What Irked You Today?

[southpier]

from a society which fails to follow traffic signals and is unable to make change for a dollar yet is expected to DIY its own solar array.... okay.

[Harry P.]

Not everyone is that stupid.

If we follow that standard, all we should be able to sell to people is Nerf balls.

[Danno]

Not everyone is that stupid.

If we follow that standard, all we should be able to sell to people is Nerf balls.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Who's going to pay for it if they swallow the Nerf ball and choke to death?? Who has the indemnity? Who has the insurance? Where are the deep pockets??

[Joe Handley]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Who's going to pay for it if they swallow the Nerf ball and choke to death?? Who has the indemnity? Who has the insurance? Where are the deep pockets??

Easy, make them too big to swallow

[southpier]

as long as they have exact change

[Ace-Garageguy]

Another thing I don't understand is why the big oil companies aren't all over solar technology.

Yes, since 1995 I've been harping in places far removed from this forum about the wisdom of petroleum companies redefining or re-inventing themselves as ENERGY companies, and putting their vast capital reserves to work developing alternatives. T. Boone Pickens was one of the oil giants who seemed to realize the inevitable (oil wells-running-dry), and even he hasn't been able to make much of a dent in the business-as-usual big-oil mindset.

But EVERYBODY seems to be behaving as though gas is cheap and will last forever.

Take the Dodge Challenger. The 1970 version is listed as weighing in at between about 2950 and 3400 pounds. Kinda chunky for a smallish car, but being built on a shortened "big car" platform, that's what you got. Today's Challenger is a porky 4160. WHAT ??? With all the much-touted HSLA steel, computer-aided engineering and analysis, etc., you'd reasonably think today's version would weigh at least somewhat LESS than the 1970 iteration. But no, it's a heavy pig, burning a LOT more fuel to accelerate all the extra blubber than is necessary.

Nobody big is really doing anything (other than talking) about the looming energy crisis, other than long-term visionaries like Mr. Tesla, Elon Musk.

[Tom Geiger]

Another thing I don't understand is why the big oil companies aren't all over solar technology.

They sell a product that is going to run out one day, a product that everyone is desperately trying to wean themselves from. So why not pour some of those billions of profit dollars into solar technology and develop cheap, reliable solar panel systems and get a jump on an emerging market?

Seems like smart business sense. When ExxonMobil doesn't have any more oil to sell, they could then sell ExxonMobil solar panel systems, and if they got into alt energy now, they would probably own the largest chunk of the market for a long time to come.

Why? Because they're waiting for the government to pay them to do so! Back after the first oil crisis, the US Dept of Energy funded a bunch of alternative fuel projects. One of those was Exxon's Colorado Shale Oil Project aka "Colony in Parachute, Colorado. When gas dipped back down under a dollar a gallon, the government declared the crisis over, and shut off the funding one day with no notice at all. That left huge refinery type projects unfinished, bankrupted construction companies that didn't get paid, as well as average work men who had relocated to build and man those projects. All around disaster.

[Mark]

Yes, since 1995 I've been harping in places far removed from this forum about the wisdom of petroleum companies redefining or re-inventing themselves as ENERGY companies, and putting their vast capital reserves to work developing alternatives. T. Boone Pickens was one of the oil giants who seemed to realize the inevitable (oil wells-running-dry), and even he hasn't been able to make much of a dent in the business-as-usual big-oil mindset.

I'd bet that the oil companies are getting involved in other forms of energy, more so than we think; they are doing it under the radar. I don't watch much TV; most of what I do watch during the summer involves baseball. In nearly every game I've seen, the background signage includes billboards for "Gulf Electricity". If electric cars become more mainstream, and quick charging becomes likely, the oil companies will be in on it because they already own a lot of the convenient, strategically located properties on which to place charging stations. Charging stations will simply replace existing gas stations here and there. They've got their fingers into every conceivable alternative...I'd call it "covering all of the exits"...

[Harry P.]

