Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Monocoque vs. body on frame, once and for all:

  1. #1
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408

    Monocoque vs. body on frame, once and for all:


  2. #2
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    These vermin crashed a now-rare Chevrolet Bel Air to pat themselves on the back, like they had anything to do with highway safety over the last 50 years. They didn't. They couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.

  3. #3
    Ridin Dirty dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Front Royal, VA
    Posts
    1,606
    Yeah.. congratulations on destroying a perfectly straight car for no reason at all!

    "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato "
    -Mussolini
    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC, USA
    Posts
    3,628
    I'm not so sad to see the Bel Air destroyed, I thought it was an effective demonstration.

    Hopefully, it'll shut up the old fogeys who go on about how the heavier sheet metal in the old cars was much better than the "tin foil" used today.

    Something they didn't mention was the relative costs of the cars. The 1959 Bel Air sedan cost about $2,400, which was about 17 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker. The 2009 Malibu sedan costs $22,000, which represents about the same -- 16 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker (the only occupation I could find both year's salary info for)

    Chip H.

  5. #5
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by chiph View Post
    I'm not so sad to see the Bel Air destroyed, I thought it was an effective demonstration.

    Hopefully, it'll shut up the old fogeys who go on about how the heavier sheet metal in the old cars was much better than the "tin foil" used today.

    Something they didn't mention was the relative costs of the cars. The 1959 Bel Air sedan cost about $2,400, which was about 17 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker. The 2009 Malibu sedan costs $22,000, which represents about the same -- 16 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker (the only occupation I could find both year's salary info for)

    Chip H.
    The irony of it is, the tin foil today weighs within about 500 lbs of the heavy iron of the old days.

    Hotel worker eh? Maybe that's the only job that hasn't been shipped overseas in todays freeeeeeeeee trade global eeeeeeeeeconomy.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    335
    The newer car reflects generations of evolution in crash survival technology, whereas the older car had no such mandated requirements affecting its design. It's not unibody vs. body on frame, it's different sets of evolutionary pressures.

  7. #7
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeHalloran View Post
    The newer car reflects generations of evolution in crash survival technology, whereas the older car had no such mandated requirements affecting its design. It's not unibody vs. body on frame, it's different sets of evolutionary pressures.

    Agree, but there are plenty of dinosaurs, including some in here, who believe that older body on frame cars are safer.

  8. #8
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by chiph View Post
    I'm not so sad to see the Bel Air destroyed, I thought it was an effective demonstration.

    Hopefully, it'll shut up the old fogeys who go on about how the heavier sheet metal in the old cars was much better than the "tin foil" used today.

    Something they didn't mention was the relative costs of the cars. The 1959 Bel Air sedan cost about $2,400, which was about 17 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker. The 2009 Malibu sedan costs $22,000, which represents about the same -- 16 months of take-home pay for a hotel worker (the only occupation I could find both year's salary info for)

    Chip H.
    Something doesn't add up there.

    If the cost is equivalent, why does it now take typically five years (60 months) to pay off a new car vs. about two years previously (17 months)?

  9. #9
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    Agree, but there are plenty of dinosaurs, including some in here, who believe that older body on frame cars are safer.
    "Body on frame" is less the issue than size/mass. Let's try that test again using, say, a unibody Corolla against a mid-'70s Olds 98 sedan.

    Or a 2009 Town Car against a 2009 Corolla...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC, USA
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Something doesn't add up there.

    If the cost is equivalent, why does it now take typically five years (60 months) to pay off a new car vs. about two years previously (17 months)?
    I think that in 1959, people put more money down. They had this strange thing called "savings" which amazingly, is where they kept their money.

    They didn't spend it eating out 5 times a week, or on satellite TV or cell-phones. They knew their cars weren't going to last much past 70,000 miles and planned accordingly.

    If they did take out a loan, they didn't roll any negative equity over into it.

    Chip H.

  11. #11
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Something doesn't add up there.

    If the cost is equivalent, why does it now take typically five years (60 months) to pay off a new car vs. about two years previously (17 months)?

    That is true. The cost of housing and other goods have increased at a far greater pace. The housing costs skyrocketed relative to income in the 1980s and stayed there through the 1990's. Beginning in 2002, they skyrocketed again. They have dropped, but not to 2000-02 levels. Housing will take a larger bite of people's paychecks, leaving less for cars and other things. That will be for 2 reasons - property taxes and insurance.

    In addition, in 1959, state, federal and local taxes took a lot smaller share of income than they do today. Remember when states did not have sales or income taxes? How about when they didn't have exhorbiant millage rates? Remember when???

  12. #12
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post

    In addition, in 1959, state, federal and local taxes took a lot smaller share of income than they do today. Remember when states did not have sales or income taxes? How about when they didn't have exhorbiant millage rates? Remember when???
    You sure about that? The federal rate was quite a bit higher than it is today, wasn't it?

  13. #13
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    "Body on frame" is less the issue than size/mass. Let's try that test again using, say, a unibody Corolla against a mid-'70s Olds 98 sedan.

    Or a 2009 Town Car against a 2009 Corolla...
    The two cars in the video are about the same mass though.

