4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 15, 2015 10:29:14 GMT -8
People wondered if the Apple Car was for real only a little while ago, but I think Tim & c. realized that they were way behind on this versus their primary competitor and didn't want to cede that market without a fight. I wonder if Apple really wants to make a car, or should make a car. Or rather, I wonder if Apple is going to make a whole car. Think about it. With the iPod and Apple TV, Apple doesn't get into the commodity portion of the deal, the stereo system and the TV panel. Instead, it focuses, on just the techie part that they can really make a difference on. What does Apple get by making a whole car? Can they put an Apple feel into a strut? What about the spare tire? The backseat? The muffler? And while there are things that Apple might be able to improve, does it make sense for Apple to spend it's limited resources on the engine, or an air filter? Apple is known for it's focus, ever since SJ returned and they had the 4 section diagram for their Mac products. And one section was even blank! Since that time, there's often sound bytes by both SJ and Tim about that the toughest thing is not finding things for Apple to develop, but on weeding out the crowd and keeping a tight focus. Apple does great on taking something complex, and distilling it down to fewer choices and then making it intuitive. That's in the company's DNA. It's what they do. A car, as a whole, is a huge distraction. While they could do it, and might even do it if it's the only way to get to their goal, there are other ways. I see Apple focusing on the self-driving part, tying it all together, and making it slick. Then I think they'd try to get their "brain box" into cars. The problem comes that it seems, like music companies or TV syndicates, that they are tight fisted and don't want to give up control. If they really can't get their "brain box" put into 3rd party cars, I think they'd then buy out or partner with a small car company, like the German company highlighted this week with their tiny car that can shrink and turn it's wheels 90°. (here it is, the crab ) Anyway, that sort of thing makes a lot more sense to me, and that's the sort of thing I would expect Apple to do, rather than spending it's time making a complete car.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on May 15, 2015 10:33:46 GMT -8
IS EVERYONE SITTING DOWN?
Congrats, Phoebe! Let's hope that the delay was mostly this issue: appleinsider.com/articles/15/05/15/quanta-blames-limited-apple-watch-production-on-worker-shortages"Without mentioning the Apple Watch by name, the vice chairman of manufacturer Quanta Computer said on Friday that initial production of a client's wearable was limited because of workforce shortages, although his company has since caught up. Quanta lacked sufficient manpower during February's Lunar New Year holidays, company executive C.C. Leung said, according to DigiTimes. This forced it to borrow labor from other manufacturers, and even so it was still limited in the amount of units it could ship."
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on May 15, 2015 10:36:06 GMT -8
IS EVERYONE SITTING DOWN? I GOT A RANDOM EMAIL LATE LAST NIGHT THAT I WOULD BE GETTING DELIVERY OF MY WATCH
TODAY!I would have posted earlier but I passed out and just came to....hope the UPS guy didn't try to deliver yet since I needed to sign for it...need to go check! Underpromise and overdeliver.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on May 15, 2015 10:38:01 GMT -8
She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes.... She'll be....
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on May 15, 2015 10:41:11 GMT -8
I thought I would just mention that at 2:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time the current strong move upward started....
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 15, 2015 11:16:48 GMT -8
Actually, I burn tires or whale blubber to warm myself up when it is cold and rainy in SoCal like today. But that story Op-Ed linked above is what passes for straight news reporting The Los Angeles Times. No warming in 19+ years, but I'll take the good PR for Apple. Other thoughts: That CHIP is actually cool. It and its class like Raspberry Pi and all the Android STB's like my Minix may seem irrelevant here, but they are the product of the mobile wars. Small, low-power CPU's are becoming as powerful as desktop-class chips were a few years ago. I wonder if they can run in parallel for a super-cheap supercomputer? I've long considered trying to set up a solar-powered computer to run distributed computing projects (I run World Community Grid, which you should all consider joining), with battery backup power at night, which could run continuously off-grid (I don't like paying the power bill). I saw a guy run a Web server this way years ago. I actually bought a Dell laptop motherboard for this purpose (distro computing), but never followed through on it. This CHIP, unlike Raspberry Pi, already has DC power built in. Today's mobile chips require so little power, they are perfect for such projects. Don't knock the OtterBox. It saved my iPhone 4 from death by blunt force trauma many times. Eddie needs to un-tuck that shirt. LuckyChoices should consider changing his name to AwesomeFuckingChoices. Should have opened a 130-129 Bear Call Spread today at the high.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on May 15, 2015 11:32:42 GMT -8
People wondered if the Apple Car was for real only a little while ago, but I think Tim & c. realized that they were way behind on this versus their primary competitor and didn't want to cede that market without a fight. I wonder if Apple really wants to make a car, or should make a car. Or rather, I wonder if Apple is going to make a whole car. Think about it. With the iPod and Apple TV, Apple doesn't get into the commodity portion of the deal, the stereo system and the TV panel. Instead, it focuses, on just the techie part that they can really make a difference on. What does Apple get by making a whole car? Can they put an Apple feel into a strut? What about the spare tire? The backseat? The muffler? And while there are things that Apple might be able to improve, does it make sense for Apple to spend it's limited resources on the engine, or an air filter? Apple is known for it's focus, ever since SJ returned and they had the 4 section diagram for their Mac products. And one section was even blank! Since that time, there's often sound bytes by both SJ and Tim about that the toughest thing is not finding things for Apple to develop, but on weeding out the crowd and keeping a tight focus. Apple does great on taking something complex, and distilling it down to fewer choices and then making it intuitive. That's in the company's DNA. It's what they do. A car, as a whole, is a huge distraction. While they could do it, and might even do it if it's the only way to get to their goal, there are other ways. I see Apple focusing on the self-driving part, tying it all together, and making it slick. Then I think they'd try to get their "brain box" into cars. The problem comes that it seems, like music companies or TV syndicates, that they are tight fisted and don't want to give up control. If they really can't get their "brain box" put into 3rd party cars, I think they'd then buy out or partner with a small car company, like the German company highlighted this week with their tiny car that can shrink and turn it's wheels 90°. (here it is, the crab ) Anyway, that sort of thing makes a lot more sense to me, and that's the sort of thing I would expect Apple to do, rather than spending it's time making a complete car. Yeh, I don't know, 4. Isn't that what was said pre-iPhone? Apple knows nothing about phones; they can't build the whole widget, etc. Apple doesn't have to put its special spin on a muffler or an air filter cause the car will be electric. What special magic does Apple use on Gorilla Glass or pentalobe screws in iPhones? Sourcing parts to build a new thing is all part of the process. The magic for the car will be the design and, yes, the backseat, as well as the software, UI, battery tech, and other areas too. At first the iPhone had more off the shelf parts, but then they got into in-house development of chips, cameras, sensors, etc. I see the same approach for cars. Apple = hardware + software: it's better to do the whole thing and control the product; vertical integration. Edit: Or maybe you prefer the Moto RokR "iTunes phone" biz model 16 months before iPhone came out.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 15, 2015 11:52:38 GMT -8
I wonder if Apple really wants to make a car, or should make a car. Or rather, I wonder if Apple is going to make a whole car. Think about it. With the iPod and Apple TV, Apple doesn't get into the commodity portion of the deal, the stereo system and the TV panel. Instead, it focuses, on just the techie part that they can really make a difference on. What does Apple get by making a whole car? Can they put an Apple feel into a strut? What about the spare tire? The backseat? The muffler? And while there are things that Apple might be able to improve, does it make sense for Apple to spend it's limited resources on the engine, or an air filter? Apple is known for it's focus, ever since SJ returned and they had the 4 section diagram for their Mac products. And one section was even blank! Since that time, there's often sound bytes by both SJ and Tim about that the toughest thing is not finding things for Apple to develop, but on weeding out the crowd and keeping a tight focus. Apple does great on taking something complex, and distilling it down to fewer choices and then making it intuitive. That's in the company's DNA. It's what they do. A car, as a whole, is a huge distraction. While they could do it, and might even do it if it's the only way to get to their goal, there are other ways. I see Apple focusing on the self-driving part, tying it all together, and making it slick. Then I think they'd try to get their "brain box" into cars. The problem comes that it seems, like music companies or TV syndicates, that they are tight fisted and don't want to give up control. If they really can't get their "brain box" put into 3rd party cars, I think they'd then buy out or partner with a small car company, like the German company highlighted this week with their tiny car that can shrink and turn it's wheels 90°. (here it is, the