stars = 10 percent or less chance of injury
4 Stars = 11-20 percent chance of injury
3 Stars = 21-35 percent chance of injury
2 Stars = 36-45 percent chance of injury
1 Star = 46 percent or greater chance of injury


Thats all the star crash ratings mean...

any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs. They crash head to head, no offset nothing just straight into each other. Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position..ect

I am willing to bet the 09 car will fare much better. If you were to crash them into a wall at 35 they would be similar since they are both 5 star rated. But cars of today are tons safer then in the 80's

During the years 2002 to 2005, there were 79 driver deaths per million registered 2001-2004 model year vehicles, according to the Institute. By contrast,there were 110 deaths per million 1989 to 1993 model year vehicles on the road then. That represents a 30 percent reduction in the overall death rate.

.

cars aren't any safer?

 

[LTC8K6]

No, the safest way is to be no closer than 3-4 seconds behind the vehicle in front. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people on the road not doing this. People even tailgate semis for some reason.

You can't stay 3-4 seconds back because people will occupy or cut through any gap you leave that is bigger than a car length.

And often they try it with a gap that isn't bigger...

You will forever be giving way to them trying in vain to maintain a gap that can't be maintained.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Because it's trolling and irrelevant. Stop attacking me and stick with attacking my ideas or simply agree with me because you have realized that I am right. I don't ask about what your religious affiliation is so why should you ask about equally private information?

It's quite relevant. The opinion of a highly experienced driver carries more weight when it comes to driving techniques, as would someone with experience designing, testing or working on cars.

We're not talking about driving techniques and even if I was, I'd cite various sources and testimonials of people who are agreeing with my assertion with the OP included, so case closed.

Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this. The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed. Risking an accident to try and save a bit of gas isn't really a good way to save money. Even if you could guarantee you'd never get in an accident the inconvenience you'd cause to everyone else is pretty rude.

Well during heavy traffic people are acting retarded by hitting their brake lights everytime another person ahead brakes creating a phenomenon I believe is called the "whipping effect" (This is well documented) and since pulse and glide just so happens to follow this pattern, you'd actually fit right in with the flow of traffic ironically enough.

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
5 Stars = 10 percent or less chance of injury
4 Stars = 11-20 percent chance of injury
3 Stars = 21-35 percent chance of injury
2 Stars = 36-45 percent chance of injury
1 Star = 46 percent or greater chance of injury


Thats all the star crash ratings mean...

any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs. They crash head to head, no offset nothing just straight into each other. Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position..ect

I am willing to bet the 09 car will fare much better. If you were to crash them into a wall at 35 they would be similar since they are both 5 star rated. But cars of today are tons safer then in the 80's

During the years 2002 to 2005, there were 79 driver deaths per million registered 2001-2004 model year vehicles, according to the Institute. By contrast,there were 110 deaths per million 1989 to 1993 model year vehicles on the road then. That represents a 30 percent reduction in the overall death rate.

.

cars aren't any safer?

Lawl, you just contradicted yourself all over that post...

If everything is the same except the model year "any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs, Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position." then NO the 2009 is NOT going to *magically* fare better. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STAR RATING!!!!! The star rating means percentage wise, whether you achieve that percentage with an airbag or not, it's a percentage, THAT'S IT! The fact that you people can't grasp that a 5 star rated car in one test and another 5 star rated car in the same test aren't equal is what is so troublesome.

Teacher teacher why did timmy get a A when I only got a 95%????
Well Jimmy, a 95% is an A, I just happen to write A on Timmy's paper and 95% on your paper for what ever reason.

5 star = 5 star, for that vehicle size and that particular test, THAT IS IT! PERIOD.

As for the number of deaths declining, that's because the type of people driving those older more beat up vehicles are usually in the poorer demographics and consequently drive faster and more aggressively. More proof of this is by looking at the death rate between a Crown Victoria and a Mercury Grand Marquis, with the Crown Victoria getting the higher death rate (read poorer, less educated drivers).

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Because it's trolling and irrelevant. Stop attacking me and stick with attacking my ideas or simply agree with me because you have realized that I am right. I don't ask about what your religious affiliation is so why should you ask about equally private information?

It's quite relevant. The opinion of a highly experienced driver carries more weight when it comes to driving techniques, as would someone with experience designing, testing or working on cars.

We're not talking about driving techniques and even if I was, I'd cite various sources and testimonials of people who are agreeing with my assertion with the OP included, so case closed.

Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this. The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed. Risking an accident to try and save a bit of gas isn't really a good way to save money. Even if you could guarantee you'd never get in an accident the inconvenience you'd cause to everyone else is pretty rude.

Well during heavy traffic people are acting retarded by hitting their brake lights everytime another person ahead brakes creating a phenomenon I believe is called the "whipping effect" (This is well documented) and since pulse and glide just so happens to follow this pattern, you'd actually fit right in with the flow of traffic ironically enough.

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
5 Stars = 10 percent or less chance of injury
4 Stars = 11-20 percent chance of injury
3 Stars = 21-35 percent chance of injury
2 Stars = 36-45 percent chance of injury
1 Star = 46 percent or greater chance of injury


Thats all the star crash ratings mean...

any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs. They crash head to head, no offset nothing just straight into each other. Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position..ect

I am willing to bet the 09 car will fare much better. If you were to crash them into a wall at 35 they would be similar since they are both 5 star rated. But cars of today are tons safer then in the 80's

During the years 2002 to 2005, there were 79 driver deaths per million registered 2001-2004 model year vehicles, according to the Institute. By contrast,there were 110 deaths per million 1989 to 1993 model year vehicles on the road then. That represents a 30 percent reduction in the overall death rate.

.

cars aren't any safer?

Lawl, you just contradicted yourself all over that post...

If everything is the same except the model year "any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs, Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position." then NO the 2009 is NOT going to *magically* fare better. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STAR RATING!!!!! The star rating means percentage wise, whether you achieve that percentage with an airbag or not, it's a percentage, THAT'S IT! The fact that you people can't grasp that a 5 star rated car in one test and another 5 star rated car in the same test aren't equal is what is so troublesome.

Teacher teacher why did timmy get a A when I only got a 95%????
Well Jimmy, a 95% is an A, I just happen to write A on Timmy's paper and 95% on your paper for what ever reason.

5 star = 5 star, for that vehicle size and that particular test, THAT IS IT! PERIOD.

As for the number of deaths declining, that's because the type of people driving those older more beat up vehicles are usually in the poorer demographics and consequently drive faster and more aggressively. More proof of this is by looking at the death rate between a Crown Victoria and a Mercury Grand Marquis, with the Crown Victoria getting the higher death rate (read poorer, less educated drivers).

Everything in the two cars are the same with weight and frame but the 1980's car has 1980s Engineering and materials available vs the 2009 car with 2009 engineering and materials.

Yes they both get 5 star crash ratings when crashing by them self into a wall
but..Head on head with another car

Newer cars have crumple zones, higher strength steel, Channel energy away from occupants..ect older cars did not do this, as in many old car vs new car crashes they always get pwned by the newer cars. Which Is what I was trying to get at.

You could say that about the drivers that's the only bad thing about those types of reports that they cant take out the retards. but they all passed to get a drivers license so they have to be somewhat educated, of course there are still idiots. And yes I know getting a license is easy as shit.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Because it's trolling and irrelevant. Stop attacking me and stick with attacking my ideas or simply agree with me because you have realized that I am right. I don't ask about what your religious affiliation is so why should you ask about equally private information?

It's quite relevant. The opinion of a highly experienced driver carries more weight when it comes to driving techniques, as would someone with experience designing, testing or working on cars.

We're not talking about driving techniques and even if I was, I'd cite various sources and testimonials of people who are agreeing with my assertion with the OP included, so case closed.

Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this. The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed. Risking an accident to try and save a bit of gas isn't really a good way to save money. Even if you could guarantee you'd never get in an accident the inconvenience you'd cause to everyone else is pretty rude.

