If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Detroit_News)   Cars are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 MPH by engines which snort their way through the countryside setting fire to crops, scaring livestock and frightening women and children. God never intended us to travel at such breakneck speed   (detroitnews.com) divider line 53
    More: Amusing, women and children, engines, countryside, crops, livestock, speeds, cars  
•       •       •

7381 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Jul 2012 at 4:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 03:29:23 PM
At first I thought this was about the people I have to follow at rush hour.
 
2012-07-08 03:42:22 PM
at the enormous speed of 15 MPH

If this were still true today, there would be tremendously fewer auto fatalities.

/won't someone think of the children
 
2012-07-08 05:09:02 PM
First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.
First flight in 1903, by 1943 we have B-29s and jet aircraft.

Cars seem retarded.
 
2012-07-08 05:13:01 PM

RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.


how do they keep the water out?
 
2012-07-08 05:14:49 PM
Image not loaded in 30 seconds: http://multimedia.detroitnews.com (x 50)
Screw that.

Hot Rails to Hell
 
2012-07-08 05:16:23 PM

Toxicphreke: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.

how do they keep the water out?


Thank you! D'oh! (Was thinking of transatlantic flight of the aircraft, at least that's my claim)
 
2012-07-08 05:17:13 PM

Toxicphreke: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.

how do they keep the water out?


It would have been a glorious victory for steampunk.
 
2012-07-08 05:22:58 PM
The Contra Costa Times - July 6, 2012 - Redlands Tea Party opposes high-speed rail bonds

Thursday afternoon, the Assembly approved S.B. 1029, authorizing the state to begin selling about $4.5billion in state bonds for the nation's first high-speed rail system, taking an initial step toward the ambitious $68billion project that Gov. Jerry Brown hopes will be a part of his legacy.

By midnight Thursday, John Berry, a spokesman for the Redlands Tea Party group, had posted on Facebook that petitions against the bullet train funding were en route.
 
2012-07-08 05:38:22 PM

St_Francis_P: At first I thought this was about the people I have to follow at rush hour.


If I could get to 15 mph during rush hour, my commute would be only take 12 minutes.
 
2012-07-08 05:41:17 PM

Toxicphreke: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.

how do they keep the water out?


Modern technology, William!
 
2012-07-08 06:00:43 PM

RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.
First flight in 1903, by 1943 we have B-29s and jet aircraft.

Cars seem retarded.


How so? Take and average new car and compare it to an average 40 yeah old car. The new car will be safer, faster, quieter, cleaner, more efficient, last longer, and drive better. Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.
 
2012-07-08 06:04:08 PM

NBSV: Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.


Maybe, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Perhaps incremental more than revolutionary improvements. And what seems like lots of stagnation since the 60s. However, there's a good chance that cars 40 years from now will be vastly different from cars today.

(When I graduated college, they promised me cars with ceramic jet engines)
 
2012-07-08 06:23:05 PM

RoyBatty: NBSV: Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.

Maybe, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Perhaps incremental more than revolutionary improvements. And what seems like lots of stagnation since the 60s. However, there's a good chance that cars 40 years from now will be vastly different from cars today.

(When I graduated college, they promised me cars with ceramic jet engines)


Since the 60's they've deployed (not invented) anti-lock brakes, airbags, intermittent windshield wipers, body panels that don't rust, fuel injection, unleaded gasoline and transmissions that aren't the size of a house.

Since we're moving to electric, you probably won't ever get your ceramic engines, however.
 
2012-07-08 06:28:10 PM

NBSV: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.
First flight in 1903, by 1943 we have B-29s and jet aircraft.

Cars seem retarded.

How so? Take and average new car and compare it to an average 40 yeah old car. The new car will be safer, faster, quieter, cleaner, more efficient, last longer, and drive better. Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.


All true except for more efficient.

In the late 70s and early 80s there were lots of cars getting 30 to 50 miles/gallon.
 
2012-07-08 06:31:03 PM

Lsherm: Since we're moving to electric, you probably won't ever get your ceramic engines, however.


A small ceramic turbine would be perfect for a hybrid??? (I want my ceramic jet engine).
 
2012-07-08 06:33:14 PM
FTFA: In 1836 the national debt was paid and a surplus had accumulated in the treasury. President Jackson approved a bill in Congress to distribute the surplus among the states starting January 1, 1837. In anticipation of this money, states adopted extravagant plans for railroads and canals.to me.

