A Simple Solution to a Worldwide Crisis

**ghosthunter** · October 5th, 2009 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by ehnriko

Even older makes are designed with Crumple Zones. aka Energy Absorption System.

Many Cars built in the 80's to the 90's have soft ends... the materials used for the fenders are much lighter than the ones around the cockpit

But driving a 70's made car nowadays is a lot safer since all the other cars around it will absorb all the impact, and the older car will remain more intact.

For example 1960-s to 70's MOPARS or Stangs.

Not really. The car might be more "sturdy" but it just means the occupants will sustain a higher deceleration force upon impact. That means higher chance of injuries as compared to modern designs.

Modern designed cars are meant to crumple upon impact to absorb the energy of impact, minimizing the deceleration forces that are passed onto the passengers inside the vehicle.

It is a myth that older cars are safer in an accident. Even the old "safe" Volvo sedans of the 80s are much less safe than the lastest Korean car on the market.

**ghosthunter** · October 5th, 2009 12:33 PM

Here is a video where Fifth Gear (UK-based car TV show) compares the crash safety of two cars, a 15 year old Volvo and a 3 year old Renault.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I"]YouTube - Fifth Gear Crash-test Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus[/ame]

Fifth Gear Crash-test Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus

They crash a 15 year old Volvo 940 estate, for many people the epitome of a solid and safe family car, into a 3 year old Renault Modus, notable as the first small car to earn a maximum 5 Star safety rating from the European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP).

**marg** · October 5th, 2009 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by ehnriko

But driving a 70's made car nowadays is a lot safer since all the other cars around it will absorb all the impact, and the older car will remain more intact.

Your mouth is moving without your brain knowing about it. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRbwTutw-Hk&feature=fvw"]YouTube - 1970's VW Beetle and 1970's Gen. 1 Golf[/ame]
70's VW Beetle and 70's Gen. 1 GOLF Crash Test

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHp1GAFQzto"]YouTube - 2009 CHEVY MALIBU vs. Vintage MALIBU[/ame]
New CHEVY MALIBU vs. Old CHEVY MALIBU, the guy in the new car was expected to walk away from the accident while the one in the old car would have died.

**Benji_DCP** · October 5th, 2009 11:16 PM

The crash test videos are very informative, considering it was sponsored by Insurance companies. You can clearly conclude that older cars comprehensive/collision insurance premiums would be very costly in the US due to the high risk involve.

**ghosthunter** · October 5th, 2009 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Benji_DCP

The crash test videos are very informative, considering it was sponsored by Insurance companies. You can clearly conclude that older cars comprehensive/collision insurance premiums would be very costly in the US due to the high risk involve.

Er... wrong. The one done by Fifth Gear UK was for a TV program. No insurance companies included.

**architect** · October 6th, 2009 06:15 AM

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage – By Chris Demorro

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate green car is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn't be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the dead zone around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist nightmare.

The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce nickel foam. From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer – the Prius arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust" the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles – the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist – ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available – a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage – buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

It may interest you to know that the above article was written by a staff writer of a school paper of a small town school - Central Connecticut State University.

The article has since been debated in several blogs and forums, such as the ones below, with several of Demorro's "facts" being disputed -

http://forums.storagereview.net/inde...howtopic=24978

http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f...part-ii-18789/

http://wallofcheese.blogspot.com/200...mental_03.html

In addition, Demorro has been accused of plagiarizing from the article below -
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automoti...Commentary.pdf

**jpdm** · October 6th, 2009 08:26 AM

I will only take the article seriously if it was written in a scientific journal or academic journal (peer reviewed), but definitely its not.

Also, Im not comfortable with his sources i.e CNW Marketing

**architect** · October 6th, 2009 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by jpdm

I will only take the article seriously if it was written in a scientific journal or academic journal (peer reviewed), but definitely its not.

Also, Im not comfortable with his sources i.e CNW Marketing

*doc JP

AFAIK, Spinella has not refuted rumors alleging CNW Marketing to be funded by GM. In addition, he has steadfastly refused to publish his research methodology in garnering facts for the Dust to Dust report - despite numerous requests from publications such as Slate, which picked up on said report.

His refusal is incredulous, given his credibility is at stake and that CNW's supposed profitability is anchored on subscriptions. Without credibility, the company will logically lose its subscribers.

**ghosthunter** · October 6th, 2009 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by jpdm

I will only take the article seriously if it was written in a scientific journal or academic journal (peer reviewed), but definitely its not.

Also, Im not comfortable with his sources i.e CNW Marketing

I find this ironic coming from someone who likes to use YOUTUBE videos as proof of a working concept.

More over, the comparison analysis of the e-jeepney vs regular jeepney is pretty much similar if only not as detailed as the prius vs hummer.

**Gerbo** · October 6th, 2009 10:29 AM

So much have been said. But in my opinion, really, a simple but difficult way is to go back in time and change our ways how we do things.

In essence, go the Amish way.

The human species have been so dominant that we have crafted the way to the future of this planet.

It's now a duel between nature vs. anything "man-made". Time will come some of us will leave Earth because it will become inhospitable.

In the name of development, we become poor stewards of the resources we are given.