From: John De Armond Subject: Re: Carrying spare fuel Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 03:48:00 EST Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel,alt.rv "Steph and Dud B." wrote: > > As far as today's cars go, I agree they lack the character of the old cars. > However, their designs are much safer. The idea that a heavy, rigid vehicle > would protect its occupants best in a crash did not bear fruit. It does > work if the object you strike is lighter/softer than your car, but if you > hit a bridge abutment or tree you want a car that crumples. This concept > was born in the auto racing industry. Early racers were designed to be very > rigid. Unfortunately, all this did was transfer the energy of the impact > directly to the most non-rigid part of the car - the driver. Modern race > cars are designed to literally self-destruct in an impact - the front end > crumples and shears off, absorbing impact. The only rigid part of the car > is the driver's compartment. Modern passenger cars are designed the same > way. That's why you see pictures in the news of cars that are completely > demolished but the passengers survived. You might want to trundle over to Gordon Baxter's National Motorist Association and check out their research. Gordon and company (the guys who lead the fight against the 55 mph speed limit) specialized in debunking the government's abuse of statistics to justify policy. A while back they took a look at this claim that a little lightweight shitbox car could be made as safe as a large car with a few crumple zones and a few strategically placed explosives. This is, of course, counter to common sense and physics. It's also counter to the numbers. Even the NTSHA is sorta through-the-back-door admitting as much. Take a look at their work. Revealing. Now I'm reasonably confident that if I happened to run into a crash barrier at 38 mph (or whatever) and at exactly 90 degrees to the barrier in a modern car, the explosives and crumple zones would probably protect me. Real world tends to be a little less neat. I know, for example, that if an 1800 lb Honda hits my 5000 lb Fury, the honda and its driver will lose. That's just basic physics. If I glance off a tree or a guard rail, I have a much better chance of surviving simply because the ability of those flexible barriers to decelerate my car at a fatal rate is much less than with the Honda. And if I happen to roll my car over, the roof will remain intact. Even if it doesn't, I'm still in better shape in my Fury with a good 6" of headroom than I would be in a shitbox with my head touching the roof. If I happen to slide off the road and impact a projectile in the door, say a guy wire stay or some rebar, I have the upmost confidence that the rugged metal in the 300 lb door on my Fury will give me more protection than the tin can metal used in modern doors. And I know that with the addition of a modern 3 point seat belt system, I have many more inches to work with between my body and the steering wheel and the dash. When trying to control potentially fatal G-forces, even a few inches over which to allow a controlled deceleration is important - perhaps lifesaving. This concept is straight from the racing world, BTW. At least with my car, I don't have to worry about what happened to an aunt of mine who was blinded when the airbag in her Lincoln spuriously exploded and blinded her. She was blinded, BTW, not by the explosion but by the sodium oxide that is the byproduct of the propellant burn. When dissolved in water, sodium oxide forms lye. This lye corroded her corneas to the point that she can now see light and dark and shapes but not much more. And yes, Ford paid her a lot of money which I'm sure she would give back in return for her eyes. I have some really interesting pictures of a OLD car that protected its driver from a 60 mph head-on collision with a drunk driver. The car was my then-brand-new 75 model Datsun 280Z. All of the car forward of the firewall is gone. The engine is under the driver's seat. The steel steering wheel rim is bent down around the column where I had placed my arms right before the impact. Most interesting, the seat belt is fused rigid. The internal friction between threads in the webbing dissipated sufficient energy that the strands softened enough to fuse together. The belt quite properly allowed me to move right up to the steering wheel to spread out the decelerative forces over as long a period of time and distance as possible. I stepped out of the wreck with little more than bruised pelvic bones and a nasty welt across my chest. The drunk driver (properly, IMHO) was killed. What does this prove? Nothing, IMHO. It is a single point of anecdotal evidence. No more credible than the photo of a modern car crash "proves" that they're safer. At least in my case, it does give me some confidence that if I ever get hit again, I won't fare so badly, probably better than the guy in the new car will. John From: John De Armond Subject: Re: Towing behind an RV with a Dolley Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:14:45 EDT Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel AJKing554 wrote: > > On 4/6/00 Neon John <johngdNOSPAM@bellsouth.net> writes: > > >Uh, assuming the guy just bought a NEW Impala, it IS a > >chevette-sized shitbox. GM has prostituted the Impala mark on just > >another 4-wheeled microturd. > > Uh, John, have you actually driven one of the new Impala's? No. I'd need a couple, one for each foot. ? I have and they > are actually a pretty nice mid-size car. In my younger and poorer days I owned > a Chevette and believe me, the new Impala in no Chevette. Oh, I guess it'd be an OK car for a FWD but I'm so incensed at