Scion tC & Proposed Roof Crush Standard
05-15-2008, 04:09 PM
#41
[quote="rvpps2rocks"][quote="superemu"]
Well Said.
Originally Posted by lasrx
Does anyone else notice that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison?
Just imagine a using your full force to smack a hammer on the ground compared to a sludge hammer hit the ground...which one is going to need better reinforcement.( hammer being tC, sludge hammer as SUV). if you made the weight the same for all cars the little cars would have overkill roof support and create too much extra weight which would contribute to alot of extra factors
Just imagine a using your full force to smack a hammer on the ground compared to a sludge hammer hit the ground...which one is going to need better reinforcement.( hammer being tC, sludge hammer as SUV). if you made the weight the same for all cars the little cars would have overkill roof support and create too much extra weight which would contribute to alot of extra factors
Well Said.
05-16-2008, 06:03 AM
#42
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago...ish
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by CarbonXe
If you just slam on the brakes, in an ABS equipped vehicle, your stopping distance is significantly longer than if you smoothly applied them. ABS =/= shorter stopping distance. Yes, it's nice to have over not having it, but in a situation where braking is needed, and needed fast, it's a total waste (compared to smooth appliction, not compared to locking up the wheels).
How often do you need to decelerate right this second where you wouldn't also need to swerve? Say the guy in front of you slams on the brakes. Is it better to have a car that can decelerate to zero in five fewer feet, which means you slam into him a little LESS hard....or a car that will allow you to slam on the brakes AND swerve into the next lane?
Similarly, in cases where you need to decelerate right that second, how likely is it the average person is going to have the presence of mind to not lock the brakes? We're talking about a situation where, by default, the person's life is LITERALLY on the line. Can you honestly say to me that if the guy in front of you fell off his motorcycle at 65 MPH you'd be able to provide "smooth braking," and be able to apply just enough braking pressure to avoid locking the brakes? Because most people would stomp the pedal, skid out of control, and flatten the guy anyway. I know I would, unless I had ABS to keep the car pointed forward long enough for me to pick a direction to swerve.
That's why it's called "panic braking" - because your brain is screaming OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO DIE, and I think it's ludicrous to expect the average latte-sipping mall-oriented American to maintain control of a car under those conditions...without a little help.
Your point is absolutely true, though...
05-18-2008, 01:17 AM
#43
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by ZOMGXB
And actually, studies showing that ABS is not the end-all of vehicle safety go back quite some time. The reigning theory for awhile now is something called "risk compensation": the idea that people who know their car has ABS will drive a little faster than if it didn't. It's kind of like how SUV drivers seem to think the "4-HIGH" button means "YOUR VEHICLE IS NOW IMMUNE FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS" and try to take turns at 45 MPH in the snow. All it proves is that anything can be dangerous in the hands of stupid people.
I once heard someone say that airbags and seatbelts are the worst kind of safety gear to put in a car. The best piece of safety equipment you could make standard would be a giant metal spike coming out of the steerinng column and pointed right at the drivers heart. Having one of those would almost certainly prevent a LOT of the accidents we see today.
05-23-2008, 08:54 PM
#44
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Funky Town, TX
Posts: 103
I'm surprised no one else has brought up the fact that the arch is the strongest geometric shape. The Romans used arches for the aqueducts because it took far less material to build a strong stable structure. Look at the profile of the tC, that's a fine looking arch if I've ever seen one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch
05-27-2008, 09:53 PM
#45
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Bernardino CA.
Posts: 20
Re: hmm..
Originally Posted by Number2
I have a friend who doesn't wear a seatbelt because he thinks it is dangerous if you roll the car and you get stuck. And his g/f doesn't wear a seatbelt b/c he gets mad at her for wearing it (as if to say his driving skills are crap.)
Am I wrong to think these two are a few peas short of a pod?
Am I wrong to think these two are a few peas short of a pod?
Although it wasnt safety standards or crash ratings that led me to getting a TC, its good to know that it meets/exceeds the norm.
07-02-2008, 01:43 AM
#47
Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 69
It looks like that my family's cars are all there, the Tacoma, the Camry, and the tC. I always thought my car was a death trap when flipped. Unfortunately, I was wrong. That thing is a damn helmet!
I should tell my girlfriend to trade in her Dodge Ram and get a Jetta.
I should tell my girlfriend to trade in her Dodge Ram and get a Jetta.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
umnitza
Exclusive Sponsored Sales
3
12-01-2014 06:26 PM
