|
What hot hatch do you own? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Golf GTI / R / R32 |
|
196 | 0.02% |
| Impreza WRX / STi |
|
133 | 0.01% |
| Mazdaspeed 3 |
|
92 | 0.01% |
| Veloster Turbo |
|
20 | 0.00% |
| Focus ST |
|
149 | 0.01% |
| Other Hot Hatch |
|
230 | 0.02% |
| Elantra GT |
|
1000001 | 99.92% |
| Total: | 1000821 votes | ||
|
Glad you’re ok, SolarLunes and Mrs SolarLunes. Anyone who doesn’t have a dashcam, go buy one right now. Not having but thinking about buying one is like saying you’ll set up backups tomorrow. Some years ago, I had a guy overtake me on the wrong side on the motorway, cut in front of me and stand on the brakes. Don’t believe it was malicious, he hadn’t judged gaps properly, but he still got money from my insurance and took me to court for whiplash. (Luckily I won and he had to pay the money back, but it was a super unfun couple of years going through all that.) Dashcam ownership shortly followed  And go back up your laptop ffs
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
MarsellusWallace posted:You are one lucky dude, that's approaching the worst case scenario accident for cars designed at that time, what with the small overlap test not yet having been rolled out. ENCAP has had small overlap tests for years. Good to see you are safe Solar!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
You Am I posted:ENCAP has had small overlap tests for years. Nah, not really. They've done 40 percent overlap since like, 1997, but small overlap like the IIHS does is 25 percent. This is what ENCAP had to say about it back in 2014: quote:A small overlap crash test in Europe? No, Euro NCAP does not plan to carry out this type of test in the immediate future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
I didn't even know what a small overlap crash test was until today or why they're as awful as they are, goddamn
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
I dont remember who did it, but one manufacturer even beefed up only one side of the crash supports of a car to game the test in certain markets that care about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Honestly, the crash tests should be done in a way that's documented secretly beforehand, and applied consistently against all cars, but changes yearly without warning. You can't game the test if you don't know what the test is going to be. Same thing with mileage. Just come up with a random test every year, test all the cars, then reveal what the test actually was after the fact. As long as cars are being compared against each other on the same metric, it's completely fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly, the crash tests should be done in a way that's documented secretly beforehand, and applied consistently against all cars, but changes yearly without warning. Could you elaborate? They're trying to rest safety, targeting what they think are the most likely or most dangerous crashes. I don't see how you could make them random without varying relation to real world conditions. Some years the tests would be more meaningful than other years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
What's that saying? "When a measure become a target, it stops being a good measure."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Honestly, the crash tests should be done in a way that's documented secretly beforehand, and applied consistently against all cars, but changes yearly without warning. The only problem here is that results between years wouldn't be comparable at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:The only problem here is that results between years wouldn't be comparable at all. wolrah fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
Crash tests would get insanely expensive if you added something every year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Don't they base crash tests off of studies and reports about the most common, most dangerous, most lethal types of car crashes, etc? Probably wouldn't make much sense to just throw in some random test scenario every year that only happens in .00002% of actual crashes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
100% Dundee posted:Don't they base crash tests off of studies and reports about the most common, most dangerous, most lethal types of car crashes, etc? Probably wouldn't make much sense to just throw in some random test scenario every year that only happens in .00002% of actual crashes. Yeah, but if the tests are defined in such a way that you can game them by only strengthening one side of the car, the tests aren't really working as intended. For example, take the small overlap test. You could say "this test is going to simulate a small overlap head-on collision" but leave the size, angle, speed, etc. unknown until the tests are completed, so the companies would have to design for a wide range of possible collisions within that definition instead of knowing exactly how the test would be conducted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Sounds great and all but if you don't have something to design to, it makes it a lot harder to design in general. It's not some conspiracy that car makers are trying to make your cars less safe or less fuel efficient. Different regions have different rules and laws. A compact car that's for the US market is going to be a lot different than one sold in India for example. Different price points, laws/regulations, and compromises go with that. If you want costs of cars to go even higher, then yeah this is a great plan. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
