Chinese car crash test results...
BE
score - in safety tests"
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
I guess in a country with a billion plus people, who cares about fatality
rates?
Daniel J. Stern
> "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
> worst-ever score - in safety tests"
Crash test videos:
Exterior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash.wmv
Interior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash_interior.wmv
At 45 km/h (28 mph), the driver has a 100% probability of dying.
It's only a matter of (not much) time before this garbage shows up in
North America, with every last safety and emissions certification test
thoroughly falsified. Malcolm Bricklin is doing his part to speed the
process along.
Look on the bright side: Those knuckledraggers who still blather on about
how they're preserving freedom and democracy by refusing to wear a
seatbelt will finally be a little less wrong: It won't matter, in "cars"
like this one.
DS
Dave
Did anyone else notice the freaking headrest bends forward just from
the impact force - nothing even contacts it. Aren't those supposed to
like, stay in place so that your head isn't getting slammed around?
Another fine product Made in China.
Dave
Floyd Rogers
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, BE wrote:
>> > "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
>> > worst-ever score - in safety tests"
>>
>> Crash test videos:
>> Exterior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash.wmv
>> Interior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash_interior.wmv
>>
>> At 45 km/h (28 mph), the driver has a 100% probability of dying.
>
> the impact force - nothing even contacts it. Aren't those supposed to
> like, stay in place so that your head isn't getting slammed around?
What I noticed was the totally useless airbag: if the steering wheel
is forced into the driver's neck and decapitates him, what use is keeping
the driver from dying from steering wheel impact?
FloydR
Ulf
A car with an airbag is conceived safer than one without.
>
> FloydR
Ulf
Daniel J. Stern
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/07-10-05_32
"The Landwind SUV's Chinese manufacturer yesterday presented documents to
prove that, contrary to reports circulating during the vehicle's launch at
the Frankfurt Motor Show, the Landwind SUV complies with all EU safety
standards. The importer says independent test performed by the German TÜV
institute make it clear that the Landwind SUV meets or surpasses all
current EU regulations for the safety of driver and occupants.
There were also comments during the Frankfurt Show on the striking
similarity of the Landwind to the now-discontinued Isuzu-based SUV
marketed in Europe as the Opel/Vauxhall Frontera.
At a press conference in The Hague, European distributor Peter Bijvelds
underlined that the Landwind aims to improve safety, comfort and fuel
efficiency standards further."
Uh-huh.
I am quite certain "the TüV institute in Germany" did no tests on this
vehicle. There are TüV-test labs all over the world, and some of them are
quite happy to rubberstamp whatever applications come across their desk,
as long as the attached check doesn't bounce.
I would ask how the Dutch importer manages to sleep at night, but those of
his type seldom have difficulty of that sort.
Daniel J. Stern
If you can sit through the unedited beginning part of the press conference
and not worry about the importer-MBAsshole prattling on in Dutch, the
Chinese guy comes on and talks (in Engrish) about how the ADAC test is a
lie because Landwind wasn't invited, the Landwind is The Right Choice, and
Landwind pass all Chinese safety tess. No driva or passaja lose duh life
in Landwind in China inna lass three yeea.
*spit*
223rem
JiangLing LandWind?! LMFAO... Who'd buy a car with such a name?
223rem
> "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the worst-ever
> score - in safety tests"
>
> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
Nate Nagel
why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
They did the crash tests and published the information, sounds like
their job is done. (so long as the vehicles have the required lighting
and pass all the relevant braking, handling etc. standards)
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Dave
And the Chinese Government is so well known for their policies on
openness and honesty, right? They'd never skew crash records to help a
business that serves The People's Interests.
Dave
Scott en Aztlán
Are you kidding? The Chinese government probably *encourages* these
unsafe cars. I guess limiting each couple to one child isn't keeping
the population down enough...
Pooh Bear
223rem wrote:
The same ppl who would buy a Hyundai Terracan ?
http://www.hyundai.co.uk/choose/terracan/
Have you forgotten the Datsun Cherry btw ? http://home.wanadoo.nl/i.y.vlaar/
Just look at how ugly the early ones are too.
