Hello everyone,

I recently heard about a report (I have not seen the actual report yet) which claimed the following:

As environmental concerns come to the forefront of people's minds, people are choosing to drive smaller cars because those smaller cars are more gas-efficient and environmentally friendly. However, as we move toward smaller cars, the number of fatalities from motor vehicle accidents is increasing. The study states that smaller vehicles are less safe because their crash-cages are weaker and have less reinforcement. Reinforcing the crash-cages would increase the weight of the cars and decrease the gas-efficiency of the vehicles.

One conservative talk-show radio host has jumped on this report to attack the environmentalists. He claims that the envronmentalists are choosing trees over people, choosing environmental awareness over the safety of their families. They are "putting their children's lives at risk to save the polar ice caps". He argues that, if you want to protect your families, you should buy a bigger car with a full-bodied crash cage.

My questions:

1) Does this report make sense. I don't know enough about cars to decide whether the conclusions of the report have any basis in reality.

2) Does the argument being made by the talk-show host have any basis in reality? Are people really choosing environment over safety?

3) What do you think about the position of the talk-show host?

As most of you know by now, I am no environmentalist. I think the tree huggers are a bunch of goofballs, and I think that global warming has yet to be proven. And I think that those who say that it has been proven are a bunch of hacks with a political agenda.

But, I'm not sure that I buy into the argument being made by this talk-show host. There's something that seems off about the agument. It would seem to me that it should be possible to be both safe and gas efficient, and that there are cars around that accomplish both of these feats. (Do any such vehicles exist?) I consider myself pretty savvy about the conservative side of the environmental issues, but this "conservative" argument makes me uneasy. I honestly haven't decided yet whether to add it to my arsenal of environmental arguments, and I'd like your opinions on it.

Elliot

As I recall this issue was brought up when the debates over corporate average fuel economy (CAFE ) standards were happening . I know there is legislation in both houses designed to increase Café standards so perhaps that is why the issue presents itself again. It is easier to stretch your mileage in a lighter car than a heavier one . On the surface it appears to be a no brainer that personal safety is the trade off. But having driven small cars for a long time ;and not having the privilege of experiencing an SUV roll over , I do not necessarily make the connection that lighter car automatically means a compromise on safety .In fact I think the smaller cars respond to driver reaction faster in emergencies.

Perhaps this report by the ICCT can shed some light.

http://www.theicct.org/documents/ICC...rview_2007.pdf

Quote:

---

Reducing car mass while improving vehicle structure, using advanced materials and designs, can simultaneously increase fuel economy and safety.

---

I think there may be something to it. I was at Boeing on a tour while on vacation . The new 787 is being made from composite materials which they think will be the plane of choice over the Euro Airbus. Perhaps it is hype but they spent a lot of time touting the lighter weight /fuel economy /and safety .

If the technology is there then it appears to be a win win situation.

I wouldn't load that one up in your arsenal just yet. Airbags, anti-lock brakes and lighter weights, improvements in handling, etc. I'm sure more than make up for the mass - unless maybe you're your 2007 Scion gets t-boned by a 1970 Buick Electra. As much as I love the classics (I'd love to have a 1970 Chevelle SS 454) I feel safer in my Corolla because it handles so much better.

Speaking of cars and the environment, Texas is about to offer hefty incentives in some counties to get junkers off the road. I'll probably still be driving my 82 Toyota pickup until it rusts through.

I bought a smaller economy car in my last purchase. But according to Consumer Report the car also ranked high in safety features.


1) Does this report make sense. I don't know enough about cars to decide whether the conclusions of the report have any basis in reality.

No. Honda and others have some larger vehicles with safety features that are also environmentally friendly.



2) Does the argument being made by the talk-show host have any basis in reality? Are people really choosing environment over safety?


Yes. But not all cars are made equally. Shoppers beware!



3) What do you think about the position of the talk-show host?

Makes for good talk radio and an appealing subject to pass the hour. I don't think he has all the facts.




Bobby

In that statement, I don't see where there's anything that addresses the increase in the number of vehicle on the road currently, nor the demographics of those operating the vehicles involved in accidents.

I see rising "Gas Guzzler" taxes on the larger heavier SUV's but more often than not the people driving them just flip the bill and drive off, no regard for fuel economy. Some even claim the want their children to be safer, but probably almost as many just like the image they present.

Smaller cars use **less gasoline** because they are made to have higher miles per gallon.

I always wonder why you have supported *using a lot of gasoline*, NOT CONSERVING, since I have known you cyberlly since 2001?

Why are you against conserving gasoline??

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Smaller cars use **less gasoline** because they are made to have higher miles per gallon.

I always wonder why you have supported *using a lot of gasoline*, NOT CONSERVING, since I have known you cyberlly since 2001?

Why are you against conserving gasoline????

;)

---

I have never been against conserving gasoline. What I have been against is the scaremongering tactics used by the environmentalist wackos to try to get people to conserve gasoline. I am in favor of finding alternative, economical sources of energy, but not because of so-called "global warming". I am in favor of it because it will create energy independence that is good for the country. What I have NEVER said is that I am against fuel economy or alternative fuels. Clearly you have not been reading what I have written over the past 5 years, but are only reading what you THINK I have written. Try paying better attention next time, Chou.

Oh, and by the way, smaller cars are more fuel efficient because they are hauling around less weight, not because the engines are any more efficient than larger cars. In fact, in terms of torque, power, energy-to-mass, fuel-to-mass, etc. the most efficient vehicle on the road is the H2 Hummer. The most efficient car ever sold was the Model T Ford, and the 60,000 or so of them that are still roadworthy still kick a$$ in terms of fuel efficiency. So, smaller cars are not necessarily more fuel efficient because they are made that way. They are fuel efficient because they weigh less. On a pound-for-pound basis, they are actually LESS efficient than some of the larger vehicles out there. That is not a reason to not buy a smaller car if it works out better for you in terms of gas costs. But don't just assume that a smaller car is automatically better... or safer.

Elliot

ET:


I think the talk show host is picking an extreme example and he is giving an a typical
Solution from the opposite extreme - in jest.. just his stye.


As to automobiles: weight is the enemy of handling, acceleration, fuel economy, braking.

Safety can be had with airbags, abs, anti skid control, better performance, and most importantly driver ability.

The cost of using light weight and yet stronger materials such as titanium or kevlar, in mass production is prohibitive, but they use these and other materials in racing.


Here's an interesting idea:

Tesla Motors






Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

ET:


I think the talk show host is picking an extreme example and he is giving an a typical
Solution from the opposite extreme - in jest.. just his stye.


As to automobiles: weight is the enemy of handling, acceleration, fuel economy, braking.

---

Agreed. However, increased weight also means a stronger crash-cage in case of impact and being higher off the ground means better road visibility and thus better driver reaction times. It's a trade-off.

Quote:

---

Safety can be had with airbags, abs, anti skid control, better performance, and most importantly driver ability.

---

I agree. But all of those things are available on most models of SUV. You aren't necessarily trading off on those options by getting a bigger car.

Quote:

---

The cost of using light weight and yet stronger materials such as titanium or kevlar, in mass production is prohibitive, but they use these and other materials in racing.

---

True. But it has been my experience that what starts as a professional-grade option eventually trickles down to the general public. Remember when graphite tennis rackets and golf drivers were for professionals only? Remember when cell-phones were for government use only? Remember when GPS systems were only used by the military? Eventually technology makes its way down to the public sector. I am willing to bet that eventually many of those composite materials will become standard in the future.

Quote:

---

Here's an interesting idea:

Tesla Motors

Grace and Peace

---

I do like what I see from the Tesla people. (And I like the nake they are using for their ompany: Nikola Tesla is my favorite inventor.) But at $100,000 per unit, the cost is prohibitive for most people. Also, they only have a roadster for sale right now. For those of us with families, a roadster just won't cut it for everyday use--- can't carpool five kids to school in a roadster. And finally, the 200-mile range on the battery pack, while much better than previous developments, does not exactly lend itself to a cross-country road-tip with the kids for summer vacation. Or even a cross-state road trip in many states. It's a great idea, and the Tesla guys are making great progress, but it still needs further development to make it accessible and useable to families.

Elliot

Elliot

The Hill-Terry bill HR2927 (bipartisan) seems a sensible compromise. It increases Café of automobiles to eventually 35 mpg by 2022 and at the same time keeps the distinction between truck and auto. The bill would require automakers to improve fuel economy in
All sizes of vehicles .

It would provide funding for improving development of high-strength, lightweight materials, plug-in hybrids, clean diesel and fuel cells.

The last piece of legislation passed by the Senate made no distinction between car and truck.

Automakers, UAW, and St. Louis Leaders Unite in Support of Raising Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I do like what I see from the Tesla people. (And I like the nake they are using for their ompany: Nikola Tesla is my favorite inventor.) But at $100,000 per unit, the cost is prohibitive for most people. Also, they only have a roadster for sale right now. For those of us with families, a roadster just won't cut it for everyday use--- can't carpool five kids to school in a roadster. And finally, the 200-mile range on the battery pack, while much better than previous developments, does not exactly lend itself to a cross-country road-tip with the kids for summer vacation. Or even a cross-state road trip in many states. It's a great idea, and the Tesla guys are making great progress, but it still needs further development to make it accessible and useable to families.

---

How's this for a little perspective? The difference between the cost of that sharp looking Tesla and my 2006 Corolla would buy 27,666 gallons of gas at $3.00/gallon, or roughly 885,000 miles of travel. You could buy 3 Corollas and drive each for over 100,000 miles including all the tires and probable maintenance needed for the price of one Tesla and still have a decent down payment for your next car - depending on the future price of gas of course :)