New cars are dangerous?!

cormie

Ok, maybe not them all, and I'm sure they are a lot safer in terms of airbags etc than my 91 fiesta and my previous 96 Micra, but last night I was driving a 02 Focus (which I want to get as my next car until I save up for a Murcielago:D) and I drove a 04 Opel Corsa for Ignition and a Yaris as well, and in all of them, the view through the rear view mirror is terrible!! You can see so much more in my fiesta and micra and it feels a lot more comfortable being able to see so much more! Is this the same with most new cars? Are they sacrificing a better rear view for style and shape?

It's weird too, in the 30 minutes I was driving it, when I got back into my Fiesta straight after, it took me a while to get used to it!

kluivert

But when you get your Murcielago you wont be doing much reverse parking. Hey then again when your driving one of these cars you wouldnt need a rear view mirror. There ll only be dust anyway.

mike65

Its one of the great failings of 'modern' car design. It is dangerous esp if you are a short-arse, the reason women can't reverse is'nt cos they are bad its because many can see damn all out the back.

Can anyone enlighten me on what the story is with that black surround on many back windows?



It seems to be a modern affectation. The width of A, B and C pillars leave a lot to be desired too.

Mike.

Jood

Excuse me I take offence to that comment, I find it much easier to reverse park then to drive into a space. I'm only five foot and i have no problem doing it using my wing mirrors and rear view. Oh yes and i am a women.;)

mike65

Well done (me pats head!)

Seriously though some cars are tricky, the Citroen Xsara got some flack when it was launched for the high rear end/small window visibility.

Mike.

Jood

mike65 wrote:

Well done (me pats head!)

Seriously though some cars are tricky, the Citroen Xsara got some flack when it was launched for the high rear end/small window visibility.

Mike.

Ha Ha ThanK You:rolleyes:
But seriously, I've had to park cars for friends on numerous occasions everything from a megane to a corsa and never had any major problems, but it does differ from car to car. I cant understand the blacked out windows tho.

Vegeta

yeah they are sacraficing some aspects for style by the looks of things

Vegeta

Jood wrote:

Ha Ha ThanK You:rolleyes:
But seriously, I've had to park cars for friends on numerous occasions everything from a megane to a corsa and never had any major problems, but it does differ from car to car. I cant understand the blacked out windows tho.

I think the black surround is like go faster windows, no real use is it

cormie

I reverse into every parking space, except when I need to get at the boot, but I'm not sure if I'd feel so comfortable doing it in these modjaherrin cars, even when I got into the Focus last night (I was giving my friend some lessons) I had to reverse it out of his driveway in between a very tight space of a wall and a van, I couldn't see anything out the rear view and had to do it with the wing mirrors. I feel it's much safer and easier looking out the back window!

Eoin

There was an article in the one of the motoring supplements a while ago saying that the front pillars between the windscreen and the front doors (can't remember the name of them) have gotten so wide that it creates quite a large blind spot.

maidhc

mike65 wrote:

Its one of the great failings of 'modern' car design. It is dangerous esp if you are a short-arse, the reason women can't reverse is'nt cos they are bad its because many can see damn all out the back.

True, you can easily knock over a child when reversing a large car like an avensis with the massive blind spot. I dont know why cars are like it.

It varies on the car and the design... I suspect a Jag would be good

mike65 wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me on what the story is with that black surround on many back windows?

It hides the steel pillar normally (you dont see it from inside), and looks better + cheaper to build than folding steel in small places I reckon.

Garth

When I took a driving lesson in a new Yaris, I inquired about the very wide framing between the windows (say between the windshield and the side window), apparently it's to make the vehicle more structurally strong, but it makes visibility a biatch.

BrianD3

Yeah older cars generally have much better visibility. I drove a BMW 3 series E30 a couple of years back and it was a joy for visibility with very thin pillars, large glass area and a square, low shape which meant that you could see every inch of the bonnet and boot.