Well during heavy traffic people are acting retarded by hitting their brake lights everytime another person ahead brakes creating a phenomenon I believe is called the "whipping effect" (This is well documented) and since pulse and glide just so happens to follow this pattern, you'd actually fit right in with the flow of traffic ironically enough.

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
5 Stars = 10 percent or less chance of injury
4 Stars = 11-20 percent chance of injury
3 Stars = 21-35 percent chance of injury
2 Stars = 36-45 percent chance of injury
1 Star = 46 percent or greater chance of injury


Thats all the star crash ratings mean...

any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs. They crash head to head, no offset nothing just straight into each other. Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position..ect

I am willing to bet the 09 car will fare much better. If you were to crash them into a wall at 35 they would be similar since they are both 5 star rated. But cars of today are tons safer then in the 80's

During the years 2002 to 2005, there were 79 driver deaths per million registered 2001-2004 model year vehicles, according to the Institute. By contrast,there were 110 deaths per million 1989 to 1993 model year vehicles on the road then. That represents a 30 percent reduction in the overall death rate.

.

cars aren't any safer?

Lawl, you just contradicted yourself all over that post...

If everything is the same except the model year "any how lets set this up 1980's 5star 4dr 2000 lbs VS 2009 5 star 4dr 2000 lbs, Both their frames are the same height and the exact same position." then NO the 2009 is NOT going to *magically* fare better. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STAR RATING!!!!! The star rating means percentage wise, whether you achieve that percentage with an airbag or not, it's a percentage, THAT'S IT! The fact that you people can't grasp that a 5 star rated car in one test and another 5 star rated car in the same test aren't equal is what is so troublesome.

Teacher teacher why did timmy get a A when I only got a 95%????
Well Jimmy, a 95% is an A, I just happen to write A on Timmy's paper and 95% on your paper for what ever reason.

5 star = 5 star, for that vehicle size and that particular test, THAT IS IT! PERIOD.

As for the number of deaths declining, that's because the type of people driving those older more beat up vehicles are usually in the poorer demographics and consequently drive faster and more aggressively. More proof of this is by looking at the death rate between a Crown Victoria and a Mercury Grand Marquis, with the Crown Victoria getting the higher death rate (read poorer, less educated drivers).

Everything in the two cars are the same with weight and frame but the 1980's car has 1980s Engineering and materials available vs the 2009 car with 2009 engineering and materials.

Yes they both get 5 star crash ratings when crashing by them self into a wall
but..Head on head with another car

Newer cars have crumple zones, higher strength steel, Channel energy away from occupants..ect older cars did not do this, as in many old car vs new car crashes they always get pwned by the newer cars. Which Is what I was trying to get at.

You could say that about the drivers that's the only bad thing about those types of reports that they cant take out the retards. but they all passed to get a drivers license so they have to be somewhat educated, of course there are still idiots. And yes I know getting a license is easy as shit.

Um... why not head on with each other? Because it makes it seem like you think that two equally sized and rated cars crashing into each other head on is going to leave one a winner and one a loser and I'm trying to tell you, that isn't the case.

 

[thescreensavers]

^^ So your saying all passengers in Both cars will fare the the same? the 09 car with crumple zone and higher strength steel has no effect on anything?

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
^^ So your saying all passengers in Both cars will fare the the same? the 09 car with crumple zone and higher strength steel has no effect on anything?

Cars since the 70s have had crumple zones, FYI.

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You seem to forget that extra features that may help in one crash aren't going to help you in another type of collision. For example you can have all the airbags you could want but if you hit a guard rail head on at 60mph, you're going to be skewered regardless of vehicle.

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
^^ So your saying all passengers in Both cars will fare the the same? the 09 car with crumple zone and higher strength steel has no effect on anything?

Cars since the 70s have had crumple zones, FYI.

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You seem to forget that extra features that may help in one crash aren't going to help you in another type of collision. For example you can have all the airbags you could want but if you hit a guard rail head on at 60mph, you're going to be skewered regardless of vehicle.

I dont know the closing speeds but ill talk about these videos as if they are exactly equal, even though though they might not be.
1979vs 1987

As you can see there is no possible way for a passenger to of survived that crash at all in the escort and the Driver as well.

Modern Day incompatibility crash (both traveling at 35mph)

Yes even though some of the passengers of the Fiat had extreme amount of forces on them and high chance* of injury the passenger compartment stayed intact and they have a 100% better chance of living then getting crushed.

What do you think about this? I still dont see how you can honestly say that cars of the 80's are as safe as cars of 09/10

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
^^ So your saying all passengers in Both cars will fare the the same? the 09 car with crumple zone and higher strength steel has no effect on anything?

Cars since the 70s have had crumple zones, FYI.

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You seem to forget that extra features that may help in one crash aren't going to help you in another type of collision. For example you can have all the airbags you could want but if you hit a guard rail head on at 60mph, you're going to be skewered regardless of vehicle.

I dont know the closing speeds but ill talk about these videos as if they are exactly equal, even though though they might not be.
1979vs 1987

As you can see there is no possible way for a passenger to of survived that crash at all in the escort and the Driver as well.

Modern Day incompatibility crash (both traveling at 35mph)

Yes even though some of the passengers of the Fiat had extreme amount of forces on them and high change of injury the passenger compartment stayed intact and they have a 100% better chance of living then getting crushed.

What do you think about this? I still dont see how you can honestly say that cars of the 80's are as safe as cars of 09/10

Really? Really? You choose a Ford Escort Vs. a Ford F150? Are you kidding me? Not only was the crash NOT head on, but that's about the worst example you could have possibly thought of, next to a ford pinto and a semi truck....

That second test is again between two vehicles of completely different classes AND it's an offset, so it's far worse for the smaller car than a full frontal on the small car vs. a large car. 40% of a small car is a lot less area than 40% on a large car and when you combine a small area and crashing into a heavier vehicle, you end up with a disaster. It's completely retarded for these companies to think that anybody is going to hit only 40% of these "tiny" cars when crashing into full size vehicles.. I wouldn't be surprised if the full width of these tiny cars was about 40% of the width of a large vehicle..

 

[thescreensavers]

the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.

But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....

 

[PhoKingGuy]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
^^ So your saying all passengers in Both cars will fare the the same? the 09 car with crumple zone and higher strength steel has no effect on anything?

Cars since the 70s have had crumple zones, FYI.

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You seem to forget that extra features that may help in one crash aren't going to help you in another type of collision. For example you can have all the airbags you could want but if you hit a guard rail head on at 60mph, you're going to be skewered regardless of vehicle.

I dont know the closing speeds but ill talk about these videos as if they are exactly equal, even though though they might not be.
1979vs 1987

As you can see there is no possible way for a passenger to of survived that crash at all in the escort and the Driver as well.

Modern Day incompatibility crash (both traveling at 35mph)



Yes even though some of the passengers of the Fiat had extreme amount of forces on them and high change of injury the passenger compartment stayed intact and they have a 100% better chance of living then getting crushed.

What do you think about this? I still dont see how you can honestly say that cars of the 80's are as safe as cars of 09/10

Really? Really? You choose a Ford Escort Vs. a Ford F150? Are you kidding me? Not only was the crash NOT head on, but that's about the worst example you could have possibly thought of, next to a ford pinto and a semi truck....

That second test is again between two vehicles of completely different classes AND it's an offset, so it's far worse for the smaller car than a full frontal on the small car vs. a large car. 40% of a small car is a lot less area than 40% on a large car and when you combine a small area and crashing into a heavier vehicle, you end up with a disaster. It's completely retarded for these companies to think that anybody is going to hit only 40% of these "tiny" cars when crashing into full size vehicles.. I wouldn't be surprised if the full width of these tiny cars was about 40% of the width of a large vehicle..

The world isnt perfect, your ideal crash probably wont happen. They test offsets for a reason.

Really, we don't care about what you think, theres a reason car more people survive accidents now then there was in the past (I'm an EMT in a large metro area, I know this from fact). You can go along and think whatever you want, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.

But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....

