Cars Today Need To Go On A Diet!

[Rasmus]

Think of a bycicle: even in high speed crashes, the chassis is usually intact, and it weights...don't know, 50 kg?!

Oh bloody hell I hope not. That would be one pig heavy, wrought iron, steel rimmed, cement laden, commuter bike.

A heavy road bike is 10kg. Mine is still a relatively heavy 6kg and some change. My triathlon bike with carbon disc is 7.5kg. Sorry, I'm as big a bike nut as I am a car nut.

It's a good point.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Oh bloody hell I hope not. That would be one pig heavy, wrought iron, steel rimmed, cement laden, commuter bike.

A heavy road bike is 10kg. Mine is still a relatively heavy 6kg and some change. My triathlon bike with carbon disc is 7.5kg. Sorry, I'm as big a bike nut as I am a car nut.

It's a good point.

I'm face palming...I was thinking about motorbike, not bycicle, but you got the point.

Heading to the edit option.

[Dino Scuderia]

I hope you realized the article is biased in first place, saying the car's weight is one of the keys to keep you alive...by which arguments?

By the posted statistics from the real world...so the article is not biased.

These are findings, not opinions in the article.

You understand that?

[Ferrer]

By the posted statistics from the real world...so the article is not biased.

These are findings, not opinions in the article.

You understand that?

If a certain type of car has more accidents it will probably have more deaths too. And that doesn't seem to be taken into account.

[Dino Scuderia]

If a certain type of car has more accidents it will probably have more deaths too. And that doesn't seem to be taken into account.

It could be skewed a lot of ways I suppose. We probably have as many vehicles of the mid to large variety on the roads in America as we do small ones...would be my thought.

[LeonOfTheDead]

It could be skewed a lot of ways I suppose. We probably have as many vehicles of the mid to large variety on the roads in America as we do small ones...would be my thought.

first car that comes to mind from the US is a Ford F150.
I wouldn't call that even large by our standard.

As I said, those facts are interpreted in a biased way, and by themselves they doesn't mean much.

For instance I could say the average driver of a small car is the kind of person who doens't like car at all, buys them just because he needs to move. So I could even assume he isn't very good at driving. Therefore he auses/has mroe accident, and perhaps, as Ferrer said, more deaths too.
On the other hand, I could consider the average SUV driver as an arrogant prick, driving irresponsibly and such. He is likely going to cause quite some accidents, especially involving not smart drivers who aren't capable of avoiding him, being the same dude with the small car. Given the fact that yes an heavier car is, by my reasoning, more dangerous than a lighter one, the dude with the smaller car is likely going to die more easily than the prick.

A biased interpretation coming out straight from those same data, to demonstrate they are pointless in the way the are presented without a minimum of technical explanation. Let alone if I could take into serious count a journalist writing smaller cars don't have the same safety equipment as larger one. Come on.

I said those are more dangerous on purpose because again it isn't that the lighter car is unsafe, but rather the heavier is a major treat.

[Kitdy]

Are you contending smaller cars are safer in crashes? Because that makes little sense to me frankly.

[Dino Scuderia]

first car that comes to mind from the US is a Ford F150.
I wouldn't call that even large by our standard.

As I said, those facts are interpreted in a biased way, and by themselves they doesn't mean much.

For instance I could say the average driver of a small car is the kind of person who doens't like car at all, buys them just because he needs to move. So I could even assume he isn't very good at driving. Therefore he auses/has mroe accident, and perhaps, as Ferrer said, more deaths too.
On the other hand, I could consider the average SUV driver as an arrogant prick, driving irresponsibly and such. He is likely going to cause quite some accidents, especially involving not smart drivers who aren't capable of avoiding him, being the same dude with the small car. Given the fact that yes an heavier car is, by my reasoning, more dangerous than a lighter one, the dude with the smaller car is likely going to die more easily than the prick.

A biased interpretation coming out straight from those same data, to demonstrate they are pointless in the way the are presented without a minimum of technical explanation. Let alone if I could take into serious count a journalist writing smaller cars don't have the same safety equipment as larger one. Come on.

I said those are more dangerous on purpose because again it isn't that the lighter car is unsafe, but rather the heavier is a major treat.

Well, I should have been more assertive in my previous statement. I travel the American highways every day....I know there are as many or more larger vehicles on our roads than small.

[blingbling]

[LeonOfTheDead]

Are you contending smaller cars are safer in crashes? Because that makes little sense to me frankly.

Lighter cars, not smaller. But yes, basically.

[Kitdy]

Explain how Leon, because how I see it, is larger cars have more space for more strength, rigidity, and maybe most importantly, crumple zones. Compare that with the fatality rates listed above, and maybe if you look into crash ratings the larger cars could have the advantage (this is a guess).

[Matra et Alpine]

WHen you look at impact ratings then the smaller cars with designed in safety through expensive crumple zones come out better than larger cars.

Two fold inho .... first bigger cars have more mass and so more energy needing absorbed
Scondly - and where the US makers are perhaps worst offendors - big car safety-through-strength is cheaper to design, manufacture and repair. So whilst they have the extra space they tend to fritter it away

[LeonOfTheDead]

Explain how Leon, because how I see it, is larger cars have more space for more strength, rigidity, and maybe most importantly, crumple zones. Compare that with the fatality rates listed above, and maybe if you look into crash ratings the larger cars could have the advantage (this is a guess).

I repeat, lighter cars, not smaller, so even a truck weighting 1.500 kg and not 2.500 kg.

Explanations all written previously, as my critics to the fatality rates quoted.
A data means nothing if not interpreted, and those data can be interpreted as you want, both sides.

[clutch-monkey]

WHen you look at impact ratings then the smaller cars with designed in safety through expensive crumple zones come out better than larger cars.

Two fold inho .... first bigger cars have more mass and so more energy needing absorbed
Scondly - and where the US makers are perhaps worst offendors - big car safety-through-strength is cheaper to design, manufacture and repair. So whilst they have the extra space they tend to fritter it away

i seem to remember the mercedes A class got really good safety rating, and there was a huge accident here where the driver emerged unscathed.

but yeah, driving one in america... i dunno.

[LeonOfTheDead]

i seem to remember the mercedes A class got really good safety rating, and there was a huge accident here where the driver emerged unscathed.

but yeah, driving one in america... i dunno.

The A-Klasse relies on the engine falling down a little and then moving underneath the cockpit in case of a frontal impact, a pretty smart solution, and something you can't do with a 7 liter v8 though, even on a truck.