Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

In article > , Generic wrote:
> Hence my diversion into marketing below. The margin on a mass-market car is
> in the 10% range. Some companies (e.g. GM & Ford) have had periods where
> they LOST money on the cars and made enough to cover it with financing. Ford
> was in this situation during 2004:

Dealers make 10%. Not manufacturers when comparing cost to build vs. sale
prive. Cost to build is just that, cost to build. No tooling, engineering
time or anything else in the equation.

> http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/10695402.htm

This is not talking about the margin of the cars. It's about the
companies finances. Margin on products is not published in the newspaper.
You are commiting the usenet fraud of making a statement then presenting
a URL that doesn't support it (the margin statement) to create a
perception that you are correct.

Don't go into this diversion. Show me manufacturer's airbag costs have
decreased to trivial levels. That was the assertion. I don't believe the
bags, the controler, the detonators, and the sensors are a great deal
less than $500.

>>You do realize that cars
>> cost considerably less to make than what they sell for. So even if the
>> manufacturer paid $200 for the airbags, by the time that gets marked up
>> to you, the buyer, you've paid $500.

> Easily for a stand alone item. Not when bundled into the base price for a
> car. There are dozens of companies competing for marketshare. The
> competition is intense.

Show me air bag systems are trivially priced. Stop with the diversions.
Show me.

> So you are suggesting the airbags are less functional on a cheap car?

I didn't state anything of the kind. Show me airbags are trivially priced
from their suppliers.

> See above. The margin on a base model non-luxury car is quite low. Buyers DO
> pay that degree of markup on OPTIONAL airbags like side curtains.

SHOW ME THAT AIR BAGS FROM THEIR SUPPLIERS ARE TRIVIALLY PRICED.

> Not persuasively.

You've just made the same declaration over again.

>> > I personally think air bags are hardly worth it, but they've been in cars
>> > for many years now and the number of deaths per mile driven is still low.
>> > The cases you mention don't even register statistically.

>> The deaths per mile driven for a spike on the dashboard would be low too.

> An asinine analogy. By this reasoning you are suggesting that airbags are
> 99.9999% likely to cause injury when deployed.

No. I am trying to illustrate basic math to you. Even something DESIGNED
on the dash to CAUSE injury in a crash would have a low fatality rate per
mile driven. I was demonstrating how you were choosing figures in such a
way as to be misleading.

>> > to the horse!

>> You've been watching too much tv. See myth busters where they tried to
>> make a car explode.

> It's called sarcasm. You've been watching too many hysterical 1975 episodes
> of 60 Minutes.

Um no. The concept of an explosive device in the dash is misguided. Why
don't race cars have airbags if they are so damn good? Give me a five
point harness and a roll cage intergral to the car's structure instead of
airbags.

>> > Yes, machines break down. The odds of a drunken yahoo hitting you are
>> > probably greater.
>> Which is a good reason not have sensor driven explosives in the vehicle.

> This page http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/air...ur_airbags.htm
> says they are effective:

The universally discredited IIHS...

> "Virtually all new cars have airbags, and they're saving lives. They're
> reducing driver deaths by about 14 percent, and passenger bags reduce deaths
> by about 11 percent.

When the IIHS starts being nothing more than an insurance company shill,
I'll start listening to them.

> People who use safety belts may think they don't need airbags. But they do.
> Airbags and lap/shoulder belts work together as a system, and one without
> the other isn't as effective. Deaths are 12 percent lower among drivers with
> belts and 9 percent lower among belted passengers."

Yeah, the seatbelt protects the passenger from the airbag.
Give me a real safety device, not one designed for lazy ****tards.

> They follow this up with details about exceptions and issues.

They are still the IIHS and they have no crediability.

I'm just going to prove myself correct:

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

-> COST OF INSTALLING AIRBAGS
-> We assume the same cost estimates as used in an
-> earlier study2, although these were criticized25 as being
-> too low. These were that the driver only system cost
-> $278 and the dual system $410.

So, $410 dollars. That's not too far off from the about $500 statement I
made, and a lot closer to my claim than the assertion that the cost was
trivial.

Read the cost-to-benefit section as well.

From conclusions:
-> Thus the cost of the driver airbag exceeds the benefit by almost a
-> factor of three.