    An attempt at giving them an equal chance.

    2009 Town Car against H1 or a semi. No matter what you drive, there's always something bigger out there.

  14. #14
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    You sure about that? The federal rate was quite a bit higher than it is today, wasn't it?
    The top rate was a lot higher. True. But state and local taxes were a lot lower. Also, the higher rates did not kick in until people started making serious money. Don't forget that there were a bunch of tax deductions that were eliminated during Reagan and Rostenkowski's tax reform of 1986.

    I don't have exact figures, but let's say that federal taxes have increased at least slightly as a percentage of median income, while sales, property taxes and other fees have increased significantly.

  15. #15
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    That is true. The cost of housing and other goods have increased at a far greater pace. The housing costs skyrocketed relative to income in the 1980s and stayed there through the 1990's. Beginning in 2002, they skyrocketed again. They have dropped, but not to 2000-02 levels. Housing will take a larger bite of people's paychecks, leaving less for cars and other things. That will be for 2 reasons - property taxes and insurance.

    In addition, in 1959, state, federal and local taxes took a lot smaller share of income than they do today. Remember when states did not have sales or income taxes? How about when they didn't have exhorbiant millage rates? Remember when???
    Yes - and also, in 1959 you did not have the multitude of additional, peripheral costs such as property taxes and mandatory insurance. Until the 1980s, in fact, it was legally possible to skip insurance altogether (assuming the vehicle was paid for). That alone saved the person several thousand dollars over the typical five-year new car loan cycle.

    I have been ranting about this for years. The insurance con is part of what has impoverished Americans. Most people have (and are forced to have) so much fucking insurance - car insurance, health insurance, home insurance - that virtually nothing is left over to save.

    I was arguing with my liberal statist friend Mike about this the other day. I pointed out to him that I was able to save something like $10,000 over the eight year period from college graduation to the time I bought my first house by skipping out on health insurance, which (being in my 20s and very healthy) I felt no need of and felt I could comfortably risk being without. I told him that had I been required to buy insurance, as demanded by the Black Hitler, I would not have had the money I needed to make that down payment on my first house. Therefore, I would have had to continue renting. Therefore, I would not now own the house we live in now - and be far poorer than I otherwise am.

  16. #16
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    The two cars in the video are about the same mass though.

    An attempt at giving them an equal chance.

    2009 Town Car against H1 or a semi. No matter what you drive, there's always something bigger out there.
    True enough - but again, most people are driving smaller cars than they did in the past. And notwithstanding the safety advances of the past 30-odd years, a big, body on frame full-size or intermediate from the '60s or '70s would cream a current compact.

    For perspective. My 1976 Firebird was considered a compact when it was new yet it is as long and as heavy as a current S-Class Mercedes sedan. My '70s-era "compact" would brutalize a Corolla (or equivalent current-era "compact") in a crash.

  17. #17
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    You sure about that? The federal rate was quite a bit higher than it is today, wasn't it?
    I think he's right about average income people - working and middle class. High income earners were subject to near confiscatory taxes, though.

    Also, FICA was about half what it is now... and that's no small thing.

    Plus state and local income taxes.

    Etc.

  18. #18
    Ridin Dirty dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Front Royal, VA
    Posts
    1,606
    I really like the hotel worker salary comparison!

    Insurance.. Wife is 36, I am 32, and my daughter is 3. I pay $525 a month for health insurance! It's almost the same as my mortgage. Not even to mention insurance for all my cars, my bike, house, life.

    I think I easily spend over 10k a year on insurances. I'm sure everyone here is about the same if not more!

    I could be driving a top of the line BMW for that a year!

    "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato "
    -Mussolini
    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  19. #19
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,732
    Quote Originally Posted by dom View Post
    I really like the hotel worker salary comparison!

    Insurance.. Wife is 36, I am 32, and my daughter is 3. I pay $525 a month for health insurance! It's almost the same as my mortgage. Not even to mention insurance for all my cars, my bike, house, life.

    I think I easily spend over 10k a year on insurances. I'm sure everyone here is about the same if not more!

    I could be driving a top of the line BMW for that a year!

    I feel for you.

    One of the reasons we haven't had a kid is precisely this.

    We can afford to spend next to nothing on health care (I never go to the doctor other than an annual skin check plus twice-yearly dentist visits) and rely on staying in good shape/eating decently, etc. to keep the quackery at bay. If croak from a stroke, I'm not leaving a kid in the lurch, so I can get away with this.

    The whole system is a mechanism designed to erode the financial position of the middle class, to reduce it to wage slavery, debt and dependency.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by dom View Post
    I think I easily spend over 10k a year on insurances. I'm sure everyone here is about the same if not more!
    I'm nowhere near that figure - no health insurance to worry about. . .

Similar Threads

  1. Frame Before & After...
    By Eric in forum On Two Wheels
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 08:04 AM
  2. Well, at least she has a good body...
    By Eric in forum Tea Party Talk...
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 11:28 PM
  3. NY now wants your body - literally
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2010, 05:41 AM
  4. video surfaces of cops trying to frame motorist
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 06:03 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2007, 07:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •