MIKE Hunter's smaller car thesis??

Are you refer to my service in WWII? You, of course, are free to believe
whatever you choose. LOL

mike

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive
>> structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test
>> crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on
>> crash dummies.
>
> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That would
> explain your brain damage. ;-)
>
>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where
>> ones
>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>
> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
> absorb.
>
> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles
> driven than big cars.
>
>
>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses.
>
> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>
>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>
> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught
> dead in a rollover crash.
>
>> mike
>>
>> "Go Mavz" > wrote in message
>> news:esUhi.3773$vG2.684@trnddc02...
>>> Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He
>>> cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine.
>>>
>>>
>>> "GO Mavs" > wrote in message
>>> newsZkhi.672$Pv2.197@trnddc03...
>>>> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
>>>> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per
>>>> million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops to
>>>> 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans,
>>>> that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75
>>>> deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups,
>>>> totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and 102 per
>>>> million for large."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even a
>>>> half a percent change is not very much.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas
>>>> hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?
>>>>
>>>> So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to
>>>> accomidate him because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15
>>>> thousand dollar gas saver, you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV
>>>> (this difference is what Mike calls "Saving a few bucks vs safety")
>>>>
>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car
>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe!
>>

Our friend Scott would disagree. He says the opposite LOL

mike

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> > I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of
>> > my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural
>> > design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones
>> > and test crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and
>> > observing the result on crash dummies.
>>
>> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That
>> would explain your brain damage. ;-)
>
> Mike is an idiot savant who knows everything about cars and absolutely
> nothing about anything else. Sound engineering, insane politics.
>

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Are you refer to my service in WWII?

No, I neither knew nor cared that you served in WWII. I had some
relatives who served in WWII, including an uncle who got killed in
France, as well as Korea and Viet Nam (including an uncle who served
twenty years in active duty in the reserves).

In addition, I probably had many distant relatives who served in Europe
in the German Army (my family came from there, but we lost contact with
them before the first World War).

> You, of course, are free to believe
> whatever you choose. LOL

Yes, and you show us what happens when one does not think much about
what he believes (or anything else for that matter).

Jeff

> mike
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive
>>> structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test
>>> crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on
>>> crash dummies.
>> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That would
>> explain your brain damage. ;-)
>>
>>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where
>>> ones
>>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
>> absorb.
>>
>> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles
>> driven than big cars.
>>
>>
>>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses.
>> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>>
>>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught
>> dead in a rollover crash.
>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> "Go Mavz" > wrote in message
>>> news:esUhi.3773$vG2.684@trnddc02...
>>>> Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He
>>>> cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "GO Mavs" > wrote in message
>>>> newsZkhi.672$Pv2.197@trnddc03...
>>>>> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
>>>>> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per
>>>>> million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops to
>>>>> 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans,
>>>>> that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75
>>>>> deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups,
>>>>> totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and 102 per
>>>>> million for large."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even a
>>>>> half a percent change is not very much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas
>>>>> hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to
>>>>> accomidate him because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15
>>>>> thousand dollar gas saver, you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV
>>>>> (this difference is what Mike calls "Saving a few bucks vs safety")
>>>>>
>>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car
>>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe!
>

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive
>> structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test
>> crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on
>> crash dummies.
>
> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That would
> explain your brain damage. ;-)
>
>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where
>> ones
>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>
> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
> absorb.
>
> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles
> driven than big cars.
>
>
>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses.
>
> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>
>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>
> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught
> dead in a rollover crash.

Its no secret that if you slam 800 pounds into a smaller car at 60 mph
compared to an SUV that the damage is going to be more so, to the car.

The problem though is many things arent valued into that.. SUV's are harder
to move when a mistake is noticed and smaller cars are easier to move...

You can sit in a warehouse all day and slam stuff into cars and come up with
the obvious that the smaller car is going to get more abuse. Any moron could
tell you that. However, how do SUV's play into it?

A smaller car, hitting another smaller car is going to do less damage than a
smaller car being hit by an SUV...

"Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Are you refer to my service in WWII?

I don't know. Are you?


You, of course, are free to believe
> whatever you choose. LOL


chooo chooo


>
> mike
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive
>>> structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test
>>> crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on
>>> crash dummies.
>>
>> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That
>> would explain your brain damage. ;-)
>>
>>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where
>>> ones
>>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>>
>> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
>> absorb.
>>
>> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles
>> driven than big cars.
>>
>>
>>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses.
>>
>> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>>
>>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>>
>> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught
>> dead in a rollover crash.
>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> "Go Mavz" > wrote in message
>>> news:esUhi.3773$vG2.684@trnddc02...
>>>> Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He
>>>> cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "GO Mavs" > wrote in message
>>>> newsZkhi.672$Pv2.197@trnddc03...
>>>>> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
>>>>> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per
>>>>> million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops
>>>>> to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans,
>>>>> that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75
>>>>> deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups,
>>>>> totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and 102 per
>>>>> million for large."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even
>>>>> a half a percent change is not very much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas
>>>>> hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to
>>>>> accomidate him because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15
>>>>> thousand dollar gas saver, you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV
>>>>> (this difference is what Mike calls "Saving a few bucks vs safety")
>>>>>
>>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car
>>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe!
>>>
>

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 20:11:37 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
> wrote:

>Are you refer to my service in WWII?

