Lightness

As far as I can tell no one answered the motorcycle question that was way back on one of the fist pages of this thread. Why is legal to ride a motorcycle on the street, but not an Atom (or similar car)? Which one is more safe? This is not driven by consumer choice - this is 100% government regulation.

Sure, consumer choice is a factor when it comes to comparing a stripped down no frills car with a similar well optioned one, but that's not what I am asking about.

Dpvog wrote: In reply to Keith: AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! In 1965, we had a 1300 lb high performance sports car. In fact, that particular car was the best selling car in the history of Lotus. Today, the lightest road legal production car sold in the United States is an 1800 lb two seat clown car, and if you want high performance, you're looking at a full ton. After forty-five years of improvement in lightweight materials science and technology, not to mention CAD, sports cars have gotten 700 lbs.... heavier?!? Folks say that's what the public wants. Okay, but is that what THIS public wants? This IS Grassroots Motorsports, right? Not the Robb Report or Achitectural Digest? We're supposed to be sports car guys living in the Land of the Free. In England, and Europe, you can buy an Ariel Atom and drive it home. Is anyone else here besides me jealous of that, or are we all just happy with our Escalades?

Those 1300 lb high performance sports cars (the Elan, I'm assuming, although that was a 1500 lb car) had a functional life of about 5 years and offered performance that wouldn't be enough for a modern minivan. And you don't want to crash one. There have been massive improvements in the past 45 years.

And yes, I'm saying that THIS public wants cars with more reliability, functional weatherproofing, higher performance and the like. Hands up, how many bought a 2003 Miata Club Sport? Anyone? C'mon, it's the stripped out version of GRM's favorite car! No? How about the 2004-05 Mazdaspeed turbo model that was 160 lbs heavier by my scales. Ah yes, that one sold much better and is better represented on the GRM forum.

The problem the Atom has in the US is that it doesn't have a windshield. Most states won't allow that as a kit car, but some will. There's also a potential problem coming from the fact that the car only comes fully built and not as a kit, but there are ways to make that work. It's TME's decision not to include the proper paperwork to make the car road-legal in the US. Caterham doesn't have a problem with that, nor does Westfield. Brammo, the previous manufacturer of the Atom, included that paperwork which is why there are Atoms on the street in the US. It's a decision on the part of the manufacturer not to offer the car in an appropriate form, not Big Bad Government saying no.

Keith wrote: It's a decision on the part of the manufacturer not to offer the car in an appropriate form, not Big Bad Government saying no.

I don't understand why this won't sink in, but I'll +1 to reiterate and stop wasting keyboard strokes.

Bryce

In reply to Nashco:

If it helps any, I'll chime in and say I agree 100%.

Keith wrote: It's a decision on the part of the manufacturer not to offer the car in an appropriate form, not Big Bad Government saying no.

Nashco wrote: I don't understand why this won't sink in, but I'll +1 to reiterate and stop wasting keyboard strokes.

Otto_Maddox wrote: In reply to Nashco: If it helps any, I'll chime in and say I agree 100%.

Guys, you're missing the real issue here. We're facing a Constitutional crisis. If we don't demand lighter cars now we risk tyranny. Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom? You do realize that men and women, heroes, fought and died for your right to a light car. Why don't you support the troops?

So, I really am curious as to how little a car made by one of the big three could sell for in the U.S. and have them still make a profit.

Parts-bin the hell out of it, disclude whatever's not necessary (i.e., put a DIN slot in the center console, but don't put a stereo in it).

Hyundai can boat Accents over and sell them for under $10k, Is it possible that Ford could sell a car made here for $5k?

ReverendDexter- I don't know what it would cost, but it would have to be marketed differently than they currently market cars. Think about this- the ultimate "parts bin" car is one that already exists. Look at a car like the Ford Focus. Good car. I loved them when they came out. A lot of peopel with sporting intentions did too. Neat car with a neat engine.

It went on for a good while with little change. Little change should mean savings, shouldn't it? But people quit buying them. Now, Ford didn't really reflect the saving in the price, and maybe if they had it would have been a different story.

It would be cool, I think to do an ad: "New for 2011, the 2008 Ford Focus! Same ergonomically friendly interior. Same fuel efficent, powerful engine. Same great warrenty and reliability. In fact, the only thing new about the new Ford Focus is the price - 30% lower than it was in 2008! That makes Ford Focus the most inexpensive car in America!"

Who knows, that might work. But just parts-bin engineering a car that looks kinda cool and sells for cheap doesn't seem to work. Think Ford EXP. Hey, I liked them. But they sure didn't sell.