Going back to airbag effectiveness:

Note figure 3. For belted passengers the collision has to be rather
severe to see a benefit. The efffectiveness is NEGATIVE for belted
passengers in less severe collisions. For unbelted passengers,
effectiveness is worse.

-> Thus effectiveness estimates for AIS=1 are more precise than for other
-> levels. The effectiveness estimates for AIS=1 are (-2.6 ? 3.5)% for unbelted
-> occupants and (-2.0 ? 2.9%) for belted. Both values consistently
-> indicate increased harm associated with airbags.

-> The effectiveness estimates at AIS=6 (essentially all fatals) are
-> substantially higher than the 10% value based on FARS data. The
-> difference (more than 10 percentage points) most likely reflects
-> unavoidable uncertainties inherent in making inferences from NASS
-> data, which raises the possibility that effectiveness in
-> reducing injuries could likewise be overestimated.

And here is the statement that is key:

-> Estimates of airbag effectiveness for injuries remain highly uncertain
-> even after 10 million deployments.

My conclusion after reading this is that airbags should be replaced with
something less costly and more effective.

Oh, how did I find this? Googled for "airbag cost" The first match was
this file in html without the figures, the second was the PDF with
figures.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Dealers make 10%. Not manufacturers when comparing cost to build vs. sale
> prive. Cost to build is just that, cost to build. No tooling, engineering
> time or anything else in the equation.
>
> > http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/10695402.htm
>
> This is not talking about the margin of the cars. It's about the
> companies finances. Margin on products is not published in the newspaper.
> You are commiting the usenet fraud of making a statement then presenting
> a URL that doesn't support it (the margin statement) to create a
> perception that you are correct.

Usenet fraud! Newbie aren't you? This is casual chatting and it's more
useful than saying "Is so." There's not much profit in any highly competive
and mature industry. The real profit is made on luxury items. Why do you
think GM badge engineered Chevrolets as Buicks, Cadillacs and whatnot? Why
do you think the Japanese companies introduced luxury brands?

> Don't go into this diversion. Show me manufacturer's airbag costs have
> decreased to trivial levels. That was the assertion. I don't believe the
> bags, the controler, the detonators, and the sensors are a great deal
> less than $500.

You first claimed there was a huge mark up. Prove it.

> > Easily for a stand alone item. Not when bundled into the base price for
a
> > car. There are dozens of companies competing for marketshare. The
> > competition is intense.
> Show me air bag systems are trivially priced. Stop with the diversions.
> Show me.

Again, show me. You made the claim there are huge profit on standard
airbags.

> > See above. The margin on a base model non-luxury car is quite low.
Buyers DO
> > pay that degree of markup on OPTIONAL airbags like side curtains.
> SHOW ME THAT AIR BAGS FROM THEIR SUPPLIERS ARE TRIVIALLY PRICED.

Show me they are not.

> >> The deaths per mile driven for a spike on the dashboard would be low
too.
> > An asinine analogy. By this reasoning you are suggesting that airbags
are
> > 99.9999% likely to cause injury when deployed.
> No. I am trying to illustrate basic math to you. Even something DESIGNED
> on the dash to CAUSE injury in a crash would have a low fatality rate per
> mile driven. I was demonstrating how you were choosing figures in such a
> way as to be misleading.

So what percentage of deployed airbags are helpful? Is this percentage
better than those helped by metal spikes on their dashboards?

> >> You've been watching too much tv. See myth busters where they tried to
> >> make a car explode.
> > It's called sarcasm. You've been watching too many hysterical 1975
episodes
> > of 60 Minutes.
> Um no. The concept of an explosive device in the dash is misguided. Why
> don't race cars have airbags if they are so damn good? Give me a five
> point harness and a roll cage intergral to the car's structure instead of
> airbags.

Wow! What a doozy of an argument! Step back for a second and think! How
many pregnant women and kids and every day people could actually put on a 5
point harness? The 3 point seatbelt was revolutionary because it was easy to
use and relatively effective. Race cars are r-a-c-i-n-g as SPORT and
therefore are involved with mild to moderate collisions as a matter of
course, while most street cars would be smashed to bits after the first jump
in a WRC rally... NASCAR cars DO NOT HAVE BRAKE LIGHTS, so are you saying
passenger cars shouldn't either?