I'm not saying cars today aren't safer than cars of the 80s, I'm saying in the exact same tests, cars of the 80s that got 5 stars and cars of today that get 5 stars are directly comparable. Aside from side impact and offset crash testing, there is nothing else to indicate whether a car of today will perform better in a crash test than a car from 1980. You can't automatically assume that the car from 1980 is going to do worse just because it's older. You should see what a 5 star crash test from 1980 looks like, it's a lot better than you'd imagine. Cars of the 1980s and early to mid 1990s for the most part weren't tested or designed for those test, yet those are two exclusive trains of thought. You can have a car that is designed for a test and do bad and you can have a car that isn't designed for a test perform well, and vice versa. I've seen cars that aren't designed for say the side impact crash test actually do quite well.

There are just too many factors in a crash test that make declarations such as "this car because it was made in X year is less safe than car made in Y year" to be false more than you'd expect.

For example, that Escort got a 5 star rating for passenger and 3 star for the driver. Not so great, right? Well the 1991 Ford Escort Gets 5 Stars for both passenger and the driver. So, do you think the '91 is a LOT safer than the '89? I'd have to say no.
Why?
Well why the chest and head had low risk for injuries, what it didn't do so well in is the femur loads. It has a 1403lbs and 1055lbs for driver, 2151lbs and 1119lbs femur loads; this is really high especially considering that this is a crash into a wall with just the weight of the car itself. The star rating doesn't consider femur load into the test and therefore it's deceptive.

The only test that has come close to giving cars a more fair and accurate overall assessment to its safety are the IIHS tests but since those tests weren't conducted on some 1995 and no 1994 and earlier model year cars, one cannot definitively determine whether one vehicle is safer than another just because it's older. But going off of what I do know which is the NHTSA tests, a 5 star rated car IN THAT CRASH is just as safe as another 5 star rated car assuming they're the same weight and size, regardless of model year.

You can't assume that a newer vehicle is safer than an older vehicle, especially when you throw in variables that aren't even tested for like tall or really short passengers, having the sun visor down, etc. etc.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.

But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....

Real world situation and "most of the time" aren't the same. Most crashes are actually single vehicle collisions (running off the road) and a far fewer percentage are offset collisions with another vehicle. However side impact and offset crashes are usually the ones where the people are guaranteed to die.

 

[SSSnail]

Here's another idea on how to save gas, buy another car. I just did, bought a Corolla for commuting. Even then my other ideas may still apply. I will still try to go downhill all the times. I will still try to use a sail. And, the Corolla will save much more gas when not on.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Because it's trolling and irrelevant. Stop attacking me and stick with attacking my ideas or simply agree with me because you have realized that I am right. I don't ask about what your religious affiliation is so why should you ask about equally private information?

It's quite relevant. The opinion of a highly experienced driver carries more weight when it comes to driving techniques, as would someone with experience designing, testing or working on cars.

We're not talking about driving techniques and even if I was, I'd cite various sources and testimonials of people who are agreeing with my assertion with the OP included, so case closed.

Popping into neutral whenever possible and pulse and glide are both techniques.

Pulse and glide around here would get people pissed off at you and cause traffic problems. The last thing you want on your commute is some moron with an erratic speed in traffic. It's a great way to start a traffic jam. Doing it with any other cars around just isn't safe. Anyone who's driven for a while would know this. The safest way to drive in traffic is to drive at a constant and reasonable speed. Risking an accident to try and save a bit of gas isn't really a good way to save money. Even if you could guarantee you'd never get in an accident the inconvenience you'd cause to everyone else is pretty rude.

Well during heavy traffic people are acting retarded by hitting their brake lights everytime another person ahead brakes creating a phenomenon I believe is called the "whipping effect" (This is well documented) and since pulse and glide just so happens to follow this pattern, you'd actually fit right in with the flow of traffic ironically enough.

Yeah right, there's no way you'd match up with the rest of traffic doing pulse and glide. The chances that you'll just happen to end up going the speed as the rest of traffic while doing pulse and glide is pretty much zero. Yes, in traffic there is quite a bit of 'speed up and slow down' stuff going on but to think that will come anywhere near an efficient pulse and glide is just ignorance.

Try coming out here to Phoenix and try that, each time you glide you'll find a half dozen cars that will squeeze into that space between you and the car in front of you.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.

