|
I wonder if the LaFerrari can get over speed bumps without ripping that hanging front splitter off? Or up and down angled streets and driveways.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:But front overhangs = downforce. I'm not sure but can you get much downforce posing in front of Harrods? That's where most of those cars end up after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:I'm not sure but can you get much downforce posing in front of Harrods? That's where most of those cars end up after all. I suppose if you want to take the big picture, being massively uncontrollable at speed (to a lethal degree) would be a net gain for society considering the types of people that end up buying most of those cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Well, if they're producing the part and assembling the other stuff inside of it, presumably they'd have access inside of it, yes? Not necessarily. 3D printing means you could quite easily take the bottom half, assemble stuff inside it, and then print the top half. If the inside parts are of the same material as the printer media, you could even print them in place, add a quick wash step to get rid of the interstitial material used to hold it in place during deposition, and have an assembly with moving parts that cannot be separated without cutting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I suppose if you want to take the big picture, being massively uncontrollable at speed (to a lethal degree) would be a net gain for society considering the types of people that end up buying most of those cars. Lets face it, they are also such woeful drivers that no amount of high speed assist is going to help either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Lets face it, they are also such woeful drivers that no amount of high speed assist is going to help either. How many times has Rowen Atkinson written off his McClaren so far? I want to say 3 or 4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
I think Rowan Atkinson can be cut some slack. It's worth a mint and is one of the last unashamedly unforgiving supercars, yet he drives it a like it's a regular old commuter. He claims in this month's classic and sports car magazine that he's eager to hit 100,000 miles on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Rowan Atkinson is the exception that makes it a net gain instead of a pure gain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Powershift posted:The front overhang on these new mid engine cars is ridiculous. The leferrari, the mclaren p1, the lambo veneno, all nuts. They should just end the cars at the front wheels, slap some headlights on, and call it a day. :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Well, unless that really dinky piece of glass you can see through the window is the windshield, I'm pretty sure it's facing right. Plus you can see the silver door hinges. Fake edit: Yeah, some quick googling tells me that's an Enzo, here's the same car fully dressed (from the other side): 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
A real man could tell that was an Enzo from the window profile alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:3-D printing would be lept on by car companies because that would be the end of expensive to make and run presses and molds - they would long term reduce costs big time and make manufacturing much more flexible and quick to change. No more multi million presses and molds The multi head printers needed to reduce print times would end up being customized to the point they couldn't do much else but one type of part, and they'll still be considerably more expensive than already paid of stamping machines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
So this is not really breaking news but formula one cares are changing over from 2.4 liter V8 naturally aspirated to 1.6 liter V6 turbo. This is a pretty big deal because the last time turbos were in formula one, they ended up doubling the power in less than 10 years and some of the formula one manufacturers were talking about 1500 bhp engines and had to be banned. Going to be an interesting season next year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
DropShadow posted:A real man could tell that was an Enzo from the window profile alone. Yeah well EFF YOU TOO buddy. t  In all seriousness, when I think Enzo I mostly think of that nose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Bob NewSCART posted:So this is not really breaking news but formula one cares are changing over from 2.4 liter V8 naturally aspirated to 1.6 liter V6 turbo. This is a pretty big deal because the last time turbos were in formula one, they ended up doubling the power in less than 10 years and some of the formula one manufacturers were talking about 1500 bhp engines and had to be banned. Going to be an interesting season next year. So is BMW going to do something crazy again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
