Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 14:39:07 -0500
Reply-To: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Subject: Carter Years - the NHTSA Experimental Vehicles
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
During the Carer years NHTSA disd some reasearch and built some
experimental vehciles to be crashworthy and much more fuel efficient -
for the times. That work disappeared when Carter went out of office. But
it did exist, and great strides were taken, but the Big Three took a
dump on the whole concept.
In searching the Net for info, I have found little, but for these
comments from others on another Website. I post them here for your review.
John Rodgers,
88 GL Driver
www.car-seat.org
>>>Hello, all. I am a regular poster at a general message board
(www.gamefaqs.com <http://www.gamefaqs.com> War on Terrorism board) and
we go off topic alot, we were debating CAFE laws being skirted by SUV's
and many misconceptions were being bandied about by younger users (I'm
41) regarding safer VS. heavier cars. (they seem to think seat belts
came about accidentally, and I have been educating them as much as I can
regarding NHTSA, etc.)
Trying to get across a message that if you legislate the voter's desire
for safe cars, they WILL be built. ANYWAY have any of you seen a link to
those cars the NHTSA built under contract around 1975- there were, oh,
about a dozen made, they looked a bit like the AMC Pacer X'd with a
Chevy Monza. Car was an experiment using existing technology to prove to
automakers you could build a car that got 25MPG, have the occupants walk
away unscathed from hitting a solid object at 50 or 60 MPH, (using what
appeared to be simply crumple zones, and extensive interior cage and
padding- NO airbags, I believe) AND be affordable.
Last I heard about 2 years ago the guy at the NHTSA , now retired, who
was responsible for the project was furious because they had secretly
given the cars to a university and destroyed (test crashed) them but
recorded no data. Apparently since way back in '75 or '76, they had to
cover up the damn thing lest the public know that a car like this was
doable, saving tens of thousands of lives a year... that the
manufacturers refused to even consider. The place I saw this at on the
net even had a crash test Mpeg. from the original tests. It's legit.
I've searched google with all kinds of words, but nada.
I'm not posting to stir up a can of worms here, but would LOVE to show
these kids that you can demand safety and get it. I will check here
daily for info, or e-mail me at batvette@cox.net <mailto:batvette@cox.net>
TIA, J. Lucier, San Diego
Reply With Quote
<http://www.car-seat.org/newreply.php?s=173761f4f3a26e2e48c52545e366fabe&do=newreply&p=4870>
*re: NHTSA experimental cars*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's indeed sad that no trace can be found of them, I doubt any
"conspiracy" is the culprit. As you say the cupholders and interior
luxuries sell the vehicle. The report I saw said an estimated 20,000
lives could have been saved based on 1975 stats. (I'm one to talk,
owning a Corvette- but I've had it for 16 years, bough it when I was 25
and heard the handling was great, and it has been the last of a string
of sports cars I was in the bad habit of wrecking. Though VS. and SUV
I'd lose for certain.)
What spurred our topic there was as usual, politics, (oil dependence in
this case) and I expressed dismay at the powers that be telling us lead
acid batteries and their limitations are why we don't have proliferation
of electric vehicles... NASA engineers maintain that the moon rover they
left there in the 70's could still go for miles... and the Hubble
Telescope runs for decades (est) on solar panels and batteries. I use
NiMh rechargeable in all my consumer electronics, (not like the old
NiCADS these are the best!)
We rightfully should have the technology that we have already paid for
in an electric car you drive to work, recharges in the parking lot
through glass roof panels and newer high output solar cells, and the
trip home would be free! (the electric car would have many less parts-)
the whole thing spells doom for a couple of industries, me thinks-
Sadly with loopholes like the SUV situation, the very people who can
afford the most wasteful offenders don't have to have the threat of a
gas guzzler tax on the vehicle that a Corvette, or even a subcompact
would. And we lose in a collision.
In skirting CAFE they now spend the money in the marketing department to
convince you that none of us can live without a 6000lb behemoth- rather
than put the same money into engineering the better SUV, they drive away
the demographic group that would buy subcompacts or sports cars, thus
the demise of the Camaro, and others.
I saw your 4000 lb theory on weight vs. survivability, that was good
info. I would surmise the extra 2000lbs isn't too favorable in a single
car collision on icy roads..... in fact that ton might just allow
inertia to take the SUV through a guardrail and over an embankment, who
knows?
If I ever find the info on those NHTSA vehicles I'll post it here first.
Though if you take crash safety seriously, it's likely to be upsetting,
with the thought that it was handed to the big three, it was viable, the
taxpayers footed the research bill, and they JUST WALKED AWAY which
prevented thousands from doing the same..... Happy Motoring, of course.
Reply With Quote
<http://www.car-seat.org/newreply.php?s=173761f4f3a26e2e48c52545e366fabe&do=newreply&p=4992>
| 
