When the US Government Built Ultra-Safe Cars 520
Jalopnik has a piece on a mostly forgotten piece of automotive history: the US government built a fleet of ultra-safe cars in the 1970s. The "RSV" cars were designed to keep four passengers safe in a front or side collision at 50 mph (80 kph) — without seat belts — and they got 32 miles to the gallon. They had front and side airbags, anti-lock brakes, and gull-wing doors. Lorne Greene was hired to flack for the program. All this was quickly dismantled in the Reagan years, and in 1990 the mothballed cars were all destroyed, though two prototypes survived in private hands. "Then-NHTSA chief Jerry Curry [in 1990] contended the vehicles were obsolete, and that anyone who could have learned something from them had done so by then. Claybrook, the NHTSA chief who'd overseen the RSV cars through 1980, told Congress the destruction compared to the Nazis burning books. ... 'I thought they were intentionally destroying the evidence that you could do much better,' said [the manager of one of the vehicles' manufacturers]."
32MPG - old rating or new? (Score:5, Interesting)
People consistently rant that newer cars don't seem to be getting significantly better mileage ratings than older vehicles.
Problem is you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison because in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the EPA changed the standards for the mileage test to be more realistic (more stringent).
For example, in the old EPA tests, you could run your test without the air conditioner running even if the car had it. New EPA tests require that the AC is run for a certain portion of the test unless the car doesn't have any AC unit.
Also, in general, engine power outputs have gone up significantly since the 1980s and mid-1990s while keeping the same gas mileage.
So a vehicle that scored 32MPG in the 1970s might only be able to score 20-25 MPG on the new EPA tests.
Re:Delorean Similarities (Score:5, Interesting)
"Current cars the engine get's shoved into the firewall which then has a chance to crumple the footwell area that your feet are in."
The engines are up-front to absorb impact energy and function as part of the overall structure. This IMO works very well (I do lots of vehicle salvage and get to cut up wrecks using a Sawzall) and I'd rather have a drivetrain up front than a "trunk". Some engine mounts incorporate aluminum members whose controlled failure absorbs energy while guiding the drivetrain where it should go.
Have a look at large salvage yards if you get the chance. The WAY vehicles behave in crashes is interesting.
Re:Not the first time either (Score:5, Interesting)
How does that make sense? The conspiracy required for the type of scheme you're describing would mean that the Japanese, American, Korean, and European automakers would all have to be colluding to keep this stuff out of their vehicles. It's also why imports have been routing American cars for so many years -- they've had a lot more of this kind of stuff than American cars. Though one possible reason for that is that they have more money to throw around, since it costs a lot more to design and build a car in the US, thanks to the UAW.
This may finally be changing thanks to Ford, whose new Focus and Mustang are both noteworthy accomplishments in terms of features, performance, and safety, but I don't buy the argument that 'the government should've been in the car business all along and a Reagan/Republican/Auto company conspiracy is the only reason they weren't.'
There have been (and still are) a lot of government-run car companies over the years. You won't see many of the cars they produce today because they're typically totalitarian and/or socialist regimes that make them, and they're usually rubbish. The auto industry in the US (and in most of the industrialized world) is very heavily regulated, with a couple thousand dollars added to the cost of most cars to pay for all the stuff we're requiring the auto companies to do over the next few years. That's not a bad trade-off for a lot of people.
I bought my first real car in 2002, sold it in 2004 to move to NYC, and just bought a new car a couple months ago after leaving the city. It's amazing how much has changed just in that time. Up until very recently, I would never have thought of buying an American car (I never have) but hopefully that will change, though I suspect it'll be Ford and not GM driving that change.
Re:it's the love child (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not the first time either (Score:5, Interesting)
Do some research at what the Big Three did to Tucker in the late 40's. He had a car that would do 120 mph, a rear-mounted H-6 engine--like what Subaru uses--that weighed only 300 lbs and had 116 bhp and 372 ft-lbs of torque, 0-60 times around 10 secs, got 20 mpg, had disk brakes, 4-wheel independent suspension, and great aerodynamics--drag coefficient of .27, along with many major safety innovations.
Tucker was decades ahead of his of time in car design and features. He envisioned 15 minute engine swaps if you had engine problems.
My old man lived in Michigan during that time and had brothers living and working in the Detroit car business. They all swore the Big 3 ran Tucker out of business, and were still talking about what happened to Tucker in the 60's. That's how I learned about Tucker automobiles as 10 year old kid.
