When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: (PeteCresswell) on 11 Nov 2009 17:23 Per Neil Harrington: >> Was Pinto the one where the occupants were incinerated if >> somebody hit it from behind? > >That's the one. Probably something of an exaggerated problem, but never >having been hit in it from behind I can't speak from experience. Of course >those who *were* incinerated in Pintos wouldn't have considered it an >exaggeration. IIRC, the bigwigs at Ford decided not to put in a protective plate that would have prevented it because it would cost something like $1.83 more per car than the anticipated legal judgments by the incinerated. Nice folks... -- PeteCresswell
From: Neil Harrington on 11 Nov 2009 18:01 "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote in message news:47emf5pj8g53hhkochk87u5l5aqmu07h8q(a)4ax.com... > Per Neil Harrington: >>> Was Pinto the one where the occupants were incinerated if >>> somebody hit it from behind? >> >>That's the one. Probably something of an exaggerated problem, but never >>having been hit in it from behind I can't speak from experience. Of course >>those who *were* incinerated in Pintos wouldn't have considered it an >>exaggeration. > > IIRC, the bigwigs at Ford decided not to put in a protective > plate that would have prevented it because it would cost > something like $1.83 more per car than the anticipated legal > judgments by the incinerated. > > Nice folks... I remember reading something like that. That may be a little simplistic, though. I don't know.
From: tony cooper on 11 Nov 2009 19:01 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:01:49 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >"(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote in message >news:47emf5pj8g53hhkochk87u5l5aqmu07h8q(a)4ax.com... >> Per Neil Harrington: >>>> Was Pinto the one where the occupants were incinerated if >>>> somebody hit it from behind? >>> >>>That's the one. Probably something of an exaggerated problem, but never >>>having been hit in it from behind I can't speak from experience. Of course >>>those who *were* incinerated in Pintos wouldn't have considered it an >>>exaggeration. >> >> IIRC, the bigwigs at Ford decided not to put in a protective >> plate that would have prevented it because it would cost >> something like $1.83 more per car than the anticipated legal >> judgments by the incinerated. >> >> Nice folks... > >I remember reading something like that. That may be a little simplistic, >though. I don't know. > There are comments on various websites that say that Ford was unwilling to spend the money for a design change to prevent the problem. It smacks of urban myth to me. For Ford to be able to pin-point the cost of the added plate, they would have had to be able to predict the problem in the initial design stage. That doesn't sound reasonable even for greedy corporate types. If Ford declined to retro-fit extant models, or re-fit by recall, the cost would have been a great deal more per unit than $1.83. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: J�rgen Exner on 11 Nov 2009 19:50 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit? Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that everyone will know it. NOT. >> According to your statement above this is actually the only way because >> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are in >> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers >> anyway? > >I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a mile, Well, you do now. >unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't you use >knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric. You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are part of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not decimal based. >Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do >something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and 24-hour >days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow, what a >wonderful metricized world that would be! Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric') although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter). >> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart? > >Why would anyone care? Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last? >The point is, drops are still used as a unit of >liquid measure and they are not metric. Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either. jue
From: J. Clarke on 11 Nov 2009 20:15
tony cooper wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:01:49 -0500, "Neil Harrington" > <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >> >> "(PeteCresswell)" <x(a)y.Invalid> wrote in message >> news:47emf5pj8g53hhkochk87u5l5aqmu07h8q(a)4ax.com... >>> Per Neil Harrington: >>>>> Was Pinto the one where the occupants were incinerated if >>>>> somebody hit it from behind? >>>> >>>> That's the one. Probably something of an exaggerated problem, but >>>> never having been hit in it from behind I can't speak from >>>> experience. Of course those who *were* incinerated in Pintos >>>> wouldn't have considered it an exaggeration. >>> >>> IIRC, the bigwigs at Ford decided not to put in a protective >>> plate that would have prevented it because it would cost >>> something like $1.83 more per car than the anticipated legal >>> judgments by the incinerated. >>> >>> Nice folks... >> >> I remember reading something like that. That may be a little >> simplistic, though. I don't know. >> > There are comments on various websites that say that Ford was > unwilling to spend the money for a design change to prevent the > problem. It smacks of urban myth to me. It's a very well known case. > For Ford to be able to pin-point the cost of the added plate, they > would have had to be able to predict the problem in the initial design > stage. That doesn't sound reasonable even for greedy corporate types. Why would they have had to be aware of the problem in the initial design? There is this process called "testing" that is intended to detect problems that escaped the designers. > If Ford declined to retro-fit extant models, or re-fit by recall, the > cost would have been a great deal more per unit than $1.83. They in fact considered a number of different alternatives and decided not to do anything on the basis that doing nothing and paying off any lawsuits was cheaper than fixing the problem. This was proven in court in the rather famous "Gray v. Ford" case tried in the Sacramenton Superior Court and upheld by the court of appeals (note that the case is also known as "Grimshaw v. Ford", as Gray died during the course of the litigation), with the result of a 125 million dollar punitive damages award, then a record high, later reduced to 3.5 million. The trial transcript does not seem to be online anywhere, but these matters are also covered in the apellate court ruling, which states that it was shown in court that upon Ford becoming aware in tests of the existence of the problem they considered and rejected a variety of modifications ranging in cost from $1.89 to $9.95 per car. A copy of the appellate court ruling can be found at http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/torts/pdf/Grimshaw.pdf. |