But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....

Real world situation and "most of the time" aren't the same. Most crashes are actually single vehicle collisions (running off the road) and a far fewer percentage are offset collisions with another vehicle. However side impact and offset crashes are usually the ones where the people are guaranteed to die.

Exactly, and modern cars are tested in those while older cars weren't required to be. Rollover testing is another big change. Those kinds of accidents are the most likely to kill someone.

As you said, most accidents are cars running off the road. A single car collision where you hit a large immovable object (tree, telephone poll, etc often will be closer to the offset test than an impact with a wall. Impacting a solid object that doesn't span the whole front end doesn't compare well to the wall test.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.

All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thescreensavers
the reason for off sets is because "in a real world situation or most of the time" People try to turn away instead of hitting head on. But I couldn't find any other videos for older cars sorry lol Its still similar enough... I could of found videos with Semis and small cars but whats the point? we all know what happens.

But modern day cars are safer then 1980's cars as showed in that video. Yes it might not be 100% equal videos but its close enough....

I'm not saying cars today aren't safer than cars of the 80s, I'm saying in the exact same tests, cars of the 80s that got 5 stars and cars of today that get 5 stars are directly comparable. Aside from side impact and offset crash testing, there is nothing else to indicate whether a car of today will perform better in a crash test than a car from 1980. You can't automatically assume that the car from 1980 is going to do worse just because it's older. You should see what a 5 star crash test from 1980 looks like, it's a lot better than you'd imagine. Cars of the 1980s and early to mid 1990s for the most part weren't tested or designed for those test, yet those are two exclusive trains of thought. You can have a car that is designed for a test and do bad and you can have a car that isn't designed for a test perform well, and vice versa. I've seen cars that aren't designed for say the side impact crash test actually do quite well.

There are just too many factors in a crash test that make declarations such as "this car because it was made in X year is less safe than car made in Y year" to be false more than you'd expect.

For example, that Escort got a 5 star rating for passenger and 3 star for the driver. Not so great, right? Well the 1991 Ford Escort Gets 5 Stars for both passenger and the driver. So, do you think the '91 is a LOT safer than the '89? I'd have to say no.
Why?
Well why the chest and head had low risk for injuries, what it didn't do so well in is the femur loads. It has a 1403lbs and 1055lbs for driver, 2151lbs and 1119lbs femur loads; this is really high especially considering that this is a crash into a wall with just the weight of the car itself. The star rating doesn't consider femur load into the test and therefore it's deceptive.

The only test that has come close to giving cars a more fair and accurate overall assessment to its safety are the IIHS tests but since those tests weren't conducted on some 1995 and no 1994 and earlier model year cars, one cannot definitively determine whether one vehicle is safer than another just because it's older. But going off of what I do know which is the NHTSA tests, a 5 star rated car IN THAT CRASH is just as safe as another 5 star rated car assuming they're the same weight and size, regardless of model year.

You can't assume that a newer vehicle is safer than an older vehicle, especially when you throw in variables that aren't even tested for like tall or really short passengers, having the sun visor down, etc. etc.

There is not, your right. But those 2 count for a lot... If you look at car accidents most of them are offset and not full on perfect crashes which is why they now do the offset test. Saying that offset and side crash testing are no biggie, and that they don't make a 2009 car safer then a 1980's car your crazy.

you can only test for so many variables I know, but based on the standard... Also if you look at Femur loads, and chest deceleration from older cars to newer cars you can see that the newer cars of the same models are lower thus improving chance to survive.

Lets take a nissan Maxima


1990
Driver/Passenger

Head Injury Criterion 808 736
Chest deceleration (g's) 51 44
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 611 / 664 1409 / 1043

2009

Head Injury Criterion 255 366
Chest deceleration (g's) 43 41
Femur load l/r1 (lb) 301 / 133 682 / 378

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.

All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.

I have a very low tolerance for ignorance.

Anyways, around here I've known multiple people that were good drivers that have gotten hit by morons running red lights, swerving in traffic, driving drunk, trying to text and drive, or half a dozen other things. Arizona has some of the absolute worst drivers I have ever seen in my life.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.