My 1993 Civic didn't have a radio. Heck, the only options on the car were a passenger side mirror and floormats. Great car though, all the money went into the engine. But you'd never be able to sell a car that stripped out today.

I should emphasize that the Atom doesn't need any physical changes to make it road-legal in (some) of the US. It just needs paperwork changes. Paperwork that TMI has decided not to provide.

TJ wrote: Why is legal to ride a motorcycle on the street, but not an Atom (or similar car)? Which one is more safe? This is not driven by consumer choice - this is 100% government regulation.

Will one of you "don't blame the government" types please answer my question instead of just repeating that it is not the government's fault. I understand what your position is, but I do not understand why. Please elaborate.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

You liked the Ford EXP? I think maybe you hate freedom.

I buy cars only in increments of 350 lbs from a 2300 lb Miata, the perfect car. I have my Miata, a 2650 lb Porsche 944, a 3700 lb Lexus GS400, and a 4400 lb Honda Pilot.

If you don't base your car buying decision on the Miata + 350(X) lbs formula, you are an idiot who hates America.

TJ wrote: Why is legal to ride a motorcycle on the street, but not an Atom (or similar car)? Which one is more safe? This is not driven by consumer choice - this is 100% government regulation.

What's to answer? You're right. It's silly. Some of those laws should be changed. Shoot, here in Colorado, you don't even have to wear a helmet on your motorcycle, but I have to wear a seat belt sitting in front of my air bag in my car. Nuts.

I don't think anyone said it's "not the government". I think what most folks are saying is it's not just the government. But yeah, some of those laws drive me nuts. I like it when they start their "click it or ticket" campaign. I always call it "click it or tax it". Never understood why the Tea folk don't get all bent out of shape about it.

I miss that about my old 2.0 Capri. It had lap belts. I would drive it by the "click-it" tax collector. He'd get all excited until I got up next to him. Then he'd wave me on.

Otto_Maddox wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: You liked the Ford EXP? I think maybe you hate freedom. I buy cars only in increments of 350 lbs from a 2300 lb Miata, the perfect car. I have my Miata, a 2650 lb Porsche 944, a 3700 lb Lexus GS400, and a 4400 lb Honda Pilot. If you don't base your car buying decision on the Miata + 350(X) lbs formula, you are an idiot who hates America.

Miatas are fine if you like fat, bloated cars with too few seats. My '72 Capri (the one I didn't get rid of referenced above) weighs 2300 lbs, has a V6 and four seats! I drove it as my DD for years.

Lucky to be alive. Somehow I managed to survive with no air bags, side impact protection or 5 mph bumpers. I have a unique strategy - I drive safely. Okay, I've had some luck, but I'm 43 years old (how did that happen?) and I've never had an accident. Okay, one when I was 16, but it wasn't my fault. Even still, I wouldn't have that accident today- I would have caught the other driver's mistake.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Laws that restrict freedom but they are necessary because people don't pay for the full costs of their choices. If one could choose to ride without a seatbelt but pay the full incremental cost of the risk, that would be fine. Otherwise, everyone else is subsidizing the cost of that choice.

No copping out with low insurance caps either. If somebody wants to ride without a helmet, seat belt or whatever, they should have enough insurance to cover their costs if they end up being a vegetable for the next 50 years.

Otto_Maddox wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Laws that restrict freedom but they are necessary because people don't pay for the full costs of their choices.

I don't understand. What does it cost you if I kill myself driving a 429 powered Schwinn?

I'm just glad some of you realize your own hypocrisy concerning a steadfast "I will NEVER buy a new car!" and "Why don't they make a car I want to buy?"

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Nothing in that case, but death is the perfect economic outcome. Anything short of death, from a coma to all the way down to a sprained wrist, is expensive. And helmets, seatbelts, side impact beams, crumple zones, etc. cut down on injuries and the related costs.

Insurance costs don't discern between those who wear seat belts or not. So if Joe Blow and I are both identical in our demographics except I wear a seat belt and Joe does not, my premiums are artificially high and his are artificially low. And if Joe's medical caps are too low to pay his actual expenses and he can't pay, the taxpayers subsidize his medical costs. So I am screwed doubly. The seat belt isn't a freedom issue, it is a doubly screwing Otto issue.

Eh, okay. So, should cigatettes be illegal? Cancer is expensive. Or, how 'bout this. I'm a runner. Insurance folks will tell you that makes me cheaper. Should they require all you fat asses to be runners too? How 'bout we outlaw McDonalds?

In reality, shouln't they give me a runner's discount and charge "No Belt Charlie" a little more?