Graham
Pooh Bear
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> I am quite certain "the TüV institute in Germany" did no tests on this
> vehicle. There are TüV-test labs all over the world, and some of them are
> quite happy to rubberstamp whatever applications come across their desk,
> as long as the attached check doesn't bounce.
It's actually my understanding that TUV is very strict.
Where did you get that idea ? I do actually have some real world experience of
test houses btw.
Graham
Pooh Bear
223rem wrote:
I agree. If it's that bad it shouldn't be sold.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Nate Nagel wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
> > BE wrote:
> >
> >> "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
> >> worst-ever score - in safety tests"
> >>
> >> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
> >
> >
> > European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
>
> why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
From unsafe choices ? yes - most certainly.
> They did the crash tests
No ! Governments don't do the tests !
> and published the information, sounds like
> their job is done. (so long as the vehicles have the required lighting
> and pass all the relevant braking, handling etc. standards)
It's the job of governments to regulate. That may include legislating
unsafe vehicles off the road.
Graham
Daniel J. Stern
>> I am quite certain "the TüV institute in Germany" did no tests on this
>> vehicle. There are TüV-test labs all over the world, and some of them
>> are quite happy to rubberstamp whatever applications come across their
>> desk, as long as the attached check doesn't bounce.
>
> It's actually my understanding that TUV is very strict.
Yes, they are. But there is a difference between TÜV labs and
TÜV-certified labs. The latter are not officially affiliated with TÜV, and
while the requirements for certification are on the tough side, in places
where the local standards of honesty and ethics are low, there's no
reputation to be lost and quite a bit of money to be gained by
rubberstamping and/or fabricating test results.
> Where did you get that idea?
One tends to pick this sort of detail up when he spends much of many of
his days working with directly-relevant automotive regulatory issues.
> I do actually have some real world experience of test houses btw.
Good.
Brent P
> "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the worst-ever
> score - in safety tests"
Well that's a given.
Brent P
> why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
> They did the crash tests and published the information, sounds like
> their job is done. (so long as the vehicles have the required lighting
> and pass all the relevant braking, handling etc. standards)
Problem is, these vehicles pass the relevant braking, handling, lighting,
etc tests the same way they passed the crash tests.
It's only a matter of time before some overcooked plastic resin that was
turned into a master clyinder reservoir springs a catastropic external leak
after it already had an internal one between the front and rear systems.
Nate Nagel
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>223rem wrote:
>>
>>>BE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
>>>>worst-ever score - in safety tests"
>>>>
>>>>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
>>
>>why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
>
>
> From unsafe choices ? yes - most certainly.
This is where I have to vociferously disagree. If this were to happen,
it's just one short step to saying "you can't drive an old Jeep CJ,
sports car, or SUV" for the same reason - actually you'd have a better
argument for outlawing all SUVs since they tend to pose an increased
risk to parties *other* than the driver, while the Chinese vehicle in
question obviously conforms to whatever it runs into.
Imagine if people like Carl Troller and Aunt Judy took your argument and
expanded it to cover some vehicle *you* liked... next thing you know
we'd all be driving Toyota Camrys.
Now, of course, you may say "but nobody actually *likes* these Chinese
POSes." That may well be true, but hey, I can't imagine anyone liking a
modern SUV but imagine the outcry if I tried to get them banned...
John S.
Given Bricklin's very long record of promoting automotive ventures then
leaving the owners holding shoddy products, I would never consider a
car with a tie to him.
ShazWozza
> It's only a matter of (not much) time before this garbage shows up in
> North America, with every last safety and emissions certification test
> thoroughly falsified. Malcolm Bricklin is doing his part to speed the
> process along.
>
> Look on the bright side: Those knuckledraggers who still blather on about
> how they're preserving freedom and democracy by refusing to wear a
> seatbelt will finally be a little less wrong: It won't matter, in "cars"
> like this one.
>
If these machines (or machines like them) arrive in the market and if they
are as dangerous as the test results suggest, then we can look forward to
seeing a spike in mortality and maiming figures for those vehicles relative
to others brands of machine.
A decent spike would also spell "class action" in most Western countries so
the manufacturers and their distributors will eventually learn to put a
value on safety.
With sustained high fuel prices the major threat to life and limb might not
arrive until the Chinese $5000 micro car segment gets busy.
Daniel J. Stern
>>>> European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
>>> why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
>> From unsafe choices ? yes - most certainly.
>
> This is where I have to vociferously disagree. If this were to happen, it's
> just one short step to saying "you can't drive an old
Wrong. It's no step, short or otherwise, to saying that sort of thing.
Canada, US Federal and international ECE safety regulations all apply only
to new vehicles, not to vehicles in use or their owners. In all cases, all
over the world, vehicles in use and their owners are regulated by a
completely different set of regulations. Canada, US Federal and
international ECE safety standards not only *don't* apply to "old"
vehicles (i.e., those that aren't brand new), but they *can't*.
There are no examples to be found of countries whose vehicle-in-use laws
require old vehicles to meet anything other than the safety standards that
applied *at the date of manufacture*, if even that.
The particular slippery slope you posit here does not exist.
Nate Nagel
The hell it doesn't. How many times have you heard people say "they
should outlaw (SUV's, Ferraris, off-road vehicles, large, gas-guzzling
cars)" and mean it? I hear crap like this all the time and it's only a
matter of time before some whiny, do-gooder Ralph Nader wannabe
introduces legislation outlawing some vehicle that YOU want to drive.
Heck, the real sports car has already been essentially legislated out of
existence... it's difficult to make a legal car that's anywhere near as
light as the sports cars of old.
I agree 100% that the Chinese whatever you want to call it is a
festering POS. But I do not agree that simply because I, or even a
majority of people, don't like something that it should be outlawed,
ESPECIALLY when the greatest risk it poses vs. a conventional vehicle is
to its own driver.
Pooh Bear
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>223rem wrote:
> >>
> >>>BE wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
> >>>>worst-ever score - in safety tests"
> >>>>
> >>>>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
> >>
> >>why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
> >
> >
> > From unsafe choices ? yes - most certainly.
>
> This is where I have to vociferously disagree. If this were to happen,
> it's just one short step to saying "you can't drive an old Jeep CJ,
> sports car, or SUV" for the same reason
Legislation is rarely retrospective for practical reasons.
There is *every* reason why rules shoule exist to stop unsafe vehicles
coming onto the new car market.
The EU regularly legislates for safety reasons.
It is illegal for example to place electrical equipment on the market in the
EU that doesn't confom to safety standards originated by the IEC. Failure to
comply if discovered will result in prosecution.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Nate Nagel wrote:
Thankfully your view ( that manufacturers should be allowed to sell any old
POS ) isn't prevalent in Europe.
Graham
Nate Nagel
I did not say that. What I said was, if the car meets all applicable
standards, we should not introduce new ones to prohibit it.
Also, I am vehemently opposed to any farther restrictions on vehicle
choice. Actually Europe is less restrictive than the USA, what with
CAFE and all. Apparently the US gov't doesn't feel comfortable letting
market forces work and have to screw everything up for us.
Nate Nagel
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>223rem wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
>>>>>>worst-ever score - in safety tests"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
>>>>
>>>>why not? is it their job to protect citizens from their poor choices?
>>>
>>>
>>>From unsafe choices ? yes - most certainly.
>>
>>This is where I have to vociferously disagree. If this were to happen,
>>it's just one short step to saying "you can't drive an old Jeep CJ,
>>sports car, or SUV" for the same reason
>
>
> Legislation is rarely retrospective for practical reasons.
You mean you haven't heard someone seriously sugget outlawing a
particular type of new vehicle? I hear it all the time. SUVs and
sports cars seem to be the favorite whipping boys.
>
> There is *every* reason why rules shoule exist to stop unsafe vehicles
> coming onto the new car market.
>
Unsafe to whom? Crash test results only indicate that a vehicle is
dangerous to its driver. It should be the driver's choice whether he's
willing to drive it or not, so long as the vehicle doesn't pose any
unusual hazard to others. Especially when that increased risk allows
the driver to save quite a chunk of change.
To look at it another way, we all know that the chinese make crap. Has
that stopped us from buying, say, Chinese machine tools or industrial
equipment? Should those be outlawed? why?
We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
> The EU regularly legislates for safety reasons.
>
Of course.
> It is illegal for example to place electrical equipment on the market in the
> EU that doesn't confom to safety standards originated by the IEC. Failure to
> comply if discovered will result in prosecution.
>
agreed, what's your point? Nobody's saying that these vehicles have
substandard electrics (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but
that's something else entirely)
Pooh Bear
Dave wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, BE wrote:
> >
> > > "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
> > > worst-ever score - in safety tests"
> >
> > Crash test videos:
> > Exterior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash.wmv
> > Interior cam: http://www.thecaddythatzigs.com/landwind_crash_interior.wmv
> >
> > At 45 km/h (28 mph), the driver has a 100% probability of dying.
> >
> > It's only a matter of (not much) time before this garbage shows up in
> > North America, with every last safety and emissions certification test
> > thoroughly falsified. Malcolm Bricklin is doing his part to speed the
> > process along.
> >
> > Look on the bright side: Those knuckledraggers who still blather on about
> > how they're preserving freedom and democracy by refusing to wear a
> > seatbelt will finally be a little less wrong: It won't matter, in "cars"
> > like this one.
> >
> > DS
>
> Did anyone else notice the freaking headrest bends forward just from
> the impact force - nothing even contacts it. Aren't those supposed to
> like, stay in place so that your head isn't getting slammed around?
>
> Another fine product Made in China.
Made in China it may be but it looks like a copy of the UK Vauxhall Frontera
that was itself a rebadged Isuzu vehicle. ( thank GM )
So - if you don't mind adding 'designed in Japan' then it would be more
accurate.
ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have been
killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old tooling to the
developing world and the old trash comes right back at you.
Graham
Ulf
Have you seen the Lotus Elise?
>
> I agree 100% that the Chinese whatever you want to call it is a
> festering POS. But I do not agree that simply because I, or even a
> majority of people, don't like something that it should be outlawed,
> ESPECIALLY when the greatest risk it poses vs. a conventional vehicle is
> to its own driver.
That's an exaggeration. The weight works against it in the crash test,
if the concrete block would have been an average European sized car the
outcome would have been vastly different.
>
> nate
>
Ulf
Pooh Bear
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
>
> > Legislation is rarely retrospective for practical reasons.
>
> You mean you haven't heard someone seriously sugget outlawing a
> particular type of new vehicle? I hear it all the time. SUVs and
> sports cars seem to be the favorite whipping boys.
And no legislation can touch them restrospectively.
If you're talking about *new* vehicles then they should be safe. There is *no
excuse* for unsafe vehicles with today's technology. Doesn't matter what category
it is.
> > There is *every* reason why rules shoule exist to stop unsafe vehicles
> > coming onto the new car market.
> >
>
> Unsafe to whom? Crash test results only indicate that a vehicle is
> dangerous to its driver. It should be the driver's choice whether he's
> willing to drive it or not, so long as the vehicle doesn't pose any
> unusual hazard to others. Especially when that increased risk allows
> the driver to save quite a chunk of change.
Europeans wisely look beyind the wild west view that it's important to the driver
ony.
How about the widow and her kids for example ? Is society expected to keep them on
welfare at the expense of the state because a dickhead husband wanted to drive a
dickhead unsafe car for show-off value ?
> To look at it another way, we all know that the chinese make crap.
If you believe that's invariably true, then you're an idiot of the grandest order.
> Has
> that stopped us from buying, say, Chinese machine tools or industrial
> equipment? Should those be outlawed? why?
They have to meet whatever is expected of them. If, say, you need a cheap power
tool that's only going to be used twice in its entire life for example then it's
a good choice. If you're a commercial builder you'll buy something that will last.
Price tends to be a better indicator of likely longevity and build quality than
the country of origin.