crab ) Anyway, that sort of thing makes a lot more sense to me, and that's the sort of thing I would expect Apple to do, rather than spending it's time making a complete car. Yeh, I don't know, 4. Isn't that what was said pre-iPhone? Apple knows nothing about phones; they can't build the whole widget, etc. Apple doesn't have to put its special spin on a muffler or an air filter cause the car will be electric. What special magic does Apple use on Gorilla Glass or pentalobe screws in iPhones? Sourcing parts to build a new thing is all part of the process. The magic for the car will be the design and, yes, the backseat, as well as the software, UI, battery tech, and other areas too. At first the iPhone had more off the shelf parts, but then they got into in-house development of chips, cameras, sensors, etc. I see the same approach for cars. Apple = hardware + software: it's better to do the whole thing and control the product; vertical integration. Maybe. But IMO Apple would have to have such a breakthrough on a whole car level that it would make sense to control the whole thing. Look back at the devices from the last 15 years. Take the iPod. Generally, they stopped at the "this little thing carries all your music, has great battery life, and is easy to use" level, until much later it was leveraged to add apps since you were carrying around a microcomputer anyway. Aside from the short-lived boom-box, they stayed away from the next level of making speakers or an AV level stereo or a full car audio deck. Instead, they focused on the music, and you could plug the output into things. Or take Apple's occasional development of monitors. They have at times developed their own, whether they are at a higher standard, are larger than most, blend well with Apple's other products, or just have fewer cords. But it's something they have moved away from, though they will constantly stay fairly tight with potential developments since many of their other products depend on them and integrate more directly with them (laptop or iMac, as opposed to the Pro) The problem with a car is getting the marketshare to do the really big things, where you would practically need a monopoly. Instead, if they get their "brain box" into 80% of the new cars, they can change the world. Things like smart driving (auto-knowing about planned braking, driving in small packs, adapting to stuff on the micro level), or even smart parking (knowing where open spots are because the grid of cars reports it). It's a lot of work to only get a small marketshare, vs they might be able to sidestep some of this by getting into the cars themselves. That said, there's a lot of smarter people out there, and I'm sure there's plenty of things that aren't obvious to the armchair quarterback. If Apple can change the package enough to make it worth it, all the better to them....and to us.
|
|
|
Post by mace on May 15, 2015 11:54:03 GMT -8
She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes.... She'll be.... Monday still pops?
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on May 15, 2015 11:56:04 GMT -8
Actually, I burn tires or whale blubber to warm myself up when it is cold and rainy in SoCal like today. But that story Op-Ed linked above is what passes for straight news reporting The Los Angeles Times. No warming in 19+ years, but I'll take the good PR for Apple. Other thoughts: That CHIP is actually cool. It and its class like Raspberry Pi and all the Android STB's like my Minix may seem irrelevant here, but they are the product of the mobile wars. Small, low-power CPU's are becoming as powerful as desktop-class chips were a few years ago. I wonder if they can run in parallel for a super-cheap supercomputer? I've long considered trying to set up a solar-powered computer to run distributed computing projects (I run World Community Grid, which you should all consider joining), with battery backup power at night, which could run continuously off-grid (I don't like paying the power bill). I saw a guy run a Web server this way years ago. I actually bought a Dell laptop motherboard for this purpose (distro computing), but never followed through on it. This CHIP, unlike Raspberry Pi, already has DC power built in. Today's mobile chips require so little power, they are perfect for such projects. Don't knock the OtterBox. It saved my iPhone 4 from death by blunt force trauma many times. Eddie needs to un-tuck that shirt. LuckyChoices should consider changing his name to AwesomeFuckingChoices.Should have opened a 130-129 Bear Call Spread today at the high. Thanks for the suggestion, JD. That does have a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on May 15, 2015 12:08:06 GMT -8
Actually, I burn tires or whale blubber to warm myself up when it is cold and rainy in SoCal like today. But that story Op-Ed linked above is what passes for straight news reporting The Los Angeles Times. No warming in 19+ years, but I'll take the good PR for Apple. Other thoughts: That CHIP is actually cool. It and its class like Raspberry Pi and all the Android STB's like my Minix may seem irrelevant here, but they are the product of the mobile wars. Small, low-power CPU's are becoming as powerful as desktop-class chips were a few years ago. I wonder if they can run in parallel for a super-cheap supercomputer? I've long considered trying to set up a solar-powered computer to run distributed computing projects (I run World Community Grid, which you should all consider joining), with battery backup power at night, which could run continuously off-grid (I don't like paying the power bill). I saw a guy run a Web server this way years ago. I actually bought a Dell laptop motherboard for this purpose (distro computing), but never followed through on it. This CHIP, unlike Raspberry Pi, already has DC power built in. Today's mobile chips require so little power, they are perfect for such projects. Don't knock the OtterBox. It saved my iPhone 4 from death by blunt force trauma many times. Eddie needs to un-tuck that shirt. LuckyChoices should consider changing his name to AwesomeFuckingChoices. Should have opened a 130-129 Bear Call Spread today at the high. AS always THANK YOU for the thumbs up. MUCH appreciated. I don't knock the otter box. I think they are essential for all things . I like to compare Jony Ive to Frank Lloyd Wright. It is HIGH PRAISE and derision at the same time. (Frank Lloyd Wright was an American architect, interior designer, writer, and educator, who designed more than 1,000 structures, 532 of which were completed.) Frank Lloyd Wright designed MAGNIFICENT buildings that many consider modern TODAY, after +65 years.