seeing a legendary marque like Impala prostituted on a compact FWD econobox that my mind is pretty closed to its positive features. > > > It has nothing in common other than > >the badges with either the old Impalas or the gorgeous Caprice-based > >hotrod they built in the mid 90s. > > This is true and nobody cried more than me when they announced that they were > going to stop building the old Impala SS's. The problem was and is that the > market for large low tech rear wheel drive cars has been steadily dwindling for > the last fifteen years or so. As gorgeous as the SS was, not enough were being > purchased. Low Tech? With a computerized Vette motor? And compared to the trucks with permanent bed covers (aka SUVs) their building on that same line? Nah. As you know, the market is whatever the marketers make it. For reasons known only to GM (though I've been told it had to do with CAFE), they chose not to advertise the Impala. Word of mouth still sold a blue-shitload of 'em. I know that they were always on allocation here when I inquired. To me, the Impala is the perfect car. High tech engine and drivetrain management. Basic, low tech amenities elsewhere with a nice degree of fit and finish. Hauled ass and yet could carry 5 or 6 when necessary. That was literally the ONLY vehicle the American auto industry made which appealed to me in the least in the last 15-20 years. From: John De Armond Subject: Re: Big Mopars Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:07:59 EDT Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech Philip wrote: > > >Haven't you heard? C Bodies are hot. The mags say so. Seems like > >a lot of folks are discovering what I already know - that a C body > >can be a lot of fun to hotrod AND drive, > > Neon: I had a 1972 Newport YEARS ago....er um, I'm giving away my age. I had a Datsun Z car then. Still have the one that replaced it. Also a 64 Olds F-85 that my mom bought new. > The > Envelope Body they called. Sheesh...it was a tank. And after I installed a > 4BBL manifold and that thermoquad carb, it drank gas like crazy....if I kept my > foot in it. 68 Fury III here, nicknamed the Rolls Knardly (Rolls down one hill and Can'ardly get up the next) that I've owned for 15+ years. Actually that was only true until I yanked the 2BBL 318 out (what were they THINKING?) for something a bit more suitable. "More suitable" in the immediate future is a 360/320 hp Mopar Performance crate motor. I have no idea what I get for mileage and don't really care. Just not something I worry about. >I don't need the kind of car that requires you to stop and scoot > half way across the seat to roll down the passenger window...really I don't. Boy, I do. I LOVE being able to crawl in the back seat, stretch out and nap when I get tired on trips. Though at 6'7", "stretching out" ends at the knees, that's enough for me. I also love the 4" of head room, the ability to stretch my legs out fully and the ability to take 6 or 8 of my closest friends along for the ride. Do that in yer Neon! > Nor was Chrysler's power steering all the wonderful at high speeds (too much > assist). Well yeah. But there's an outfit that offers recalibrated Mopar PS boxes with three levels of stiffness. I've driven the middle unit. A little too stiff to me. I have a leaking seal in mine right now, so I might consider the first level when I replace it. > For you kids...it's a novelty to drive a BIG RWD car. I'v been there...done > that...when gas was 0.40 cents a gallon. But you can enjoy your C car. I > might still have the new advertisement for my old Newport somewhere. I'll > look for it! :) Hey, geezer, speak for yourself! I'm only a kid at heart. I suspect that what so many "kids" are discovering is what has been stolen from them by the econazis and federal gestapo. The first long trip I took in my Fury was an epiphany. It was absolutely the most restful trip I've ever taken and I got out at the end of 500 miles feeling like I'd only driven across the street. This car is silky smooth (in a way no modern car I've ridden in can match) and handles well at high speed. I've been known to set the cruise on 90 after Macon on I-75 and not touch it til the Florida line. My mother's new Lincoln rides like a log wagon in comparison. Ditto my wife's Caddy. In addition to smooth, the HUGE cabin let me stretch out and get comfortable instead of having my knees trying to grip the steering wheel. Don't get me wrong. I still love to take the Z out and raise some hell. It's the right tool for the job of carving up mountain roads (and eating an occasional poontang or camaro for lunch - should I mention the late model 'Vette motor under the hood? :-) But the right tool for eating up hundreds of miles of highway in a day is the land barge. Since the federal gestapo won't allow the manufacture of such land barges anymore, I guess I'll keep mine running probably til I die. I'm just glad that the younger types are discovering the C bodys. As more repro parts come on the market, the job of keeping mine in good shape just gets easier. It's really funny the way the kids are attracted to the Fury. I can't go anywhere where kids are about that one of 'em doesn't want to buy it even though it needs some paint work. > > > -Philip- > To those who kavetch, more > time is added to their lives. BTW, thanks for the brochure scan. I love looking at those old ads. I have the sales brochure for my Fury that I got from the original owner along with all the other paperwork. I've collected several magazine ads and a couple of audio clips of radio commercials. Just recently acquired an original factory service manual and parts fiche. Hey, if I can't go back in time, this is the next best thing :-) John |
|