Aren’t these the kind of cars that ‘the messiah’ wants us all to drive? I’d guess that the engineers just didn’t get the message from him when they designed them, that they were also supposed to be safe and affordable.
The engineers need to watch “Transformers” and figure out to morph the car into a coffin after the fatal accidents that will surely happen in higher frequencies due the lack of protection for the passengers. Remember the Yugo? Now we will soon have the Obamacar.
What about gas guzzling sports cars, like Ferraris and Porsches? I didn’t see how well they did, and how much it costs to repair the damage. I’m thinking it’s going to be more than the $500 threshold.
At risk of belaboring the obvious, Pres Obama had nothing to do with the design of any car. Why do the majority of your commentators sound like they are slightly to the right of Louis XIV?
This article was clearly biased against the mini/micro car market. You speak of only 7 tested vehicles out of a sample size of 61 cars. Furthermore, your one passing vehicle was in a class by itself. Mercedes, parent company of the Smartcar, has a 100% success rate in their class. The other manufacturers, all in the mini class, including BMW’s Mini Cooper, have a 100% failure rate. But the bigger picture is this. Your remaining sample size still shows a nearly 69% failure rate among all other vehicle classes. I would be willing to bet that the compact cars faired only marginally better than the minis with a steady increase in performance the larger the car got in the tests. Instead of biasing this article on a small, albeit popular segment of the models on the road, with an overall poor performance rate of 70.49 percent (based on your reporting) across the sample spectrum, shouldn’t we be asking the manufacturers why they aren’t improving the overall performance on this part of the vehicle????
I fail to see how Presidential politics enters into this equation.
Mr. Obama wants to force all of us into microcars regardless of the consequences. He may not be designing cars personally but he has successfully blackmailed GM and Chrysler into converting their production into abominations like the Smart car which is anything but smart. But why should he care- He can hop into Air Force 1 and go to the 7-11 for a six pack anytime he wants to.
By the way, I have owned and currently own several very small cars. I have an Austin Healey Frogeye and a Fiat 850 coupe among others. I own these by choice for their fun value. I absolutely don’t expect families with small children to be forced into itty bitty cars.
His installation of multiple “czars” who have almost unlimited power and no accountability put the French kings to shame.
Our industry is next unless we all grow spines in a hurry and return to sanity.
It seems like the prior comment just proves your point.
Kind of like the white congressman complaining of repression via twitter and then trying to draw a parallel to the demonstrations in Iran. Give me a break.
Pay attention Underwriter- The Obama administration and especially the head Obamatron have no expertise in much of anything and certainly know nothing about the auto industry and the laws of physics. If a Chevy Suburban hits a Smart Car the world is rid of one nasty little roller skate but unfortunately some one in the Smart Car will probably be killed. The Suburban may suffer a ding or a scratch.
No, Barry does not design cars himself because he is clueless but he is deliberately pushing the US motoring public towards repulsive little transportation modules that he would never want for his own family except to drive around inside the White House.
As I said before, I own and drive very small cars for entertainment but I want everyone to have a choice. The annointed one doesn’t want you to have a choice.
So where exactly are you getting this information that President Obama is wanting to force everyone into sub-compact sardine cans? What HAS been said by this administration is that the CAFE standards have to improve. We’ve had that technology in place for a long time now and if inertia hadn’t been such a impediment to innovation we would have a wide choice of affordable hybrids and alternative fuel cars on the road by now. Not to mention clean diesel engine cars that actually have power and mpg. THAT would have kept American workers on the auto assembly lines. That would have continued to feed the nationwide network of supporting industries to the auto makers in production mode. Consequently, that would also have prevented those pensioners from going to the government’s pension insurance plans on the tax payer dollar.
But please, continue to drink the rushberry kool aid and blame our current financial crisis on the Obama administration. I hear that other popular flavors are Revisioblast and Hanniberry.
Underwriter, let me explain a little about by background. I have worked in the auto and insurance industries for 32 years including years in engineering capacities for the manufacturer of a popular Oriental import vehicle. The new CAFE standards can be met ONLY by massisve downsizing of the cars people buy.Safety WILL suffer as a result.