BUT his roofs leaked and were wasteful of materials. Jony Ive designs MAGNIFICENT consumer devices that are almost useless when dropped or touch water. I have gone through 4 generations of MacBooks with screen hinges that were inadequate until the present MacBook Pro.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on May 15, 2015 12:12:30 GMT -8
Can we safely assume you and your wife no longer car pool and your cars are newer than 16 years old? You know, part of my upbringing that I have tried to continue, sometimes to a fault, is being smart about spending. Why spend money on stuff you don't need, or that depreciate at a crazy fast rate? While our minivan is younger, my 4runner is a '92, now just about to turn 24 years old. I can afford a newer vehicle, but it's holding up well and given how little we drive it I just can't really think of a good reason to replace it. I've now owned it for 11 years, after buying it from a Kernel Engineer at Apple. I even tried to replace it a few years ago, moving into something with airbags when I was commuting over the mountain in bad conditions. But I didn't like it as much and ended up selling it instead of this one. It's not going to last forever, and depreciation has finally started to hit those 4runners that are only 10 years old that it makes them tempting. But truthfully while it's not the best at hauling a third of a cord of rounds, I don't feel devastated if I put a scratch on it on a 4wd trail or pulling someone out of the snow, and it's almost never let me down and keeps kicking on. Like AAPL stock, when I look at the other choices, it sure makes it hard to consider getting rid of it. I think getting airbags is a good enough reason to upgrade, if the money is not of much concern. Hope it never happens, but an airbag can save your life.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on May 15, 2015 12:41:31 GMT -8
A couple weeks ago, I read this comment from another blog:
I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking to scam me, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you leave this forum now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.
The previous comment was deleted.
Have a nice evening. I am going to the TWINS game!
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 15, 2015 13:06:04 GMT -8
I think getting airbags is a good enough reason to upgrade, if the money is not of much concern. Hope it never happens, but an airbag can save your life. Agreed!And up here in snow country (got 6" last night, and since we've lived here it's managed to snow every month buy July), traction control & anti-spin are important too. The minivan has all these bells and whistles, plus AWD, which is nearly a requirement up here. But on the old 4runner, it's the around town car, rarely getting above 25-30. Often airbags don't even deploy unless above 25, so technically it would be better for me to have mass on my side and a solid steel frame if staying below a crash speed of 25. That said, I think you're right. It's akin to someone riding a bike or skiing without a helmet these days. You're fine most of the time without it, but even if you are doing everything right, you don't know when someone else will hit you, you'll hit a bear or dear (ok, more likely a deer), or you'll hit a patch of ice. The prudent thing is to have some safety nets in place to help give you a chance. Thanks for the reminder. It's definitely on the immediate list if we start driving it more than 3k/year it's seeing now, and it's on the short list no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on May 15, 2015 13:18:41 GMT -8
She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes.... She'll be.... Monday still pops? Yep. 83 pct sure
|
|
|
Post by rickag on May 15, 2015 13:33:48 GMT -8
Can we safely assume you and your wife no longer car pool and your cars are newer than 16 years old? You know, part of my upbringing that I have tried to continue, sometimes to a fault, is being smart about spending. Why spend money on stuff you don't need, or that depreciate at a crazy fast rate? While our minivan is younger, my 4runner is a '92, now just about to turn 24 years old. I can afford a newer vehicle, but it's holding up well and given how little we drive it I just can't really think of a good reason to replace it. I've now owned it for 11 years, after buying it from a Kernel Engineer at Apple. I even tried to replace it a few years ago, moving into something with airbags when I was commuting over the mountain in bad conditions. But I didn't like it as much and ended up selling it instead of this one. It's not going to last forever, and depreciation has finally started to hit those 4runners that are only 10 years old that it makes them tempting. But truthfully while it's not the best at hauling a third of a cord of rounds, I don't feel devastated if I put a scratch on it on a 4wd trail or pulling someone out of the snow, and it's almost never let me down and keeps kicking on. Like AAPL stock, when I look at the other choices, it sure makes it hard to consider