> We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
> that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
There's no excuse for SUVs being less safe. The legislation needs to be changed.
> > The EU regularly legislates for safety reasons.
> >
>
> Of course.
>
> > It is illegal for example to place electrical equipment on the market in the
> > EU that doesn't confom to safety standards originated by the IEC. Failure to
> > comply if discovered will result in prosecution.
> >
>
> agreed, what's your point? Nobody's saying that these vehicles have
> substandard electrics (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but
> that's something else entirely)
I was making the point about another category of imported goods that often come
from China.
No-one in their right mind would suggest it was sensible to import unsafe
electrical products. Maybe you would though ?
Graham
Nate Nagel
>
>>We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
>>that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
>
>
> There's no excuse for SUVs being less safe. The legislation needs to be changed.
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You're just an idiot, then.
Pooh Bear
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >
> >>We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
> >>that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
> >
> >
> > There's no excuse for SUVs being less safe. The legislation needs to be changed.
>
> Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You're just an idiot, then.
You think that selling unsafe vehicles is a 'good thing' ?
Are SUV's incapable of being made decently crashworthy ?
Is keeping cars dangerous your idea of progress ?
Legislation is needed to make manufacturers do what they can't currently be bothered
to do. The safety of today's ordinary cars is leauges ahead of what it was only 10 yrs
ago thanks to legislation. No way would it have happened any other way.
I'm puzzled by your 'life is cheap' approach to safety. I though that's exactly what
some ppl were criticising the Chinese for ?
Graham
Nate Nagel
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
>>>>that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
>>>
>>>
>>>There's no excuse for SUVs being less safe. The legislation needs to be changed.
>>
>>Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You're just an idiot, then.
>
>
> You think that selling unsafe vehicles is a 'good thing' ?
no. But that doesn't stop many, many vehicles from being sold every day
that all have safety tradeoffs in one area or another.
>
> Are SUV's incapable of being made decently crashworthy ?
>
no, but they are by definition unable to handle as well on road as a
normal passenger car, thus making them less safe.
> Is keeping cars dangerous your idea of progress ?
>
I give a rat's ass about progress. What is wrong with giving people
what they want?
> Legislation is needed to make manufacturers do what they can't currently be bothered
> to do. The safety of today's ordinary cars is leauges ahead of what it was only 10 yrs
> ago thanks to legislation. No way would it have happened any other way.
>
That's because the average consumer is stupid and expects the government
to take care of them. However, if the average person actually cared
about safety, the government wouldn't have had to legislate a thing.
> I'm puzzled by your 'life is cheap' approach to safety. I though that's exactly what
> some ppl were criticising the Chinese for ?
*I* want to be responsible for determining what level of safety I want,
not the gov't. For instance, I want to be able to choose whether or not
I want airbags in my car. But I can't, because people are too damned
stupid to wear their seatbelts, and beg the government to puh-leeeze
pass a law to keep them safe, rather than taking responsibility for
their own actions.
Daniel J. Stern
>> The particular slippery slope you posit here does not exist.
> The hell it doesn't.
Um...OK, if that's the level of debate here, sure, why not: IS NOT! IS
NOT! IS NOT TIMES A FINITY! IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
YOU IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!
> How many times have you heard people say "they should
> outlaw (SUV's, Ferraris, off-road vehicles, large, gas-guzzling cars)" and
> mean it?
Oh, lots of times. Lots of people say lots of things. So what? Not only
do we not live in the land of "Bewitched" where people who want to ban
this or mandate that (or whatever) can make it happen by wiggling their
nose, but your comments here are nonsequitorial to my careful explanation
of why your imagined slippery slope isn't real.
> Heck, the real sports car has already been essentially legislated out of
> existence... it's difficult to make a legal car that's anywhere near as
> light as the sports cars of old.
Your point would be...? New cars without sidemarker lights, new cars
without seatbelts and new cars without emission control systems are also
illegal to sell. This is a bad thing because...?
Daniel J. Stern
> You mean you haven't heard someone seriously sugget outlawing a
> particular type of new vehicle?