Take the Dodge Challenger. The 1970 version is listed as weighing in at between about 2950 and 3400 pounds. Kinda chunky for a smallish car, but being built on a shortened "big car" platform, that's what you got. Today's Challenger is a porky 4160. WHAT ??? With all the much-touted HSLA steel, computer-aided engineering and analysis, etc., you'd reasonably think today's version would weigh at least somewhat LESS than the 1970 iteration. But no, it's a heavy pig, burning a LOT more fuel to accelerate all the extra blubber than is necessary.

Nobody big is really doing anything (other than talking) about the looming energy crisis, other than long-term visionaries like Mr. Tesla, Elon Musk.

You'd think that with the benefit of 40+ years of technological/engineering advances, they could build a Challenger today that would weigh the same as one did back in 1970.

And ditto on Elon Musk, who is working on developing new technology, not desperately clinging to old technology.

[Modelbuilder Mark]

Take the Dodge Challenger. The 1970 version is listed as weighing in at between about 2950 and 3400 pounds. Kinda chunky for a smallish car, but being built on a shortened "big car" platform, that's what you got. Today's Challenger is a porky 4160. WHAT ??? With all the much-touted HSLA steel, computer-aided engineering and analysis, etc., you'd reasonably think today's version would weigh at least somewhat LESS than the 1970 iteration. But no, it's a heavy pig, burning a LOT more fuel to accelerate all the extra blubber than is necessary.

Despite the added size/weight, the MPG did improve.

1970 Dodge Challenger average mpg was around 10-12 mpg for the 318, of course getting better if all highway miles, like on a trip

Todays Challenger gets around 22 mpg on average.

I just cannot get over how much bigger ALL vehicles seem to be getting, despite the government requirements for achieving certain levels of fuel effeciency. The Tundra for example, is a HUGE truck. Even the Tacoma is way larger than it's namesake from 10-15 years ago. Camry, same thing. It used to be the size of a Corolla, but now the Corolla is as big as the Camry once was but is still considered a compact.

I can tell you there is a lot of developement going into hydrogene fuel cells, electric options, alternative fuels etc here at Toyota. One of the biggest hurdles is still the infrastructure. What good does it do me to buy a pure electric vehicle if I can not make a trip and be confident I can stop somewhere for a quick charge if I need to like I do for gas. Same with the Hydrogene. Simply put, gas is simpler for most people involved.......for now. I think you will be seeing a quickening in the pace of change in the not too distant future.

[Ace-Garageguy]

One of the biggest hurdles is still the infrastructure. What good does it do me to buy a pure electric vehicle if I can not make a trip and be confident I can stop somewhere for a quick charge if I need to like I do for gas. Same with the Hydrogen. Simply put, gas is simpler for most people involved.......for now. I think you will be seeing a quickening in the pace of change in the not too distant future.

If you work for Toyota, I'n sure you know that Mr. Musk (Tesla) is putting in a network of fast-charging stations all over the country, and if you buy a big Tesla, you get free re-charging at his facilities.

As far as infrastructure and convenience of refueling go...I was a paying member of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition ($1000+ per year) back in the mid-1990s. The group was actively lobbying for a widespread switch to compressed-natural-gas as a vehicle fuel. At the time, natural gas was much cheaper than gasoline for the same energy content (as it is now), the retrofit to a vehicle was relatively straightforward and cost-effective, and there was a cool little compressor on the market, the FuelMaker, that would refuel your car overnight from your in-house natural gas line.

Infrastructure widely in place, un-beatable convenience, and a decent chance of payback of the investment from reduced fuel costs.

Did the world go for it? Nah. Instead, because natural gas is cheap and burns clean, most of our production (and we have so much, the price is too low to make getting it out of the ground "worthwhile") goes to "peak" electricity generating plants, or to replace older, dirty coal-burning plants. Cheaper to take the short term expedient...instead of cleaning up the coal plants (and we have 100 years of coal right here in the good ol' USA) and using the cheap natural gas to power our cars, relatively easily, for 60 years or more (again, we're floating on the stuff), we're squandering it to make cheap carbon-credit-traded electricity...while we continue to get screwed every time we bend over at the gas pump.