Clearly this is a work of fiction and not intended to be taken seriously.
 
2012-07-08 06:33:16 PM

jaytkay: The Contra Costa Times - July 6, 2012 - Redlands Tea Party opposes high-speed rail bonds

Thursday afternoon, the Assembly approved S.B. 1029, authorizing the state to begin selling about $4.5billion in state bonds for the nation's first high-speed rail system, taking an initial step toward the ambitious $68billion project that Gov. Jerry Brown hopes will be a part of his legacy.

By midnight Thursday, John Berry, a spokesman for the Redlands Tea Party group, had posted on Facebook that petitions against the bullet train funding were en route.


How dare the state sell bonds in order to raise funding for an infrastructure project!
 
2012-07-08 07:06:37 PM

jaytkay:
All true except for more efficient.

In the late 70s and early 80s there were lots of cars getting 30 to 50 miles/gallon.


And most of them achieved that by having little to no 1) power 2) protective structure and 3) mosern emissions controls and 4) safety equipment. There's a reason why modern cars need innovation to meet those old economy figures again.

Take a first generation CRX, upgrade it to modern standards of crashworthiness, add airbags, and chole off hte engine even more with emissions controls. You won't get the high mpg, an you certainly won't have a 0-60 time under 35 seconds.

It's sad when by the recollection you put forth, a Yugo would be the pinnacle of automotive engineering.
 
2012-07-08 07:07:42 PM

jaytkay: NBSV: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.
First flight in 1903, by 1943 we have B-29s and jet aircraft.

Cars seem retarded.

How so? Take and average new car and compare it to an average 40 yeah old car. The new car will be safer, faster, quieter, cleaner, more efficient, last longer, and drive better. Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.

All true except for more efficient.

In the late 70s and early 80s there were lots of cars getting 30 to 50 miles/gallon.


That's an apples to oranges comparison. The EPA has revised its MPG testing procedure since then, so it's not the same drive cycle. You have to look at the overall regulatory environment, including crash and emissions standards.
 
2012-07-08 07:08:36 PM
This is what I want to watch on the history channel.

/until then, great link subby
 
2012-07-08 07:54:33 PM
Perhaps the most urgent desire for rail travel stemmed from the fact that roads out of Detroit and many areas along the waterway from Toledo to Port Huron were described as "seas of mud" in nearly every direction


so.. very little has changed since then ..
 
2012-07-08 08:04:15 PM
Subby's headdline is a quote from Martin Van Buren to President Andrew Jackson, 1829. Democrat.

They've always been fear mongering fark-tards.

///That is when they weren't out wearing white hoods looking for brown skins to lynch.
 
2012-07-08 08:04:45 PM

JonBuck: You have to look at the overall regulatory environment, including crash and emissions standards.


Nope.

Bumper crash standards were severely reduced thanks to Reagan-era attacks on regulation.;

Average emission and fuel efficiency standards have been hugely reduced, because "Sport Utility Vehicles" (LOL) are not considered passenger vehicles. That fat lady in the Escalade in the McDonald's drive-through is operating a "work vehicle" thanks to years of effort from Republicans at the command of industry lobbyists.

You can thank them every time you drive your fat ass to 7-11 for a 64 ounce Slurpee. Enjoy your Freedumb!!
 
2012-07-08 08:12:30 PM

RoyBatty: And what seems like lots of stagnation since the 60s.


That's because ALL efficiency improvements since 1972 went into moar power. A Honda Odyssey -- a goddamn minivan -- can beat some stock muscle cars of the 1960s.
 
2012-07-08 08:15:42 PM

OnlyM3: Subby's headdline is a quote from Martin Van Buren to President Andrew Jackson, 1829. Democrat.

They've always been fear mongering fark-tards.


You sound like a smart and informed person. What can you tell us about the voting habits of white southerners after the Civil Rights Act of 1964? How did Democrats like Strom Thurmond and Jess Helms respond to that legislation?
 
2012-07-08 08:28:45 PM
Orange Line at Downtown Crossing, Boston:
upload.wikimedia.org
The train's old rusted, the station is dark and stuffy. Air is kept moving with large, noisy fans that obstruct the pathways. All the guts of the system are exposed and covered with dirt. A leak in the ceiling remains cordoned off and unrepaired. The trains are frequent but inconsistent, and the announcers are incomprehensible. The ride is extremely noisy.

Subway station at Shinjuku, Japan:
mag.autumn.org
The trains and station are clean. The air is clean. Well-placed, easy-to-read signs are ubiquitous and kept up-to-date. The rides are rapid, with minimal squealing.

"It's too hard. We can't afford it. We're not like other nations. We value our freedoms. They don't have the problems we have." We're the richest country in the history of the world, but go ahead. . . keep making excuses.
 
2012-07-08 08:55:23 PM

OnlyM3: Subby's headdline is a quote from Martin Van Buren to President Andrew Jackson, 1829. Democrat.

They've always been fear mongering fark-tards.

///That is when they weren't out wearing white hoods looking for brown skins to lynch.


No shait? Is there a link to that quote?
Or the rest of the quote?

/wanting to watch a trainwreck
//headline +1
 
2012-07-08 09:35:51 PM

RoyBatty: Cars seem retarded.


1914: the Model-T Ford
1945: Automotove industry buys and dismantles the Los Angeles streetcar system.
 
2012-07-08 09:43:37 PM
"Ten years hence, or before, the citizens of Detroit will be able to reach the Atlantic in twenty-four hours. In twenty years ... the navigation of our broad and beautiful lakes will be of no manner of use to us, because land transportation will be so much cheaper. It will be a comfortable thing to get into not a coach or a steamboat - but a snug house built over a steam engine, and, after journeying smoothly and safely at the rate of thirty or forty miles per hour, find yourself at breakfast next morning in New York or Washington."

www.amctv.com
You just read that in his voice too.
 
2012-07-08 09:54:12 PM
Sounds like the plot for Cars 3.
 
2012-07-08 09:56:18 PM

dragonchild: Orange Line at Downtown Crossing, Boston:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]
The train's old rusted, the station is dark and stuffy. Air is kept moving with large, noisy fans that obstruct the pathways. All the guts of the system are exposed and covered with dirt. A leak in the ceiling remains cordoned off and unrepaired. The trains are frequent but inconsistent, and the announcers are incomprehensible. The ride is extremely noisy.

Subway station at Shinjuku, Japan:
[mag.autumn.org image 600x450]
The trains and station are clean. The air is clean. Well-placed, easy-to-read signs are ubiquitous and kept up-to-date. The rides are rapid, with minimal squealing.

"It's too hard. We can't afford it. We're not like other nations. We value our freedoms. They don't have the problems we have." We're the richest country in the history of the world, but go ahead. . . keep making excuses.


I looked up these stations a bit on Wikipedia. Boston's Orange Line was mostly built around the turn of the 20th Century. Shinjuku's subway station (there was a much older train station) was built around 1959. That probably makes a big difference in terms of what kinds of upgrades are feasible. Plus, it's probably easier to rebuild a transit system after it's been bombed to hell, instead of having to maintain services while tearing it up.

That said NYC's subways are about the same age as Boston's, and while many of our stations do kinda look like shiat, we have much newer trains than the one in your pic.
 
2012-07-08 10:15:26 PM

RoyBatty: Cars seem retarded.


Yes, lets use a train or airplane to commute from my house to work and then the grocery store. Let's have only trains to move good cross country, and limit local transport to wagons hauled by horses.

Cars were not a replacement for trains. They were a replacement for horses, which shiat and piss and drive up food demands. The iconic second story step up of a NYC brownstone was a practical solution for getting above the levels of shiat and piss flooding the city.
 
2012-07-08 10:18:49 PM

Luminiferous Aether: "Ten years hence, or before, the citizens of Detroit will be able to reach the Atlantic in twenty-four hours. In twenty years ... the navigation of our broad and beautiful lakes will be of no manner of use to us, because land transportation will be so much cheaper. It will be a comfortable thing to get into not a coach or a steamboat - but a snug house built over a steam engine, and, after journeying smoothly and safely at the rate of thirty or forty miles per hour, find yourself at breakfast next morning in New York or Washington."

[www.amctv.com image 590x375]
You just read that in his voice too.


The government's paying $40,000 per mile of track laid? Fark Detroit, we're going to San Francisco!
 
