What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
84 Comments
- oriondr, on 11/01/2009, -1/+22Whatever you need to do to justify that burrito.
- Nintendesert, on 11/01/2009, -0/+20It would also be more efficient to add golf ball dimples to a car. I'm still waiting for that.
- dha07030, on 11/01/2009, -2/+13They did not take acceleration in to account on their tests they got up 60 miles an hour first and held that speed for one mile.
- DrunkenSavior, on 11/01/2009, -0/+11The MB dimples were scaled appropriately from golf ball dimples. The Popular Mechanics one was not.
- indyGuy, on 11/01/2009, -0/+10keep your car outside during a hailstorm...
- legoalert33, on 11/01/2009, -7/+17I would rather carry 400 pounds of weight for traction than save $0.12 a gallon.
- ricodued, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9Yeah, pretty much what dha07030 said. The weight of the clay adds more inertia, making it harder for the car to accelerate up to a given speed. However, once at that speed, it's fairly easy to maintain it.
- brad3378, on 11/01/2009, -1/+9I'd rather save $0.12 cents a gallon by making your girlfriend walk than to carry around another 400 pounds in my car.
- DaviDTC, on 11/01/2009, -1/+8Mythbusters added 600 pounds of clay to their car and didn't notice any difference in mpg. A spare tire is not going to do anything.
- RabidCapitalist, on 11/01/2009, -1/+8The fact that everyone else on the road drives land-yachts does not make it right for me to do it. I'm a single guy commuting an hour to work one-way. Besides the ridiculous fuel cost, it would be irresponsible in terms of the environment, parking, etc to own a large car or SUV.
Yes, if I'm in an accident I might die more easily, but that's a risk I accept. - fragMasterFlash, on 11/01/2009, -0/+7I love my Canyonero.
- goband, on 11/01/2009, -0/+6Yeah you can crush a can with your hands pretty easy.
Try crushing a soda can by throwing another soda can at it. The reason it's so dangerous to be in a light car at the moment is because there are so many heavy cars out there. It's hard to break a brick with a brick and it's hard to crush a soda can with a soda can. - yg87, on 11/01/2009, -1/+7"People who know what they're doing (and by this, we mean they have a reliable back-up plan, either a cell phone and time to wait or AAA or something) sometimes ditch the spare tire and just deal with it when a tire goes flat."
Really? - theanticrust1, on 11/01/2009, -1/+7Sure a heavier vehicle will hold up better in a crash compared to the other vehicles in that crash, but if everyone drove lighter cars the crashes wouldn't be as bad. Investing in heavier cars for safety is a game that never ends, we all just wind up driving heavier and heavier cars. Which means in the end we all lose.
- Ineedanap, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5Its nice in the summer, I can take the hard top, doors and back seat out of my jeep.. right around 500lbs all together.
In the winter, not so much. - hawkspur, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5Mythbusters ftw
- Skurt, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5Fill the tire with helium, that'll bring some of the weight down.
While you are at it, fill the other 4 tires as well...
And don't take your 600lb wife along anywhere either - inactive, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5Heavy has nothing to do with it. It's the way they construct the body and frame. You could have a "heavy" vehicle that has people crushing crumple zones. I think you meant to say, it is more common to see piece of ***** import vehicles having to be opened like a can of tuna with the jaws of life.
A heavy vehicle doesn't stick to the road better. A vehicle with proper tires, possibly AWD, proper weight distribution sticks to the road better. - grumpyrain, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5A heavier vehicle will also require more braking force to stop and require a larger contact point for equivalent traction, will become edgy at lower cornering speeds and will be much harder to swerve. A heavier vehicle is not required to stick to the road, a low centre of gravity, good weight distribution and suspension setup do much more for vehicle dynamics than the differences of weight you are talking about.
The single biggest improvement to traction in the past few years has been stability control, allowing your car to individually accelerate and brake specific wheels if the car starts to point in a direction contrary to your steering angle. AWD helps in that process and also in providing a more neutral steering (at the limits RWD tends to oversteer, FWD understeer). Where AWD noticably helps from a safety perspective is accelerating in the wet. - inactive, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4
lol.. I'm going to start referring to anyone who drives a hybrid as a beta male. - grumpyrain, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4I would rather drive a car that crumples upon impact with a non crumple passenger compartment that minimises the risks of intrusion, designed with collapsable engine mounts and steering column to minimise leg injury, curtain air bags for side on collisions and AWD for wet road traction, and stability control so that my car works with me in an evasive manoeuvre instead of fighting me.
