|
bidikyoopi posted:Just saw this video of SEMA car crushing on Autoblog: From what I understand, it's to avoid lawsuits. The cars have experimental parts in them that haven't been deemed safe to use in production models. If those parts got onto the market and someone got seriously injured or killed, the company would probably pay much more than what salvaging the car would save. I think it's a pretty common engineering practice, don't want the bad eggs (potentially) getting in the hands of the consumer. Edit: beaten
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
rcman50166 posted:From what I understand, it's to avoid lawsuits. The cars have experimental parts in them that haven't been deemed safe to use in production models. If those parts got onto the market and someone got seriously injured or killed, the company would probably pay much more than what salvaging the car would save. I think it's a pretty common engineering practice, don't want the bad eggs (potentially) getting in the hands of the consumer. Could be solved by a 'Release from Liability' form I'm sure any lawyer could draw up.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Could be solved by a 'Release from Liability' form I'm sure any lawyer could draw up. No such thing as a piece of paper with words on it that some lawyer, somewhere, wouldn't try to claim was insufficient to protect the poor consumer from using some random piece of hardware that clearly was the sole cause of FIERY DEATH. It's the same reason all of the Mazdas on the Cougar Ace were scrapped, right on down to the lug nuts.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:No such thing as a piece of paper with words on it that some lawyer, somewhere, wouldn't try to claim was insufficient to protect the poor consumer from using some random piece of hardware that clearly was the sole cause of FIERY DEATH. Yes but in that scenario some big loving rich insurance underwriter like Lloyds of London was bound by contract to step in at the proper moment, drop their pants, bend over, and take the  of Actuarial  deep into their large intestine and down the throat in a spit-roast worth at least $117 million US Dollars, because that's the game that they play.  Concept cars, production mules, etc are considered a "sunk cost" that is a line item on the R&D budget for each model initially, and then every generational shift thereafter. Generally between generations the platform itself doesn't change drastically and thus most of the R&D can be done with chopped up production vehicles from last model year. When you think about it, if you're in the business of making upwards of a thousand vehicles per day, every day, you can afford to pull a few out of the distribution chain when they roll off the line for the dark arts of testing. Same idea as a bakery that makes 5,000 loaves a day and donates a hundred or two to the local food banks. They own the cow. They decide where and when the milk happens. In all honesty though, I am surprised they don't wind up shipping them to some third world shithole with no established automotive safety regulatory body and sell them at or slightly below materials cost. I mean gently caress, there's a huge market for used American tires that sure as poo poo aren't road legal here, but can be sold for $5 in Mexico or Brazil versus PAYING $5 to legally dispose of them here... This would only apply to large automakers that wind up with 2+ dozen of these vehicles per model, per year. Something like Ferrari or Lamborghini make far fewer, and we all know that in both cases absolutely nothing loving changes between the mules and the production models anyway so they probably just hide the chassis for a few months and then put a random serial plate on it and push it out the door. Engine fires anyone?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:Yes but in that scenario some big loving rich insurance underwriter like Lloyds of London was bound by contract to step in at the proper moment, drop their pants, bend over, and take the Considering how many 'production cars' end up having problems that they didn't discover in the prototype phase anyways (i.e. Engine fires from ford, uncontrollable acceleration, etc.) why should it matter that they sell the prototypes?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering how many 'production cars' end up having problems that they didn't discover in the prototype phase anyways (i.e. Engine fires from ford, uncontrollable acceleration, etc.) why should it matter that they sell the prototypes?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Why would a car company worry about parting or selling a single car which could have questionable legal status, when they can just scrap it and be done with it? On the budget sheets of a large automaker, a single vehicle is probably within margin of error.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Every company that makes any kind of vehicles are could involve legal trouble with liability of non-standard parts do this. It's even common for stuff like tractors/combines which are a lot more expensive than cars. Well, except that they aren't out-right scrapped (most of the time) and they are broken down and reused for engineering purposes (with some things being scrapped) but the idea is basically the same. You can't let an engineering/testing unit of anything out into 'the real world'. There is just way, way too much liability. Planes might be the exception because I don't know how that works and they are gently caress-off expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
This was just simultaneously posted by like 6 of my racing friends on fb: what not to do at big willow.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Free Willy
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