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I know a lot more about economics than law and politics. So, from an economics standpoint, cigarettes taxes should recover the costs to taxpayers to cover the cost of medical issues of indigent smokers related to smoking. The same holds true for unhealthy foods. Runners should have cheaper health insurance premiums. I am fine with freedom of choice as long as people, companies and the government have covered all the costs of an activity including the negative externalties associated with the activity.

Of course, it requires politics to get us there, and this isn't quite how politics works...

Oohhhhhh. If bean counters ruled the world.

Okay- but with cigarettes, you say we tax them to recover the costs. You're still free to smoke. That's kinda what I'm saying about seat-belts (or more to the point of the thread, lighter cars with fewer safety devices).

If I don't wear my seat-belt they'll collect the taxes, but they won't go to offset the 'cost' of my no seat-belt wearing ways. They'll go to make the City of Denver a little more solvent. Worse yet, they use my tax money to pay the tax collector whose job is supposed to be patrolling my neighborhood and deterring crime.

With light cars, I have no option to buy a car without air bags, side impact beams, over built bumpers etc. You're not allowed to sell a car without them. Not only that, but if I bought such a car, it would almost certainly get better fuel mileage than a big SUV with all of those things. So shouldn’t my saving off set the additional ‘cost’? Even more so- we’re absorbing all kinds of costs to clean up the Gulf oil spill. Not to mention the expensive foreign policy burning fossil fuels dictates.

So there are costs on both sides. Seems to me saving fuel is a bigger priority for us right now. Now, I do think manufacturers who knowingly forgo safety in the name of weight, performance and fuel economy should have to disclose that to consumers. You should know what you’re getting. But if you’re good with that, it should be available. If they cut safety corners but market the cars as if they’re just as safe, then there’s a problem.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure the superleggera school of automotive design would come up with a lot of commercially viable products. But I’d sure like to let them try!

Oh my God, look at that post- some liberal ideas, some conservative ideas! Does he watch Beck or Olberman? What’s up with this so-called “Fast Eddie” and why won’t he conform! Get back in your box! You must assimilate! How can we assume things about you if you won’t fall into a stereotypical mold!?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: It would be cool, I think to do an ad: "New for 2011, the 2008 Ford Focus! Same ergonomically friendly interior. Same fuel efficent, powerful engine. Same great warrenty and reliability. In fact, the only thing new about the new Ford Focus is the price - 30% lower than it was in 2008! That makes Ford Focus the most inexpensive car in America!"

Hyundai did that here in the 80's, and marketed the car as the new, old fashioned Pony ( Hyundai version of the 70's Plymouth Arrow ). Simple, reliable, and cheap. They were the #1 import car.

Because some of us car guys are car guys and aren't interested in political crap. Righteous indignation on a web forum is tiresome.

In reply to TJ:

TJ, you're absolutely right. It is absurd, and entirely indefensible, as I pointed out earlier, for the government to allow Honda (for instance) to sell a 180 m.p.h. motorcycle for use on public roads, and then tell you and me that we can't buy an Accord without airbags, seat belts, and, very soon, abs and traction control. Moreover, we can't drive that car legally without wearing a seatbelt. I have tried to stir up an little rightous indignation here without good results. You are absolutely right. There is no appropriate response to your question other than a simple agreement. I know it. I suspect they know it. But for some strange reason, this particular group of car guys just doesn't seem to care. -Doug

That's what I thought. Then, as car guys, why the hell would you be against an effort to permit unrestricted production and registration of very light sports cars?

Keith wrote: Because some of us car guys are car guys and aren't interested in political crap. Righteous indignation on a web forum is tiresome.

Seconded. I've quickly scrolled through two pages of fun dinnertime conversation.

Still interested in the lightness discussion - from what I've gleaned, the folks that have (or have had) OE involvement on product or engineering seem to point towards consumers as pushing for a lot of the weight gain with creeping expectations of comfort features. Though for sure government regulations have contributed.

There's a brand-new Audi A8 here...tempting to weigh a driver's seat...they massage your back and offer heating or cooling! Snap!

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

TJ wrote: Why is legal to ride a motorcycle on the street, but not an Atom (or similar car)? Which one is more safe? This is not driven by consumer choice - this is 100% government regulation.

What's to answer? You're right. It's silly. Some of those laws should be changed. Shoot, here in Colorado, you don't even have to wear a helmet on your motorcycle, but I have to wear a seat belt sitting in front of my air bag in my car. Nuts. I don't think anyone said it's "not the government".

So then, to hit the highlights, you think some of those laws should be changed, right? That was my primary point 130 some odd posts ago. Some laws should be changed. Whoa. That was tough.

Also, you don't think anyone in this string said "it's not the government?" Read back. Actually, lots and lots of people said "...it's not the government." -Doug