In the meantime, the world seems to be hell-bent on making the car you drive to get groceries more complex than the effing space-shuttle.

Somebody explain why.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[unclescott58]

Take the Dodge Challenger. The 1970 version is listed as weighing in at between about 2950 and 3400 pounds. Kinda chunky for a smallish car, but being built on a shortened "big car" platform, that's what you got. Today's Challenger is a porky 4160. WHAT ??? With all the much-touted HSLA steel, computer-aided engineering and analysis, etc., you'd reasonably think today's version would weigh at least somewhat LESS than the 1970 iteration. But no, it's a heavy pig, burning a LOT more fuel to accelerate all the extra blubber than is necessary.

Why does today's Challenger weight more than the ones in the 70's? Do a crash test with either, you'll find out really quickly. The passenger compartment on a new car requires a lot of reinforcement that the earlier cars did not require. Notice how thick windshield pillars are on new cars. The present Camaros and Mustangs are fairly close to the size they were in the 60's. But, with the safety packaging, they are not as roomy as the 60's versions. Plus the present Challenger is a bigger car than the original. Heavier? Yes. But, a lot safer too.

Scott

Edited August 23, 2014 by unclescott58

[Ace-Garageguy]

Why does today's Challenger weight more than the ones in the 70's? Do a crash test with either, you'll find out really quickly. The passenger compartment on a new car requires a lot of reinforcement that the earlier cars did not require. Notice how thick windshield pillars are on new cars. The present Camaros and Mustangs are fairly close to the size they were in the 60's. But, with the safety packaging, they are not as roomy as the 60's versions. Plus the present Challenger is a bigger car than the original. Heavier? Yes. But, a lot safer too.

Scott

Sorry Scott. That much weight just says to me "sloppy, uninspired engineering". Weight reduction in structural applications is something I've spent a good bit of time on.

I submit that with a really top-notch structural team, that car could be brought in at 2800 pounds...certainly no more than 3300. A complete Porsche 906 only weighed 1300 pounds, and contemporary hillclimb variants weighed less than 1000.

HSLA steel (high-strength, low alloy) was developed to be LIGHTER than the conventional mild steel the old tanks were made of, because you could use LESS steel to get MORE strength. And CAD/CAE should allow the structure to be maximized for crash performance while trimming unnecessary weight. The whole point of using CAD is to be able to analyze structural requirements better than un-aided humans can, and to allow designers and engineers to do more with less material. Somebody is missing the boat.

I'm not piling on Chrysler. I like the car. But I was APPALLED when I saw how much the thing weighed. I've been building things all my life, and I know it's just too fat.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Why does today's Challenger weight more than the ones in the 70's? Do a crash test with either, you'll find out really quickly.

No.

Today's cars are built with lighter weight, yet stronger steel than they used 45 years ago. And the crash resistance is engineered into the chassis and body panels... today's cars are designed to absorb and dissipate the impact because they are designed to crumple and fold in a very specific way. If anything, todays cars should be lighter than those of 40-50 years ago, yet be better able to absorb impact.

[Tom Geiger]

Plus the present Challenger is a bigger car than the original. Heavier? Yes. But, a lot safer too.

I got one of those Challengers as a rental car two years ago. It was eerily exactly how I remember my 1973 Barracuda. It felt the same behind the wheel. Same dash, seats, driving position... same useless back seat and horrible blind spots in the rear! They did a great job of recreating the old car, both the good and the awful shortcomings!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Today's cars are built with lighter weight, yet stronger steel than they used 45 years ago. And the crash resistance is engineered into the chassis and body panels... today's cars are designed to absorb and dissipate the impact because they are designed to crumple and fold in a very specific way. If anything, todays cars should be lighter than those of 40-50 years ago, yet be better able to absorb impact.

Yes, exactly. Kinda like an aluminum Coke can versus an old "tin" can. Different materials, but even the weaker aluminum is much thinner than the steel in the old can designs. In the case of the cans, the pressure inside the can from the carbonation adds to the rigidity of the entire "structure" by keeping the can, basically, inflated. Elegant engineering.

