Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: This is a horrible waste of a car

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clevakron, Ohio
    Posts
    96

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_TSi_Si_STi
    Not a JNC, but as a car enthusiast this is something I hate to see. Why do you need to prove the safety of a new car by smashing up a classic car. Any body can tell you a new car is safer than an old one.

    To demonstrate the evolution of automotive technology, IIHS gave ABC News exclusive access to a head-on collision test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu on Wednesday at a center outside of Charlottesville, Va. The automobiles were among the best-selling models produced by Chevrolet in the late '50s and 2009 respectively.
    Warning this contains a graphic video of a classic car being totaled.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/technol...ory?id=8523234

    Oh, my God. :cry: I completely agree with you and I hate to see any type of vintage tin, regardless of manufacture, wasted so friviously for such useless knowledge. That's just wrong.

    As a crash investigator, (I'm not a reconstuctionist, but I'm working on it), it is kind of interesting to see the scope and type of the damage that the vehicles sustain in the crash... but they could easily done this comparison and achieved the same results by doing a head-on into a fixed object with the same structural integrity as the Chevy with the little car.

    As a guy who drives old cars around regularly, it scares the crap out of me to think what would happen to me if some dink driving a newer car plowed into me. :shock: :twisted:

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    285

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_TSi_Si_STi
    To demonstrate the evolution of automotive technology, IIHS gave ABC News exclusive access to a head-on collision test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu on Wednesday at a center outside of Charlottesville, Va. The automobiles were among the best-selling models produced by Chevrolet in the late '50s and 2009 respectively.
    Warning this contains a graphic video of a classic car being totaled.
    Questions, comments, observations:

    Was the Bel Air in like new condition as if it were less than a year old? Was there 50 years of stress cracks on the spot welds holding the body together? How many hundred thousand miles on the odometer? Were the body panels full of rust with a fresh coat of bondo and paint over the top to make it look nice? Had the car been taken apart and poorly plug welded back together?

    How carefully was the choice of collision type, and how would the modern car fare in a centered head on collision, when that big V8 engine came through the front and ended up squarely in the center of the Malibu front seats.

    Who says crumple zones are a new development, look at that crumple zone!

    Big, heavy American cars are supposed to be so safe...

    5.8 million crashes annually, but attrition of crashes and wear and tear have had such a negligible affect on thinning the number of old cars that pollute the most... The mantra of the environmental extremists who want to divert attention away from their new SUVs and onto those other people, over there, far away from upscale suburban neighborhoods, those dirty people who drive those dirty cars...

    But wait, if we create new technologies to prevent crashes, thereby keeping cars on the road longer, 50 years from now, when cars are powered by water, or hydrogen, or happy thoughts and fairy dust, there will be an even greater number of 2009 vintage automobiles left on the road. And by that time, those 2009 vintage cars will be the greatest polluters...

    Seems counterproductive from a societal engineering standpoint. Perhaps they should be making cars more dangerous, in order to get them destroyed more quickly, and increase fatalities, in order to thin out the population, and decrease the numbers of those evil people who drive.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clevakron, Ohio
    Posts
    96

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    [/quote]Questions, comments, observations:

    Was the Bel Air in like new condition as if it were less than a year old? Was there 50 years of stress cracks on the spot welds holding the body together? How many hundred thousand miles on the odometer? Were the body panels full of rust with a fresh coat of bondo and paint over the top to make it look nice? Had the car been taken apart and poorly plug welded back together?

    How carefully was the choice of collision type, and how would the modern car fare in a centered head on collision, when that big V8 engine came through the front and ended up squarely in the center of the Malibu front seats.

    Who says crumple zones are a new development, look at that crumple zone!

    Big, heavy American cars are supposed to be so safe...

    5.8 million crashes annually, but attrition of crashes and wear and tear have had such a negligible affect on thinning the number of old cars that pollute the most... The mantra of the environmental extremists who want to divert attention away from their new SUVs and onto those other people, over there, far away from upscale suburban neighborhoods, those dirty people who drive those dirty cars...

    But wait, if we create new technologies to prevent crashes, thereby keeping cars on the road longer, 50 years from now, when cars are powered by water, or hydrogen, or happy thoughts and fairy dust, there will be an even greater number of 2009 vintage automobiles left on the road. And by that time, those 2009 vintage cars will be the greatest polluters...

