The car conspiracy

Might be belong to /a/ in hindsight but it has a political aspect of altering consumer goods

>>130337359
Early Mustangs were made of reinforced tinfoil.
Also planned obsolescence was a thing even back then.

>>130337359
>>Old cars had steel bodies which keps them intact after impact

yeah, the cars are ok but the people in them are fucking dead

learn to physics

>>130338929
There were no airbags either anon

>>130337359
I actually backed in to my newish car recently at nontrivial speed with 2-3x the weight.

It was a lucky hit, but I was pretty impressed how the bumper took it up the ass and my car held up. My car is known for its rigid chassis though. $1k to have a few panels replaced, and I don't even need to do that because it's just cosmetic anyway.

>>130337698
>Might be belong to /a/ in hindsight
Only if you're talking about GTOs

>>130337359
My question is how come the new cars weigh more than their older counterparts? They're all plastic so where is that extra weight coming from?

>>130337359
>Prius

You answered your own question

>>130339277
>There were no airbags either anon

the biggest life saver is still the seat belt, also crumple zones are also important, airbags just reduce the last bit. They are the difference between being injured or going away with bruises.
Not between being dead or injured.

>>130337359
Don't crash!

>>130337359
There's definitely some truth to your argument, but at the end of the day regulations have created a massive barrier of entry into the industry(this is why you hardly see new car companies). This always stagnates innovation, especially as in our case when they screw up and just get bailed out by the government because they are "too big to fail" when it really just means the industry is to regulated for new companies to enter.

But also those cars are made that way to increase safety to the occupants. Look at the miles driven per fatality, it's was astronomically higher 50 years ago. They are also made cheaper and lighter(at least in the US) to meet fuel mileage standards. Obviously the easiest way to increase fuel mileage on a car is to strip weight out.

Tldr if you want to blame something, look at the government, as always.

>>130338929
this
op is a faggot

>>130339855
the roof needs to be supported with bigger beams because muh rollover safety. more airbags, bigger cabins cuz muh safety, taller hoods cuz muh pedestrian safety. Stuff like this adds up

>>130340127
>government
Good point anon

What do you think about Tesla though?

>>130339855
Front and rear bumpers are all plastic, however the Gov. has strict side impact safety standards. This means stronger b pillars and much thicker metal in the frame/doors.

>>130339855
I don't think they do really. It's harder to get a lightweight one without it being a death trap cuckshed, but for normie cars it seems more like a redistribution of weight.

My first car I wrecked in to two concrete barriers fishtailing and in retrospect should have totalled it. But no airbags went off and nobody got hurt. Friends' car about the same time he rolled it into a ditch and my friend and the car both came out fine.

Rigid chases best chases?

>>130338929
A '70 Chevelle is worth far more then 90% of the people alive.

>>130340127
>They are also made cheaper and lighter(at least in the US) to meet fuel mileage standards. Obviously the easiest way to increase fuel mileage on a car is to strip weight out.
Modern cars are increasing in mileage and lifespan while also increasing in weight.

File: 4c (183).jpg (58KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x462px

>>130337359
OP is 100% wrong and doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.,

>>130337359
I drive a 96 f150 runs grate vary easy to work on

>>130340313
Tesla is a total meme being propped up by government money

>>130340313
Don't know much about them to be fair. With it being Elon Musk and electric cars and such, it reeks of government subsidies, grants, and no interest loans that a regular startup wouldn't get and that's how it got off the ground. I know he had to raise a shitload of money to just get it off the ground and Daimler saved their ass at one point I think. Pretty unique case.

But it should tell you somethings wrong when you don't see a million startup companies for an industry worth maybe trillions of dollars annually.

but my car is 41 years old and is made from fiberglass OP?

Those weak cars are designed to crumple so that the forces from impact are redistributed away from the people in the car.

Older cars take far more maintenance to keep running as they age, meanwhile a honda accord will last twenty years if you replace the oil regularly

>>130341158
What is it anon and do you like it? Hoomobile is fun, but I miss the feeling something closer to a little roadster.

>>130338929
/thread

>>130341285
I got drunk and bought a reliant robin because top gear and MEMES. its fun but at the same time very, very shit as a car.

its not really a car it weighs under half a ton

>>130340836
Youre right in that they weigh more than a generation ago but in the last few years they have begun decreasing in weight

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-10 at 9.36.48 PM.png (1MB, 1210x649px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1210x649px

>>130337359
Welcome to the new world order. Just today I bought my 7th apple macsafe(myass) charger for my macbook. The cables break like every couple of months and are basically just a fire hazard. I have another old ass computer from 1999. Those candy looking macbooks. The charger for that one is still intact after almost 20 years. So yeah, they are doing that on purpose to profit more. Fucking dirty jews.

File: sanic.jpg (83KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x360px

>>130337359
Its all about the IMPACT SPEED.

>>130337359
This is all new tech. It's not built to last. They are built with the framework of making more money off unforseen expenses.
We probably already have the technology for reliable, powerful, fuel-free/recyclable, inexpensive machines. Who would ever release something like that publicly?

>>130341505
>reliant robin
top lolz
Good for you. You have probably lived more than many will ever know.

its because people lease instead of buy
cars only need to last 4 years now.

>>130341815
Lol nigga youve been spending way to much time on reddit.
You have to go back.
The technology doesn't work/exist.

>>130337359
....Have you even drive in a old car... They were poorly made death traps. Nearly every restored car you see looks better than they did coming out of the factory. NIGGER Do you like 50k mile engine rebuilds? DO YOU?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
safest car of its time and look. Old cars would kill you via internal injury and be poorly fixed for the next moron. Also look at 80s chevy truck hoods.. They had to alter the design to bend as to not cut off the drivers head.

Fucking MAGA morons...

>>130337359
>driving a new car so the CIA can kill you

>>130338457
The amount of V8s with ever increasing bores is a prime example of that. Even the bmw M10 engine was designed to eventually be bored to 2 litters.

I get triggered when people with old cars say
>well I got into an accident and my car is fine, the other got destroyed

That's because the energy from your car got absorbed by the other car's crumple zone, making it a safer, slower stop for your old shitbox. However, the driver with the newer car suffered a tougher impact than he would have if he were to hit another new car with crumple zones. If two old shitboxes collide, it would be twisted metal and ground meat.

>>130337359
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
don't even >but da rust
Nigger even brand new cars have rust and good luck finding a 100% rust free pre 80s car

>>130342402
When you have a minor accident in one of those old shitboxes it's pretty trivial. It doesnt damage 2 grand worth in fucked up plastics/fiberglass.
When you get in a major wreck, you die.
Thats the token difference really. Crumple points make for a very expensive repair while in a total loss wreck you'll actually live. Dont be a moron and collide with someone head on.

>>130337359
>>>/n/

>>130337359
Or >>>/o/

>>130337359
>What can we do about this
take the bus

>>130342909
shame they destroyed such a nice looking bel air

>>130343056
>>130343148
>wah I can't handle car talk
cry more, busrider

File: Capture.png (82KB, 651x227px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 651x227px

>>130337359
this is a safety feature you dumbass. They literally teach this shit in school. Force=mass x acceleration, accel=velocity/time, when time is smaller, accel is higher and so the force applied is higher. Cars are designed to crumple so that the time over which the force is applied to your body is increased so that the force is smaller and therefore decreasing the risk of fatal injury on collision.

>>130339855
Interiors are heavy, and the cars themselves are pigfag hueg because of safety features.

>>130342909
Hmm, yep I want my car to be the steel one that collapses around me and decapitates me.

>>130341505
>I bought a reliant robin
/o/ would love you.

OP, new cars get rekt after a collision because they're designed to crumple instead of transferring all the force into the driver. Look up what impulse is in relation to physics.

File: 1469406914787.jpg (140KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 750x422px

The Chinese are coming with their supercars for cheap.