BabyMauler posted:How many times has Rowen Atkinson written off his McClaren so far? I want to say 3 or 4. He probably drives it by sitting on the roof and pulling ropes tied to the controls Also with regards to the printable cars, initial manufacturing is interesting but I wonder about the other end, if once the car's service life is through if it can be easily dissolved and/or recycled instead of cluttering up a junkyard forever. Like instead of having to ship it to China to be resmelted or whatever you could just hose it down with solvent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Devyl posted:So is BMW going to do something crazy again? BMW is out of the F1 game. Based on the current set of rules, I don't see a lot of room for crazy 1,500HP cars. Whenever a team makes a simple exhaust or diffuser change, it gets banned instantly. I really think there should be some more wiggle room for innovation in F1 but it just is not going to happen any time soon unfortunately. Coolest rumor I have heard is McLaren-Honda next year 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:He probably drives it by sitting on the roof and pulling ropes tied to the controls On the other hand, some asshat could put a nice big hole through your car with a quart of acetone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:The multi head printers needed to reduce print times would end up being customized to the point they couldn't do much else but one type of part, and they'll still be considerably more expensive than already paid of stamping machines. Presses don't last forever, I know, I have to maintain a bunch of 20 year old bastards. New presses are dozens of millions when you factor in having to put them in a new building (currently we have 2 presses in 20 m wide bays, 1 new press would have to sit astride 2 bays but the roof clearance of 13m isn't enough). I'd also look to 6 or 6+1 axis robots with extrusion heads rather than the gantry frame printers people currently think of. They come out to less then 100k each & each new part is a program, not a million dollar tool. Obviously is a complicated issue but for some parts and volumes it will start to make sense in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Voltage posted:BMW is out of the F1 game. Based on the current set of rules, I don't see a lot of room for crazy 1,500HP cars. Whenever a team makes a simple exhaust or diffuser change, it gets banned instantly. I really think there should be some more wiggle room for innovation in F1 but it just is not going to happen any time soon unfortunately. there's a ton of wiggle room and innovation in F1 cars. I think one of the problems is most of it is highly secret and proprietary, and the teams don't want to go blabbing about their new brake rotor design, or little lump hidden in a duct that increases cooling 10%, or anything else that gives them an edge. The only way the public finds out about these things is another team does some snooping and complaining and the secret gets out. The innovations are also on a level of cleverness that the general public just wouldn't appreciate them. If the shape of a rear wing plane or cutout or something increases downforce in slow corners or decreases drag by a certain small percentage, really who cares? But to the boffins that run the team, it could equate to 5 places in qualifying, or a whole second over a 60 lap race which could mean the difference between a podium or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:The multi head printers needed to reduce print times would end up being customized to the point they couldn't do much else but one type of part, and they'll still be considerably more expensive than already paid of stamping machines. General purpose 3d printers are going to be what cars are made with, the only question is when.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Except materials are still more important than forming processes. No matter what kind of magic shapes you stick in there, it's still just ABS right now, and better materials will only make the manufacturing process even slower. I doubt the ability to fine-tune the internal structure will really provide massive gains over the complex honeycombed structures we already do in aluminum and the like. A loom in place for fibers like carbon fiber like used by Toyota, Boeing, and the like has the potential to be far, far better. Except then it's not 3d printing - it's 3d weaving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
F1 only did that crazy engine poo poo in the 1980's when they could run a grenade worthy tweaker engine just for qualifying then rip it out. Now they have to make it last.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
A bunch of new cars now have small overlap test results.quote:
While they all got the "+" rating, The MKZ and Mazda6 only got an "average", while the Volvos and Hondas got "Good" results. Volvo(not surprising) and Honda(somewhat surprising) are really cleaning up on the new safety tests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:A bunch of new cars now have small overlap test results. It was just the other day I discovered the IIHS YouTube channel and went  watching some of the small overlap videos. It's amazing how safe cars have gotten but I would NOT want to endure an accident like those. The NHTSA 35mph full frontal test looks like a parking lot ding by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:It was just the other day I discovered the IIHS YouTube channel and went drat, you weren't kidding. I'd hate to see what would happen in a 60s/70s car in this sort of test, though... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj-oPkXpAnA
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
I would be interested to see them repeat the small offset test 3 times on the same model vehicle. I'm willing to wager they would get 3 significantly different outcomes. In the videos it appears that the behavior of the wheel/tire influences the amount of intrusion, the positioning of the airbag, and how the energy is dissipated through the body.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
It appears the problem with the small overlap test is that the main crash structure is inboard of the impact point, certainly on the Prius. Cosmetic plastics & the outer fender get wiped out, then the wheel is driven back into the passenger cabin, then the cabin itself takes the impact. I'm really not surprised how badly even excellent cars fare considering they are generally designed to absorb impact progressively from the front, this test basically is an impact to the corner of the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Lets face it, they are also such woeful drivers that no amount of high speed assist is going to help either. Stefan Bengtsson, nephew of H&M owner Stefan Persson, has done this at least twice with his CCX. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:It appears the problem with the small overlap test is that the main crash structure is inboard of the impact point, certainly on the Prius. Cosmetic plastics & the outer fender get wiped out, then the wheel is driven back into the passenger cabin, then the cabin itself takes the impact. I'm really not surprised how badly even excellent cars fare considering they are generally designed to absorb impact progressively from the front, this test basically is an impact to the corner of the cabin. Yeah, but within 5 years nearly every new car will be able to shrug off this test as well. IIHS, despite being run by the insurance companies, has actually been really useful here at least. I mean, take a look at moderate offset crashes of 10 years ago compared to today. It's the same kind of crash with the same energy involved, but modern cars make them look like superficial accidents as far as the occupants are concerned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb1XOUPcOtg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-nXP39vjBA I mean, geeze. With the neon the whole driver's side door deforms to the point that it can really no longer keep the occupant in the car. The roof also starts to deform. With the Dart, you would likely be able to open the door after the accident. The elements of the A pillar barely (if at all) move let alone the B-pillar. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
It's a distinctly worst-case test against a target that doesn't move or deform at all like hitting another car would - more like one of those monolith Aussie telephone poles. I don't get the vibe it's a common at all crash scenario, not even remotely in the ballpark of the usual 'slam flat into the rear of the car in front of you' type scenario. The test ends up being another dickwaving bullet carmakers can throw in their ads after they figure out how to game the exam. The extra development, materials, weight etc etc to 'shrug off' those tests doesn't come for free, and would be far better spent, for instance, on active protection systems to avoid the crash in the first place. None of the IIHS tests allow the car to automatically dodge. Now if the IIHS had a test simulating a deer that jumps and mostly clears your hood right before eating your windshield, that might have real merit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:None of the IIHS tests allow the car to automatically dodge. Would you really want the car to "automatically dodge" an accident? I don't think solving this issue will really result in significant weight increases or price skyrocketing. Instead engineers will redesign the inner fender structure to be able to withstand these kinds of accidents - probably just a diagonal crossmember or something that dissipates the energy laterally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Oh cool this again. None of the tests are mandatory or impact the car's sellability. If you want to go Galt and buy a car with poo poo crash test ratings on purpose there are plenty of Nissans and VWs on the market for you to choose from, no one is stopping you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I don't get the vibe it's a common at all crash scenario, not even remotely in the ballpark of the usual 'slam flat into the rear of the car in front of you' type scenario. The majority of the accidents that result in fatalities are single vehicle accidents into immovable objects. That's why it makes sense to focus on those types of accidents for crash improvement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:Stefan Bengtsson, nephew of H&M owner Stefan Persson, has done this at least twice with his CCX. This makes me literally depressed
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Would you really want the car to "automatically dodge" an accident? Having the car 'automatically dodge' by undoing inadvertent lane changes, maintaining distance and stopping if the car in front stops, etc is exactly the direction the industry is going. Single-vehicle accidents into immobile objects should be the easiest ones to avoid. Throatwarbler posted:Oh cool this again. None of the tests are mandatory or impact the car's sellability. If you want to go Galt and buy a car with poo poo crash test ratings on purpose there are plenty of Nissans and VWs on the market for you to choose from, no one is stopping you. It absolutely impacts(!) the car's sellability, and beating these sorts of tests are part of why we had the Yank Tank enormous SUV fad, because what self-respecting mother wants to haul little Timmy to soccer practice in a car that only got four stars. The end result is bigger, heavier, dumber, less fuel efficient vehicles that bring overall road safety down. And c'mon, man, no one 'goes Galt' and buys a new car.