All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.

I have a very low tolerance for ignorance.

Anyways, around here I've known multiple people that were good drivers that have gotten hit by morons running red lights, swerving in traffic, driving drunk, trying to text and drive, or half a dozen other things. Arizona has some of the absolute worst drivers I have ever seen in my life.

Yes, and most of the time an alert driver can avoid these idiots. Of course there are those rare instances where you are caught out but, even then, how you handle the moments leading up to impact and the few moments after can have a huge influence on the outcome.

I've been driving for decades and I've only had one instance where I was hit completely unaware. I've been able to avoid accidents a number of times.

It's far more than just wrapping yourself in the latest 9 airbag equipped German conveyance.

Great...now I'm getting sucked into this debate. :laugh:

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.

All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.

I have a very low tolerance for ignorance.

Anyways, around here I've known multiple people that were good drivers that have gotten hit by morons running red lights, swerving in traffic, driving drunk, trying to text and drive, or half a dozen other things. Arizona has some of the absolute worst drivers I have ever seen in my life.

Yes, and most of the time an alert driver can avoid these idiots. Of course there are those rare instances where you are caught out but, even then, how you handle the moments leading up to impact and the few moments after can have a huge influence on the outcome.

I've been driving for decades and I've only had one instance where I was hit completely unaware. I've been able to avoid accidents a number of times.

It's far more than just wrapping yourself in the latest 9 airbag equipped German conveyance.

Great...now I'm getting sucked into this debate. :laugh:

I've only been in one accident and to this day I don't see how I could have avoided it. I was driving along going the speed limit (40 mph) when a medium sized box delivery truck was coming the opposite direction. The truck had been going slow and there was a long line of cars behind it. Apparently one of them decided to try and take a different way because just as I got up to the truck the car directly behind it took a turn right across my lane of traffic. I had no where to go (truck and cars on one side, trees on the side of the road) so I just stood on the brake, I ended up T-boning the other car going maybe 30 mph.

While I'm not planning on getting in an accident I still pay attention to car safety. I can control myself and my vehicle but there's way too many morons out there.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about car safety...You want to know what the biggest factor in automobile safety is? It's the knucklehead sitting in the drivers seat. You know who is most likely to be involved in an accident and be seriously injured or killed? Young adult males.

All the safety features in the world aren't going to protect you from your own stupidity...they might help but you guys would do better to go take some professional driver training instead of arguing about the crash worthiness of the vehicles you drive.

I have a very low tolerance for ignorance.

Anyways, around here I've known multiple people that were good drivers that have gotten hit by morons running red lights, swerving in traffic, driving drunk, trying to text and drive, or half a dozen other things. Arizona has some of the absolute worst drivers I have ever seen in my life.

Yes, and most of the time an alert driver can avoid these idiots. Of course there are those rare instances where you are caught out but, even then, how you handle the moments leading up to impact and the few moments after can have a huge influence on the outcome.

I've been driving for decades and I've only had one instance where I was hit completely unaware. I've been able to avoid accidents a number of times.

It's far more than just wrapping yourself in the latest 9 airbag equipped German conveyance.

Great...now I'm getting sucked into this debate. :laugh:

I've only been in one accident and to this day I don't see how I could have avoided it. I was driving along going the speed limit (40 mph) when a medium sized box delivery truck was coming the opposite direction. The truck had been going slow and there was a long line of cars behind it. Apparently one of them decided to try and take a different way because just as I got up to the truck the car directly behind it took a turn right across my lane of traffic. I had no where to go (truck and cars on one side, trees on the side of the road) so I just stood on the brake, I ended up T-boning the other car going maybe 30 mph.

While I'm not planning on getting in an accident I still pay attention to car safety. I can control myself and my vehicle but there's way too many morons out there.

Well, I'm not one to go through life worrying about things I have zero control over. And I'm not about to wrap myself in the biggest gas guzzling SUV on the off chance that some moron might crash into me.

I ride a motorcycle and a bicycle on the roads around here, if I cash in doing something I love then so be it.