32MPG, 50MPH safe crash, but at what cost? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: act of treason (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not from USA, but Sweden...
Look what the swedish have done with Barsebeck, the nuclear pant... They bught with tax payer money, in times of no replacement, a fully functional and "relatively" safe plant, only to fill it up with concrete... Why the waste? 10 digit sums of taxpayer money went into the decommissioning of it...
There is a lot of other seriously bad decisions that I will not mention, where the price is a lot grater then many (most) good investments...
As example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallands [wikipedia.org]ås_Tunnel is one really pathetic one... yet again 10 digit sums...
Re:Disheartening (Score:5, Interesting)
Newt Gingrich made a "Contract with America". 10 bullet points that he kept on a card on a string around his neck (for the two minutes it took to show it to the cameras that one day).
He totally failed to live up to it, too. But what got him thrown out of office was a scam involving "selling" copies of his book in bulk to people who really just wanted to donate more than the legally allowed amount of money to his campaign.
So contracts and politicians are immiscible. Better to saddle them up daily and ride them with the pointy spurs on until they go where you tell them to.
Re:1970s and 32MPG...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that the VW Lupo would likely avoid the accident since it's more agile on the road.
My brother's truck got rear-ended at a red light by some twat in an Accord or similar who was fiddling with her stereo, bent the bumper and mounts, totaled her car. Got to love having a hitch in the receiver. My grandfather got run over by a bus and lost his leg while waiting for a light on his motorcycle. A VW Lupo lies somewhere in between these, but a lot closer to the motorcycle than a three quarter ton pickup. If you get run over by something gigantic you're a lot more likely to die in it, and it can happen while you're not even moving. Cars don't dodge so well while stopped. Further, no matter how slick you think you are, there's always someone slicker. And no matter how badly you think someone else can't fail, they can fail worse. Yes, by all means, drive something agile, and be careful. But driving something safe is good, too.
With that said, can we please get some meaningful side impact protection in our cars? All it takes is some more steel. The technology is well-understood. If we're going to be adding weight, let's spend it someplace useful.
More Reagan Crap (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched the Reagan administration destroy the large Carter administration solar power program at JPL in 1981, so this does not surprise me at all. They literally did not want any competition for petroleum.
I want that guy's name off of National Airport in the worst way.
Re:Disheartening (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the "Contract with America" was an agreement to bring 10 things up for a vote. I'm not sure what the pass/reject rate was, but they (the Republicans) did live up to that part.
See: [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America [wikipedia.org]
educate yourself: politicalcompass.org (Score:3, Interesting)
Stalin and Hitler were not all that far to the left/right but they were both about the same level of authoritarian. go look them up on the chart. Its not a left/right false dialemma its a 2D system not a 1D spectrum; the best model is 2D and we only hurt ourselves trying to cram a 1D line into a 2D plane without losing a great deal of IMPORTANT information.
Re:Disheartening (Score:4, Interesting)
"I'm an American living in the US, I vote Democrat (usually), and I drive a Chevy. So there."
In regards to parent post, your statement simply backs up his. General Motors, the maker of your Chevy, is also the company investigated in the documentary of which parent speaks.
The Saturn EV1 was created by General Motors in response to California's new requirement that a certain amount of new vehicles sold in the state be ELECTRIC vehicles. GM created the EV1 as a precursor for cars they intended to sell. But then GM realized that profits would be low and found it more profitable to simply lobby against the laws and have them changed. They did so...then crushed all the evidence of the technology they had produced(they literally crushed all the EV1s they had leased out)--technology that in today's market would have prevented them needing a bailout (the Saturn EV1 would have been selling like hotcakes a couple of years ago).
This a perfect example of the general stock-holder's preference of "This will be good for us in the long run..." taking the back-seat to "I want my money now!"--a mindset that has driven yet another company into the ground, not to mention completely subverting the lawful, good-intentioned, will of the people (less smog, less reliance on foreign oil, etc).
This sole fact, the entire Saturn EV1 charade, is the main reason I did NOT think GM deserved a bailout. They should have been marketing cars like the EV1 years ago(and NOW!), yet still cling to such over-priced, gimmick-infested cars like the Cobalt. STILL, even after we bailed them out.
Grrrr.
Re:30MPG was not uncommon (Score:3, Interesting)
According to NationMaster: Oil usage per capita
#23 United States:
68.672 bbl/day per 1,000 people
#144 China:
5.733 bbl/day per 1,000 people
And China is the #1 exporter in the world, and we are #179.