All of these decisions are trade offs.

> >> > Yes, machines break down. The odds of a drunken yahoo hitting you are
> >> > probably greater.
> >> Which is a good reason not have sensor driven explosives in the
vehicle.
>
> > This page
http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/air...ur_airbags.htm
> > says they are effective:
>
> The universally discredited IIHS...

So now it's relevant but 'discredited.' Provide the opposing data.

> > "Virtually all new cars have airbags, and they're saving lives. They're
> > reducing driver deaths by about 14 percent, and passenger bags reduce
deaths
> > by about 11 percent.
> When the IIHS starts being nothing more than an insurance company shill,
> I'll start listening to them.

Insurance companies are more greedy than car companies! If they give a
discount for airbags, which they do, maybe there's something to them.

> Yeah, the seatbelt protects the passenger from the airbag.
> Give me a real safety device, not one designed for lazy ****tards.

Like watching the nose pitch down on a NASCAR car instead of seeing the
brake lights go on?

> > They follow this up with details about exceptions and issues.
> They are still the IIHS and they have no crediability.

Source?

-John

In article > , Generic wrote:

>> This is not talking about the margin of the cars. It's about the
>> companies finances. Margin on products is not published in the newspaper.
>> You are commiting the usenet fraud of making a statement then presenting
>> a URL that doesn't support it (the margin statement) to create a
>> perception that you are correct.

> Usenet fraud! Newbie aren't you?

Hardly. Been around usnet for ~14 years now.

> This is casual chatting and it's more

This is debate. See my other post.

> You first claimed there was a huge mark up. Prove it.

I stated airbags added around $500 to the cost. I proved $410 is the
average.

> Again, show me. You made the claim there are huge profit on standard
> airbags.

I stated nothing of the kind. I stated that airbag cost got marked with
the cost of the rest of the vehicle. Same with headlamps and everything
else that comes standard.

>> SHOW ME THAT AIR BAGS FROM THEIR SUPPLIERS ARE TRIVIALLY PRICED.

> Show me they are not.

Already have. $410 on average.

>> Um no. The concept of an explosive device in the dash is misguided. Why
>> don't race cars have airbags if they are so damn good? Give me a five
>> point harness and a roll cage intergral to the car's structure instead of
>> airbags.

> Wow! What a doozy of an argument! Step back for a second and think! How
> many pregnant women and kids and every day people could actually put on a 5
> point harness? The 3 point seatbelt was revolutionary because it was easy to
> use and relatively effective. Race cars are r-a-c-i-n-g as SPORT and
> therefore are involved with mild to moderate collisions as a matter of
> course, while most street cars would be smashed to bits after the first jump
> in a WRC rally... NASCAR cars DO NOT HAVE BRAKE LIGHTS, so are you saying
> passenger cars shouldn't either?

Ok. You're not rational. Airbags simply are not a proven effective safety
device. They are a device mandated by the likes of joan claybrook and the
rest of the know-nothings who have done considerable damage regulatory
wise in the USA. Harnesses can be made easy to use, roll cage structures
are good for safety and can be made livable with some compromise to their
effectiveness. In fact, those demanding better roll over safety have been
calling for them for years wether they know it or not.

Airbags have a low effectiveness, cost 3 times more than the benefit they
provide. I have cited the paper that analyzed a number of studies.
You've have no cites of value at all. If you take your meds and figure out
how do conduct rational debate let me know by repying to my other post
where I cite the paper in a rational manner. I've proven what I have stated
there.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article > , Generic
wrote:
>
> >> This is not talking about the margin of the cars. It's about the
> >> companies finances. Margin on products is not published in the
newspaper.
> >> You are commiting the usenet fraud of making a statement then
presenting
> >> a URL that doesn't support it (the margin statement) to create a
> >> perception that you are correct.
> > Usenet fraud! Newbie aren't you?
> Hardly. Been around usnet for ~14 years now.

Then you learn slowly or forget fast.

> > This is casual chatting and it's more
> This is debate. See my other post.

News to me! I've never seen more silly stuff than on usenet. It's
entertaining for sure, but not remotely factual.

