Mid & rear engine placement safety implications

On 9/3/2013 8:00 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 12:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> I suppose, but we rear engine drivers think about that gas tank above
>> our ankles more than the hunk of aluminum behind us. Neither have been
>> any trouble in any of the crashes I've survived in a long series of
>> Corvairs (I drive much less aggressively than when I was young so I
>> don't expect more drama from here on out to test your theory)
>>
>
> yeah, but there's a cut-off on that "more age = safer driving" theory.
> when you get past a certain point, your judgment/perceptions go. badly.
> and then you start killing people. i nearly got side-swiped off a
> cliff by some old guy [ironically, he looked remarkably like jobst,

No one here but me, Muzi and Nate probably know who you are referring to.

The Book (that jim beam loves to hate):
<http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html>

> german accent too] who carved me up in their suburban [which would have
> been really ironic if it was he]. when i caught him up and started
> screaming at him, he couldn't understand why. "but i've been driving 60
> years" he tried to say. finally the logic of "random strangers don't
> scream at you but people you've nearly killed do" seemed to get through.
> fact is, he just completely misjudged both speed and distance and that
> was a function of old age. sure, staying behind the wheel is pride and
> independence and all that, but when you get old, you need to realize,
> you've gotten old! and stop driving.

I will ride a scooter as long as I can balance - much less deadly to others.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 9/3/2013 8:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> You speak as if a drivetrain couldn't slip between driver and passenger.
> Traditional front engine/RWD vehicle could do that easily, especially
> with an inline four or six cylinder engine. Not saying that that will
> happen in all cases, but it is possible, and one would assume that
> engineers have attempted to make that happen. Whereas if you are 12"
> from the leading edge of the vehicle you know that that is all the crush
> space you have.
>
> nate

What about the traditional USian full-size car that has a 3-passenger
front bench seat?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:

> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single
> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.
>
>
VW Type II?

<http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>

--
T0m $herm@n

On 9/3/2013 9:30 PM, jim beam wrote:
> important context addition: "on my bike, "

The one with no top spokes?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
>
>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single
>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.
>>
>>
> VW Type II?
>
> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>
>
>

yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin' unfunny JOKE.


--
fact check required

On 09/03/2013 08:08 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 8:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> You speak as if a drivetrain couldn't slip between driver and passenger.
>> Traditional front engine/RWD vehicle could do that easily, especially
>> with an inline four or six cylinder engine. Not saying that that will
>> happen in all cases, but it is possible, and one would assume that
>> engineers have attempted to make that happen. Whereas if you are 12"
>> from the leading edge of the vehicle you know that that is all the crush
>> space you have.
>>
>> nate
>
> What about the traditional USian full-size car that has a 3-passenger
> front bench seat?
>

the middle is for the eunuch. like nate.


--
fact check required

On 09/03/2013 08:11 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 9:30 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> important context addition: "on my bike, "
>
> The one with no top spokes?
>

you forget - no /bottom/ spokes!

i still challenge anyone to have a partner cut the bottom spokes out a
wheel while they're sitting on the bike. it won't collapse, contrary to
jobstian misunderstanding. and for $3 [the cost of about 6 spokes],
it's an important philosophical lesson: if experiment doesn't match your
theory, you ****ed up!


--
fact check required

On 09/03/2013 08:04 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 8:00 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 12:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> I suppose, but we rear engine drivers think about that gas tank above
>>> our ankles more than the hunk of aluminum behind us. Neither have been
>>> any trouble in any of the crashes I've survived in a long series of
>>> Corvairs (I drive much less aggressively than when I was young so I
>>> don't expect more drama from here on out to test your theory)
>>>
>>
>> yeah, but there's a cut-off on that "more age = safer driving" theory.
>> when you get past a certain point, your judgment/perceptions go. badly.
>> and then you start killing people. i nearly got side-swiped off a
>> cliff by some old guy [ironically, he looked remarkably like jobst,
>
> No one here but me, Muzi and Nate probably know who you are referring to.

that's no bad thing.


>
> The Book (that jim beam loves to hate):
> <http://www.avocet.com/wheelbook/wheelbook.html>

that book would be great if he'd ever condescended to competent
technical review and fixing the fundamental technical errors - the
intent of it is perfectly sound but the execution is abysmal.


>
>> german accent too] who carved me up in their suburban [which would have
>> been really ironic if it was he]. when i caught him up and started
>> screaming at him, he couldn't understand why. "but i've been driving 60
>> years" he tried to say. finally the logic of "random strangers don't
>> scream at you but people you've nearly killed do" seemed to get through.
>> fact is, he just completely misjudged both speed and distance and that
>> was a function of old age. sure, staying behind the wheel is pride and
>> independence and all that, but when you get old, you need to realize,
>> you've gotten old! and stop driving.
>
> I will ride a scooter as long as I can balance - much less deadly to
> others.
>


--
fact check required

On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single
>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.
>>>
>>>
>> VW Type II?
>>
>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>
> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin' unfunny JOKE.
>
>
As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a VW Type IV -
snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for any trip over 15
minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 09/03/2013 08:48 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 10:20 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 09/03/2013 08:10 PM, T0m $herman wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2013 8:23 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single
>>>> rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> VW Type II?
>>>
>>> <http://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Volkswagen-Type-2-Kombi-Van.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> yeah, not the best. #12 in that diagram is a freakin' unfunny JOKE.
>>
>>
> As a child in Quebec City, I spent time in the back of a VW Type IV -
> snowmobile suit, mittens and boots were mandatory for any trip over 15
> minutes long, even with the optional auxiliary heater.
>

can't imagine. i had to wear every single piece of clothing i owned,
including socks over my shoes, and that was just in oregon/seattle.


--
fact check required