|
Motronic posted:How can Ford have released a motor that had so many problems that step 1 of the recalls (over 40 individual items) was "remove cab from vehicle"? (I'm talking about the 02-ish 6.0L diesels). How could they have accidentally put a cruise control switch on the master cylinder that allows brake fluid to pass though it resulting in trucks catching on fire after they have been switched off? (96 through mid 2000s light trucks and most cars) How could they have put the wrong oil (maybe, there never was a real answer) in thousands of Probes back in the mid 90s causing them to need to have heads replaced at their 3rd or 4th oil change interval? How could they produce millions of heads for the modular motors over the ourse of several YEARS with insufficient spark plug thread depth? Dude, you obviously have something against Ford and it's affecting your opinion on the obvious user abuse of the Raptor. Can you please just let it go?
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
Due to the fact people refuse to stop bumping the subject of bumpstops, I'd point out that from what Ford's saying, they did put a deliberate failure point into the bumpstop:quote:...the first thing when you do exceed the vehicle's travel capability [is that] you have a certain safety zone where you will hit the bump stop and nothing will happen. If you hit that same obstacle at an even faster speed, then you will yield the jounce bumper cup – that's the little piece of steel that holds the jounce bumper. If you hit that same obstacle at an even greater speed, then the next thing to go is the frame. Combine that with their advice about practicing runs at gradually increased pace, and it's hard to come down that hard on Ford. If it were me (in the manufacturer's position), I'd also go do a run on that track following the stated advice so I could come back and say "Bottoming out occurred at Xmph, initial failsafe triggered at Ymph, frame failure occurred at Zmph". They need to show that the point of frame failure is substantially beyond where they decreed the "failsafe" point to be if they want to get people on their side. They should also answer the questions about the access hole in the frame, preferably with the difference in load required for the same deformation in a plain-walled section.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Your average household extinguisher can't do poo poo for a magnesium fire, and a hose will make things worse, since magnesium decomposes water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. He did the right thing calling the fire department and staying away from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:Plus I'm sure the local fire department loved having an excuse to actually use their foam, considering most places end up just dumping it on car fires before it goes bad in the tanks. I wonder if my soda blaster would have been able to take care of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well if you flip the truck and/or kill yourself I'm pretty sure Ford's warranty isn't going to do anything for you either. What are you going to do, show the court your Dukes of Hazzard dash camera footage? Probably a better outcome for Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well if you flip the truck and/or kill yourself I'm pretty sure Ford's warranty isn't going to do anything for you either. What are you going to do, show the court your Dukes of Hazzard dash camera footage? Probably a better outcome for Ford. After reading this I have to say I'm surprised they didn't reinforce that bitch and sawzall halfway through the spring perches at the last stop on the assembly line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
So my friend got in an accident the other day that he walked away from with only a minor injury. The lady in the other car was lucky as poo poo nobody was in the back seat. Apparently the speeds involved were relatively low (~30-40 MPH). I'm posting this in the mechanical failures thread because a) his airbag failed to deploy and, b) Toyota (that used to be a Corolla) safety????   
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
How about the sound of horrible mechanical failures. http://youtu.be/7EoN38iPapw Broken piston or connecting rod, it runs with EXTREMELY low compression and sounds like crap
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
McDeth posted:So my friend got in an accident the other day that he walked away from with only a minor injury. The lady in the other car was lucky as poo poo nobody was in the back seat. Apparently the speeds involved were relatively low (~30-40 MPH). I'm posting this in the mechanical failures thread because a) his airbag failed to deploy and, b) Toyota (that used to be a Corolla) safety???? It seems your friend is the one that's lucky no one was in the backseat. He must've riding the poo poo out of her rear end to do that much damage. And I'm no expert but unless that lady was at a complete stop there's no way that's a 30mph accident.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Good to see that Chevy's engineers still believe that the best crumble zone is the other car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
renraku posted:It seems your friend is the one that's lucky no one was in the backseat. He must've riding the poo poo out of her rear end to do that much damage. And I'm no expert but unless that lady was at a complete stop there's no way that's a 30mph accident. Apparently he was taking a swig out of his coffee while cresting a slight hill on a freeway on-ramp. CalTrans had just installed a brand new metering light (this was the first day it was up and running) and the car in front of him had just got the green when he cleared the crest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Apparently he was taking a swig out of his coffee while cresting a slight hill on a freeway on-ramp. CalTrans had just installed a brand new metering light (this was the first day it was up and running) and the car in front of him had just got the green when he cleared the crest. drat, that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Apparently he was taking a swig out of his coffee while cresting a slight hill on a freeway on-ramp. CalTrans had just installed a brand new metering light (this was the first day it was up and running) and the car in front of him had just got the green when he cleared the crest. Tell your friend he's a poo poo driver and a danger to everyone on the road in that truck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
To be fair, the Silverado overran the rear of the Corolla, so all of the energy was absorbed by the trunk lid and contents. I don't really see how that could be prevented. I've read a bit about overrun protection in train design, and even if you wanted to spend the weight I don't see a lot of structure in the area that the vehicle was hit. But yeah, your friend's right to own a large vehicle is now rescinded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Alereon posted:To be fair, the Silverado overran the rear of the Corolla, so all of the energy was absorbed by the trunk lid and contents. I don't really see how that could be prevented. I've read a bit about overrun protection in train design, and even if you wanted to spend the weight I don't see a lot of structure in the area that the vehicle was hit. I wonder if the shocks were blown on that Corolla beforehand and the lower ride height put the Silverado over the bumper in the impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
by the way the airbag not deploying is a system failure and the damage done isnt an inherent safety issue with toyotas, its physics and crumple zones doing their work. big pickups and suvs have a lot of momentum at 30-40 mph and ride much higher than a 3rd or 4th gen corolla so its no surprise that the back of that car got reamed. while impressive, there isnt any mechanical failure there, just an accident. McDeth posted:Apparently he was taking a swig out of his coffee while cresting a slight hill on a freeway on-ramp. CalTrans had just installed a brand new metering light (this was the first day it was up and running) and the car in front of him had just got the green when he cleared the crest. BeastPussy fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jul 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Don't defer regular maintenance.  I'm not sure how my car ran as long as it did like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Tell your friend he's a poo poo driver and a danger to everyone on the road in that truck. drat, you mad bro? Accidents happen and I've seen a lot worse accidents from people doing blatantly stupid poo poo. Ya it's his fault, but complacency, a blind hill and recent road changes will ruin your day. Alereon posted:To be fair, the Silverado overran the rear of the Corolla, so all of the energy was absorbed by the trunk lid and contents. I don't really see how that could be prevented. I've read a bit about overrun protection in train design, and even if you wanted to spend the weight I don't see a lot of structure in the area that the vehicle was hit. But yeah, your friend's right to own a large vehicle is now rescinded. This happened in Central Cali where the mindset of "bigger is better" is alive and well. I showed this picture to a couple of my friends and their "hurp derp this is why big 'merican trucks are better" response was typical redneck all the way. It's funny because a stock Silverado around here is a small vehicle. If that car had been rear ended by one of the bro-truck driveway queens that frequent the area that lady would likely be dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Sounds just like the stereotypical American driver, driving a big vehicle and paying more attention to their cup of coffee than where they are going. Anyway cars (especially mid 90s Toyotas) just aren't designed with rear end collisions in mind - that just isn't where the testing is done. The height mismatch obviously doesn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
at least it wasn't lifted like 80% of the trucks around here. They'd probably run right over my corolla.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
mcdeth just tell your friend to put the coffee down more often. it wouldnt hurt for him to get a more reasonably sized vehicle too but i figure you should start with the easy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
McDeth posted:drat, you mad bro? Accidents happen and I've seen a lot worse accidents from people doing blatantly stupid poo poo. Ya it's his fault, but complacency, a blind hill and recent road changes will ruin your day. 10% more speed and a kid in that back seat and your 'bro' would be facing some serious charges. "I didn't know they changed something on the road" isn't an excuse for crashing into someone else - only an admission of being an ignorant manchild. But in other news: Supposing that was a 30mph crash, is it just Toyotas or are all modern cars that crumply? When my '90 Legacy Wagon got rear-ended at like 40-45ish a few years ago by a Town&Country, despite being totalled the car still drove 30 minutes home under it's own power with the only major problem being the lack of a rear hatch window.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
The problem was a combination of the fact that the Chevy was less crumply than most cars and that it was high enough that the entire truck just rode right over the Toyota's bumper, which is where most of the rear impact protection is. A trunk lid can only absorb so much force. A Town & Country doesn't have quite the same ride height as a Silverado. If the friend had been driving one of those, the hypothetical kid in the backseat would probably have survived, because the bumpers would have actually been relevant. corgski fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jul 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:10% more speed and a kid in that back seat and your 'bro' would be facing some serious charges. "I didn't know they changed something on the road" isn't an excuse for crashing into someone else - only an admission of being an ignorant manchild. The impact structure of the Corolla is almost entirely intact, the reason it looks so bad is the truck rode up and used the trunk and firewall as an impact zone. That's also why the truck didn't deploy airbags and looks like it was in a 5mph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:10% more speed and a kid in that back seat and your 'bro' would be facing some serious charges. "I didn't know they changed something on the road" isn't an excuse for crashing into someone else - only an admission of being an ignorant manchild. Because every person that's died in an accident has resulted in the person at fault being charged with a crime.  I guess where you live there's only at-faults. But I digress... After studying the pics a little more it looks like you guys are right in the pickup riding on top of the frame. Also, it looks like an older Corolla so it likely wouldn't hold up as well as a newer model would have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
I'll bet that was a LOT closer to 40 than 30. He's at fault, I think it's natural for him to underestimate the speed he was doing...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I'll bet that was a LOT closer to 40 than 30. He's at fault, I think it's natural for him to underestimate the speed he was doing... I don't know about that - due to the awkward way it hit it may have been quite a low speed. Also Cuntpunch may well be overestimating the speed his/her Legacy was hit at. I've seen a late 90s Legacy rear ended by another mid 90s Legacy at what the Police said was 70kmh (a bit less than 45mph) and it wasn't pretty. There was far more rear end damage to the hit car than there was front end damage to the other one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 06:19