Old tanks may not have a scratch after an accident, but the force of the impact is transmitted straight to the occupants. I would rather be in a car that has measurable safety than one that looks tough. - Skurt, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4Except when the 2 100 lb bags of sand come flying into the drivers head from the hatchback section during an accident ;)
- JigoroKano, on 11/01/2009, -1/+5In the simplest approximation, the force of friction is proportional to the weight of the vehicle. So yes, that increases traction in that sense.
But with more weight, you have proportionally more mass (read inertia) and then it takes proportionally more force to stop the car.
So in the simplest approximation weight is not a factor one way or the other. It completely cancels out. - computershack, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3Our "big steel man cars" in the EU have worse crash test ratings than our smaller ones, typically suffering from the passenger cell integrity failing. Sure, the front end of the little one will be as flat as a pancake but the passenger cell, THE BIT WHERE YOU SIT will be untouched. So whereas the firebrigade will be cutting you out of your SUV, you'll be able to open the door and get out of a smaller saloon. OK, so the saloon will be written off and your SUV will look fairly OK but it also will be written off. The difference is that the saloon crumple zones will have absorbed the force of the accident whereas the SUV will have transferred it throughout the vehicle, including you.
- computershack, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3"about 4,000 people die every year from driving vehicles too small.."
*****. - Nerys, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3they did notice a difference. 26.4 stock 26.0 with clay. so at speed they lost .4mpg from the 600pounds of clay.
the other poster was correct MOST of mass related economy loss is from acceleration. They were testing aero so the losses from acceleration were not a concern.
it can be done with VERY little mass in comparison. I also do not think you need to do the entire car. delamination of airflow via base drag is where it helps. in fact I think they are LOSING some potential gains by doing the whole car.
do just the last 25% of the roof and quarter panels and the trunk and I think they would have seen ever better gains. so much so in fact I am thinking of trying it on my little metro.
maybe a golf ball dimpled kamback or something like that. - linagee, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3The article also says if you drive a constant 30mph, you'll get around 60mpg of fuel economy. Too bad there are red lights and other cars going faster/slower on the side streets...
- Barackalypse, on 11/01/2009, -1/+4Here is a nice summary of the ways to reduce gasoline consumption. Notice your driving habits (speed and acceleration) absolutely dwarf weight in impact (realistically how many hundreds of pounds can you remove from your existing vehicle)?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml - zoomaKabu, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2"ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL"
Same safety features, same design considerations, the bigger vehicle always wins. Always. - RabidCapitalist, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2With an open top, your Jeep is less aerodynamic at highway speeds, and your lower weight won't necessarily translate into any fuel savings. But you may notice the vehicle handles a little better with all that weight gone.
I have a small car that's a convertible, and I get about 7 MPG less with the top down. But that's the price we pay for style, I guess. :-) - iGeni3, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Silly thing is though, if everybody would be driving lighter cars, the impact difference and risk of injury would be equal or lower. As they are lighter, there is less energy to dissipate, hence less sturdy impact systems, creating the same conditions as with heavy cars :)
- DaviDTC, on 11/01/2009, -1/+3I drive in town 95% of the time.
- RabidCapitalist, on 11/01/2009, -2/+4Which begs the (obvious) question of why you would own a Jeep in the first place...?
- pissshivers, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Mass has direct and obvious affect on fuel consumption in city driving, when you are accelerating a stopping often. But on the highway, where you maintain a constant and efficient speed, aerodynamics has a higher impact than weight. To maintain your motion you are just fighting friction and air resistance. Like in that golf ball physics Mythbusters episode, they added a lot of weight to the car, but aerodynamic improvements resulted in a big increase in efficiency.
edit: oh yeah, you can also reduce friction by reducing rolling resistance with higher tire pressure, but it'll will affect stopping distance negatively. - slickfranky, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Hey! My wife was killed by a cell phone!
- Fanrir, on 11/01/2009, -1/+3Make sure they talk and text on their cell phones while driving so you know instantly they're OK. Also it wouldn't hurt to bring them McDonalds for supper so they get good and fat, more cushion on body = more safe.
- Fanrir, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Not on the street. I do however race one on a road course.
