Headline I thought I'd never see

On 03/22/2012 08:02 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Yanik" wrote in message
>> 4...
>>
>> "Elmo P. > wrote in news:elmop-
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Hey, Honda--bring back the NSX. Bring back a car that competes with
>>> Scion, for God's sake. Anything.
>>
>> To hell with the NSX,bring back the Prelude and CRX;AFFORDABLE sporty
>> cars.
>>
>> even the Integra was more desirable for most car buyers.
>> too bad my GS-R got stolen,stripped and torched.
>>
>> I went used a few weeks ago and bought a 05 S2000 with 31k miles on
>> it. Having the time of my life -- at age 70. Way better than the 5th
>> gen Prelude I had.
>>
>>
>
> I would not own another convertible,and sometimes,having the extra two
> "seats" is an advantage.
> plus,IIRC,the last Prelude had a fold-down or pass-thru rear seat.

the prelude with an s2000 engine would be a lot of fun, and as you say,
it's a much more practical configuration. if they added the honda 4wd
system, even more so. upgrade the engine output to that of the wrx or
evo, and suddenly you have a real drivers car that would re-launch the
whole honda ethos, even if people didn't actually buy them in quantity.


>
> the S2000 would make a great second car,though.
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 03/22/2012 06:26 AM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
>> hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
>> Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>
>
> That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially the
> newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to build a light
> car of any size.

that's not true - there's nothing in the regulations regarding weight.
they just make it hardER to build /cheaply/.

which is of course, the whole point, politically speaking. the
manufacturers know the agenda is not really safety, it's to make cars
heavier to negate the fuel savings of their better engines. and they
know damn well that if they /did/ make a better lighter car that was
significantly more economical, there'd be a shake-down like there was
with toyota and the bogus throttle "problem". much easier to just
kow-tow to the political [read: "oil lobbying"] machine and build a
heavier car.


>
> Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was 20
> years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags, ABS, etc.
>
> Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new car
> and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have tree-trunks for
> pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to your nose. Visibility
> sucks.
>
> You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have both
> unless you start using materials and processes that would put the price out
> of reach of the average consumer.

popular misconception. aluminum beer cans are much more high tech than
their steel counterparts, yet they're cheaper. aluminum framed
bicycles are often cheaper than comparable steel counterparts. aluminum
cars are not prohibitively more expensive than steel. and with volume
production, would be directly comparable since the material is easier to
work and form. and you can get stiffer frames more easily leading to
more design possibilities.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 03/22/2012 08:07 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC), >
> wrote:
>
>>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord V6
>>> hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with the
>>> Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>>
>>
>> That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially the
>> newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to build a light
>> car of any size.
>>
>> Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was 20
>> years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags, ABS, etc.
>>
>> Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new car
>> and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have tree-trunks for
>> pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to your nose. Visibility
>> sucks.
>>
>> You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have both
>> unless you start using materials and processes that would put the price out
>> of reach of the average consumer.
>
> Well, but that's where the challenge is now for Honda or anybody.
>
> I guess the question is to what degree the new standards make sense?
> I've never heard that the old, ligher Hondas had any reputation as
> death traps.

the late 80's hondas were pretty much at the top of the game in that
regard. great crash resistant frames, no abs, no airbags - and
economical because of the weight savings.


>
> I believe the air bags are a total waste of money and can really only
> be counterproductive,

they're good for a very limited percentage of the population - the
people that drive hunched up close to the wheel. but i think darwinian
natural selection of those people from the gene pool is a good thing -
and certainly not one worth the nation wasting billions of dollars to
oil despots for.


> I guess with all the side airbags and crap that
> might be a hundred pounds - and more than a thousand dollars, right
> there. So if that's a sign, then probably 95% of the new standards
> are garbage.

i couldn't agree more. all the time, money, weight and gasoline wasted
lugging about "side impact protection" that is not a significant
proportion of road impacts, and is pretty much impossible to /really/
protect since there is no room for an adequate crumple zone, is just
insane.

i'll say it again to be boring - if passenger safety was the /real/
objective, we'd all have tubular safety cages, 6-point harness and
helmets in our cars. then we could drive our 1600lb vehicles into the
barrier at 200mph and walk away. just like indy.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 03/22/2012 07:40 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-managers-in-p
>> ush-for-u-s-revival.html

honda's trojan horse:

John Mendel,
"ex" frod.

honda japan would do well to, um, "audit" this guy.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in :

> On 03/22/2012 06:26 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord
>>> V6 hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with
>>> the Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>>
>>
>> That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially
>> the newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to
>> build a light car of any size.
>
> that's not true - there's nothing in the regulations regarding weight.
> they just make it hardER to build /cheaply/.
>
> which is of course, the whole point, politically speaking. the
> manufacturers know the agenda is not really safety, it's to make cars
> heavier to negate the fuel savings of their better engines. and they
> know damn well that if they /did/ make a better lighter car that was
> significantly more economical, there'd be a shake-down like there was
> with toyota and the bogus throttle "problem". much easier to just
> kow-tow to the political [read: "oil lobbying"] machine and build a
> heavier car.
>
>
>>
>> Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was
>> 20 years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags,
>> ABS, etc.
>>
>> Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new
>> car and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have
>> tree-trunks for pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to
>> your nose. Visibility sucks.
>>
>> You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have
>> both unless you start using materials and processes that would put
>> the price out of reach of the average consumer.
>
> popular misconception. aluminum beer cans are much more high tech
> than their steel counterparts, yet they're cheaper. aluminum framed
> bicycles are often cheaper than comparable steel counterparts.
> aluminum cars are not prohibitively more expensive than steel. and
> with volume production, would be directly comparable since the
> material is easier to work and form. and you can get stiffer frames
> more easily leading to more design possibilities.
>
>

IIRC,Audi builds an aluminum car. a version of the A2,IIRC.

What bugs me is that side-impact regs have brought about taller cars,no
more low sporty cars. newer small cars are several inches taller than older
small cars. So they end up being tall and narrow,Ugh.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 03/23/2012 07:42 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim > wrote in :
>
>> On 03/22/2012 06:26 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>> > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was actually just going to post about the late unlamented Accord
>>>> V6 hybrid from a couple years back, how about just keeping up with
>>>> the Jones's with an Accord hybrid I4 - AND KNOCK 500 POUNDS OFF IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's exactly the point. Modern "safety" regulations -- especially
>>> the newer side-impact regs -- make it difficult to impossible to
>>> build a light car of any size.
>>
>> that's not true - there's nothing in the regulations regarding weight.
>> they just make it hardER to build /cheaply/.
>>
>> which is of course, the whole point, politically speaking. the
>> manufacturers know the agenda is not really safety, it's to make cars
>> heavier to negate the fuel savings of their better engines. and they
>> know damn well that if they /did/ make a better lighter car that was
>> significantly more economical, there'd be a shake-down like there was
>> with toyota and the bogus throttle "problem". much easier to just
>> kow-tow to the political [read: "oil lobbying"] machine and build a
>> heavier car.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Everything these days is 400-500 lbs heavier than the same size was
>>> 20 years ago, and all of that has gone into the structure, airbags,
>>> ABS, etc.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the roof pillars, window sizes, and beltlines on a new
>>> car and compare them against a 1992 model. The new cars have
>>> tree-trunks for pillars, gun slits for windows, and beltlines up to
>>> your nose. Visibility sucks.
>>>
>>> You can have "safety", and you can have lightness, but you can't have
>>> both unless you start using materials and processes that would put
>>> the price out of reach of the average consumer.
>>
>> popular misconception. aluminum beer cans are much more high tech
>> than their steel counterparts, yet they're cheaper. aluminum framed
>> bicycles are often cheaper than comparable steel counterparts.
>> aluminum cars are not prohibitively more expensive than steel. and
>> with volume production, would be directly comparable since the
>> material is easier to work and form. and you can get stiffer frames
>> more easily leading to more design possibilities.
>>
>>
>
> IIRC,Audi builds an aluminum car. a version of the A2,IIRC.
>
> What bugs me is that side-impact regs have brought about taller cars,no
> more low sporty cars. newer small cars are several inches taller than older
> small cars. So they end up being tall and narrow,Ugh.
>

i don't think that's a result of regulation, i think it's typical mba
"focus group research" saying "people like to be up high", [i.e. the
same idiocy that shoved the suv down our throats for so long] and /that/
is driving a voluntary design decision.

and i know i don't like suv's not being /able/ to "low beam" me at night
because their lights are mounted so high. that's addressed by making
the car higher too.

blame it all on suv's.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Jim Yanik > wrote in
4:


>
> What bugs me is that side-impact regs have brought about taller
> cars,no more low sporty cars. newer small cars are several inches
> taller than older small cars. So they end up being tall and
> narrow,Ugh.
>


That's part of it, yes.

