Jump to content

NYinTex

Member
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

NYinTex's Achievements

3

Reputation

  1. no doubt the issues arising from the pinto rear-end collisions were horrible. But the article you cite and most others are hyperbole. Go back and read it again. All the claims are referencing an acknowledged "left-wing" magazine (their words, not mine). "... according to Mother Jones.', "... the magazine said...', "...Mother Jones asserted.', etc. Be careful. Don't believe the hype. There is too much BS out there propagated by biased people or organizations. We need to focus on facts for the conversations to be relevant.
  2. where does that article state aluminum is easier to recycle than anything (let alone steel)? It simply says aluminum recycle is good. Of course its good. So is all recycling rather than consuming additional natural resources. The point is, material of construction should not be dependent on any one issue. There is no "one size fits all", it depends on the application, the market, safety concerns, the cost of materials, etc. Any design that favors a single material of construction just for the sake of doing it isn't practical. Its a concept car. That's it.
  3. All cars have design decisions that weigh cost against safety, cost against convenience, cost against luxury, etc. Of course the pinto could have been designed to be safer... would $0.11 have "fixed' the "problem"? I am doubtful. Maybe it was an 0.11 part, but what other design and build issues would there have been? Design is more complicated than to simply say "an $.11 item would have stopped the Pintos from blowing up". That doesn't sound plausible to me.
  4. Aluminum may be best in some areas, steel (of various alloys) in others, plastics in others. I wouldn't guess aluminum recycle is any more lucrative than steel recycle.
  5. Any attempt at 100% of any metal doesn't make sense from an engineering point of view. Different areas have different stresses, functions and needs. Different safety objectives at different parts of the chassis and body. If they go 100% I'd guess it was more for marketing and public perception than functional advantage.
×
×
  • Create New...