|
Internet Meme posted:Ugh, that's exactly what I was afraid of. That's just terrible statistical analysis. If someone tried to publish a study using that logic they'd get laughed out of my department. I think if you look at the actual methodologies for how insurance companies calculate these things, and not internet hearsay, you'll find that they're set up by actual statisticians and are pretty decent at measuring the stuff they're interested in measuring.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:"People who drive Honda Civics" are not and should never be a protected class of people, constitutionally speaking. Yes, but age and gender should be. Why should a responsible 18 year old have to pay more because of all the other irresponsible 18 year olds? In relevant discussion, I showed the FR-Z to my coworkers and they were impressed by how inexpensive it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Yes, but age and gender should be. Why should a responsible 18 year old have to pay more because of all the other irresponsible 18 year olds? They don't. You can reduce your premiums by showing how responsible you are - primarily accident and claim history, stuff like tickets, and then stuff like good student discounts, etc. But even responsible 18-year-olds simply aren't as responsible or as good drivers as older people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Yes, but age and gender should be. Why should a responsible 18 year old have to pay more because of all the other irresponsible 18 year olds? Because 18-year-olds have very little driving experience in addition to the fact that most of them are idiots. I do think that a driver who just got off their probationary license should have to pay more for insurance whether there 18 or 28 or 38, simply because experience is a very important part of being a safe driver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I think if you look at the actual methodologies for how insurance companies calculate these things, and not internet hearsay, you'll find that they're set up by actual statisticians and are pretty decent at measuring the stuff they're interested in measuring. You're definitely right. If an insurance company was run the way skrillex was saying, they'd be easily undercut by their competitors. If I can come up with a better model in 10 minutes of thinking, billion dollar industries probably have it down. hayden. posted:Why should a responsible 18 year old have to pay more because of all the other irresponsible 18 year olds? How would predict that an 18 year old is responsible? All you would have is 2 years of driving experience, and grades. And you do get a discount for grades. AfricanBootyShine fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Yes, but age and gender should be. Why should a responsible 18 year old have to pay more because of all the other irresponsible 18 year olds? I would imagine the vast majority of the premium an 18 year old pays is not the impropriety of youth, though, but simply the inexperience. Regardless of any perceived responsibility, inexperience is always a markedly increased accident risk and is going to cost a premium to insure. Which is why student driving programs, good grades, etc, frequently bring discounts, but only small ones. Edit: interesting Japanese study here that shows accident rates are significantly lower when there is a passenger. Which is surprising; I'd have thought passengers would simply add distractions, but I guess they also add an extra set of eyes and serve to put a check on dangerous high-risk behavior.  grover fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Because 18-year-olds have very little driving experience in addition to the fact that most of them are idiots. I do think that a driver who just got off their probationary license should have to pay more for insurance whether there 18 or 28 or 38, simply because experience is a very important part of being a safe driver. I believe at least some if not all insurance companies do take how long you've been driving into account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I believe at least some if not all insurance companies do take how long you've been driving into account. Oh yes, I'm quite sure this is the case too, just pointing out that it's not based entirely on age (as others have said).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Internet Meme posted:You're definitely right. If an insurance company was run the way skrillex was saying, they'd be easily undercut by their competitors. If I can come up with a better model in 10 minutes of thinking, billion dollar industries probably have it down. Thinking about, what you say might be right anyway. Insurance companies care about different things than academics do, and they can be a lot less rigorous or scientific about some things because the scope of stuff they care about is honestly much smaller, and they'd rather do quick-and-dirty statistics if it's cheaper that way since actually collecting the data and analyzing it at a certain point starts getting pretty expensive on its own. And that's not even getting into perverse incentives, etc., etc. Also, I feel like oftentimes IIHS likes to obscure certain things for its own reasons, too. And I bet they restrict access to the real data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
grover posted:Edit: interesting Japanese study here that shows accident rates are significantly lower when there is a passenger. Which is surprising; I'd have thought passengers would simply add distractions, but I guess they also add an extra set of eyes and serve to put a check on dangerous high-risk behavior. The other thing is that a passenger can take care of things that a driver shouldn't be - maps, cell phones and so on. I imagine that conversation (which can stop when conditions require it) also helps to keep a driver alert.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Thinking about, what you say might be right anyway. Insurance companies care about different things than academics do, and they can be a lot less rigorous or scientific about some things because the scope of stuff they care about is honestly much smaller, and they'd rather do quick-and-dirty statistics if it's cheaper that way since actually collecting the data and analyzing it at a certain point starts getting pretty expensive on its own. And that's not even getting into perverse incentives, etc., etc. It's this murky area where statistics meets economics. They charge what people will pay and what people have to pay, depending on state regulations. I'm in my 20s, never had an accident or even a speeding ticket, and own a 25 year old motorcycle worth practically nothing, and yet my insurance is over $2000 a year. Also, firehawk, what's to stop you guys from buying new cars elsewhere? I assume there are huge import taxes but that sounds outrageous, I would just never buy a car if it was more than 35k USD, period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, derailing too much
hayden. fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
The aveo is probably on the list because people inside of them tend to be severely injured when they run into an escalade, explaining why both are on the list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
I really want to like this car, I'm the target demographic: early twenties male, but the interior is just godawful. Do they just expect people to not give a poo poo about what the inside looks like at this price range? The interior is the first thing I look for when car shopping, you're going to be looking at the inside most of the time after all. Maybe people of the target demographic have no standards when it comes to interiors. From photos, the tolerances on the interior pieces are extremely high. There are quite a lot of gaps between everything, something that isn't even present in extremely low end cars from Toyota/Scion. The thing that sticks out though is that the cloth fits really poorly over the seats, making them look like there are seat covers over them. I'm only considering the Scion as it's just unthinkable to buy a Scooby without AWD, but after seeing the interior, I'll just buy something else. They got everything right except the inside. On the insurance, I dabble in insurance underwriting, and I've got to say that it's not discrimination if it's statistically true, and their actuaries are extremely skilled staticians that manage risk extremely well. You might not like their results, but it's true. Why was the study "poor statistical analysis"? They've got to do everything they can to balance out having a competitive rate and not going under. Analyzing a person by his choice of car is just like analyzing a person from their credit score. It's not something that directly affects driving ability, but the correlation exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:I really want to like this car, I'm the target demographic: early twenties male, but the interior is just godawful. Do they just expect people to not give a poo poo about what the inside looks like at this price range? The interior is the first thing I look for when car shopping, you're going to be looking at the inside most of the time after all. Maybe people of the target demographic have no standards when it comes to interiors. I think you're overreacting and you should really try to decide after having actually seen and driven the car instead of looking at photos of what are likely pre-production or preview models. Seriously, the interior looks like every other small sports car interior ever and I can't imagine at all what makes you think otherwise. Also, the fit and finish on a modern Toyota is nothing like what it used to be and has actually gotten pretty bad in my personal experience. I'm using these non-professional flash photos of what looks like a production model or dealer preview car from here: http://www.cars101.com/subaru/brz/brz2013photos2.html Look at the base-model seats:  The bolstering looks really good and the fabric looks fine, even in the unflattering flash photo. Probably the same fabric found in every other Subaru. Also, take a look at this photo of the center stack:  First thing I notice is that it's absolutely tiny. It's very plain, matte finish plastic, but it looks like it's compact, functional, and the fit/finish looks perfectly normal to me. I'm not a fan of the silvertone plastic, but whatever. Panel gaps look reasonable:   Also, it looks like even on the base interior, you get leather bits with red stitching on most of the touch surfaces - wheel, shifter, brake handle, and parts of the doors. Looks alright and the stitching seems decent. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:Why was the study "poor statistical analysis"? I said the study was poor statisical analysis because the results presented appeared not to account/control for obvious confounders/modifiers such as age, gender, or urban/rural residence. poo poo that you're told is important on the first day of a statistical analysis class. EDIT: It may also be that their data isn't that reliable when it comes to age/sex. A 16 year old kid might be the primary driver of a car, but it's frequently the parents who are on the title and insurance. In that case, I could understand why they may not control for those factors if their demographic data isn't reliable. They could comb police reports for the actual information, but that'd require some serious manpower. FWIW, I'm very interested in how the Toyobaru turns out. I was planning on getting a Mustang GT when I finished my PhD, but a turbo Toyobaru might change my mind. AfricanBootyShine fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