Fortunately, you were defeated.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil
>>>> from
>>>> hostiles - Venezuela is the top of the hostile oil supplier list at 13%
>>>> of
>>>> our imports. Canada is our #1 source of imported oil at 22%, Mexico is
>>>> #2
>>>> at 19%, Saudi Arabia is #3 at 16%. It's been that way for a long time.
>>>> In
>>>> fact, according to the US Dept of Energy, 55% of our oil imports come
>>>> from
>>>> the western hemisphere.
>>>
>>> For further clarification of "hemisphere", I'll share some enlightenment
>>> from the commander in chief:
>>>
>>> "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature
>>> because
>>> it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas,
>>> Dec.
>>> 20, 2000
>> As a public service, please accompany any quotes of George W. Bush
>> with his blood alcohol level at the time he spoke those words.
>>
>
> 19.7

George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before
he became President.

I am not suggesting that it is not concerning that he made all those
comments while he was sober, either.

Jeff

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:eiYhi.2626$wu5.831@trndny03...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil
>>>>> from
>>>>> hostiles - Venezuela is the top of the hostile oil supplier list at
>>>>> 13% of
>>>>> our imports. Canada is our #1 source of imported oil at 22%, Mexico is
>>>>> #2
>>>>> at 19%, Saudi Arabia is #3 at 16%. It's been that way for a long time.
>>>>> In
>>>>> fact, according to the US Dept of Energy, 55% of our oil imports come
>>>>> from
>>>>> the western hemisphere.
>>>>
>>>> For further clarification of "hemisphere", I'll share some
>>>> enlightenment
>>>> from the commander in chief:
>>>>
>>>> "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature
>>>> because
>>>> it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas,
>>>> Dec.
>>>> 20, 2000
>>> As a public service, please accompany any quotes of George W. Bush
>>> with his blood alcohol level at the time he spoke those words.
>>>
>>
>> 19.7
>
> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before
> he became President.
>
> I am not suggesting that it is not concerning that he made all those
> comments while he was sober, either.
>
> Jeff

Excellent.

Why do I not find it odd that you did not mention you served your country?


mike
"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:eAXhi.2867$7k7.1337@trnddc01...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Are you refer to my service in WWII?
>
> No, I neither knew nor cared that you served in WWII. I had some relatives
> who served in WWII, including an uncle who got killed in France, as well
> as Korea and Viet Nam (including an uncle who served twenty years in
> active duty in the reserves).
>
> In addition, I probably had many distant relatives who served in Europe in
> the German Army (my family came from there, but we lost contact with them
> before the first World War).
>
>> You, of course, are free to believe whatever you choose. LOL
>
> Yes, and you show us what happens when one does not think much about what
> he believes (or anything else for that matter).
>
> Jeff
>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
>>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>>>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an
>>>> automotive structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple
>>>> zones and test crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing
>>>> the result on crash dummies.
>>> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That
>>> would explain your brain damage. ;-)
>>>
>>>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>>>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>>>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>>>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>>>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision"
>>>> where ones
>>>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>>> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
>>> absorb.
>>>
>>> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million
>>> miles driven than big cars.
>>>
>>>
>>>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one
>>>> chooses.
>>> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>>>
>>>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>>>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>>> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be
>>> caught dead in a rollover crash.
>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> "Go Mavz" > wrote in message
>>>> news:esUhi.3773$vG2.684@trnddc02...
>>>>> Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He
>>>>> cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "GO Mavs" > wrote in message
>>>>> newsZkhi.672$Pv2.197@trnddc03...
>>>>>> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
>>>>>> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per
>>>>>> million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops
>>>>>> to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large
>>>>>> sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the
>>>>>> figure was 75 deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs.
>>>>>> For pickups, totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and
>>>>>> 102 per million for large."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even
>>>>>> a half a percent change is not very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a
>>>>>> gas hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to
>>>>>> accomidate him because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15
>>>>>> thousand dollar gas saver, you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV
>>>>>> (this difference is what Mike calls "Saving a few bucks vs safety")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car
>>>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe!
>>

That's obvious, but it will be more danger to the passengers than if the SUV
his a large car. The fact is if a small car hits a small car their is a
greater chance that the properly belted passenger will be injured or killed
than the properly belted passenger of a larger vehicle.

Maybe you learned something while attaining your metallurgy engineering
degree than did I, but I doubt it. The laws of terminal dynamics in a
collision do not change.

Whether you believe so or not, is your purgative, but I'll not continue to
try and enlighten
one who has only an opinion on his side.

mike

"Go Mavz" > wrote in message
news:yQXhi.1919$bO2.289@trnddc05...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:qPWhi.2314$7k7.672@trnddc01...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I
>>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive
>>> structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test
>>> crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on
>>> crash dummies.
>>
>> From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That
>> would explain your brain damage. ;-)
>>
>>> Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can
>>> not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle,
>>> the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in
>>> absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly
>>> belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where
>>> ones
>>> organs strike ones skeleton, period.
>>
>> The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to
>> absorb.
>>
>> The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles
>> driven than big cars.
>>
>>
>>> One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses.
>>
>> One can even believe a clueless twit.
>>
>>> For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a
>>> relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually.
>>
>> And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught
>> dead in a rollover crash.
>
> Its no secret that if you slam 800 pounds into a smaller car at 60 mph
> compared to an SUV that the damage is going to be more so, to the car.
>
> The problem though is many things arent valued into that.. SUV's are
> harder to move when a mistake is noticed and smaller cars are easier to
> move...
>
> You can sit in a warehouse all day and slam stuff into cars and come up
> with the obvious that the smaller car is going to get more abuse. Any
> moron could tell you that. However, how do SUV's play into it?
>
> A smaller car, hitting another smaller car is going to do less damage than
> a smaller car being hit by an SUV...
>
>
>