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The majority of the accidents that result in fatalities are single vehicle accidents into immovable objects. That's why it makes sense to focus on those types of accidents for crash improvement. Yet at the same time, most of those accidents are the ones where you're most likely to hear "police believe speed and alcohol were factors." I'm fine with protecting people from their own stupidity, but I don't think it ought to be a priority compared to other equally deadly and common crash types, such as hitting a large wild animal at highway speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:It's a distinctly worst-case test against a target that doesn't move or deform at all like hitting another car would - more like one of those monolith Aussie telephone poles. I don't get the vibe it's a common at all crash scenario, not even remotely in the ballpark of the usual 'slam flat into the rear of the car in front of you' type scenario. The test ends up being another dickwaving bullet carmakers can throw in their ads after they figure out how to game the exam. The extra development, materials, weight etc etc to 'shrug off' those tests doesn't come for free, and would be far better spent, for instance, on active protection systems to avoid the crash in the first place. None of the IIHS tests allow the car to automatically dodge. That's called the moose test. It's not a huge concern in the US because fatalities (to drivers) due to deer are fairly limited. The small frontal offset test was created precisely because it was found that drivers often managed to mostly but not completely avoid static, rigid obstacles like trees and telephone poles, and that this accounted for an unusually large number of injuries and fatalities. It's a measure for the passenger compartment safety cage acting without the benefit of a crush zone, which is relevant in other sorts of accidents where the crush zone ends up being less useful. Most of the changes that manufacturers have made to improve their performance on the test from low to high have been tiny - recalibrations of software and small structural tweaks or redesigns - since a modern car with good regular crash tests already has a strong safety cage. This seems like a net positive and a way to make it harder to artificially game the tests, since there are now more tests you have to account for which makes it more likely that you'll have to make less specific, more generally safe structures. The IIHS exists to cut down on insurance payouts by reducing injuries. It's a rare instance of interests that mostly align between the companies in power and actual human beings. Snowdens Secret posted:It absolutely impacts(!) the car's sellability, and beating these sorts of tests are part of why we had the Yank Tank enormous SUV fad, because what self-respecting mother wants to haul little Timmy to soccer practice in a car that only got four stars. The end result is bigger, heavier, dumber, less fuel efficient vehicles that bring overall road safety down. And c'mon, man, no one 'goes Galt' and buys a new car. Except popular American cars have always been heavy and enormous even before SUV or real safety standards, and modern small cars routinely get 4 stars across the board while being lighter and more efficient than ever before. The most popular cars in America that aren't pickup trucks and midsize sedans are compact cars and small CUVs based on compact car platforms. The SUV fad had nothing to do with actual safety, and more to do with cheapness, the undesirability of newly downsized FWD sedans (in response to CAFE and emissions that trucks weren't as burdened by), and perceptions of safety, considering that stuff like the 90s Explorers and similar cars did pretty damned poorly on safety tests of the time. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Having the car 'automatically dodge' by undoing inadvertent lane changes, maintaining distance and stopping if the car in front stops, etc is exactly the direction the industry is going. Single-vehicle accidents into immobile objects should be the easiest ones to avoid. The following cars have received a score of "poor" on the small overlap test: Toyota Camry Toyota Prius V Audi A4 Mercedes C-class Boy those sure are some un-sellable cars* huh. You should put your money where your mouth is and buy a Camry for your next car. Really stick it to the man and leave the rest of us sheeple to our bigger, heavier, dumber, less fuel efficient Hondas. That will show them. *Well, the Audi A4 actually is un-sellable because it's an Audi but that's not important right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:
No, it's a contributing factor as to why that fad is starting to fade as the tests objectively proved that bigger != safer. The tanks did NOT do well on these types of tests and many of them were exposed for the death traps they were. PT6A posted:Yet at the same time, most of those accidents are the ones where you're most likely to hear "police believe speed and alcohol were factors." I'm fine with protecting people from their own stupidity, but I don't think it ought to be a priority compared to other equally deadly and common crash types, such as hitting a large wild animal at highway speed. That's oversimplifying a bit, especially when these are only 40mph tests. You've never been on a strange road on a dark night and made a mistake? It's the very definition of accident and people don't have to be grossly negligent to be involved in them. Something as simple as understeering on black ice at speeds barely over what you would do in a school zone can replicate exactly what this type of test is doing. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 17:45
|
|