Why I Don't DD a Classic Car

"Money Hustard" (moneyhustard) 01/15/2014 at 18:44 • Filed to: None

1

26

I love me an occasional cruise on low-speed roads in a classic, but I don't bring them on the interstate. Here's one of the many reasons why.

djmanila > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 18:56

2

try not to wreck ;)

I used to DD my AE86 but yes older cars are not safe at all...there used to be a youtube video of the AE86 crash test

Money Hustard > djmanila 01/15/2014 at 19:05

0

Yeah, I try never to watch the crash test of a car I own. They always seem worse when they're cars you're familiar with.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 19:08

1

Nasty.

Still, you just have to pick the right one. The MGB was one of the first cars to feature proper crumple zones, and it's fairly overbuilt in that respect.

A good deal of Saabs and Volvos are also built like safes, so you'd do well with a 99 or a 140.

The X1/9's pretty good as well. They were built with some upcoming stringent US crash regulations in mind (that never actually materialised).

I've just had a 250 year old Oak tree fall on mine and this is it now:

This was it when the tree first fell, and as we cut various boughs off the other cars the majority of the weight came to rest upon the poor little Fiat.

There's still ample space inside for its two occupants, and the left-hand door even opens and closes properly to allow escape.

Colour me impressed. Definitely getting another, if only for the crash safety :)

Money Hustard > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/15/2014 at 19:10

1

What a beast! That's not a light-looking tree.

Ramblin Rover - The Vivisector of Solihull > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 19:35

0

It depends not only on the classic, but on the DD scenario. If you're in a big city with high congestion, sure. If you're in the suburbs or low-congestion city, you can do it indefinitely. Also crash resistance actually flip-flopped a number of times: builds grew lighter in the late teens compared to power, grew heavier, lightened again, and put on weight in the 40s that for the first time made for really survivable wrecks. Look up Budd steel body demonstrations some time. Then in the 50s through early 60s US makers flirted with lighter builds one more time before building tanks like the 64-66 Imperial. By my estimation, a 50s car is on average one of the most dangerous classics to drive: power and handling wedded to a build that can't cash the check they wrote.
Weight is a decently good indicator of ability to take a hit in general, all other things being equal (BOF, steel, longitudinal rwd, permanent inner fender), and that's usually not a hard thing to find on the internet.

Money Hustard > Ramblin Rover - The Vivisector of Solihull 01/15/2014 at 19:42

0

Good info, I'll definitely read up on budd steel. But even some of the more robust cars in the 60's, while they may have been able to take a hit back then, it's been 50 years. That's a long time and a lot of bondo...

awe46m3zcp > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 19:52

1

My Ford F1 doesnt even have seat belts... Driving it on some of the 65 mph 2 lane roads around here is down right scary. I figure at least I wont feel it. If it had lap belts it would probably be a slow painful death.

Money Hustard > awe46m3zcp 01/15/2014 at 19:57

0

Haha, I suppose that's a perk! Be careful out there,

Casper > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 20:03

0

Meh. If I followed that logic of simply driving the safest vehicle possible, I would be a boring person in a beige mobile and wouldn't have my motorcycle or ever ride a bicycle. Driving isn't about safety, because it's never safe. Just be more cautious when driving a less safe vehicle.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 20:11

0

Yeah, it's taken us two weeks to cut it back to the stage you can see in the top pic. Here's one that shows a bit more of the scale of the thing.

This is after about 2 days worth of cutting it down. It did extend all the way over the Jag, pretty much obscuring it from view, with another big bough resting on the roof of the Maserati under the cover in the foreground.

Money Hustard > Casper 01/15/2014 at 20:17

0

That's like saying one will be cold in Antartica regardless of what they are wearing, might as well go out in a t-shirt.

Your logic ignores the huge gray areas in automobile accident injuries that exist. Whether you just get a few bruises or are a paraplegic for the rest of your life can totally come down to what car you're driving. Or for that matter, if you get in an accident at all. Classics are a ton of fun and all, but you shouldn't tell yourself it's the same thing as driving a modern vehicle.

I don't think this is a discussion, like you say, about whether or not I'd ever ride a motorcycle, but rather more would I ever ride one without a helmet. "Not a chance in hell" is your answer there.

It's not being boring, it's being smart.

Money Hustard > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/15/2014 at 20:18

1

NOT THE JAAAAAAAG!

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 20:28

0

This one's the heartbreaking one.

I still don't know whether to replace or or fix it, just because it's my Jaaag.

I wonder at what point does sentimentality outweigh it's usefulness :)

Casper > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 21:08

0

Your logic assumes you will have an accident. My logic is that you should drive accordingly to what you are driving. If you are driving a tank, you don't need to care about safety as much because armor is doing it for you. If you are riding a bicycle, you should be most concerned because you have the least protection.

Your analogy is all over the place. Riding a motorcycle and driving a car are perfectly analogous. Both are transportation and you are assuming you are doing such specifically to get from point A to point B as safely as possible. I argue that the getting there is half the experience and sacrificing protection is perfectly acceptable (as it is for the majority of the world) so long as you account for the change with habit.

We simply live in a world where people are programmed to irrationally fear things. Millions upon millions of people lived with those vehicles just fine, and the difference between today's mortality rates and 1965 are less 10 for every 100,000 people including pedestrian accidents. This doesn't account for the use of seat belts or child seats (which was a huge part of the fatalities).

obwakeboarder > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/15/2014 at 21:32

1

I had an excursion tbone my 88 xj6 it was beautiful completely stock except for some engine components I changed through the years. If I was in a lesser car my wife and I would have wound up in the hospital that day, it put the car on two wheels. Nearly destroyed the a pillar so I ended up donating her. I feel your pain was my favorite car by far.

Money Hustard > Casper 01/15/2014 at 21:44

0

50 years ago cars were driving slower on less crowded roads, just like 50 years before that.

What I'm afraid you are missing is that you don't decide how everyone else drives. As you can see in the video above, if some asshole in a new car comes into your lane going the opposite direction, you'll be dead and they'll be a little banged up. I'm not saying I don't drive them, and celebrate them, I'm just saying I wouldn't drive one on a regular basis.

It's not irrational to want to protect myself and my wife and kid, it's irrational to think whatever happens on the road will be my choice.

Casper > Money Hustard 01/15/2014 at 21:49

0

It is irrational to make drastic decisions to what you do based on microscopic risk factors while ignoring major risks. For instance, the mortality rate per 100,000 has decreased by about 10, but is still 150% higher than it has decreased. Further, the mortality rates have been decreasing at an ever decelerating rate as basic road engineering improves and people adapt to current standards.

It's not about thinking whatever happens on the road will be your choice, it's about understanding that you play the majority role in it and accepting risk for what it is. Driving something less safe only increases risk slightly, in specific accident types, assuming there is an accident. It's a subset of a subset, of a minor percentage of probabilities.

Money Hustard > Casper 01/15/2014 at 23:30

0

Whatever you've got to tell yourself to get behind the wheel, I suppose.

So all this safety stuff they keep adding to cars making them more expensive and heavier is just a big conspiracy to make people live in fear? You think airbags are for worry warts? ABS and VSC are for pussies? All these brake lights they're adding to the back of cars is just superfluous? Shoulder seat belts are for the feeble? You think it's all just irrational fear mongering on the part of automakers?

The roads are a very fucking dangerous place. I can't think of another type of place that has claimed more of my friend's and family's lives prematurely. If you're most people it's the most dangerous place you go in a given day. Some people spend hours in this dangerous place every single day. If you're going to worry about safety ANYWHERE in your life why wouldn't it be on the road? If I'm going out in the sun for a few hours, I'm going to put on some sunscreen. I bet you've known more people that have got in wrecks than have had skin cancer, does sunscreen also make me some victim of fear?

I'd venture guess and say you're one of those "the best automotive safety device in the world would be in if everyone had a spike sticking out of their steering wheel," type of guys. And while I can appreciate that sort of cruel logic, you aren't going to see me with a spike pointed at my chest while driving. I want me an my family in a cocoon of airbags and high tensile strength steel and softness if someone sideswipes us.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > obwakeboarder 01/16/2014 at 04:28

0

Damn, that both sucks that the car's dead but excellent that you two survived unscathed.

If I don't fix this one I'm definitely getting another. I've got no money at all this month, other wise I'd be bidding on this .

As such, I'm just waiting for one to come along that's too right to pass up.

Casper > Money Hustard 01/16/2014 at 09:46

0

Then why start a conversion about it? You obviously fall into the paranoid side of things, you already know that, why would you then seek to try to convince others?

I offer real statistics and facts. You offer "what if" scenarios as if they are some how guaranteed to happen. Just because you know a lot of people who have been in accidents doesn't mean anything (other than you may know a statistically high group of poor drivers). Driving a slightly less safe vehicle doesn't instantly move your risk factor by a significant margin. A modern car isn't 100% safer, it's about 14% safer. So you are assuming 14% more risk when you enter the vehicle, assuming you are involved in a serious accident (which is 1 in 10,000 per population per year). That means you are completely changing the way you live and what you drive for something that is improving your safety less than simply ensuring you have a clean windshield, and doing so in the event of something that has a 0.001% chance of happening to you specifically.

It's not about being against safety features, it's about being realistic about the difference between fear mongering advertising and real probabilities/results and accepting risk in trade for living life. Just because a car is older than your magic number, doesn't mean someone hasn't elevated it's safety to a level of their own acceptance.

PS: Airbags are "supplemental" restraint device. They are there mostly to catch people who are too stupid to wear a seat belt.

obwakeboarder > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/16/2014 at 11:27

1

Very nice! square headlights on a jag is too tough for me to stomach, but still a great car.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > obwakeboarder 01/16/2014 at 11:32

0

Yeah I'd be swapping them with my quad-rounds :) much better

Money Hustard > Casper 01/16/2014 at 12:00

0

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

^Was not the headline. It was:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I'm not saying people shouldn't do all the stupid things that are awesome in this world, I'm explaining my rationale for not using one as my primary driver with an illustrative video. I appreciate your figures, I do understand what you're saying. A deadly accident is a fairly small risk, but again, can you name something else that an average person does in a day that is less safe than going on the road?

I'm not paranoid, really if you knew me you'd know that's a really inaccurate characterization, but I do prepare the worst that life throws at you. I've seen a lot of folks paralyzed or worse from accidents which is ****I**** am not going to drive one 15,000-20,000 miles a year in car with bad brakes, inadequate restraints, weak frame, and no ABS.

Casper > Money Hustard 01/16/2014 at 12:09

0

You are making many many assumptions though. First, you assume ABS is safer. ABS is only safer if the driver is inadequate. It was created to prevent poor drivers from locking their cars up in a panic brake situation and to help in ice/snow. It actually reduces stopping ability in favor of preventing the loss of control. New systems are getting much better, but cheap systems on most cars are worse at stopping than someone using a non-ABS system still. Likewise, a shoulder harness is still the most safe way to be in a car without going to harnesses, and even old classics can have them installed without much effort.

I understand you aren't going to. That's fine. The point is that the logic you are using to rationalize your decision is flawed. You can do whatever you like, just understand what the WHY is far more emotional/psychological than logical. Just like my desire to drive a sports car daily is more psychological than logical, even though it has logical components.

Money Hustard > Casper 01/16/2014 at 13:17

0

Please understand, I've owned classics in the past, my very first car was a '71 Delta 88 Crown Royale Convertible. I've also owned a half dozen other older cars that were just toys. It's only since my son was born 2 years ago that I've been down to one sensible '12 Maxima.

I think we're on the same page on a lot of what's being said, perhaps I'm just an inferior driver. I mean my track times, the few I've managed to put down, wouldn't indicate that, but I just can't rely on myself to be totally on 100% of the time I'm driving a car. I drive tired, I drive with a distracting kid in the car, and I've got horrendous ADD.

ABS is indeed totally a nanny, I should and probably can stop in same distance without it, but only when I'm focused and calm. If a kid jumps out in front of me, I'm not going to focused and calm, I'm likely going to mash the damn pedal through the floor, because most of my driving has been in cars with ABS. I'm not sure what you mean about airbags though, I don't know why wearing a seat belt replaces the job of a side-impact air bag.

I also have some family that work at hospitals, and the folks that have worked in trauma a long time definitely report a difference in the type and frequency of accident trauma they see compared to say the 70's. Hearing the gorey details of how much things have improved and keep improving my entire adult life has definitely left me with the impression that modern safety equipment is worth it. Also, ask a veteran firefighter how often he uses the jaws of life now compared to 30 years ago.

I know you're providing stats and I'm providing antidotes, but my job is data. I know that it can tell any story you want it to, and in a data set like accidents in American, there are too many variables to get anything useful out of it. Your need controlled environments to get true empirical information, and that's why they do crash tests.

Instead of bolting on a bunch of new tech to make a classic safe, I like to leave them as they are, so I can enjoy them as they were. My DD and a toy are two very separate things in my life. I'm getting another classic soon, and it won't be anywhere near safe, and I'll enjoy it, but you better believe I'm going to have a laser focus on what I'm doing at all times behind the wheel. It's just not something I'm capable of 100% of the time in 15-20K of driving every year.

I worry less about my own safety (track days have given me a terrible invincibility complex when it comes to driving), but when it comes to the safety of my passengers and the cars around me, I do feel responsible for minimizing risk, as minimal as it might be.

Casper > Money Hustard 01/16/2014 at 13:56

0

That really is a big difference is personalty and driver type. I don't get distracted, I almost don't talk to people in my car at all, and I get mad if I ask a question and don't get an immediate and brief answer. If I'm driving, I'm driving. Nothing else. I almost go into a zone like I do at the track to where I'm purely scanning for threats to my zone and performing my tasks as optimally as possible.

ABS is completely unnecessary to me. None of the motorcycles I ride have it, most of my cars done, and I have removed it from many cars in the past. Even if you do panic and lock the brakes, all you have to do is ease out and back in and regain controls. This is actually a point I think we are simply talking about different concepts from. I have old cars I drive, but all of them have upgraded disk brakes, none of them are original drums systems. Likewise, they are all on good performance tires, not period correct rubber. I think you are envisioning specific collectors cars, not just classics used as DDs or restomods.

When it comes to airbags they are all marginal improvements. If you look at safety changes from side impact airbags it's a microscopic improvement because of how specific the crash has to be and the persons positioning to be fatal in the first place. I have wrecked cars where I broke the window with the side of my head. The reality is that the biggest benefit to side airbags is the reduction of neck flex. Frontal air bags do very little if you are wearing a shoulder harness properly, they are there for people who are improperly restrained.

I too have family that work at hospitals as well as police and paramedics. I have been the first responder to fatal accidents as well. My take away is just different. I have seen people killed instantly completely surrounded by airbags while a DUI driver flies through a windshield, bounces off a tree, and is virtually uninjured. I personally have wrecked cars at over 100 MPH rollover with no air bags and standard shoulder harnesses and walked away with stitches on my forehead.

The difference here is conclusions. You draw the conclusion that you need as much safety as possible at all times. I draw the conclusion that no matter what you do, there is a point everything else is up to luck and skill.