Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Cars]
|
From: Brent on 12 May 2010 10:09 On 2010-05-12, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and yes.. it was private group Consumers Reports that found out that > he Lexus ESC was faulty/malfunctioning but if you know much about CR, > they have very, very limited resources - not near enough to test every > vehicle for every potential flaw and CR itself will tell you this. > > If one of the best brands in the business - Lexus - did not > voluntarily test and find and inform owners of this problem then why > would anyone expect companies in general to voluntarily report these > problems? > > The companies themselves have an essential conflict of interest. In an > unregulated environment, they'd never report their flaws because it > harms their own interests. I cannot let this ignorance go. CR does not do proper engineering testing. First their test parameters are not constant, they change per the vehicle's abilities*. Second if they spot a weakness they repeat the test over and over again to try to exploit it to produce a failure. Then when they get they issue a press release to sell more magazines. Manufacturers respond simply to counter the bad press. *It works something like this: if vehicle A can only go through the course at 20mph and doesn't lift a wheel it passes. If vehicle B goes through the course at 50mph but lifts a wheel, it fails even though it did not lift a wheel at 20mph. It is the height of stupidity that you believe Toyota did not test this lexus model. Odds are they tested it in a proper way against vehicles in the same class and found its performance at the very least acceptable. The difference is that they likely did proper engineering testing where the parameters for the vehicles compared were the same instead of absurd testing CR does. It's not CR's resources that is the problem, it's their methods. And no, I didn't look into the lexus testing specifically, once I learned their methods many years ago when they trashed other vehicles I stopped paying attention to anything they had to say about automobiles and I doubt they've changed.
From: Brent on 12 May 2010 10:17 On 2010-05-12, Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote >> On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote: >> ... > > That can be done without regulation. Take, for instance, side airbags. >> They're not required by the government but some cars are still equipped >> with them. Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models are >> equipped with them. Stability control systems are not required by the >> government, but some cars are equipped with them. >> >> IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result of >> government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a >> incentive to buy. The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the >> extra cost of one or all of those safety features though. > > You are only partially correct, Arif. > 1) stability control systems are (or shortly will) be required for > all vehicles in 2012. Which proves my point that all government does is mandate what already exists. That is they force everyone to purchase it. So let's say you've invented a new automotive safety device and patented it. Your sales are kinda slow. What do you do? You run to congress or the bureaucrats as the case may be and get your device mandated. Profits will soar. It is most helpful if there is some media panic you can use to help sell the device to our rulers in DC. > The recent recall of the Lexus GS470 was > to correct a flaw in their system. > 2) Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are > required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best - > and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars. Steel is cheaper yet. However adding weight hurts fuel economy which government also regulates. Before CAFE automakers used big steel channels as side impact beams. I'd rather not have passenger compartment intrusion than have it softened by a airbag.
From: Floyd Rogers on 12 May 2010 10:27 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote > On 2010-05-12, Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote >>> On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote: >>> ... >> > That can be done without regulation. Take, for instance, side airbags. >>> They're not required by the government but some cars are still equipped >>> with them. Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models are >>> equipped with them. Stability control systems are not required by the >>> government, but some cars are equipped with them. >>> >>> IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result >>> of >>> government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a >>> incentive to buy. The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the >>> extra cost of one or all of those safety features though. >> >> You are only partially correct, Arif. > ... >> 2) Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are >> required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best - >> and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars. > > Steel is cheaper yet. However adding weight hurts fuel economy which > government also regulates. Before CAFE automakers used big steel > channels as side impact beams. I'd rather not have passenger compartment > intrusion than have it softened by a airbag. The airbags prevent injuries to the HEAD, the steel beams still are there and prevent lower-body injuries. As a side note, I seriously doubt that older vehicles built on frames would pass any of these tests, as the impact would penetrate to the frame - a matter of 12"-18" - before being attenuated. FloydR
From: Brent on 12 May 2010 14:04 On 2010-05-12, Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> On 2010-05-12, Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote >>>> On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote: >>>> ... >>> > That can be done without regulation. Take, for instance, side airbags. >>>> They're not required by the government but some cars are still equipped >>>> with them. Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models are >>>> equipped with them. Stability control systems are not required by the >>>> government, but some cars are equipped with them. >>>> >>>> IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result >>>> of >>>> government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a >>>> incentive to buy. The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the >>>> extra cost of one or all of those safety features though. >>> >>> You are only partially correct, Arif. >> ... >>> 2) Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are >>> required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best - >>> and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars. >> >> Steel is cheaper yet. However adding weight hurts fuel economy which >> government also regulates. Before CAFE automakers used big steel >> channels as side impact beams. I'd rather not have passenger compartment >> intrusion than have it softened by a airbag. > > The airbags prevent injuries to the HEAD, the steel beams still are > there and prevent lower-body injuries. If you don't have the intrusion your head doesn't hit anything sideways provided you're belted in place and move with the seat and rest of the vehicle. Whiplash is another story and there may be some benefit there, but a person's neck is only so long so there isn't much impact to soften when the car's structures haven't moved inward. The top structures are pulled inward by the impact below. If the lower structure does not deform the upper structure does not come in to hit the head. With little to no intrusion the side airbags aren't going to make a big difference. BTW: The steel beams aren't what they used to be in many models. They were cut down as CAFE ramped up. > As a side note, I seriously doubt that older vehicles built on frames > would pass any of these tests, as the impact would penetrate to the > frame - a matter of 12"-18" - before being attenuated. uni(t)-bodies have been in use since the late 1950s. Body & frame has dropped in share of passenger cars since. And this test is pretty much all into the body anyway. Many body & frame cars have passed side impact standards since the 1970s and few that remain continue to do so. My experience: 1975 ford maverick (no separate frame) hit in the passenger side door/fender by a semi truck. Intrusion pushed the rocker in ~1 inch.
From: Brent on 13 May 2010 08:40
On 2010-05-13, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 11:20�pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) > wrote: >> In article <0cbd5783-6169-4364-ab23-8e3290929...(a)k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, >> Larry G �<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... �but if true - and we >> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the >> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should >> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills >> >like this do we want? >> >> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all. > > I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does > anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for > changes? You want real change? Stop your loving government from using taxpayer money to clean up their messes and have them pay for their messes. They'll get more careful than you ever dreamed of without regulations. |