2012-07-08 10:23:56 PM

jaytkay: JonBuck: You have to look at the overall regulatory environment, including crash and emissions standards.

Enjoy your Freedumb!!


See, that's where you lose me. Stooping to ad-hom unravels any argument you're trying to make. "Freedumb"? Really? What do you think you're implying here?
 
2012-07-08 10:51:38 PM

Arkanaut: Shinjuku's subway station (there was a much older train station) was built around 1959. That probably makes a big difference in terms of what kinds of upgrades are feasible. Plus, it's probably easier to rebuild a transit system after it's been bombed to hell, instead of having to maintain services while tearing it up.


What upgrades? Both are electrically powered subway trains. If you mean line voltage, a goddamn transformer would do the job. And seriously, what exactly would happen between 1900 and 1959 that would make installing central air impossible in a major city of a first-world country because of when the track was first laid? Farking air ducts, how do they work?

Does Shinjuku look like the trains or station hasn't been cleaned or renovated in 60 years? I didn't know LED signs were all the rage back in the 50s.

I mean, honestly. . . I'd expect this explanation to fly in Somalia, but Boston??
 
2012-07-08 11:37:50 PM

AliceBToklasLives: St_Francis_P: At first I thought this was about the people I have to follow at rush hour.

If I could get to 15 mph during rush hour, my commute would be only take 12 minutes.


Lemme get this straight...

You live three miles from work, you apparently average less than 15mph in your car, and you don't ride a bike? Seriously?
 
2012-07-09 12:46:48 AM

dragonchild: Arkanaut: Shinjuku's subway station (there was a much older train station) was built around 1959. That probably makes a big difference in terms of what kinds of upgrades are feasible. Plus, it's probably easier to rebuild a transit system after it's been bombed to hell, instead of having to maintain services while tearing it up.

What upgrades? Both are electrically powered subway trains. If you mean line voltage, a goddamn transformer would do the job. And seriously, what exactly would happen between 1900 and 1959 that would make installing central air impossible in a major city of a first-world country because of when the track was first laid? Farking air ducts, how do they work?

Does Shinjuku look like the trains or station hasn't been cleaned or renovated in 60 years? I didn't know LED signs were all the rage back in the 50s.

I mean, honestly. . . I'd expect this explanation to fly in Somalia, but Boston??


When did they add the people that stand around forcibly shoving folks into the train?
 
2012-07-09 05:51:09 AM

AliceBToklasLives: St_Francis_P: At first I thought this was about the people I have to follow at rush hour.

If I could get to 15 mph during rush hour, my commute would be only take 12 minutes.


Here is an idea for your fat ass: If your commute is only 3 miles, then bloody walk. Or take a bike. Don't clog up the streets because you don't remember what those atrophied things under your stomach were for.
 
2012-07-09 06:06:22 AM

lucksi: AliceBToklasLives: St_Francis_P: At first I thought this was about the people I have to follow at rush hour.

If I could get to 15 mph during rush hour, my commute would be only take 12 minutes.

Here is an idea for your fat ass: If your commute is only 3 miles, then bloody walk. Or take a bike. Don't clog up the streets because you don't remember what those atrophied things under your stomach were for.


Some people have better things to do with their time.
 
2012-07-09 06:23:26 AM

RoyBatty: NBSV: Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.

Maybe, but it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Perhaps incremental more than revolutionary improvements. And what seems like lots of stagnation since the 60s. However, there's a good chance that cars 40 years from now will be vastly different from cars today.

(When I graduated college, they promised me cars with ceramic jet engines)


A 4 cylinder Toyota Camry today accelerates faster than a V8 from the 1970s while using less fuel and releasing less crap into the air. If you crash in a modern car you are much more likely to survive due to crumple zones and airbags. You are also much less likely to crash due ABS anti-skid technology. And coming up are cars that can drive themselves. You will tell them where you want to go and they will take you there.

Now, if you actually did get your promised ceramic jet engined car you would already be dead.
 
2012-07-09 08:57:25 AM

jaytkay: NBSV: RoyBatty: First US railroad in 1827, First Transatlantic railroad in 1869.
First flight in 1903, by 1943 we have B-29s and jet aircraft.

Cars seem retarded.

How so? Take and average new car and compare it to an average 40 yeah old car. The new car will be safer, faster, quieter, cleaner, more efficient, last longer, and drive better. Cars have progressed as much or more than those other modes of transportation.

All true except for more efficient.

In the late 70s and early 80s there were lots of cars getting 30 to 50 miles/gallon.


Cars are far more economical today. The reason we're still "only" getting 30 to 50 mpg is that todays cars have a shiatload of safety features (roll cage, side impact bars, crumple zones, belts for all seats, belt pre-tensioners, airbags, impact absorbing bumpers etc) and a farkload of luxury items (sunroofs, hifi with twelve speakers, electric windows, mirrors, sunroof, seats and boot openers and closers, high performance wide tires, sound proofing etc)

Check out the weight of a Civic in 1975 and a Civic today. It's about doubled.
 
2012-07-09 09:11:49 AM

Dokushin: When did they add the people that stand around forcibly shoving folks into the train?


Dunno, I never had to get pushed on anyway. Granted I went out of my way to avoid rush hour, but I've ridden the busiest trains in Tokyo on working days without a problem. For all I know it was a temporary fix that ended years ago; nowadays the trains arrive every two minutes so if one lacks room it's not like you can't wait for the next.

And frankly, I wish the MBTA would hire people to push people onto the trains. Too many douches will take one step inside then stop to start texting, as if the rest of the world just doesn't matter.
 
2012-07-09 09:25:02 AM

Flint Ironstag: The reason we're still "only" getting 30 to 50 mpg is that todays cars have a shiatload of safety features (roll cage, side impact bars, crumple zones, belts for all seats, belt pre-tensioners, airbags, impact absorbing bumpers etc) and a farkload of luxury items (sunroofs, hifi with twelve speakers, electric windows, mirrors, sunroof, seats and boot openers and closers, high performance wide tires, sound proofing etc)


Right, because adding seat belts to a monocoque body makes it SOOOO much heavier than a a 2-ton chassis & frame assembly. All safety features added to cars in the last 60 years weigh less than a single extra passenger. If anything, cars are much lighter today. If you think features & options really slow a car down, you drank some lobbyist Kool-Aid. Do you really know what "impact absorbing bumpers" are? Styrofoam. Makes sense; you don't "absorb impact" very well if the bumper was a reinforced steel beam. So, a block of styrofoam weighs down a car to the point where it impacts the fuel efficiency?

Nope. All the efficiency gains went into power. And, in the case of SUVs, style -- specifically, making vehicles excessively large and brick-like to give an illusion of safety. Something to keep in mind when soccer moms whine about safety or tiny-peeners whine about power.
 
2012-07-09 09:40:51 AM
Fifteen? Heck, we do twenty!

home.earthlink.net
 
2012-07-09 10:20:22 AM
FTA: "In 1831, the first passenger locomotive appeared in New York, the DeWitt Clinton."


Actually, no.

"In 1830 the engine arrived by packet ship from the West Point Foundry in New York. It was assembled and tested. Dubbed "Best Friend of Charleston" by eager merchants, the train made its premier trip on Christmas Day 1830, becoming the first steam locomotive in the US to establish regularly scheduled passenger service. It ran along six miles of wood and metal rails terminating near the junction of State and Dorchester Roads. This first trip was described by the "Charleston Courier" on December 29:

"The one hundred and forty-one persons flew on the wings of wind at the speed of fifteen to twenty-five miles per hour, annihilating time and space...leaving all the world behind. On the return we reached Sans-Souci in quick and double quick time, stopped to take up a recruiting party-darted forth like a live rocket, scattering sparks and flames on either side-passed over three salt creeks hop, step and jump, and landed us all safe at the Lines before any of us had time to determine whether or not it was prudent to be scared."


www.bestfriendofcharleston.org
 
2012-07-09 10:57:53 AM

dragonchild: Flint Ironstag: The reason we're still "only" getting 30 to 50 mpg is that todays cars have a shiatload of safety features (roll cage, side impact bars, crumple zones, belts for all seats, belt pre-tensioners, airbags, impact absorbing bumpers etc) and a farkload of luxury items (sunroofs, hifi with twelve speakers, electric windows, mirrors, sunroof, seats and boot openers and closers, high performance wide tires, sound proofing etc)

Right, because adding seat belts to a monocoque body makes it SOOOO much heavier than a a 2-ton chassis & frame assembly. All safety features added to cars in the last 60 years weigh less than a single extra passenger. If anything, cars are much lighter today. If you think features & options really slow a car down, you drank some lobbyist Kool-Aid. Do you really know what "impact absorbing bumpers" are? Styrofoam. Makes sense; you don't "absorb impact" very well if the bumper was a reinforced steel beam. So, a block of styrofoam weighs down a car to the point where it impacts the fuel efficiency?

Nope. All the efficiency gains went into power. And, in the case of SUVs, style -- specifically, making vehicles excessively large and brick-like to give an illusion of safety. Something to keep in mind when soccer moms whine about safety or tiny-peeners whine about power.


Honda Civic in 1978: 1500lb
Honda Civic in 2012: 2600lb -2800lb

They have got 20 inches longer but twice the weight.

Even a modern car like the Chevrolet Spark is 400lbs heavier despite being shorter, 1900lbs compared to 1500lbs for the 1979 Civic.

Explain.
 
2012-07-09 11:14:06 AM

Flint Ironstag: dragonchild: Flint Ironstag: The reason we're still "only" getting 30 to 50 mpg is that todays cars have a shiatload of safety features (roll cage, side impact bars, crumple zones, belts for all seats, belt pre-tensioners, airbags, impact absorbing bumpers etc) and a farkload of luxury items (sunroofs, hifi with twelve speakers, electric windows, mirrors, sunroof, seats and boot openers and closers, high performance wide tires, sound proofing etc)

Right, because adding seat belts to a monocoque body makes it SOOOO much heavier than a a 2-ton chassis & frame assembly. All safety features added to cars in the last 60 years weigh less than a single extra passenger. If anything, cars are much lighter today. If you think features & options really slow a car down, you drank some lobbyist Kool-Aid. Do you really know what "impact absorbing bumpers" are? Styrofoam. Makes sense; you don't "absorb impact" very well if the bumper was a reinforced steel beam. So, a block of styrofoam weighs down a car to the point where it impacts the fuel efficiency?

Nope. All the efficiency gains went into power. And, in the case of SUVs, style -- specifically, making vehicles excessively large and brick-like to give an illusion of safety. Something to keep in mind when soccer moms whine about safety or tiny-peeners whine about power.

Honda Civic in 1978: 1500lb
Honda Civic in 2012: 2600lb -2800lb

They have got 20 inches longer but twice the weight.

Even a modern car like the Chevrolet Spark is 400lbs heavier despite being shorter, 1900lbs compared to 1500lbs for the 1979 Civic.

Explain.


That's an economy car, how about comparing a real solid full-size car?

1978 Mercedes 300 SD TurboDiesel - 3891 lbs
2012 Mercedes E350 Blutec - 4273 lbs

Yep, still heavier - and that's even the smaller Mercedes. I didn't pick the S350 diesel (4961 lbs) because I thought the 4wd system might be an unfair comp.
 
2012-07-09 11:16:20 AM

dragonchild: Right, because adding seat belts to a monocoque body makes it SOOOO much heavier than a a 2-ton chassis & frame assembly. All safety features added to cars in the last 60 years weigh less than a single extra passenger. If anything, cars are much lighter today. If you think features & options really slow a car down, you drank some lobbyist Kool-Aid.


It is my experience that the moment someone invokes this argument is the exact moment when they begin talking out their ass while making an appeal to emotion because they have run out of objective facts to support their position.
 
2012-07-09 11:19:09 AM

Flint Ironstag: Even a modern car like the Chevrolet Spark is 400lbs heavier despite being shorter, 1900lbs compared to 1500lbs for the 1979 Civic. Explain.


Easy. 1973 oil shock. You cherry-picked your data from the 1970s. Prior to that cars were extremely heavy. The reason for making cars light was economical, not technological. There were no monumental efficiency gains in the 1970s that allowed cars to drop their weight while maintaining the same performance. Incremental, maybe, but they were drowned out by such drastic corner-cutting that I'm leery of calling the 1970s some sort of gilded age of automobile technology. The '78 Civic's engine was 60hp fercrissakes.
 
2012-07-09 11:21:35 AM

StrangeQ: It is my experience that the moment someone invokes this argument is the exact moment when they begin talking out their ass while making an appeal to emotion because they have run out of objective facts to support their position.


FWIW, in your very post you're talking out your ass and not giving any objective facts.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report