Aiya, you guys are arguing for what?
Conclusion is, safe car = hard shell, good crumple zone, stiff survival cell, airbags(a good distance from your face), ABS, EBD, good road holding.

Dear fellow LYN member, I did mention that airbags and a tough chassis is part of passive safety features. Read back, there's a post there that says it. And, do you know what does it mean when a cabin is compromised? Have you ever read a crash test report before? Please do go and read a 1 star car's report, one that has airbag but the airbag does nothing to save the life of the driver. A cabin compromise means the cabin itself collapses, and tell me, how can an air bag possibly save your life when there are metal bars protruding into your body? Or, the steering column comes at your face, instead of staying put, slamming your face into the airbags, and then into the steering column, and then onto hard plastic and metal. How will you survive then? Airbags reduces the impact speed, but in the event that the chassis gives way, the airbag won't do any good. Is that so damn hard for you to understand? You can have a thousand airbag in the car as you wish, and you wont walk away from the car alive when the car is flattened from the impact.

And you said chassis strength is calculated to determine the car's safety too. Did you notice that I have already said that in my earlier posts? If a car has a soft chassis, will it do any good to help the car in the event of a crash? Again, if you have read any crash test reports, the majority of the discussion is placed upon the design of the chassis itself, and how the cabin is uncompromised after the event of a crash, leading to good results. So how does this contradicts my statement that in the event of a car's cabin is compromised, airbags do not saves lives? For your information no car that is submitted to the NCAP comes without airbags. And still there are cars that got 1 star ratings. How about this - you go be their test dummy, and sit in a 1 star car. Perhaps airbags will save your life then?

And yes, the MEASUREMENT for a car's safety. Dude, do you know that torsional strength is not the ONLY criteria for cabin strength? Do you know that different designs yield different behaviours during a crash? That is why I said there is no quantitative method of measuring the safety of a car. If there is such method, why do we actually need a crash test? This is ridiculous.

So far I've been civilized towards you, and your last 2 posts are extremely offensive. Have maturity been lost in the people of lowyat that we cannot discuss a matter civilly?

This post has been edited by soggie: May 21 2006, 06:01 AM

And finally, to address the original message that sparked this debate, I would like to show it in simple english for those who are so clouded by emotion to actually read more complex sentences.

WHat I agree with hypermount
A tough chassis along with safety features will fare better than a weak chassis with safety features.



What I DO NOT agree
Savvy's "tough" chassis makes it a safe car in the event of collision

Then you came at me with:



Now here's your first MISTAKE. I did NOT agree with him on what you claim. Rather, I agree to that statement that he made, in a general term, with crash test reports as my base of knowledge. I made a reply:



I then said that he is right on crumple zones on his CLAIM that the cabin of the Savvy was uncompromised after that, and explained how to examine the true strength of a car in the event of an accident. I guess you missed this paragraph:



And then you said:



And I explained that the reason I used the term soft car is to refer to the cabin's weakness in the event of the crash to retain their shape and integrity. Now on to your second point:



Of course the main point is always concentrated on the safety of teh driver. Please do quote me when did I say tha

My stance in this "debate" is that I do not think that Savvy has enough credibility and evidence to show that its claimed "tough" chassis makes it a safe car, regardless of any other safety feature that it markets to have.

Now to make it easy for you, just tell me if you agree to this statement or not. If you agree, then there's no point for us to continue this debate. If not, then state why, and we'll continue.

And oh, please keep this matured and civil.

This post has been edited by soggie: May 21 2006, 04:48 AM

Next time before speaking with your foot in your mouth, do learn to observe the RnR in FnF. And soggie for god's sake, if you can edit your last post and add in your comments, please do so. Otherwise add a PS indicating that you couldn't post that long

would you buy a savvy if it looked like this (edited version) :




aesthetic wise, savvy side profile is it weakest point IMO.

This post has been edited by anuarnor: Jun 4 2006, 12:50 PM

No, the edited one is too short.
I mean the wheelbase. I like the short overhangs. But the wheelbase is too short.

hehe, agreed. From engineering pov it might be nightmare i guess. Its a Photoshop chop anyway

What if you push the wheels further to each corner?

long wheel base. it will became a hot-hatch like a Golf GTI. also means more weight and more power needed. eventually, satria's rival. i don't think that's gonna happen.

Only for looks' sake.
Not for performance. Pushing the wheels to the corners would make the ride more pleasent. But a more powerful engine would be needed.

it needs better suspension, better brakes too. if they stretch it without upgrading any other parts, that'll be a nightmare

bottom up



sloppy edit.

P/S: all images not mine.

This post has been edited by anuarnor: Jun 4 2006, 02:06 PM

How about you try to edit and make the roof lower.... see how it come out

compared with my reference

206 and Myvi hybrid.

Arton Savee :



This post has been edited by anuarnor: Jun 4 2006, 03:57 PM

)

Eeeeew, so ugly.

hahahah. Enjoy.