> > You first claimed there was a huge mark up. Prove it.
> I stated airbags added around $500 to the cost. I proved $410 is the
> average.

Source? [Deleted more of the same.]

> >> Um no. The concept of an explosive device in the dash is misguided. Why
> >> don't race cars have airbags if they are so damn good? Give me a five
> >> point harness and a roll cage intergral to the car's structure instead
of
> >> airbags.
>
> > Wow! What a doozy of an argument! Step back for a second and think!
How
> > many pregnant women and kids and every day people could actually put on
a 5
> > point harness? The 3 point seatbelt was revolutionary because it was
easy to
> > use and relatively effective. Race cars are r-a-c-i-n-g as SPORT and
> > therefore are involved with mild to moderate collisions as a matter of
> > course, while most street cars would be smashed to bits after the first
jump
> > in a WRC rally... NASCAR cars DO NOT HAVE BRAKE LIGHTS, so are you
saying
> > passenger cars shouldn't either?
>
> Ok. You're not rational.

And you, Mr. Rational, want us to drive around in race cars with rollcages,
no doors, helmets, HANS devices and other tools for "non lazy" people! [Plus
you have zero sense of humor and zero awareness of sarcasm.]

> Airbags simply are not a proven effective safety
> device. They are a device mandated by the likes of joan claybrook and the
> rest of the know-nothings who have done considerable damage regulatory
> wise in the USA.

They are marginally useful and have lots of pitfalls.

>Harnesses can be made easy to use, roll cage structures
> are good for safety and can be made livable with some compromise to their
> effectiveness. In fact, those demanding better roll over safety have been
> calling for them for years wether they know it or not.

To be mandated by the likes of Joan Claybrook and the like? Passive
restraints (not to forgot those mouse trail seatbelts and door-mounted
seatbelts) were one of the last aimless initiatives by the bloated
Democratic party of the 80s and 90s.

> Airbags have a low effectiveness, cost 3 times more than the benefit they
> provide. I have cited the paper that analyzed a number of studies.

????? Don't you think "3x more than the benefit they provide" is a
judgement call? People LIKE them and PAY more for side curtains.

> You've have no cites of value at all. If you take your meds and figure out
> how do conduct rational debate let me know by repying to my other post
> where I cite the paper in a rational manner. I've proven what I have
stated
> there.

???? You have no cites at all! I asked for citations in my last post! You
are fully incapable of distinguishing between your own values and those of
others.

-John

In article > , Generic wrote:

>> > This is casual chatting and it's more
>> This is debate. See my other post.
>
> News to me! I've never seen more silly stuff than on usenet. It's
> entertaining for sure, but not remotely factual.

I've cited peer reviewed studies. You haven't.
Here it is again:

I'm just going to prove myself correct:

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

-> COST OF INSTALLING AIRBAGS
-> We assume the same cost estimates as used in an
-> earlier study2, although these were criticized25 as being
-> too low. These were that the driver only system cost
-> $278 and the dual system $410.

So, $410 dollars. That's not too far off from the about $500 statement I
made, and a lot closer to my claim than the assertion that the cost was
trivial.

Read the cost-to-benefit section as well.

From conclusions:
-> Thus the cost of the driver airbag exceeds the benefit by almost a
-> factor of three.

Going back to airbag effectiveness:

Note figure 3. For belted passengers the collision has to be rather
severe to see a benefit. The efffectiveness is NEGATIVE for belted
passengers in less severe collisions. For unbelted passengers,
effectiveness is worse.

-> Thus effectiveness estimates for AIS=1 are more precise than for other
-> levels. The effectiveness estimates for AIS=1 are (-2.6 ? 3.5)% for unbelted
-> occupants and (-2.0 ? 2.9%) for belted. Both values consistently
-> indicate increased harm associated with airbags.

-> The effectiveness estimates at AIS=6 (essentially all fatals) are
-> substantially higher than the 10% value based on FARS data. The
-> difference (more than 10 percentage points) most likely reflects
-> unavoidable uncertainties inherent in making inferences from NASS
-> data, which raises the possibility that effectiveness in
-> reducing injuries could likewise be overestimated.

And here is the statement that is key:

-> Estimates of airbag effectiveness for injuries remain highly uncertain
-> even after 10 million deployments.

My conclusion after reading this is that airbags should be replaced with
something less costly and more effective.

Oh, how did I find this? Googled for "airbag cost" The first match was
this file in html without the figures, the second was the PDF with
figures.

> ???? You have no cites at all! I asked for citations in my last post! You
> are fully incapable of distinguishing between your own values and those of
> others.

I provided a cite that proves everything I have stated several posts ago.
It's posted above because you can't seem to operate a news reader or are
just playing ignorant. Data is from peer reviewed studies. Highest
quality out there. You're wrong, face up to it.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>Not exactly. In US English, "hardtop" is short for "hardtop
>convertible" i.e. a two-door (or in some rare cases, a 4-door) with no
>B-pillar, where you can wind down the windows and the window opening is
>completely unbroken between the windshield post and C-pillar.

Hardtop coupe, surely?

In article >,
magnulus > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> 1) They're about $800 - $1000 for the 2 of 'em. If you have side airbags,
>then
>> that would be more money.
>
> Now days front airbags are standard equipment. They really don't add much
>to the cost of a car.

ROTFL. Just because they are standard doesn't mean they are free.

>> 4) They're made for people that don't wear seat belts. If you wear your
>seat
>> belt, you don't need air bags. Seat belts have been in cars since the
>60's.
>
> Newer airbags aren't like this.

Yes, they are.

>to unbelted drivers, but they also help belted drivers.

How? I've been in a wreck while belted and in a car with an airbag.
The airbag went off. It slightly burned my arm and the fumes made me
cough, but that's about it.

>They reduce
>fatalities only marginally, but they cut down alot on head injuries for a
>belted driver.

They shouldn't even come in contact with your head.

> With an airbag you are trading off risk- and the risk that you could be
>hurt by the airbag itself is very remote.

It's on the same level as the airbag helping you, assuming you're
wearing a seat belt.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
>
>
> You drive a manual? Why? Are you just a masochist? I can drive a
>manual, but they are horrible in stop-and-go traffic, and now days, don't
>save that much gas.

They're not horrible in stop-and-go traffic. Yes, you have to work
the clutch, but at least they don't "creep" like automatics do.

> That's the old way of holding the steering wheel. If you held the wheel
>lower (9 and 3 is fine), you could sit back farther.

Except that then the OP can't reach the pedals.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:32:24 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:05:30 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Around 1/19/2005 11:07 PM, Magnulus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because it's a sports car/muscle car.
>>>>
>>>>LOL! Now *that's* funny!
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's what I was thinking... This was my great grandma's car. The
>>>Galaxie is a family car, and a 2 ton car with a small engine and tall
>>>'highway' gears isn't exactly a sporty muscle car. The vinyl top (which I
>>>think looks sharp) probably doesn't help the 'sporty' idea much either. If
>>>it was a fastback it'd be sporty looking. My old '67 Galaxie hardtop
>>
>>
>> Could someone clarify this?
>>
>> The "vinyl top" he refers to is just the vinyl covering on a hard-top,
>> isn't it?
>>
>> Or is it a convertible with a vinyl top.
>>
>> I would think anything that's not a convertible would be referred to
>> as a hard-top.
>>
>
>Not exactly. In US English, "hardtop" is short for "hardtop
>convertible" i.e. a two-door (or in some rare cases, a 4-door) with no
>B-pillar, where you can wind down the windows and the window opening is
>completely unbroken between the windshield post and C-pillar. In other
>words, a body that looks like a convertible but has a metal roof.

Say what? There are "hardtop convertibles", but they are most
definitely actual convertibles - not something that "looks" like a
convertible.

If I understand your definition above, then for example a '72 Monte
Carlo would be a "hardtop convertible".

> A car
>with metal frames around the door glass and a full B-pillar would be
>referred to as a "coupe" or "sedan" depending on the number of doors.
>
>In the case of Cory's car, I imagine what he has is a vinyl covering
>over the roof of a hardtop body.

Right, which in my book would make it a hardtop.

>That was fairly common practice for a
>number of years, why, I don't know because personally I don't
>particularly like the look, and they make your roof rot once the vinyl
>goes bad unless you strip it off and repaint immediately.
>
>nate