I can assure you that the US public DON’T WANT hybrids (except for a fringe group of consumers). Americans want large vehicles (I don’t personally), but I believe in giving people a choice. Let’s not try to alter buying habits for the “Public Good”.I am quite capable of making my own decisions and so are you. I would not belittle you or call you names if you chose to buy a Toyota Prius. Nor would I criticize you if you bought a Hummer.
This really isn’t a forum for debating the merits or lack thereof fo diesel power but I can assure you diesel isn’t the answer either.
My point is that no government whether Obama’s or Bush’s should be making choices for me or coercing me in one direction or the other. The American Public is capable of rational thought and is also prone to make mistakes. But they are still are entitled to free choice don’t you think?
Good, now that we’ve moved beyond the name calling, which I actually hate – even though I disagreed with a whole host of policies from the Bush Presidency I still just referred to him as Pres. Bush – we can get down to the crux of this debate.
I still stand by my original point – we neglected for much too long any other alternative power sources for our vehicles. Today, there are racing hobbiast who compete and win on a regular basis against conventional high powered cars on the drag strip. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2007-07-29-electric-dragsters_N.htm
Look at the progress we have made in cell phone technology since the 80’s. We’ve gone from a suitcase sized phone to minicomputers that fit within the palm of our hands and can connect in real time with 1000’s of people simultaneously via social networking sites. IF we had focused on continuing the innovation cycle on our cars’ powertrain versus continuing to push the envelope on how big a car we can manufacture and still write it under the PAP, then this whole debate could be moot. We have known for more than 30 years that fossil fuels were a limited resource. We have known that our population continues to grow world wide and that as markets emerge and mature, the demand for fuel would increase. We might have actually achieved the “Both/And”, a powerful, clean vehicle in a variety of sizes, that doesn’t depend on a foreign resources. But we sublimated research to the convenience of today.
The choice thing, I agree that we should be able to purchase what we want. I’m just disappointed that our expectations were so low that innovation took a back seat to fear marketing – my gosh, we need to drive a sherman tank – and the result is the choice of cars we have today.
By the way, I totally appreciate your love of the roadster. There’s nothing like taking one up into mountains for the fresh air and adrenaline.
Hey Underwriter- I’ve been deeply involved in motorsports over the years and electric dragsters have proven quite potent. They, like internal combustion dragsters, have little connection to everyday passenger cars. They take forever to recharge and they’re expensive.
The very first electric cars sold in the US (The 1910 Detroit Electric for example) had about the same range as the EV-1 electric cars marketed by GM in the 1990’s. In reality the EV-1 had very little range and took 18 hours to fully recharge. I learned this from an individual who leased one. On Top Gear, a Tesla roadster (actually an electric Lotus) proved to have a range of about 55 miles if driven hard. And it took 18 hours to fully recharge. The show’s hosts suggested that you would have to purchase 2 Teslas so one could be on the charger whicle you drove the other. Electrics are no where near ready for mass consumption.
In the mid 50’s Chrysler was experimenting with fuel cell technology which was deemed too expensive for everyday vehicles. They also worked on electric cars but were stymied by the limited range. They proposed microwave transmitters that would beam power to electric cars passing by and thus charge the batteries. Birds and small children would have been fried if they strayed into the beam so that didn’t work out either.
Biomass gasoline has huge potential. It can be made from anything that rots and there is already an infrastructure in place to deliver the fuel. Modern refining techniques can make it so clean burning that you can take a drag off the tailpipe of your car with no harm done.
Methanol blend gasoline is one of the stupidest things the Bush administration ever supported. George W depended on the opinions of “experts” just like Barry Obama is doing now. There will not be a happy ending if we blindly follow “experts” who have no knowledge of the technology they are supporting. This is absolutely not exclusive to the current administration. It is common to all political parties and to all politicians.
No technological breakthroughs have ever come about because of govermental mandates.
Think of the $56.34 you save on gas!!