- Metalcastr, on 11/01/2009, -0/+265 tons of American pride
- Nerys, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1Just make sure i have my camera ready. I really want to see what a burn out looks like at 1200fps :-)
- Jeff901, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1+1
- Logicexe, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1Actually no. Old tanks tend to crumple compared to newer cars. Just take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
Even new small cars are pretty good at absorbing the impact, but the lighter ones tend to bounce away from the accident putting you in a much higher risk of getting hit again, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU
So size can help prevent injury in an accident, but those "old tanks" are death traps. - Nerys, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1I just wish people would remember that on ice and water AWD and 4WD help you GO better but do absolutely nothing to help you STOP better
the 2wd car has the SAME number of wheels and same number of "brakes" as the 4WD car.
I lost count of how many SUV's i pulled out of ditches with my jeep because people forget this important little fact.
I love when its a blizzard out I can go anywhere I want in my cherokee but I do so within the limits of the conditions. I was coming home from philly many years ago when we used to actually get some snow doing 35mph on I95 so was anyone else with half a brain.
this bronco barrels by at 55mph 1mile later he is in a ditch. unhurt and on a cell phone so I left him there. Smack ass. - Jeff901, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2in rain and snow where speeds are low, ground effects have no effect.
- Ineedanap, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1Long wheel base wrangler unlimited 2 door w/ 6speed manual. I have a bikini top and a tonneau style deck cover, when the soft top is on, it looks like the old jeep pickups. I usually see about a 2mpg increase in the summer over winter. But then, I also add a 200+ lb snow plow mount and hydraulic pump come winter.
- goband, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1"Simply taking weight out doesn't make a car less damaging in a crash."
That's the point I've been trying to make.
The original poster said, "Why are cars so heavy, so little Timmy and Mary Sue in the backseat will survive a 60 mph car crash"
Which is false. Cars are so heavy because they ride smoother, not because they are safer. Which is what I said earlier. 2 hondas or 2 locomotives, it doesn't matter, both collisions are equally deadly. But a honda vs. a locomotive, the honda loses. Big time. That is where weight comes into play as far as safety is concerned.
But the cars aren't designed to be heavy to be safe. They're heavy so they don't move when you hit a bump.
Hit a tennis ball with a tennis racket and see how far it goes. Then hit a bowling ball with a tennis racket. It doesn't go as far because it is HEAVY.
We're Americans.
Comfort > Safety - FLUX, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2well eurotrash idiot. my suv stops from 50 mph to 0 in apprx 130-140 ft your road lice eurotrash compacts do it in about 115 -120 ft, last time I checked even with metric conversion that is considerably less than 3 miles
also in the figures i would bet not every crash of one of your tin foil socialist piece of ***** cracker box cars is with a solid built suv
the figures don't lie you will die in a crash with a small car you wont in an suv - Ugotownedo, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1That's exactly what I was thinking, but now that you mention it, does that mean that making your car lighter does not increase handling? So when racing teams design their cars, do they focus on light-weight not for handling, but for acceleration?
- Logicexe, on 11/02/2009, -0/+110% then, not bad, but still a small percentage of total accidents. I wonder how many of those accidents were caused by large heavy vehicles being harder to control? How many of those accidents might have been avoided if both cars were smaller and had less inertia and lower centers of gravity? How many of those deaths happened in old small cars that are significantly less safe than newer small cars? I guess what I'm trying to get at is how many of those 4000 deaths would have been avoided if the driver of the small car had a bigger car or if the driver of the big car had a smaller car?
Frankly, this whole thing smacks of selfishness. The flip side of this argument is that big cars pose a danger to small cars. "***** everyone else, I got my 5 ton gas guzzler so get the ***** out of my way!" Small cars can be dangerous partly because of bigger cars. It's like an arms race. Everyone has a 2 ton car so you go and buy a 3 ton car then everyone else goes out and buys a 4 ton car which prompts you to get a 5 ton car to protect yourself, then everyone goes out and gets a 6 ton car and now you're the one, again in danger of being smooshed by giant cars. So you go out and get a 7 ton car etc.... - Nerys, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1it only cancels out if you do gravity stops. if you use the brakes you EXPENDED the energy to accelerate the mass but did not REGAIN the energy via coasting and inertia to stop.
thats why you can greatly improve mileage if you try to drive as much as possible as if you don't have brakes ie use them as little as possible (engine braking is still brakes your expended energy you could be using to cover distance)
caution should be used to not piss off people around you though :-) - mofw, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1Negatively.
-
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is