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I'll bet that was a LOT closer to 40 than 30. He's at fault, I think it's natural for him to underestimate the speed he was doing... Nobody's disputing that he's at fault, it's pretty clear given the circumstances and the fact that he rear ended her. In CA that's pretty much all the evidence insurance needs to right you up for an at-fault accident. Breast Pussy posted:mcdeth just tell your friend to put the coffee down more often. it wouldnt hurt for him to get a more reasonably sized vehicle too but i figure you should start with the easy stuff. Well, he's a farmer so I think in this case the larger vehicle is actually justified. Now, if he had a pavement queen and worked as a shoe salesman...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
BlackShadow posted:I get email notifications from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on safety-related incidents for rail, air and sea incidents. Most of the time it's some chucklefuck who can't load a plane properly or a railway safeworking incident in the middle of nowhere, but every so often there's a gem like this one. I happen to be on a similar mailing list, but mine is for the worldwide electric power industry. Your failed turbine reminded me of these pictures, which I got several years ago.   This is from a fossil plant, which means I can post it here without getting fired. If you work in the industry, you've probably seen this before; it's the eight million dollar roll of paper towels picture that FME coordinators everywhere love. That's a 500 MW gas turbine from a plant in Texas. Operators entered the turbine housing during an outage to clean the inlet guide vanes. Upon their exit, they left their paper towels inside the inlet mouth. This resulted in a partially blocked inlet, and thus a low pressure zone inside the turbine. 23 hours later, they had what you see above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
2ndclasscitizen posted:Tell your friend he's a poo poo driver and a danger to everyone on the road in that truck. Well, not NOW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 08:29
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Accidents, accidents, accidents,... No, an ACCIDENT is when you poo poo your pants or a tree hits your house. Your friend here got himself in a COLLISION. Tell him to maybe just skip the Starbucks next time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
MikeyTsi posted:No, an ACCIDENT is when you poo poo your pants or a tree hits your house. Your friend here got himself in a COLLISION.  Techically it's an ALLISION since the other car wasn't moving, a collision is when both are moving. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just thought it was a really cool word/distinction when I learned the difference so I'm spreading the joy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
Alereon posted:
ACTUALLY, since he said the Corolla had just started moving on the green, it would still be a collision.So there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
Ossetepo posted:Paper towels So the paper towels sat against the igv's as it started to spin, remained lodged creating a local low pressure zone behind a handful of vanes, causing enough imbalance/turbulence to lunch the entire rig. Have I got that right? I nearly got a job with a blade caster a few years back, pay was poo poo, job looked awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
I think there is a huge disconnect between what is a serious crash and what people think is serious crash. I mean, when someone says "it was only 30-40mph", to me they're admitting they have no understanding of the massive forces involved. Most crash testing is done at that speed range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:The problem was a combination of the fact that the Chevy was less crumply than most cars and that it was high enough that the entire truck just rode right over the Toyota's bumper, which is where most of the rear impact protection is. A trunk lid can only absorb so much force. The problem was the truck rear ended the car. Fin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:So the paper towels sat against the igv's as it started to spin, remained lodged creating a local low pressure zone behind a handful of vanes, causing enough imbalance/turbulence to lunch the entire rig. Have I got that right? That's my understanding of the event. I live in steam turbine land, but any turbine in which the blades pass through a pressure differential is going to shake itself apart eventually. The truly  part for me is that they ran for 23 hours like that. I know things are different at gas burners, but I'd like to think we would have been tripped on high vibes an awful long time before there were blades lodged in a wall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Ossetepo posted:That's my understanding of the event. I live in steam turbine land, but any turbine in which the blades pass through a pressure differential is going to shake itself apart eventually. The truly I like to think that someone would have gone down the list and asked where the paper towels are during the equipment check at the end. I know drat well you make sure every single thing you took in needs to come back out, except for spit/sweat. I'll let those two slide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
I fight so hard for money for regular vibrational analysis & online monitoring at work, yeah it amazes me that wouldn't have shut down automatically with sirens blaring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
Sponge! posted:I like to think that someone would have gone down the list and asked where the paper towels are during the equipment check at the end. I know drat well you make sure every single thing you took in needs to come back out, except for spit/sweat. I'll let those two slide. Yeah, that too. We had a "re-engagement" on the importance of foreign material exclusion logging two outages ago, when a plastic cap for excluding foreign material got lodged inside a thrust bearing and delayed start-up by close to two weeks. The irony of the FME cap becoming an FME hazard was lost on no-one. If you work out the cost of an outage extension, that FME cap actually cost us more than the Texan paper towels, but the pictures aren't nearly as interesting. Also, posting them could get me fired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2011 14:31
|
|