Electric k5

[supersize75k5]

It's amazing what propaganda can do to people.
When did we start needing a crumple zone to protect us in a crash?
When the manufacturers decided to remove the frame for weight reduction and went unibody, now it was just sheet metal between you and the wall.
In my brother's 73 blazer, we were going 65-70 and some one cut us off and my brother was pushed into a wall, well a concrete Jersey, didn't get the chance to brake or anything we jut instantly turned into it and hit, it was a construction zone.
The frame and the bumper took the hit, the sheet metal stayed the same, we felt like we hit sand and just stopped, we didn't lurch forward, we didn't fly into the windshield, nothing...
Even better were the older boats that had a shock behind the bumper.
Our frame got bent but it protected us.
Crumple zone my ass.

No offense but you sir are talking out of your ass. Having been around a collision repair shop for the last 4 years im very confident in saying that. This also comes from someone who had a head on with a f250 in a 75 blazer.

Ive seen wreck after wreck where those gremlin crumple zones have saved someone's ass. This is not a game of bumper cars where your back and neck should be left ****ed up for the rest of your life. I laugh when people get upset that the car is totaled when they just walked away from a serious wreck. Ive also hit a concrete ditch at speed and wound up facing the other direction upside down in a jeep grand cherokee. Air bags went off, doors were pushed back to the point they would not open ...and I still went to work that day.

its like saying we dont need ingeneers, just throw some more metal at it

 

[Fabrimacator21]

I agree with imiceman44. I would rather be in my 88 k5 in a head on then a jeep with a crumple zone. The newer stuff is designed to crumple while the older stuff is not. Doesn't mean they are less safe. Big steel chromed bumpers and alot of iron between you and the front of the rig... but since it's a much heavier vehicle it needs to be built stronger because it takes more force to stop it. Crumple zones have saved alot of lives and injuries but when it comes to older rigs and trucks crumple zones don't make a whole lot of sence.

 

[pnel128]

It's amazing what propaganda can do to people.

Not sure where this came from... I was only considering how a fiberglass front clip would affect me in a crash (not that I plan on crashing) b/c there is a possibility that I would have an open engine bay. Meaning that if another car/tree/ditch/etc cuts through the front I'm only protected by the firewall, and I may be wrong but that sounds scary.

But since we are talking weight savings and fiberglass (FG). There is a fiberglass k5 body I've seen online. Would anyone run that for anything other than a show rig without a rollcage? From my work with boats I know FG can be pretty strong but its not the same as steel. With that said, I've still considered running a FG body for weight and rust prevention.

@loafer

much of the stuff on that blazer is concept that might not be worth while. It was also done on a budget so its not going to be aircraft quality.

 

[imiceman44]

No offense but you sir are talking out of your ass. Having been around a collision repair shop for the last 4 years im very confident in saying that. This also comes from someone who had a head on with a f250 in a 75 blazer.

Ive seen wreck after wreck where those gremlin crumple zones have saved someone's ass. This is not a game of bumper cars where your back and neck should be left ****ed up for the rest of your life. I laugh when people get upset that the car is totaled when they just walked away from a serious wreck. Ive also hit a concrete ditch at speed and wound up facing the other direction upside down in a jeep grand cherokee. Air bags went off, doors were pushed back to the point they would not open ...and I still went to work that day.

its like saying we dont need ingeneers, just throw some more metal at it

I have been in enough accidents in my youth to know the difference, not proud of it but it gave me enough to know what I am saying.
You could look at many cars that have been in accidents, and I worked in a body shop for 10 years I know that too, you still will not experience the feeling when you hit with a big mass versus hitting with a small mass.
The only reason a crumple zone makes a difference in a samll car is that it doesn't have the mass to absorb the hit so it needs the crumple zone to do it.
I have been in a head on collision in a mercedes against a Volvo going 60MPH each with no braking (I hit water and hydroplaned and he just froze and kept going) the crumple zone absorbed the shock but the engine ended up on my legs.
I hit a concrete block that was hidden in the grass on the passenger side in a Dodge OMNI if I had a passenger, they would have no more legs.
I could go on but it doesn't matter if one has a set idea in their mind there is no changing it.
By the way I am an engineer, and I know what I am talking about when I talk about the weight being of importance.
Have you ever been in an accident in a bus?
or a train?
Your neck doesn't snap, your back is fine, you barely feel a shake if any.
In a car you feel every shock to the bone.
A very easy way to illustrate to anyone, just ride in a small car and hit some pot holes or expension joints on a bridge and do it with a bigger truck and tell in which one you feel it more.
I will talk out of my *** much better than what your brain can think of in a million year.
By the way is your neck ***ed up for life?

 

[supersize75k5]

im going to succeed from a big needless argument, not knowing you I should not have said you were talking out your ass.


car vs semi..sure I give you that, but if your in the car I would say that accident is likely your fault.

car vs car, im glad to have that air bag, crumple zones and my face intact for the average vehicle encounter.

speaking of volvos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3yg...ew-vs-old-technology/&feature=player_embedded

 

[dyeager535]

Didn't want to take the other thread off-topic, but I had an idea for this truck (or any for that matter) and I wonder what anyone thinks about it. I probably didn't think it through enough, but who knows.

Geared hubs. Not sure how easy this would be to implement (understood this means new axles, not an easy fix), but if the hubs were geared, and you had a very effective OD ratio in the trans (.5?), would it not be possible to get the final drive ratio to something fairly astronomical, which would allow the use of a relatively tiny engine?

I would think geared hubs would allow you to keep the engine/trans/axle gears operating at an RPM range that was sustainable, while providing the mechanical advantage necessary to actually move the vehicle.

An H1 might be a better candidate for this, assuming they used geared hubs too. Not sure if you could even swap that setup over to a K5 without it being more effort than it's worth. IIRC the axle ratio of the H1 is pretty high (numerically low), change that to 4.10 or something and maybe you'd get the mechanical advantage needed?

 

[chriskayer]

torquey little bugger I bet.

 

[pnel128]

Dyeager it sounds like it would be easier to just go with a 6 speed transmission. This does seem to work since GM has started using them. With a smaller engine and more gears I can see better mpg, but I think you would lose out on acceleration.