File: next youll say i was only predending to be retarded.png (536KB, 850x567px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 850x567px

>>130343714
They are designed so that only the areas where passengers are not seated (assuming seatbelt is worn) are to crumple up, leaving your car totalled, but you safe.

File: 1491584627325.jpg (27KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 555x555px

STFU op.

https://youtu.be/joMK1WZjP7g

https://youtu.be/L7o2MB6DuKk

https://youtu.be/xidhx_f-ouU

https://youtu.be/zxDHuthGIS4

I would tell you to kill yourself but I'm afraid you're stupid enough to actually do it and I'll end up in court over it.

File: magickek.jpg (95KB, 436x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 436x600px

>>130337359
it reflects the meme of existential being since the very beginning of the cosmos which humanity should consider in nature of being

File: Infantilization.png (3MB, 1502x1194px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1502x1194px

>>130337359
New cars have the oversized appendages and puffy, marshmallow styling of a toddler's toy. I think they are a form of infantilization pushed on the plebs from above

>>130337359

Everything crumble easy now so you need to buy it again, duuur capitalism 101, mongol

>>130337359
It's not a conspiracy, it's just the free market at work.

Don't want a flimsy car? Don't buy one.
Don't want a soul crushing office job? Don't take it.
Don't want to use the road? Then you don't have to pay.

>>130337359
The idea is that energy is absorbed by crushing the vehicle body instead of by the passengers and so they design the car to do this. At the same time they also make cars out of plastic to make them lighter for better fuel performance.

The problem is that when you combine both of the above it also destroys the entire car but as you've said manufacturers don't care because that means more car sales.

I'd like to see them start using carbon composites (strength of steel but much lower weight) more but they're very expensive still.

>>130337698
Only if you're talking about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuFSv2bLa8

>>130346918
>The idea is that energy is absorbed by crushing the vehicle body instead of by the passengers and so they design the car to do this. At the same time they also make cars out of plastic to make them lighter for better fuel performance.

I mean, I can't blame them, in the end a car is used as a way to get from A to B, most days will not be a happening scenario where you need to move a tank around.

If you look at it from a different angle, another year has passed, a lot of unnecessary fuel was consumed. Maybe a backup car would be better.

>>130339915
>crumple zones

That term is a misnomer really, the entire car is made to collapse on impact. It's not like you have sacrificial bumpers on the thing.

>>130341815
First person who did release that would be richer than most nation states. That retarded shit doesn't exist.

>>130347273
False.

>>130347689
>A leaf

File: Unfiltered.jpg (39KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 570x570px

>>130337359
The cars were great but about as safe as a pack of wild niggers strung out on PCP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

The Cars were fucking powerful, reliable and strong but anything more than a fender bender will likely leave you permanently crippled or dead.

Today's cars will leave you alive but a broken sensor/wire harness will fuck you over for thousands.

File: 1491971793660.jpg (26KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x441px

>>130347733
>calls a leaf a leaf as he hides his flag

>>130347733
A leaf that's a mechanic. The passenger component of the car is not a "crumple zone".

>>130337359
The steel vs plastic thing has a lot to do with collision test ratings, if you crash into something and the car just abrubtly stops (without the crumbling) the kinetic force that you are subjected to is much greater vs if your car crumbles as you call it then the kinetic force will be mitigated.

A big part of it is also the fact that most cars that are fabricated will merely be put into these huge car lots where they stand and rot away because they sell vastly fewer cars then there are produced. It's basically a jobs program for the third world.

>tbone some nig's maxima with my 06 corolla
>30/35mph, spun him 360°
>drove away with nothing but a couple cracks in my bumper and a little pinch on the edge of the hood
like a humble samurai, it watches over it's master and smites all in its path.

File: dd_01_filet.jpg (39KB, 525x301px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 525x301px

Check-in in.

>>130347837
The steel frames of modern cars are much higher quality than anything found on the old dinosaurs.