I know (from CSX commercials, of all places) that a ton of freight can be moved over four hundred miles with a single gallon of diesel fuel, so I don't think moving a person on multi-stop rail would be much worse than that. I couldn't find any good data on breakdown of usage, but I did find an interesting article here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6126 [theoildrum.com]
This suggests that while America may be making bad choices now, China is trying it's best to catch up. Apparently they could overtake our car count by the year 2020 (meaning 1/5 of their population would own one, though), and have a larger highway system within a few years. Still, they are making massive investments in electrified rail, and from what I can tell, have a long way to go before they waste as much energy as we do to perform the same work.
Re:30MPG was not uncommon (Score:2, Interesting)
It's always so fun with all the Americans on Slashdot speaking about how much oil/coal/energy they use in China without understanding that it's consumption of items/services which drives demand/resource usage and not actual production / out of nothing.
There's no fucking way the Chinese PEOPLE consume more resources or generate more waste than their American counterparts. Not per individual and I would be very surprised if they even did it on country level.
It's not the Chinese people who pollute / use up all resources / whatever ... it's the consumers of the products produced under those conditions.
China builds items for more or less everyone, including the US.
If we talk electricity or heat generation in general I'm sure they build out their infrastructure and capabilities to produce more and cleaner energy in whatever way possible. Give them 10-20 years ..
Re:Not a problem for trips (Score:1, Interesting)
So, assuming one 1 gallon of gas costs $3.50 an one buys a gasoline vehicle that gets 32 MPG...
One would need to drive a vehicle over 180k miles to recoup a $20k investment in an electric system, even if you assume that the electricity to charge the thing is free.
If you drive 100 miles every day, it will be ~5 years for the break even point at minimum.
If you take into consideration the cost of electricity and the investment gains you could have got on the $20k, it will be even longer.
So, while the technology may exist today, it is not necessarily a good financial decision. Thus the reason why you don't see people doing it unless it is a toy project.
The Volt will be interesting IF GM can get the initial cost down low enough to make it a worthwhile ROI.
Re:Disheartening (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends. Which country does the money go to?
Re:1970s and 32MPG...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Further, while I've seen some crazy stuff from big rigs, mostly it's the idiot cars around the big rigs that are the danger. If you respect them and give them room, you're not likely to get hit by them. If you squeeze into that spot that a car might have trouble stopping for, but it's a semi you've just cut off...
Or an even better maneuver. That tipple trailer hauling rock trying to make a right turn? Yeah, just slide into that "space" to the right of him for your turn...go for it.
Re:30MPG was not uncommon (Score:4, Interesting)
Am i the only guy in the world here who can see that government regulation has contributed to the lack of doctors in the US?
Probably, because you made that up. The US has 2.50 doctors per 1000 people. England has 2.30, and France has 3.3 per 1000 citizens.
I HATE it when people complain how free markets fail and they point to very regulated industries like medicine or banking. I mean the banking industry is the most regulated this side of child porn, yet all those laws and oops still another crises every ten years.
In the 19th Century there were Panics about every ten years. Then there was the Great Depression, and virtually no banking failures until the Savings & Loan scandals of the 80s, which were caused by deregulation of savings and loan banks. The current banking crisis can be directly traced back to repealing Glass Steagall, which was done in 1999 with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Glass Steagall kept the US free of major bank failures for 70 years.
The Canadian Banking system, which is actually regulated, suffered virtually no bank failures, and is now voted the soundest in the world. [reuters.com]
In summary, you are flat wrong. Strong government regulation has a long history of success, because it's the only way you can create a market. Markets depend on rules, just like physics. When the rules are not enforced and not followed, there is too much uncertainty, and that almost always leads to a crash once people return to reality. There can be no accountability without enforcement, and no enforcement without regulation.
Re:Not the first time either (Score:3, Interesting)
Everything you describe also more or less perfectly describes Stalinist Russia as well. Both Stalin and Hitler merrily killed leftist and intellectuals, broke unions, funneled work, funds, and slaves to corporations controlled by his buddies, and used corporations as an apparatus of the state. The only differences is that Hitler at least kept up the vague pretense that corporations were not state property (they were) while Stalin didn't. It isn't worth getting into a pissing match between who was more evil, but the difference between the two in terms of policy was almost nil and generally cosmetic.
A totalitarian dictator is a totalitarian dictator. Assigning them some sort of left/right allegiance is pointless. They are all the same. They just vary slightly in rhetoric (and even then, not that much).