getting rid of it. Curious, I had a similar upbringing regarding being frugal. My Dad was retired military who saved all his life, once retired, around 1985, we were talking and he revealed he would really like a '65 or '66 Corvette. He could have bought one, in fact a childhood friend owned a very large Chevy dealership in New York that I know would have sold him one at cost, below cost, or just given it. But noooooooo, he drove a used Toyota hatchback he would only fill the gas tank half full to improve gas milage. I miss him dearly. I drive a 2010 Ford Focus, that I bought used. Could I afford to spend more, yes, will I no, it gets be back and forth to work and like you I don't worry if it gets a ding here or there in a parking lot. It does have air bags for those of you that worry about my safety. That said, if I had over 100,000 shares of AAPL, I definitely would splurge for a new Ford Focus.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 15, 2015 14:06:10 GMT -8
That said, if I had over 100,000 shares of AAPL, I definitely would splurge for a new Ford Focus. I'd rather a used Lotus over a new Focus, but we all have different tastes. Actually, a friend gave me a '92 3000gt a few years ago, after it failed CA smog and took up his only garage space for too long. Long story short, he had just dumped $10k into it (new tires, timing belt, clutch and suspension), but it had a strange clunking sound, and a slightly leaky head gasket. I eventually got it up here, after a few trips down there with 400lbs of tools in the 4runner. Those twin turbos, with a stock 0-60 of 4.2....well, I'd never driven a sports car with 300hp before. And it was AWD, so several people up here had had one in the past. It was fun, but I quickly finished off that head gasket, and still never determined how much underlying damage there was on that clunking cylinder. Too many other projects convinced me to sell it. I still wonder about how it could have been. But it was a mitsubishi, not exactly known for reliability. They juiced it for max power, not max longevity or reliability. Long ago I wanted a NSX. I'm still smitten with the looks of a lotus, especially with a toyota engine in it. But I've also decided that I drive so little that I'd rather skip it, and if I really need something to take up garage space I can buy a 3d mill or something fun like that that I'd probably use just as infrequently. Ahhh, the dreams.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on May 15, 2015 14:31:30 GMT -8
@jd
"That CHIP is actually cool. It and its class like Raspberry Pi and all the Android STB's like my Minix may seem irrelevant here, but they are the product of the mobile wars. Small, low-power CPU's are becoming as powerful as desktop-class chips were a few years ago. I wonder if they can run in parallel for a super-cheap supercomputer?"
I kinda get the whole thing but I was doing that in the 80s. Now using my devices to do stuff as opposed to doing stuff with my devices. i.e. Android fans love doing things to their devices as opposed to doing thing WITH their devices.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on May 15, 2015 16:08:55 GMT -8
As an aside - just switched to the short band on the Watch. I thin this is going to suit me better. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on May 16, 2015 12:01:20 GMT -8
As an aside - just switched to the short band on the Watch. I thin this is going to suit me better. YMMV. I was always planning to get the Milanese loop, but ordered a watch with the sport band because it was available sooner. I too am super happy with the sport band.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on May 16, 2015 19:40:13 GMT -8
I think getting airbags is a good enough reason to upgrade, if the money is not of much concern. Hope it never happens, but an airbag can save your life. Agreed!And up here in snow country (got 6" last night, and since we've lived here it's managed to snow every month buy July), traction control & anti-spin are important too. The minivan has all these bells and whistles, plus AWD, which is nearly a requirement up here. But on the old 4runner, it's the around town car, rarely getting above 25-30. Often airbags don't even deploy unless above 25, so technically it would be better for me to have mass on my side and a solid steel frame if staying below a crash speed of 25. That said, I think you're right. It's akin to someone riding a bike or skiing without a helmet these days. You're fine most of the time without it, but even if you are doing everything right, you don't know when someone else will hit you, you'll hit a bear or dear (ok, more likely a deer), or you'll hit a patch of ice. The prudent thing is to have some safety nets in place to help give you a chance. Thanks for the reminder. It's definitely on the immediate list if we start driving it more than 3k/year it's seeing now, and it's on the short list no matter what. I'm not 100% sure, but haven't they determined that it's better to have well-designed crumple zones rather than mass+solid steel?