People suggest things all the time; that doesn't mean anything comes of
it. I would suggest that you're full of ignorant, steaming shit on this
issue; that doesn't mean you're going to shut up. See?
Daniel J. Stern
> I give a rat's ass about progress. What is wrong with giving people
> what they want?
Then this:
> That's because the average consumer is stupid
I believe you've answered your own question.
Daniel J. Stern
> ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have
> been killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old
> tooling to the developing world and the old trash comes right back at
> you.
China is one of the oldest civilisations extant on the planet. They paint
themselves as a "developing" country to gain the benefit of the Westerners
too damned stupid and greedy to realise they're being played like fiddles.
Daniel J. Stern
> if the car meets all applicable standards, we should not introduce new
> ones to prohibit it.
If a new vehicle that is demonstrably unsafe in some way that doesn't
happen to be covered (or covered adequately) by an existing safety
standard, then HELL YES a new one should be written and enacted.
Pooh Bear
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
I believe you've nailed it too !
Graham
Pooh Bear
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > http://www.jmclandwind.nl/live.php?stream=persconferentie
> >
> > If you can sit through the unedited beginning part of the press conference
> > and not worry about the importer-MBAsshole prattling on in Dutch, the
> > Chinese guy comes on and talks (in Engrish) about how the ADAC test is a
> > lie because Landwind wasn't invited, the Landwind is The Right Choice, and
> > Landwind pass all Chinese safety tess. No driva or passaja lose duh life
> > in Landwind in China inna lass three yeea.
> >
> > *spit*
>
> And the Chinese Government is so well known for their policies on
> openness and honesty, right? They'd never skew crash records to help a
> business that serves The People's Interests.
Actually, you might be interested to know that most big business in China that
exports isn't government owned at all.
Graham
Pooh Bear
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
In what way do you not think they're developing ?
Graham
Brent P
>> Another fine product Made in China.
>
> Made in China it may be but it looks like a copy of the UK Vauxhall Frontera
> that was itself a rebadged Isuzu vehicle. ( thank GM )
>
> So - if you don't mind adding 'designed in Japan' then it would be more
> accurate.
Just because the chinese stole a design doesn't mean it's the same
product. In fact, one should expect it to be vastly inferior in every
measure.
> ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have been
> killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old tooling to the
> developing world and the old trash comes right back at you.
Such licensing is the expection, not the rule. And often it's not the old
tooling either, but duplicate tooling and often the cars are sold in the
various markets in parallel. They just don't get discontinued in the
other nations.
N8N
There's still nothing wrong with giving people what they want.
Otherwise they will *remain* stupid, not learning from their mistakes,
and grow resentful of the government for limiting their choices.
nate
N8N
So we should outlaw SUVs then?
you see where this goes, don't you? Do you really want to go there?
nate
Daniel J. Stern
>>> if the car meets all applicable standards, we should not introduce new
>>> ones to prohibit it.
>>
>> If a new vehicle that is demonstrably unsafe in some way that doesn't
>> happen to be covered (or covered adequately) by an existing safety
>> standard, then HELL YES a new one should be written and enacted.
>
> So we should outlaw SUVs then?
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
> you see where this goes, don't you?
I see where it goes in your head, and I see where it goes in the real
world. The two destinations aren't even on the same map.
JohnH
No worse than "Hummer" (aka blowjob)
"Chevy LUV"? FFS!
"Dodge Ram"? Which do you do?
JohnH
> BE wrote:
>> "The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the
>> worst-ever score - in safety tests"
>>
>
> European governments should not allow these cars on the road.
I'm sure the insurance premium would offset any "savings" anyway.
N8N
I'm not putting words in your mouth, just engaging myself in a little
reductio ad absurdum. I guess I just don't trust giving the gov't any
more power to regulate than it already has, as most attempts to
legislate safety since the early 70's have had mixed results at best
and decidedly negative ones at worst. The unintended consequences of
outlawing these vehicles could be staggering, much like airbags or
CAFE...
nate
JohnH
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>>>> if the car meets all applicable standards, we should not introduce
>>>> new ones to prohibit it.
>>>
>>> If a new vehicle that is demonstrably unsafe in some way that
>>> doesn't happen to be covered (or covered adequately) by an existing
>>> safety standard, then HELL YES a new one should be written and
>>> enacted.
>>
>> So we should outlaw SUVs then?
>
> I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
He didn't - he asked a logical question. Why not answer?
>> you see where this goes, don't you?
>
> I see where it goes in your head, and I see where it goes in the real
> world. The two destinations aren't even on the same map.
It is a logical extension of your "HELL YES" statement.
Daniel J. Stern
> I'm not putting words in your mouth, just engaging myself in a little
> reductio ad absurdum.
Oh, well, OK, then! (Note: Reductio ad absurdum is just as fallacious as
a strawman, a red herring, a slippery slope, etc.)
> I guess I just don't trust giving the gov't any more power to regulate
> than it already has
Well, certainly that's reasonable. This (US) government has done a
miserable job of regulating auto safety. Other governments have done a
much better job, producing safer cars and safer roads with greater vehicle
choice.
Daniel J. Stern
>>>> If a new vehicle that is demonstrably unsafe in some way that doesn't
>>>> happen to be covered (or covered adequately) by an existing safety
>>>> standard, then HELL YES a new one should be written and enacted.
>>>
>>> So we should outlaw SUVs then?
>>
>> I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
>
> He didn't - he asked a logical question.
He threw a non-sequitur into the ring. I will not pick it up. Whether SUVs
should be banned or not is a different topic.
Pooh Bear
Brent P wrote:
> In article <4352D89C...@hotmail.com>, Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >> Another fine product Made in China.
> >
> > Made in China it may be but it looks like a copy of the UK Vauxhall Frontera
> > that was itself a rebadged Isuzu vehicle. ( thank GM )
> >
> > So - if you don't mind adding 'designed in Japan' then it would be more
> > accurate.
>
> Just because the chinese stole a design doesn't mean it's the same
> product. In fact, one should expect it to be vastly inferior in every
> measure.
What makes you think they stole it ?
I expect it's a licencing deal. Why would it be inferior ? You clearly don't know
much about Chinese manufacturing.
Did you know that the highest volume car in China is a VW Jetta for example ?
> > ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have been
> > killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old tooling to the
> > developing world and the old trash comes right back at you.
>
> Such licensing is the expection, not the rule. And often it's not the old
> tooling either, but duplicate tooling and often the cars are sold in the
> various markets in parallel. They just don't get discontinued in the
> other nations.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion ?
Graham
Brent P
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <4352D89C...@hotmail.com>, Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> >> Another fine product Made in China.
>> >
>> > Made in China it may be but it looks like a copy of the UK Vauxhall Frontera
>> > that was itself a rebadged Isuzu vehicle. ( thank GM )
>> >
>> > So - if you don't mind adding 'designed in Japan' then it would be more
>> > accurate.
>>
>> Just because the chinese stole a design doesn't mean it's the same
>> product. In fact, one should expect it to be vastly inferior in every
>> measure.
>
> What makes you think they stole it ?
You seem to be working under that assumption. (BTW, there's no such thing
as intellectual property in china.
> I expect it's a licencing deal.
If you don't have a clue, then don't post.
> Why would it be inferior ? You clearly don't know
> much about Chinese manufacturing.
I know much about chinese manufacturing. As I've posted before in this
NG, I once had the pleasure of having the same parts made at different
companies world wide. Many different parts over a period of years. The
ones from china were almost always the worst quality.
The one exception was the decorative labels. The vendor we used in China
was very good, the one in europe was shit.
>> > ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have been
>> > killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old tooling to the
>> > developing world and the old trash comes right back at you.
>> Such licensing is the expection, not the rule. And often it's not the old
>> tooling either, but duplicate tooling and often the cars are sold in the
>> various markets in parallel. They just don't get discontinued in the
>> other nations.
> Do you have any evidence to support that assertion ?
General automotive and manufacturing knowledge. Most places had the
vehicles in concurent production which would require multiple sets of
tooling.