>>130337359
Weren't American cars literally built to disintegrate after 5 years prior to the Japanese getting into the auto industry in a big way

>>130347733
Yes modern cars have crumple zones. Have you ever read or watched anything on modern car design?

>>130347862
Fine everything except the inside of the roll cage is made to be crushed.

'Crumple zone' is still a misnomer when any moderate impact has your entire engine compartment shrink to 1/3 of it's normal size.

>>130337359
10 years no claims discount, £27 a month insurance. If you are a good driver you will never have an accident.

>>130337359
Planned obsolescence is something that has been going strong the entire decade, and it's been standardized in many industries, to the point that now it's a norm and car industries havej ust cut the middleman, by lending you a car for 4 to 5 years, then letting you decide if you want to spend more to fully buy the car that's now 4-5 years old, or pay less and get a new car for another 4-5 years.
While this is a genius move in theory, in practice it is bleeding them dry on the long run and they don't even understand why. Turns out you're strangling the market and it's slowly but surely biting you in the ass, every year more.

>>130337359
>Build car that never needs replaced
>Everyone in the world buys one
>Company now bankrupt
>No need for any other car manufacturer ever

Do you even (((capitalism)))? Remember Lisa vs Malibu Stacey? You know the guys who disregard Lisa's tumblr doll because Malibu Stacey has a shitty new hat? It's the same basic doll, but it has a shitty new hat. That's (((capitalism))) and the goys literally lap it up because they're so woke.
The best part of it all though is these same goys will pretend to care about the environment because the same (((people))) who destroy it tell them to. Obviously (((they))) don't name themselves because that would be ridiculous, they claim it's the establishment, but the best part is that (((they))) are the (((establishment))). It's a ruse wrapped in a coax riding the snafu express wearing a mask of trickery!
But the goys don't get that and never will. That's why they're goys. Their own reflection could drop a ton of bricks made of self awareness directly on top of them and they still wouldn't understand what hit them.

>>130337359
>Government conspiracy
take a fucking physics class.
if a car crashes and gets torn apart, this saves energy from going to the driver's fragile body. energy is spent sending things flying and spinning and shit. if a car is made of sturdy metals, where does that energy go? right into vibrating the driver's body and organs, causing damage.

>>130337359
Steel is heavier which means slower acceleration and lower fuel efficiency. Modern cars are designed to crumple to absorb the impact of a crash instead of sending drivers through the windshield.

I think you can kind of find a happy medium between brand-new cars and just slightly old cars. My 20-year-old Volvo is a war horse, needs very little maintenance, is incredibly reliable, and gets decent gas mileage. It also has full side and front airbags and full impact protection on the sides and in front/back so driver and passengers are well protected from impact. I don't know how well it would crumple in the case of a major accident but I have no plans to find out. It's a very good car to have for every day driving around town, and I'm a careful and responsible driver. I also just like it. Swedish engineering used to be a fantastic thing.. As some comedian said "Volvos, they're boxy but they're good."

Look at YouTube video of old cars hitting new cars. I'd rather be in a new car.
T. First car was a 66 Mustang 289.

>New cars are weak and will crumble easily unlike old cars that were build like tanks.

You are clearly no mechanic. Modern autos are designed to collapse in a manner dissipating impact to protect the passenger. The survival of the vehicle is irrelevant, and many vehicles going as far as you care to whose structure took hits well killed their occupants because those occupants were not restrained and otherwise protected from impact with the interior.

>Its so hopeless to be a car lover these days

No, but your gross ignorance isn't doing you any favors. Your statement makes zero sense. If you love autos, then drive what you like but don't you fucking dare pretend you know more than "hurf, durf, so shiney!".

Your accident comparison is silly because it contains no measured data.

Your picture of Mustangs is even sillier. I've worked on the 1960s shitbox Mustangs which were cheaply built, rust easily, and don't protect the occupants well at all. You like the styling because you are a girl, but the new Mustang is a vastly better car which functions better in every way.

Now GTFO and if you are honestly curious go study vehicles. You demonstrated you cannot make an informed post.