Side-intrusion regs basically dictate that cowl- and belt-lines be really
high so as to reinforce the structure. This in addition to increased
pillar-thickness and floorpan-reinforcement.

Side-curtain airbags (part of the effort to meet intrusion regs) cause
pillars and rooflines to /really/ thicken. The B-pillars on all cars these
days are at least 4-times thicker than those on my '91 Integra.

In addition, pedestrian-protection regs result in bulbous front-ends, and
high cowls help with creating those bulbous fronts.

Like I said, you can have "safety", or you can have lightness. But you
can't have both unless you start using materials and processes that put
prices out of reach of most drivers.

Cars from 1990 were hardly death-traps. All we need to do is roll "safety"
regulations back to what they were in 1990, and you'd have your original
CRX back. But then a lot of activists would be unhappy, and a lot of
bureaucrats would be out of work, so that will never happen.


--
Tegger

Honda V-6s have possibilities in a sportier car. They've increased
rated HP in the last couple years and could probably get more if they
tune them like Acura does.

A Honda V-8 would be an interesting motor, if they did it.

"David E. Powell" > wrote in news:1e3fcf7e-eecb-
:

> Honda V-6s have possibilities in a sportier car. They've increased
> rated HP in the last couple years and could probably get more if they
> tune them like Acura does.
>
> A Honda V-8 would be an interesting motor, if they did it.
>



A number of years ago Honda officially stated that they would never made a
V8 becuase they didn't think V8s were "green" enough.

But then around the same time they also said they'd never make their V6 any
bigger thean 3.0 liters, so...

--
Tegger

On 03/23/2012 06:38 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Jim > wrote in
> 4:
>
>
>>
>> What bugs me is that side-impact regs have brought about taller
>> cars,no more low sporty cars. newer small cars are several inches
>> taller than older small cars. So they end up being tall and
>> narrow,Ugh.
>>
>
>
> That's part of it, yes.
>
> Side-intrusion regs basically dictate that cowl- and belt-lines be really
> high so as to reinforce the structure.

really? i just plowed through this turgid drivel

<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/19/2011-547/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-ejection-mitigation-phase-in-reporting-requirements#h-72>

and can't find any such dictate. where do you get your information?
can you post a cite?


> This in addition to increased
> pillar-thickness and floorpan-reinforcement.
>
> Side-curtain airbags (part of the effort to meet intrusion regs) cause
> pillars and rooflines to /really/ thicken. The B-pillars on all cars these
> days are at least 4-times thicker than those on my '91 Integra.

there's nothing saying they have to be thicker. they just have to be
stronger. and of course they have to be even stronger than before to
withstand the weight of an even heavier car than before.

but getting back to the stronger point, have you ever looked at the
windshield pillar on a convertible? did you know that that pillar has
to be strong enough to support the whole car, and that to do so without
additional connected structures such as the roof, requires more strength
than the pillars on a conventional sedan? with those key points in
mind, have you ever asked yourself why the convertible's pillar is still
the same size as the sedan????

iow, you're just making this stuff up tegger. there is nothing in the
regs dictating pillar size, simply strength. and increased strength, as
evidenced by convertible versions of sedans, shows it can be done
without bloat.


>
> In addition, pedestrian-protection regs result in bulbous front-ends, and
> high cowls help with creating those bulbous fronts.

seriously tegger, where do you get this stuff?


>
> Like I said, you can have "safety", or you can have lightness. But you
> can't have both unless you start using materials and processes that put
> prices out of reach of most drivers.

myth, propaganda, b.s.


>
> Cars from 1990 were hardly death-traps. All we need to do is roll "safety"
> regulations back to what they were in 1990, and you'd have your original
> CRX back. But then a lot of activists would be unhappy, and a lot of
> bureaucrats would be out of work, so that will never happen.

it's got nothing to do with "activists", and everything to do with oil
companies fighting to increase vehicle weights to keep gasoline
consumption up as engines become more efficient. perhaps if you weren't
so blinded by your irrational hatreds of anything to do with u.s.
regulatory environments*, you'd be able to actually see, and comment on,
reality.


* something i have to say is bizarre for someone who doesn't even live here.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum