Lightness

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

Wasn't really so tough. I said as much on page two.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And yes, I am fine with it being "unsafe". I drive 3 miles to work each way and almost never get over 35 MPH. I don't need air bags. Air bags are just fine and people who want them should be able to get them. But I should be able to buy a car without them if that is my choice.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

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

Wasn't really so tough. I said as much on page two.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And yes, I am fine with it being "unsafe". I drive 3 miles to work each way and almost never get over 35 MPH. I don't need air bags. Air bags are just fine and people who want them should be able to get them. But I should be able to buy a car without them if that is my choice.

Great! Now all we need is a document, signed to a few thousand like minded car guys to petition the House of Representatives. I'm open to the wording, so if someone else wants to propose something, that would be cool. If not, I can write it. I think the general approach might be "Equal Rights for Cars," or something along those lines, underlining the disparity between safety laws for light fuel efficient cars, which are strict, and motorcycles, which are basically non-existant. What do you think? Can we capture the momentum? -Doug

Dpvog wrote: I think the general approach might be "Equal Rights for Cars," or something along those lines, underlining the disparity between safety laws for light fuel efficient cars, which are strict, and motorcycles, which are basically non-existant. What do you think? Can we capture the momentum? -Doug

i think the only thing that could come of that is that motorcycles start being regulated too and end up like this...

Toyman01 wrote:

I for one would like to apologize to the OP and the GRM community for my part in this. Ug.

At the risk of pulling this thing back on topic, here's an interesting article. Lotus gets $2million to perform lightweight vehicle study: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/09/lotus-engineering-gets-2m-from-california-for-lightweight-vehic/

Dpvog wrote: I think the general approach might be "Equal Rights for Cars," or something along those lines, underlining the disparity between safety laws for light fuel efficient cars, which are strict, and motorcycles, which are basically non-existant. What do you think?

I think they would realize they'd been overlooking motorcycles, and release a glut of regulation for 2-wheeled vehicles.

ReverendDexter wrote: "I think they would realize they'd been overlooking motorcycles, and release a glut of regulation for 2-wheeled vehicles."

It's possible, but I doubt it. Motorcycles have not avoided the safety police by accident. Most motorcycle riders are pretty passionate about riding, like NRA members about their guns. Riding a Harley is not a casual, matter-of-fact decision the way driving a car is. If the government suddenly attempted to aggressively legislate motorcycle design the way they have with cars, for a lot of motorcyclists, it would become a single vote political litmus test. No politician wants to take on an issue like that because there's simply no political upside. If you're in Congress and support automobile safety and vote for a bill that says all cars must have airbags, no one really cares that much (as we've seen here). But if you try to require that all motorcycles have a roll bar and a seat belt, it would be like wacking a hornet's nest with a stick. If you think about it, the majority of the states don't even have the votes necessary to pass a helmet law, so where would the political muscle and will suddenly come from to go toe to toe with every dude who rides a Harley Davidson? If you were in Congress, why would you risk it?

They are already trying to make it harder to license home-built and custom motorcycles, along with tighter emissions regs.

4eyes wrote: They are already trying to make it harder to license home-built and custom motorcycles, along with tighter emissions regs.

Who is "they"? Licensing is done state-by-state for bikes and cars, not federally. I think we're mostly talking about the feds right now.

I'm siding with the "it's the consumers" side of this argument.

I started with a 2,855 lb 1994 Honda Accord two-door sedan (LX/5 speed).

The mandatory safety equipment I removed consisted of two airbags and their related wiring and sensors (20 lbs), and all headlights and taillights excluding one rear brake light (20 lbs).

Before installing the cage and seat, another 550 pounds disappeared from the car, none of which was required to make the car run well.

A Sparco seat weighs about 30 lbs, so four of them would put 120 lbs back in. Harnesses are about 6 pounds each, about the weight of the OE seatbelts. Side curtains and a rear mesh window for a car of that size would weigh around 20 lbs.

So from the totally-stripped-out weight of around 2150 lbs, approximately 200 pounds can be attributed to what is required to make the car safe and legal, and approximately 500 lbs can be attributed to comfort and convenience items.

I hereby dub this thread: LAZARUS.

ReverendDexter wrote: +1 to consumer, not government. The problem here is that the vocal crowd that wants cheap, light, simple cars, is the crowd that looks at the cheapest new car on a dealer lot and says "Why would I pay that much for a car?!?" and goes and buys used. You want light cars, you have to buy NEW ones when they come out. Show the manufacturers that yes there is a market for these things, and if you make them, you WILL make money. Not buying the bloated ones isn't enough, there's enough normals going out and proving the profitability of bloat.

That's what I did. I bought a Corvette instead of a Mustang :). Three or four hundred pounds lighter.

Dpvog wrote:

4eyes wrote: They are already trying to make it harder to license home-built and custom motorcycles, along with tighter emissions regs.

Who is "they"? Licensing is done state-by-state for bikes and cars, not federally. I think we're mostly talking about the feds right now.

NJ requires all frames be built by a licensed professional and that new kit built cars conform to all emissions and safety to the date the car is registered (not by what it looks like..) hence a lotus 7 clone registered today, would have to conform to all of the emissions and safetly features that cars made in 2011 have

DaveEstey wrote: I hereby dub this thread: LAZARUS.

Is LAZARUS code for gravedigging?

If so, I hereby dub you: CORRECT.

Still... Good thread.

J308 wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: I hereby dub this thread: LAZARUS.

Is LAZARUS code for gravedigging? If so, I hereby dub you: CORRECT. Still... Good thread.

Lazarus of Bethany is the man that Christ restores to life in the Gospel of John.

lol, I know who he was.

I was speaking in terms of GRM code I do not know, such as Berkeley-ing (sp?) and C@noeing. <---don't want to cause the mods work on this one.

So I guess that is a no, it's not code, but yes, it is bringing thee back to life.