    Seems counterproductive from a societal engineering standpoint. Perhaps they should be making cars more dangerous, in order to get them destroyed more quickly, and increase fatalities, in order to thin out the population, and decrease the numbers of those evil people who drive.[/quote]


    Right on. :tu: Excellent. Well put.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Clevakron, Ohio
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_TSi_Si_STi
    My point was just that any car thats survived that long doesn't deserve an ending like that. Regardless of starting condition any car can be restored.
    Yep. It is a damn shame what they did to that old Chevy. Cool old car - and it didn't look to be in too bad of shape. What a frickin' waste.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_TSi_Si_STi
    My point was just that any car thats survived that long doesn't deserve an ending like that. Regardless of starting condition any car can be restored.
    There is more than one reason to be outraged, and probably more than two.

    The societal engineering aspect and all the chicanery involved in propping up an agenda.

    And

    The waste of a perfectly good resource, a car in good shape.

    Smashing a pristine car should rate the same as cutting down a pristine redwood tree. The explanation of "We have more trees" never worked with the hippie chained to the trunk of the tree. But the hippies can crash cars into each other, and the explanation of "We have more cars" is good enough.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westminster CA
    Posts
    72

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by JT191
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew_TSi_Si_STi
    To demonstrate the evolution of automotive technology, IIHS gave ABC News exclusive access to a head-on collision test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu on Wednesday at a center outside of Charlottesville, Va. The automobiles were among the best-selling models produced by Chevrolet in the late '50s and 2009 respectively.
    Warning this contains a graphic video of a classic car being totaled.
    Questions, comments, observations:

    Was the Bel Air in like new condition as if it were less than a year old? Was there 50 years of stress cracks on the spot welds holding the body together? How many hundred thousand miles on the odometer? Were the body panels full of rust with a fresh coat of bondo and paint over the top to make it look nice? Had the car been taken apart and poorly plug welded back together?

    How carefully was the choice of collision type, and how would the modern car fare in a centered head on collision, when that big V8 engine came through the front and ended up squarely in the center of the Malibu front seats.

    Who says crumple zones are a new development, look at that crumple zone!

    Big, heavy American cars are supposed to be so safe...

    5.8 million crashes annually, but attrition of crashes and wear and tear have had such a negligible affect on thinning the number of old cars that pollute the most... The mantra of the environmental extremists who want to divert attention away from their new SUVs and onto those other people, over there, far away from upscale suburban neighborhoods, those dirty people who drive those dirty cars...

    But wait, if we create new technologies to prevent crashes, thereby keeping cars on the road longer, 50 years from now, when cars are powered by water, or hydrogen, or happy thoughts and fairy dust, there will be an even greater number of 2009 vintage automobiles left on the road. And by that time, those 2009 vintage cars will be the greatest polluters...

    Seems counterproductive from a societal engineering standpoint. Perhaps they should be making cars more dangerous, in order to get them destroyed more quickly, and increase fatalities, in order to thin out the population, and decrease the numbers of those evil people who drive.
    if you watch the video carefully, you can see this big puff of what looks like rust coming out of ze chevy
    EDIT: according to newtons 1st law of motion, the old chevy should have DESTROYED the newer one. more mass=a greater push from the old chevy. but no, they just stood at a standstill. im fairly certain that detroit iron from the 50's heavier than the shit cars that chevy puts out today. you can bet your ass that that test was rigged

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    285

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by moisabamf
    EDIT: according to newtons 1st law of motion, the old chevy should have DESTROYED the newer one. more mass=a greater push from the old chevy. but no, they just stood at a standstill. im fairly certain that detroit iron from the 50's heavier than the shit cars that chevy puts out today. you can bet your ass that that test was rigged
    1959 Chevrolet Bel Air - 3,622 pounds

    2006 Chevrolet Malibu - 3,175 pounds

    www.carfolio.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgetown Ma
    Posts
    364

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by JT191

    1959 Chevrolet Bel Air - 3,622 pounds

    2006 Chevrolet Malibu - 3,175 pounds

    www.carfolio.com
    3622 pounds of steel and chrome.....

    3175 pounds of plastic and airbags.....

    I will take the chrome please

    As for the story.... damn shame to waste the old chevy for a "No s*#t sherlock" sort of point.
    As far as the rest of the story, do we realy need cars that avoid accidents? How about better driver training, tougher licensing rules etc... Most of the accidents are caused by people who should not be driving anyway.

    And I agree....lets keep life dangerous...thin out the herd a little :tu:

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    354
    Wow thats pretty crazy.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    696

    Re: This is a horrible waste of a car

    Quote Originally Posted by JT191
    Seems counterproductive from a societal engineering standpoint. Perhaps they should be making cars more dangerous, in order to get them destroyed more quickly, and increase fatalities, in order to thin out the population, and decrease the numbers of those evil people who drive.
    Right on. :twisted: :tu:

    I wonder how much of it had to do with the X-frame underneath that Impala? I know that they weren't great in side impacts.

Similar Threads

  1. What a WASTE of an S13 .....
    By KresSlyda180 in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-15-2011, 10:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •