Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 142213	2016-05-19 22:42:00	New Rego fees	Tony (4941)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1420734	2016-05-20 22:22:00	And its inherent instability in a straight line. :( Ken	kenj (9738)
1420735	2016-05-20 22:26:00	Sons 1993 Corolla $127.37 / year $61.87 ACC Levy Band 2T My 1996 Corolla $112.16 / year $48.65 ACC Levy Band 3T All because of 3 years age difference. Right..... Hmm, my 2007 Swift is the same as that 1993 Corolla... :illogical	pcuser42 (130)
1420736	2016-05-21 00:44:00	Yep with its non collapsible steering column, drum brakes, no air bags, and lap seat belts Absolutely. Americans refusal to wear seat belts led to the fall apart car idea. We had 3 accidents in that Cambridge. Hit from behind by bus in town that was doing about 45kph - no damage. Hit valiant in side, me doing 30mph. Bananaed the valiant....spun it 360. Trashed it. Small 50c piece size dent in the overrider on Cambridge. Husband hit a Triumph - he swerved, Triumph had extensive damage inc smashed axle and munted wheels, Cambridge ended up with dent in left side light part and panel. I give you that having something hit the side of the Cambridge would have been another matter - but a full chassis is what saves you in head ons. And wearing your seat belt. Like the very few today that have a proper chassis and have head ons.	pctek (84)
1420737	2016-05-21 01:02:00	Absolutely. Americans refusal to wear seat belts led to the fall apart car idea. We had 3 accidents in that Cambridge. Hit from behind by bus in town that was doing about 45kph - no damage. Hit valiant in side, me doing 30mph. Bananaed the valiant....spun it 360. Trashed it. Small 50c piece size dent in the overrider on Cambridge. Husband hit a Triumph - he swerved, Triumph had extensive damage inc smashed axle and munted wheels, Cambridge ended up with dent in left side light part and panel. I give you that having something hit the side of the Cambridge would have been another matter - but a full chassis is what saves you in head ons. And wearing your seat belt. Like the very few today that have a proper chassis and have head ons. Umm Austin Cambridge/Morris Oxford did not have a full chassis. Just saying	prefect (6291)
1420738	2016-05-21 03:44:00	Umm Austin Cambridge/Morris Oxford did not have a full chassis. Just saying Oh yes it did. We did that entire thing up once, from the ground up.	pctek (84)
1420739	2016-05-21 04:39:00	Oh yes it did. We did that entire thing up once, from the ground up. Not in the accepted sense, the frame or chassis was an integral was part of the body. The last Austin to have a chassis from which the body could be removed was the Somerset/Hereford.	Terry Porritt (14)
1420740	2016-05-21 06:05:00	Not in the accepted sense, the frame or chassis was an integral was part of the body. The last Austin to have a chassis from which the body could be removed was the Somerset/Hereford. Quite correct squire, by accepted sense it would mean the body could be lifted off the chassis.The day of chassis for sedans and station wagons was over by the mid fifties with a few hangouts like the Ford Pop.	prefect (6291)
1420741	2016-05-21 11:48:00	Not taking damage in an accident does not equate to safety. It's good for the wallet but not much else. If your car is larger and heavier and more solid than what you hit that makes it safer by way of transferring more of the energy to the other vehicle but in a serious collision you will turn to mush inside your solid car much faster than you will in one that collapses and soaks up the impact. Decades of crash tests and refinements in car design make modern cars many times safer than cars of that era. Put it another way, if 2 of those Camdridges had a head on collision at 100 km/h (do they even go that fast?) everyone would almost certainly die. If 2 late model cars like say a corolla hit head on you'd have a much greater chance of survival but there'd be nothing left of the cars. If the Cambridge hit the Corolla it would destroy it and it's occupants and you might well survive - but only because it's like a tank running over a coke can not because it has a better design from a safety standpoint. Cars don't crumple to make up for people not wearing seatbelts, they crumple to reduce the amount of energy tansferred to the occupants in a crash and rely on you wearing a seatbelt to achieve that. That's what airbags are for as well - the slower you decelerate the less direct damage you take. If you were sitting in any car at all not wearing a seatbelt in a serious accident you would fly freely through the air until you struck something and not decelerate with the car until you struck part of it, probably with your face. You liked your old car, it was tough and didn't take much damage, that's all undeniable. It was never particularly safe however even if you like to think it was. You're just lucky you never hit anything more solid than the car at any significant speed. I once saw a 80's era ford falcon bounce off the front bumper of some Giant American car (think it was a dodge) and spin around like a top before coming to a halt looking like a banana. Didn't do any visible damage to the Dodge (I'm calling it that) which had some sort of hydraulic system on the front bumper. It's all about relative size and nothing to do with the design of the cars however - except maybe that bumper design, that's pretty cool.	dugimodo (138)
1420742	2016-05-21 12:08:00	Not taking damage in an accident does not equate to safety. It's good for the wallet but not much else. If your car is larger and heavier and more solid than what you hit that makes it safer by way of transferring more of the energy to the other vehicle but in a serious collision you will turn to mush inside your solid car much faster than you will in one that collapses and soaks up the impact. Decades of crash tests and refinements in car design make modern cars many times safer than cars of that era. Put it another way, if 2 of those Camdridges had a head on collision at 100 km/h (do they even go that fast?) everyone would almost certainly die. If 2 late model cars like say a corolla hit head on you'd have a much greater chance of survival but there'd be nothing left of the cars. If the Cambridge hit the Corolla it would destroy it and it's occupants and you might well survive - but only because it's like a tank running over a coke can not because it has a better design from a safety standpoint. Cars don't crumple to make up for people not wearing seatbelts, they crumple to reduce the amount of energy tansferred to the occupants in a crash and rely on you wearing a seatbelt to achieve that. That's what airbags are for as well - the slower you decelerate the less direct damage you take. If you were sitting in any car at all not wearing a seatbelt in a serious accident you would fly freely through the air until you struck something and not decelerate with the car until you struck part of it, probably with your face. You liked your old car, it was tough and didn't take much damage, that's all undeniable. It was never particularly safe however even if you like to think it was. You're just lucky you never hit anything more solid than the car at any significant speed. I once saw a 80's era ford falcon bounce off the front bumper of some Giant American car (think it was a dodge) and spin around like a top before coming to a halt looking like a banana. Didn't do any visible damage to the Dodge (I'm calling it that) which had some sort of hydraulic system on the front bumper. It's all about relative size and nothing to do with the design of the cars however - except maybe that bumper design, that's pretty cool. Spot on. :thumbs: In a crash I'd rather write off the car than myself. :)	pcuser42 (130)
1420743	2016-05-21 21:16:00	Not taking damage in an accident does not equate to safety. It's good for the wallet but not much else. If your car is larger and heavier and more solid than what you hit that makes it safer by way of transferring more of the energy to the other vehicle but in a serious collision you will turn to mush inside your solid car much faster than you will in one that collapses and soaks up the impact. Decades of crash tests and refinements in car design make modern cars many times safer than cars of that era. Put it another way, if 2 of those Camdridges had a head on collision at 100 km/h (do they even go that fast?) everyone would almost certainly die. If 2 late model cars like say a corolla hit head on you'd have a much greater chance of survival but there'd be nothing left of the cars. If the Cambridge hit the Corolla it would destroy it and it's occupants and you might well survive - but only because it's like a tank running over a coke can not because it has a better design from a safety standpoint. You liked your old car, it was tough and didn't take much damage, that's all undeniable. It was never particularly safe however even if you like to think it was. You're just lucky you never hit anything more solid than the car at any significant speed. . I know the theory. I also know they crash test the fall aparts at slow speeds, that's why high speed crashes do cause so many deaths and injuries. No we never hit anything at 100kph, his brother did though, had a head on in his Oxford. Steering wheel snapped, he had seat belt on though and wasn't injured. Front damage enough that he didn't bother and we actually used the motor out of it for a bit. Yes, tanks and coke cans. I like the analogy. 2 tanks though vs 2 coke cans? Think I'd rather the first scenario.	pctek (84)
1 2 3 4 5