I also doubt that randomizing the testing is really necessary. The tests are already hard to pass and if you're "gaming" the system by designing for the test you're actually making the car safer in general too. It helps that the US has two bodies that pull enough weight for car companies to take notice, and they have somewhat different methods. Along with that, the IIHS does adjust tests and do extra stuff not in their standard suite. Not sure if this is what people were referencing, but they did it with the small overlap test and it showed many cars didn't do as well on the previously untested passenger side: https://jalopnik.com/the-toughest-car-crash-test-is-about-to-get-even-toughe-1819715039 They did note that though cars did worse on the passenger side than the driver' side, they still did better than cars before small overlap testing started at all. On top of all that, it's not like passing these tests is easy either. Tesla has been mad at the IIHS cause the model 3 doesn't do that well in the small overlap test: https://www.slashgear.com/iihs-small-overlap-front-crash-test-tesla-model-s-06490772/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:The only problem here is that results between years wouldn't be comparable at all. They already aren't. That's what's so stupid about NCAP - the same car can continue being sold as '5 star' indefinitely without retest required. The only time NCAP actually made the point of retesting an aging vehicle was with the Fiat Punto because Fiat was absolutely taking the piss and still selling a more than a decade old design as '5 star' (the retest in 2017 dropped it to zero)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Suburban Dad posted:It's not some conspiracy that car makers are trying to make your cars less safe or less fuel efficient. It certainly has been in the past. One manufacturer, you'll recall, actually designed a system to identify when it was in the fuel economy testing cycle and change engine parameters to lower emissions. You can say that's fraudulent, of course, but the fact remains that it was only possible in the first place because they knew exactly what the testing cycle would be. If you randomize the testing cycle on a regular basis to more closely approximate real-world conditions, that wouldn't be possible, and it's more likely that manufacturers would design their cars for efficiency in a wide range of conditions, rather than designing them to get the best possible numbers on a known test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Randomizing the fuel efficiency test within a certain bound of parameters - or just adjusting the parameters! - makes a lot more sense than randomizing the crash testing regime. The crash testing regime replicates the most common types of crashes. I prefer that automakers try to make cars safer in the majority of crashes than to focus on some nebulous "all around performance" target that is probably not relevant for 99.999% of crash situations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Interesting thing I found out about the FoRS. The awd and drive mode are disabled during start up when temps drop suddenly. Was not aware of this as it did not happen for most of the winter. Worked just fine after car warmed up a bit. Also pirelli winter sottozero tires are loving awsome on our frozen rear end hills in southeast AK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Melthir posted:Interesting thing I found out about the FoRS. The awd and drive mode are disabled during start up when temps drop suddenly. Was not aware of this as it did not happen for most of the winter. Worked just fine after car warmed up a bit. Also pirelli winter sottozero tires are loving awsome on our frozen rear end hills in southeast AK. There is a TSB that fixes the drive mode disabled during cold weather. The exhaust valve on the driver’s side exhaust pipe gets moisture around it and freezes shut. The valve can’t complete its self actuation startup test and tells the car to disable the drive mode selection. The TSB fixes this by just ignoring the startup test figuring that once the valve warms up enough it will open. The AWD system should not disable itself unless you are beating the holy hell out of it on a track in the desert. Overheating is about the only thing that will disable the AWD outside of pulling the fuse that controls the system (that’s how you properly dyno an RS, in FWD mode only). If you’re getting and AWD disabled message in the cold you should probably go to a dealership for service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Whelp back to the shop again I guess. I just figured it was because it froze itself to the hill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
  Lukewarm hatch with tech package. 201hp/195tq, 7 speed dual clutch but who cares, it’s got adaptive cruise with stop-start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