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on May 16, 2015 20:55:14 GMT -8
Well-placed Crumple zones are good but they don't eliminate the need for airbags. But it's a good point - newer cars are definitely much safer for a multitude of reasons.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,635
|
Post by 4aapl on May 16, 2015 22:12:40 GMT -8
I'm not 100% sure, but haven't they determined that it's better to have well-designed crumple zones rather than mass+solid steel? I'd expect it would depend entirely on a few characteristics of the accident, namely the properties of what you hit. Dealing just with head-on's, you'd have the force of the object in the crash and how it hit. It's all about deceleration on an evenly distributed force. So think of a modified pool table, where if 2 equal weighted balls hit at the same speed, they'd each bounce off with the same force. But if one was much faster, or one much heavier, it would transfer that force, and both would continue on in one direction. Crumple zones on both cars would take some of that force away, and so there's be less bounce, and slower deceleration. Even so, against an object the same weight or smaller, or even on the same order of magnitude, extra mass would help that person....though so would crumple zones to absorb some energy and slow the deceleration. Switch over to a stationary or near-stationary object, and you'd want those crumple zones. Just like a tree or rock not moving much when a skier hits it, a reasonable sized tree or rock doesn't move much either. And when you get up to the energy of a crash that does move those, like the last big-rig to go into the nearby run-away truck ramp, there's worse things. On reasonable crashes against solid objects, you'd want crumple zones. But then there's those offset crashes, or crashes into a pole, that have gotten a lot of press in the past year. Many new vehicles don't do well against those. In those cases, a bit more steel to distribute that force would likely help a bit, but crumple zones absorb some of the force too. When my sister was just learning to drive, her boyfriend was letting her drive his '93 Integra, and out on a backroad she hit another student driver. Both were probably going 45, so maybe with a little braking they were in the 70-80mph impact range. The other car was something like a 82 Dodge Aires, and I went and saw the cars in the junk lot. The older car, solid steel, didn't have much damage. But the Integra, those crumple zones did what they were supposed to do. The front of the car looked terrible, with the engine compartment maybe 8-12 inches shorter that before. But from the speedometer cluster on back, there was no visible damage to the car. Crumple zones work! Aside from maybe the rare offset/pole crash that lets something get all the way into the passenger compartment because there's not enough steel to stop it, they should help you out. Extra mass is still good in some situations, but it can also be a detriment too, so it depends a little on what you are most worried about. Personally, I'm not that worried about a car crash. I've had over 20 years with no accidents, with only one 2mph parking lot accident when someone bumped into me. I did have one close call in the snow from me, and a couple worries from other drivers. But generally, when compared to skiing or bicycling at up to 50mph where a small bump could take you out, mountain biking up to faster speeds with trees and rocks, or running or riding on a road where an inattentive driver might feel a bump if they hit you.....well, all of these things would be much more painful and potentially deadly. That said, just like trying to avoid traffic in LA or the Bay Area, it's just not really feasible to avoid all life threatening risk. You can minimize some of those. Don't drive when drunks are likely out. Give 3 seconds space while driving! And like a speaker at a national lab I worked at told us, wait a second or two when the light turns green until going. Potentially getting t-boned is not worth getting to the next light 1 second faster. OTOH, you need to keep it in perspective. The former owner of my 4runner kept 2 sets of keys in his pockets, only using the set with his work keys on it in the truck. He was worried about getting car-jacked on his 2 mile commute in Cupertino. Truthfully it was a low-cost protection of being able to just walk away if the situation did happen, and if it helped him sleep better at night then so be it. But there were far more probable things that could happen.
|
|