It's the same in basically all manufacturing. A prototype will never be the same as the production version and it's not worth the liability or potential damage to your brand that it could cause by being in the market. I've worked for companies that destroyed thousands of dollars of goods on a regular basis because of tiny packaging mistakes. The manufacturing cost of most items is such a small fraction of the final shelf price that it's almost always cheaper to junk and replace at the factory than it is to bother trying to sell it. Even in cases where something was mistakenly shipped to the wrong customer it's often cheaper to have them destroy it and give proof than it is to ship it back.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:No such thing as a piece of paper with words on it that some lawyer, somewhere, wouldn't try to claim was insufficient to protect the poor consumer from using some random piece of hardware that clearly was the sole cause of FIERY DEATH. I knew about the liability, but they could very easily write up a contract releasing them from any and all damages that would be pretty bulletproof, even in cases of death. I'm sure some lawyer somewhere could challenge it, but there are people whose sole job is to make these contracts airtight and find every last precedent. I mean, don't bother with the Lexuses and that crap, but don't crush 15 Vipers when you could do some fanservice with a good lawyer. Auction them off for charity and void the title etc. so they could be used as collectable or track cars.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:I knew about the liability, but they could very easily write up a contract releasing them from any and all damages that would be pretty bulletproof, even in cases of death. I'm sure some lawyer somewhere could challenge it, but there are people whose sole job is to make these contracts airtight and find every last precedent.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Yeah, don't get your panties in a bunch, it's just a mass produced car.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Could be solved by a 'Release from Liability' form I'm sure any lawyer could draw up. Won't do any good if the car hurts someone who didn't sign that paper.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
jamal posted:This was just simultaneously posted by like 6 of my racing friends on fb: That must have been an exciting exit to that race.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Will them Duke boys be able to get back to the farm with the deed before before Roscoe forecloses on it? We'll find out after these messages.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:It's the same in basically all manufacturing. A prototype will never be the same as the production version and it's not worth the liability or potential damage to your brand that it could cause by being in the market. This. I do R&D and new product development for a technology company, and our loading dock has 3-4 pallet sized boxes that get filled with scrapped prototype and pre-production products every week. 10's of thousands of dollars worth of stuff. You just never know who has done what to them for testing or regulatory compliance or whatever, plus the final QA procedures are not in place yet, and it's not worth the risk of stuff getting out there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:09
|
|
|
Agreed. When I first worked at intel they were just instituting the IP retention rules that made sure all "nonrevenue" hardware (engineering samples, mechanical samples, basically any part from a production run prior to the release stepping) was crushed and/or shredded. You cannot risk stuff getting out that might have been modified to test a bugfixx, run outside the specs, handled improperly in the lab, etc. Its not worth the possibility of lawsuits or bad publicity from someone wadding up their car and dying, or winning, or for that matter losing a lawsuit. If they lose they go to the press and taint the reputation of the product, if they win, the press goes to them and does it for them. Hell imagine what ford would have gone through if the pinto deaths had been due to a manufacturing flaw in prototypes that they sold, not revenue units. They would have looked even more like soulless bean counters balancing lawsuit costs against redesign costs than they already did.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Every company that makes any kind of vehicles are could involve legal trouble with liability of non-standard parts do this. Nope. Planes if anything are even more stringent.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
rscott posted:Nope. Planes if anything are even more stringent. Yeah, you can be held liable as just a homebuilder of kit if you sell it and a building defect caused by you is the reason behind a malfunction.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:That should be a ticket for having improperly focused fog lights, like there technically is (although not enforced) for headlights. They should be focused low and wide, with the top cut low enough that they land below any other car's bumper. No it's not tougher enforcement we need, they should just have a program like in Germany. Every October when a car goes into a dealership or service station, they get all their lights checked for function and aim free of charge. The Government pays a small subsidy for each vehicle checked, and it has a demonstrated record of reducing accidents and generating cost savings.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Why October specifically?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
That's when everyone (and I do mean everyone) swaps over to their winter tyres. I don't think it's actually a legal requirement, but I've heard that your insurance company will be massively unhelpful if you have an accident in the snow with summer tyres on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Also, at least in the northern parts, daylight hours become scarce (and the sky is rarely clear) so all in all correct set up headlights are a good thing that time of year.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Mr.Peabody posted:No it's not tougher enforcement we need, they should just have a program like in Germany. Every October when a car goes into a dealership or service station, they get all their lights checked for function and aim free of charge. The Government pays a small subsidy for each vehicle checked, and it has a demonstrated record of reducing accidents and generating cost savings. In Maine we have kinda the same thing with state inspection. They check light, brakes, brake lines, suspension, etc. Make sure the car isn't full of rust holes and it's safe. And it costs $12.50, and if the car isn't safe, you fail inspection and it's illegal to drive...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
On one hand, I am horrified I live in a state with nary an inspection, since you see some truly horrifying shambling messes of vehicles wallowing about. On the other hand, I don't think a state that inspects would let my 300ZX pass, ever, sooooo
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
I don't know a single state that actually checks headlight focus in their inspections. If the lamp turns on, they'll slap a sticker on it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Pennsylvania and Virginia both check. It's dead simple to do by leaving some tape on the wall in front of the inspection pit, required by law, and makes the shop money, so a pretty easy sell on all fronts.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
One downside of no inspections here is that people's headlights go completely walleyed and they may as well be driving around with high beams on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:I don't know a single state that actually checks headlight focus in their inspections. If the lamp turns on, they'll slap a sticker on it. Maine is SUPPOSED to check, but I've never heard of a shop actually failing anyone for focus. Unless it was ridiculously off. There's a lot of stuff they SHOULD check, but it would take hours to run through the whole book. I have a car that probably wouldn't pass inspection at most shops. But if I take it to the shops with faded state inspection signs, maybe with a few shot gun holes, the old fat guy with a mustache and porn on his desk will slap a sticker on.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
chrisgt posted:Maine is SUPPOSED to check, but I've never heard of a shop actually failing anyone for focus. Unless it was ridiculously off. Here in PA, we refer to them as the old "Lick and Stick" shops. Be a little chummy with the owner, bullshit a bit, and keep quiet about it, and anything will pass. Also, last year the the first time, ever in my life, I passed an inspection legally. It was a grand moment.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:That's when everyone (and I do mean everyone) swaps over to their winter tyres. I don't think it's actually a legal requirement, but I've heard that your insurance company will be massively unhelpful if you have an accident in the snow with summer tyres on. Its a legal requirement in germany to have "season appropriate" tires on your car. So if you have an accident in the winter or block the road because you have summer tires on you'll get fined. Your insurance won't be very helpful when they find out either. Don't know if all dealerships really do a small winter check-up when they put on your winter tires though. But i change my tires myself so who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Shai-Hulud posted:Its a legal requirement in germany to have "season appropriate" tires on your car. So if you have an accident in the winter or block the road because you have summer tires on you'll get fined. Your insurance won't be very helpful when they find out either. I'm curious. Are "all season" tires available there like in the US? Or is the German MoT smart enough to know that there is no one tire that can handle an entire Deutschlander calendar?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
The tyres must be M+S marked, i.e. proper pukka winter tyres not just all seasons that do okay. See here: http://www.blackcircles.com/tyres/winter-tyres/laws-and-legislation
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
rscott posted:Nope. Planes if anything are even more stringent. To do otherwise and sign stuff off is knowingly falsifying documenatation, and that is a world of poo poo you do not want. If it goes right down the chain and gets someone killed, the upper limit of the US statute is something like life imprisonment for you on top of a $20m fine for your company. Every now and then you see someone try it on, and, particularly with military contracts, even if it's caught before anything actually happens, they get sentenced to a few years and stuck with a seven-figure fine. Uncle Sam does not gently caress around with this stuff. If you see a surviving prototype car, it's likely that it was either deliberately put into a museum or similar, was simply forgotten about, or someone effectively stole it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:The tyres must be M+S marked, i.e. proper pukka winter tyres not just all seasons that do okay. See here: Oh Norway, you so nutty. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:I don't know a single state that actually checks headlight focus in their inspections. If the lamp turns on, they'll slap a sticker on it. Mass sorta-kinda checks it. They use a big board with markings on it at the end of the bay.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Is there some kind of story that goes with this picture. Please say it's headlight or inspection related.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 01:07
|
|