Matthew Russotto
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>We all know that SUVs are less safe than ordinary passenger cars. Does
>> >>that mean that we should outlaw SUVs? Why not?
>> >
>> >
>> > There's no excuse for SUVs being less safe. The legislation needs to be changed.
>>
>> Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You're just an idiot, then.
>
>You think that selling unsafe vehicles is a 'good thing' ?
Compare any two different vehicles. One will be safer than the
other. Should the less safe one be banned?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
I thought they killed off a lot of the educated people during the Great
Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or one of those other names
for massacres. That would tend to set a country back a bit.
Matthew Russotto
>
>> I'm not putting words in your mouth, just engaging myself in a little
>> reductio ad absurdum.
>
>Oh, well, OK, then! (Note: Reductio ad absurdum is just as fallacious as
>a strawman, a red herring, a slippery slope, etc.)
No. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical technique, also known as proof by
contradiction. It consists of demonstrating that accepting a premise
leads to an absurd (obviously false or self-contradictory) conclusion.
Daniel J. Stern
> Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical technique
Most of the world disagrees with you.
gcmsc...@gmail.com
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, JohnH wrote:
>
> >>>> If a new vehicle that is demonstrably unsafe in some way that doesn't
> >>>> happen to be covered (or covered adequately) by an existing safety
> >>>> standard, then HELL YES a new one should be written and enacted.
> >>>
> >>> So we should outlaw SUVs then?
> >>
> >> I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
> >
> > He didn't - he asked a logical question.
>
> He threw a non-sequitur into the ring.
Bullshit.
You did not exclude any vehicle type. It ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWS that SUVs
should be regulated, according to your argument above.
Now, if you can demonstrate *why* it should be non sequitur, I'll
address that.
E.P.
The Real Bev
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.05...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
> Daniel J. Stern <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> >> ISTR that the Frontera fared badly in crash tests too. It should have
> >> been killed off but the auto makers can't resist selling their old
> >> tooling to the developing world and the old trash comes right back at
> >> you.
> >
> >China is one of the oldest civilisations extant on the planet. They paint
> >themselves as a "developing" country to gain the benefit of the Westerners
> >too damned stupid and greedy to realise they're being played like fiddles.
Somebody said that China had been conquered many times by outsiders, but that
the outsiders soon became Chinese. Given Chinese dietary practices -- if it
won't kill you it's edible -- I can believe this.
> I thought they killed off a lot of the educated people during the Great
> Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or one of those other names
> for massacres. That would tend to set a country back a bit.
OTOH, is it too far-fetched to believe that perhaps the smartest people
figured out a way to avoid the massacre?
--
Cheers,
Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
'many blood-sucking leeches.' -- Mark Russell
Matthew Russotto
If I believed you, that would simply make most of the world a bunch of
idiots, and that's hardly news. I don't. In any case, the reductio remains a
valid technique, whether you alone or you and the rest of the world disagree.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ReductioadAbsurdum.html
Matthew Russotto
The Real Bev <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> I thought they killed off a lot of the educated people during the Great
>> Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or one of those other names
>> for massacres. That would tend to set a country back a bit.
>
>OTOH, is it too far-fetched to believe that perhaps the smartest people
>figured out a way to avoid the massacre?
Some of them did so by leaving the country, which doesn't help the
country.
223rem
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>> I'm not putting words in your mouth, just engaging myself in a little
>> reductio ad absurdum.
>
>
> a strawman, a red herring, a slippery slope, etc.
Nope. Reductio ad absurdum, aka proof by contradiction, is a perfectly valid
proof technique.
Alex Rodriguez
>
>
>"The first Chinese car to be sold in Europe has scored zero - the worst-ever
>score - in safety tests"
>
>http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
>
>rates?
Who is surprised by the results? I'm sure the car manufacturer isn't.
------------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
david...@gmail.com says...
>Did anyone else notice the freaking headrest bends forward just from
>the impact force - nothing even contacts it. Aren't those supposed to
>like, stay in place so that your head isn't getting slammed around?
Scary!
------------
Alex