Aren’t these the kind of cars that ‘the messiah’ wants us all to drive? I’d guess that the engineers just didn’t get the message from him when they designed them, that they were also supposed to be safe and affordable.
The engineers need to watch “Transformers” and figure out to morph the car into a coffin after the fatal accidents that will surely happen in higher frequencies due the lack of protection for the passengers. Remember the Yugo? Now we will soon have the Obamacar.
My car, a Honda Civic, will not engage the bumper of about 50% of the cars in my area. That 50% consists of SUV’s and pickups.
What about gas guzzling sports cars, like Ferraris and Porsches? I didn’t see how well they did, and how much it costs to repair the damage. I’m thinking it’s going to be more than the $500 threshold.
At risk of belaboring the obvious, Pres Obama had nothing to do with the design of any car. Why do the majority of your commentators sound like they are slightly to the right of Louis XIV?
This article was clearly biased against the mini/micro car market. You speak of only 7 tested vehicles out of a sample size of 61 cars. Furthermore, your one passing vehicle was in a class by itself. Mercedes, parent company of the Smartcar, has a 100% success rate in their class. The other manufacturers, all in the mini class, including BMW’s Mini Cooper, have a 100% failure rate. But the bigger picture is this. Your remaining sample size still shows a nearly 69% failure rate among all other vehicle classes. I would be willing to bet that the compact cars faired only marginally better than the minis with a steady increase in performance the larger the car got in the tests. Instead of biasing this article on a small, albeit popular segment of the models on the road, with an overall poor performance rate of 70.49 percent (based on your reporting) across the sample spectrum, shouldn’t we be asking the manufacturers why they aren’t improving the overall performance on this part of the vehicle????
I fail to see how Presidential politics enters into this equation.
Mr. Obama wants to force all of us into microcars regardless of the consequences. He may not be designing cars personally but he has successfully blackmailed GM and Chrysler into converting their production into abominations like the Smart car which is anything but smart. But why should he care- He can hop into Air Force 1 and go to the 7-11 for a six pack anytime he wants to.
By the way, I have owned and currently own several very small cars. I have an Austin Healey Frogeye and a Fiat 850 coupe among others. I own these by choice for their fun value. I absolutely don’t expect families with small children to be forced into itty bitty cars.
His installation of multiple “czars” who have almost unlimited power and no accountability put the French kings to shame.
Our industry is next unless we all grow spines in a hurry and return to sanity.
It seems like the prior comment just proves your point.
Kind of like the white congressman complaining of repression via twitter and then trying to draw a parallel to the demonstrations in Iran. Give me a break.
Pay attention Underwriter- The Obama administration and especially the head Obamatron have no expertise in much of anything and certainly know nothing about the auto industry and the laws of physics. If a Chevy Suburban hits a Smart Car the world is rid of one nasty little roller skate but unfortunately some one in the Smart Car will probably be killed. The Suburban may suffer a ding or a scratch.
No, Barry does not design cars himself because he is clueless but he is deliberately pushing the US motoring public towards repulsive little transportation modules that he would never want for his own family except to drive around inside the White House.
As I said before, I own and drive very small cars for entertainment but I want everyone to have a choice. The annointed one doesn’t want you to have a choice.
So where exactly are you getting this information that President Obama is wanting to force everyone into sub-compact sardine cans? What HAS been said by this administration is that the CAFE standards have to improve. We’ve had that technology in place for a long time now and if inertia hadn’t been such a impediment to innovation we would have a wide choice of affordable hybrids and alternative fuel cars on the road by now. Not to mention clean diesel engine cars that actually have power and mpg. THAT would have kept American workers on the auto assembly lines. That would have continued to feed the nationwide network of supporting industries to the auto makers in production mode. Consequently, that would also have prevented those pensioners from going to the government’s pension insurance plans on the tax payer dollar.
But please, continue to drink the rushberry kool aid and blame our current financial crisis on the Obama administration. I hear that other popular flavors are Revisioblast and Hanniberry.
Underwriter, let me explain a little about by background. I have worked in the auto and insurance industries for 32 years including years in engineering capacities for the manufacturer of a popular Oriental import vehicle. The new CAFE standards can be met ONLY by massisve downsizing of the cars people buy.Safety WILL suffer as a result.
I can assure you that the US public DON’T WANT hybrids (except for a fringe group of consumers). Americans want large vehicles (I don’t personally), but I believe in giving people a choice. Let’s not try to alter buying habits for the “Public Good”.I am quite capable of making my own decisions and so are you. I would not belittle you or call you names if you chose to buy a Toyota Prius. Nor would I criticize you if you bought a Hummer.
This really isn’t a forum for debating the merits or lack thereof fo diesel power but I can assure you diesel isn’t the answer either.
My point is that no government whether Obama’s or Bush’s should be making choices for me or coercing me in one direction or the other. The American Public is capable of rational thought and is also prone to make mistakes. But they are still are entitled to free choice don’t you think?
Good, now that we’ve moved beyond the name calling, which I actually hate – even though I disagreed with a whole host of policies from the Bush Presidency I still just referred to him as Pres. Bush – we can get down to the crux of this debate.
I still stand by my original point – we neglected for much too long any other alternative power sources for our vehicles. Today, there are racing hobbiast who compete and win on a regular basis against conventional high powered cars on the drag strip. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2007-07-29-electric-dragsters_N.htm
Look at the progress we have made in cell phone technology since the 80’s. We’ve gone from a suitcase sized phone to minicomputers that fit within the palm of our hands and can connect in real time with 1000’s of people simultaneously via social networking sites. IF we had focused on continuing the innovation cycle on our cars’ powertrain versus continuing to push the envelope on how big a car we can manufacture and still write it under the PAP, then this whole debate could be moot. We have known for more than 30 years that fossil fuels were a limited resource. We have known that our population continues to grow world wide and that as markets emerge and mature, the demand for fuel would increase. We might have actually achieved the “Both/And”, a powerful, clean vehicle in a variety of sizes, that doesn’t depend on a foreign resources. But we sublimated research to the convenience of today.
The choice thing, I agree that we should be able to purchase what we want. I’m just disappointed that our expectations were so low that innovation took a back seat to fear marketing – my gosh, we need to drive a sherman tank – and the result is the choice of cars we have today.
By the way, I totally appreciate your love of the roadster. There’s nothing like taking one up into mountains for the fresh air and adrenaline.
Hey Underwriter- I’ve been deeply involved in motorsports over the years and electric dragsters have proven quite potent. They, like internal combustion dragsters, have little connection to everyday passenger cars. They take forever to recharge and they’re expensive.
The very first electric cars sold in the US (The 1910 Detroit Electric for example) had about the same range as the EV-1 electric cars marketed by GM in the 1990’s. In reality the EV-1 had very little range and took 18 hours to fully recharge. I learned this from an individual who leased one. On Top Gear, a Tesla roadster (actually an electric Lotus) proved to have a range of about 55 miles if driven hard. And it took 18 hours to fully recharge. The show’s hosts suggested that you would have to purchase 2 Teslas so one could be on the charger whicle you drove the other. Electrics are no where near ready for mass consumption.
In the mid 50’s Chrysler was experimenting with fuel cell technology which was deemed too expensive for everyday vehicles. They also worked on electric cars but were stymied by the limited range. They proposed microwave transmitters that would beam power to electric cars passing by and thus charge the batteries. Birds and small children would have been fried if they strayed into the beam so that didn’t work out either.
Biomass gasoline has huge potential. It can be made from anything that rots and there is already an infrastructure in place to deliver the fuel. Modern refining techniques can make it so clean burning that you can take a drag off the tailpipe of your car with no harm done.
Methanol blend gasoline is one of the stupidest things the Bush administration ever supported. George W depended on the opinions of “experts” just like Barry Obama is doing now. There will not be a happy ending if we blindly follow “experts” who have no knowledge of the technology they are supporting. This is absolutely not exclusive to the current administration. It is common to all political parties and to all politicians.
No technological breakthroughs have ever come about because of govermental mandates.