The Challenger engineers apparently made up for structural deficiencies somewhere by adding more steel. Not elegant engineering.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[slusher]

I would venture to say that the reason a '70 Challenger weighs less than the new Challenger is due largely in part to the massive amounts of electronics the new Challenger has. Think about it. All those electronics have wires made from copper. Some may be fiber optic. But, there's a massive amount of wiring under the dash and hood of newer cars. Ever seen one with the dash out? That's why the size of the dash on newer cars continues to grow. They need the room for all of the wiring. In 1970, you couldn't get into your car and push a button to start it. Your cell phone didn't automatically sync up. You couldn't push a button and tell you car what you wanted it to do. You didn't have a touch screen to turn everything on. You had a knob or switch with a couple to a few wires running to it. I would like to know how they would compare rolling stripped body shell to rolling stripped body shell. I bet they would be much closer.

Good point Roger todays cars are all electric, locks, power windows, air bags everywhere. All cars today are loaded and have air conditioning. I am not sure but how many 70 challengers had air conditioning..

[High octane]

ALL the '70 Challengers had air, just roll down the windows and step on the gas!

[Harry P.]

The new Challenger had a 6" longer wheelbase than the original. More car = more weight.

[Danno]

Gravity is stronger today than it was 40+ years ago.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Gravity is stronger today than it was 40+ years ago.

It sure feels like it some days...

[Tom Geiger]

Gravity is stronger today than it was 40+ years ago.

People are just fatter so they hit the ground harder!

[unclescott58]

Sorry Scott. That much weight just says to me "sloppy, uninspired engineering". Weight reduction in structural applications is something I've spent a good bit of time on.

I submit that with a really top-notch structural team, that car could be brought in at 2800 pounds...certainly no more than 3300. A complete Porsche 906 only weighed 1300 pounds, and contemporary hillclimb variants weighed less than 1000.

HSLA steel (high-strength, low alloy) was developed to be LIGHTER than the conventional mild steel the old tanks were made of, because you could use LESS steel to get MORE strength. And CAD/CAE should allow the structure to be maximized for crash performance while trimming unnecessary weight. The whole point of using CAD is to be able to analyze structural requirements better than un-aided humans can, and to allow designers and engineers to do more with less material. Somebody is missing the boat.

I'm not piling on Chrysler. I like the car. But I was APPALLED when I saw how much the thing weighed. I've been building things all my life, and I know it's just too fat.

Does any new car of the same size weight less than its equivalent model from the 60's or 70's?

Scott

[Ace-Garageguy]

Does any new car of the same size weight less than its equivalent model from the 60's or 70's?

Scott

It's tough to define "equivalent model". The recent Mustangs, if I'm not mistaken, are also considerably heavier than their older brethren. The current Camaro is around 3700 lbs. The '69 was around 3300.

But here's a thought. A Cirrus SR22 airplane has 4 seats, a 550 cu.in., 300+ HP engine, an over-30 foot wingspan, it FLIES and goes almost 200 MPH (while carrying 4 fat adults and over 80 gallons of fuel). It also has at least twice the onboard electronics of a car, two complete sets of controls, air conditioning, AND a parachute that lets the whole mess down gently in the event of catastrophic failure. It weighs less than 2500 pounds.

My point is that 4100 pounds of car is sloppily, ridiculously innefficient to carry one out-of-shape butt to work and back.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

1969 Camaro Z28: 3300 pounds.

2014 Camaro Z28: To keep weight down: A/C delete, thinner rear glass, manual front seats (no power motors), tire-inflation kit deleted (except where required by law), interior sound deadening deleted, trunk carpet deleted, lighter battery, and removing HID headlamps and fog lights. There’s also no stereo. Chevy says it wanted to delete the audio system entirely, but federal regulations require one speaker be left in the car for the seatbelt chime. The team also stripped out the unused wiring for the fog lamps, speakers, and A/C. The rear seats stay, but the pass-through is gone and high-density foam has been subbed in for some of the heavier material in the stock seats, so they’re nine pounds lighter.

Despite all that intensive effort to keep weight down: 3800 pounds.