grover posted:Are those the only cupholders? They look awfully awkward to reach. I think that's just perspective plus the fact that they cranked the seats all the way forward to take that picture from the back seats, which have like zero legroom normally. This photo seems to say that the first cupholder is located ahead of the seat belt buckle, which seems fairly normal. edit: this is a TINY car  trunk opening detail: 
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
grover posted:Are those the only cupholders? They look awfully awkward to reach. They are in that location on the WRX too. I never found them to be awkward at all and I'm on the short size, so I tend to have the seat pulled a bit more forward than necessary. I think the key is to reach across with your left hand to get a drink, rather than your right one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
I just noticed this car has those annoying as gently caress little triangle windows on the doors near the mirror. anything that is within the view of that window is either already under the car or unavoidable anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I just noticed this car has those annoying as gently caress little triangle windows on the doors near the mirror. It would be nice if they folded out like they did on older cars, they are great for having a cigarette in the rain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
I think the interior is perfectly fine aside from the stupid piece with the clock on it, if anything it's a little understated. This is also coming from someone who likes the majority of the new Focus ST interior, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:I really want to like this car, I'm the target demographic: early twenties male, but the interior is just godawful. Do they just expect people to not give a poo poo about what the inside looks like at this price range? The interior is the first thing I look for when car shopping, you're going to be looking at the inside most of the time after all. Maybe people of the target demographic have no standards when it comes to interiors. sounds like you're not the target demographic at all since you just wrote two paragraphs about interior plastics assembly tolerances
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:I really want to like this car, I'm the target demographic: early twenties male, but the interior is just godawful. Do they just expect people to not give a poo poo about what the inside looks like at this price range? The interior is the first thing I look for when car shopping, you're going to be looking at the inside most of the time after all. Maybe people of the target demographic have no standards when it comes to interiors. Your not the target Psychographic. If your worried about all the poo poo you just listed, buy a used Lexus. Remember the original. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
Dick Diggler posted:It would be nice if they folded out like they did on older cars, they are great for having a cigarette in the rain. What doomed those, anyway- better A/C?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
To be fair there's really never been a 'world killer' level of nice for a Japanese sports car interior ever. The sc430 comes close on some of the limited editions... but it's hard to call that a sports car. e: Actually I guess the s2000 is pretty nice as well, it has the dumb splotches of discolored plastics, but the gauge cluster more than makes up for that. Jean Eric Burn fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I just noticed this car has those annoying as gently caress little triangle windows on the doors near the mirror. Those are just to make window rolling easier to package, right? GD_American posted:What doomed those, anyway- better A/C? NVH? Their popping during crashes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I just noticed this car has those annoying as gently caress little triangle windows on the doors near the mirror. I think those are there more to let in sunlight to make the car feel airier and emphasize the thinness of the A pillar than for actually looking outside at things. It seems like a small thing, but I feel like blocking that bit off would look and feel subtly worse. I guess if you're interested, you can try experimenting by blocking that bit off with some black vinyl or something and seeing if people notice. Certainly not having enough glass can make you feel like you're driving a coffin. See, e.g., the Chrysler LX platform cars and also the new Camaro. But at the same time, making them open means one more seal that can leak and more controls. Also, nobody smokes in their cars anymore, so there's that too. Also maybe to see pedestrians? Cars are moving towards door-mounted mirrors versus a-pillar mounted mirrors for aero reasons, though, right? So I guess get used to those little triangles. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:Your not the target Psychographic. Everything from back then had a lovely interior compared to what's available today. Maybe GM can bring those hideous red interiors from the 80's and 90's back for nostalgia purposes since that seems to be a thing. If I wanted something with an interior from the 80's I'd buy another car from the 80's. I'm not exactly a dash stroker either. fknlo fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
I was just saying that I think they are trying to keep that 80s simplicity in the new one. A real drivers car is one where you never notice the interior because your too busy smiling about how close you got to the shoulder on that last apex. The F40 comes to mind.  but if your going to say well that was old like the Trueno, you can actually see the welds inside the new Scuderia 
Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Well here's examples from stuff people will comparison shop with this:       My conclusion: It looks fine. Also the interior on the redesigned Scion tC (the second to last pic here) looks like total rear end in comparison. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I think those are there more to let in sunlight to make the car feel airier and emphasize the thinness of the A pillar than for actually looking outside at things. It seems like a small thing, but I feel like blocking that bit off would look and feel subtly worse. I guess if you're interested, you can try experimenting by blocking that bit off with some black vinyl or something and seeing if people notice. Certainly not having enough glass can make you feel like you're driving a coffin. See, e.g., the Chrysler LX platform cars and also the new Camaro. It's less about it letting light in and more about wierd looking windows. I prefer that space be used to mount the mirror. Also I find it emphasizes just how far from the windshield you sit in a modern car. It makes it more difficult to park, and disconnects me further from the driving experience IMO. Not that I don't like the idea of safety but I can't reach the firewall side of the dash in my dads legacy GT or my companys micra. It's bizarre to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Wow, I'd be having so much fun driving this car if i wasnt staring at the .5 mm gap between the glovebox and dash pad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Laserface posted:It's less about it letting light in and more about wierd looking windows. I prefer that space be used to mount the mirror. Also I find it emphasizes just how far from the windshield you sit in a modern car. It makes it more difficult to park, and disconnects me further from the driving experience IMO. Except door-mounted mirrors are usually better aerodynamically than pillar-mounted ones. The same goes for raked back windshields. You sit far back from the base of the windshield because modern cars have a lot more angle on the A-pillar, which is both for looks and also aerodynamics (though mostly looks since it doesn't make a huge difference past like 45 degrees or so). I'm OK with cars having less wind noise, better gas mileage, and better performance. A far bigger problem with parking and visibility is the thickness of the A pillar itself, and not its angle or the seating position. This is something that automakers are addressing with more high-strength materials that let them use thinner pillars that you can actually see around. In fact, that's one of my favorite parts of the new impreza redesign:  Seriously, those are like on a 90s car. It's great. Also, if you were able to touch the windshield easily from your seat, then that means that it's likely your head will be able to touch it in a crash, which is a Bad Thing. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also, nobody smokes in their cars anymore, so there's that too. Japanese people sure seem to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also, if you were able to touch the windshield easily from your seat, then that means that it's likely your head will be able to touch it in a crash, which is a Bad Thing. I guess it's a good thing I wear my seatbelt then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
What I was told by a Subaru dealer fleet manager abut the BRZ and Subaru Australia's attitude to it seems so silly I'll put it up as something to laugh at and it's has to be bullshit. Australia are supposed to get 200, 3 are sold right now (as in fully paid) but if Subaru Australia had their way they would have refused to sell the BRZ at all, preferring to remain AWD lineup only. Head Office basically over-ruled management and allocated the cars. The only thing that gives this any creedence is the fact Subaru Aust decided very late to announce the BRZ and has done very little to advertise it's coming. That and Subaru Aust are seriously contemplating only importing flappy paddle STI's when the new WRX appears. Which may actually sound hosed up but automatic STI's do sell while they cant sell a auto WRX for love or money. We have a bunch of very odd people running Subaru Australia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
ppp posted:I guess it's a good thing I wear my seatbelt then. Good thing seatbelts keep you fixed in place in an accident.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:A far bigger problem with parking and visibility is the thickness of the A pillar itself, and not its angle or the seating position. This is something that automakers are addressing with more high-strength materials that let them use thinner pillars that you can actually see around. In fact, that's one of my favorite parts of the new impreza redesign: I want to see it from the inside. I've been in a number of cars where the A pillar looks pretty narrow until you get inside and see that all the bulk intrudes into the cabin. The airbags that are mounted in them don't help much either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I want to see it from the inside. I've been in a number of cars where the A pillar looks pretty narrow until you get inside and see that all the bulk intrudes into the cabin. The airbags that are mounted in them don't help much either. Yeah I didn't take pictures when I was in one, but here are some that seem to show what I'm talking about :  
OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Apr 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2012 19:15
|
|