dissss posted:They already aren't. They retested the Fiat Panda as well. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:They retested the Fiat Panda as well. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It certainly has been in the past. One manufacturer, you'll recall, actually designed a system to identify when it was in the fuel economy testing cycle and change engine parameters to lower emissions. You can say that's fraudulent, of course, but the fact remains that it was only possible in the first place because they knew exactly what the testing cycle would be. If you randomize the testing cycle on a regular basis to more closely approximate real-world conditions, that wouldn't be possible, and it's more likely that manufacturers would design their cars for efficiency in a wide range of conditions, rather than designing them to get the best possible numbers on a known test. Yeah, they broke the law and what they did was illegal. They got the poo poo fined out of them for it as well, as other manufacturers have in the past. Honda did the same thing with a hood switch I believe in the late 90s, so it knew it was on a dyno so it modified the software. Yes, it does happen and has happened in the past but if companies are dumb enough to do it nowadays after the example that was made of VW, that's their gamble. Manufacturers try to optimize efficiency everywhere they can. I say this being an engineer with experience in the auto industry, doing calibration work on production engines. Yes, the cycle areas are under more scrutiny since those are the design limits but it's not like "well the car only runs up to 3000 rpm on the cycle, who cares above that" sort of thing. It's a novel idea but not realistic to randomize everything. All the sudden the cycle includes a WOT acceleration? Welp everybody is hosed and nobody can meet emissions now because it's just not possible with current regs. You'd have to completely revamp all of the emissions requirements and basically start over from scratch to regs that just move the goal posts. To that end it wouldn't really improve anything significantly be it emissions or fuel economy, but add more development time and cost which the consumer would be paying for in the end. You make it sound so easy and simple but it's neither of those things. The current cycle isn't the most realistic vs. real world fuel economy, yes, but it's a basis to compare vehicles against something consistent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:They retested the Fiat Panda as well. What’s the green indicator? 47% would prefer to walk than use that car?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
latinotwink1997 posted:What’s the green indicator? 47% would prefer to walk than use that car? Pedestrian safety, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
latinotwink1997 posted:What’s the green indicator? 47% would prefer to walk than use that car? I'd expect it to be higher than that -- roughly "100% minus James May."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
So guys at the shop were unable to find anything. Said it may have been a frozen sensor. We could not get it to duplicate this morning. It was below freezing but we didn't have a fog to freeze on the car like when the error happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Had a dream last night that I was rallying my stock GTI in Finland (like you do), went over a big jump, and the front end came up mid-air and I landed smack on the rear end. Woke up wondering how I was going to explain it to the insurance company and my wife. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
a mysterious cloak posted:Had a dream last night that I was rallying my stock GTI in Finland (like you do), went over a big jump, and the front end came up mid-air and I landed smack on the rear end. Woke up wondering how I was going to explain it to the insurance company and my wife. Those Duke boys are at it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Beats all you ever saw Been in trouble with the law Since the day they was Björn
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
a mysterious cloak posted:Had a dream last night that I was rallying my stock GTI in Finland (like you do), went over a big jump, and the front end came up mid-air and I landed smack on the rear end. Woke up wondering how I was going to explain it to the insurance company and my wife. I've had the same dream about my RS except they usually involve me flying off the side of a mountain a'la Dirt Rally. Scary poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
I need to start driving my car like you guys do if those are the types of dreams you're having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
It's like when I was a teenager and would have dreams in Halo graphics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
100% Dundee posted:I need to start driving my car like you guys do if those are the types of dreams you're having. Buy a very expensive car that literally scares you to drive and I promise you will have nightmares of wrecking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
gti or rs isnt a super expensive car though
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
In the grand scheme of performance cars, not really, but to most people it's a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
eh you have a point, i forgot americans are poor as poo poo right now
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
KillHour posted:I've had the same dream about my RS except they usually involve me flying off the side of a mountain a'la Dirt Rally. Scary poo poo. Pretty sure playing Dirt 2.0 this week had something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 19:13
|
|