However there is a price to be paid in terms of passive safety as older cars have much weaker passenger compartments. The thickness of the pillars is a big part of this.

Also older cars are seen as being "boring square boxes" by modern consumers plus they're probably worse for aerodynamics as well which has an effect on refinement, performance, fuel economy etc. OTOH older cars are generally a lot lighter than their modern equivalents which is a big factor in performance and economy.

Eoin

BrianD3 wrote:

Also older cars are seen as being "boring square boxes" by modern consumers

At least they looked different to each other! It's getting harder and harder to tell what make a hatchback is these days by first glance, they all look so similar. A lot of people blame the rigorous safety standards for this..

mike65

At some point wind tunnels and safety laws will mean we all end up driving the same "blob".

Mike.

maidhc

mike65 wrote:

At some point wind tunnels and safety laws will mean we all end up driving the same "blob".

Mike.

It happened in or around 1992 I think.

bazz26

eoin_s wrote:

There was an article in the one of the motoring supplements a while ago saying that the front pillars between the windscreen and the front doors (can't remember the name of them) have gotten so wide that it creates quite a large blind spot.

This is called the A pillar. This is because most modern cars have front curtain air bags built into the front and rear pillars. Also these pillars are reinforced as part of the anti-roll cage to help prevent the roof totally collapsing flat in the event the car lands upside down.

prospect

I am probably going to get flamed for this, but;

One modern car that doesn't follow this 'lack-of-visability', 'designed-like-a-blob' trend is the Fiat Multipla. It has fantastic visability all around, and certainly cannot be accused of looking like the rest.

Yet, it gets constant criticism? So, seemingly you cannot win!

alias no.9

I had a '90 fiesta before and yes, the mirrors were excellent. The slight makeover that model got around '93is saw the introduction of smaller mirrors.

ds20prefecture

BrianD3 wrote:

Also older cars are seen as being "boring square boxes" by modern consumers plus they're probably worse for aerodynamics as well which has an effect on refinement, performance, fuel economy etc. OTOH older cars are generally a lot lighter than their modern equivalents which is a big factor in performance and economy.

How dare you! My 1972 DS is neither boxy nor boring and has a coefficient of drag of 0.30. Strangely it is still thirstier than a district court judge, noisier than an Airbus and slower than continental drift

I agree completely with the general concensus here - the 360 degree visibility from my car is amazing, but the tradeoff is lack of passive safety - my A and B pillars are about 1" thick, which will not support the car upside down. I've no headrests which gives a marvelous view but also a marvelous pain in the neck even in a low speed shunt.

BUT - I think modern cars designers go too far exaggerating this "chunky" look to the detriment of active safety - i.e. seeing where the flock you're going. The reason they do this is because we, the market, demand it.

PS: Multipla RULES!!!

colm_mcm

I drive lots of different new cars in my job, and I can't say that they're hard to see out of. You're generally sitting higher up than you are in an older car, and the only potential obstruction is the rear headrests.

the magician

If you think modern cars are bad for blind spots check out one of these http://usediron.point2.com/Photo/Equipment/282093-1-M.jpg
I work for the irish main dealer and can honestly say they are a bitch to park.

maidhc

the magician wrote:

If you think modern cars are bad for blind spots check out one of these http://usediron.point2.com/Photo/Equipment/282093-1-M.jpg
I work for the irish main dealer and can honestly say they are a bitch to park.

At least they have a reason to have a blind spot... and you normally dont need to parallel park them!

the magician

true but we have to park them in all sorts of spots in the yard and trying to get it into a spot in the workshop is a bitch when the door are only a few inches wider.:mad: . if you can get one of these into a spot parking cars is a piece of piss

unkel

ds20prefecture wrote:

My 1972 DS is neither boxy nor boring and has a coefficient of drag of 0.30

Now you're losing the run of yourself a bit

The original DS had a drag coefficient of 0.38, great at the time but worse than a modern day brick like a 4WD Lexus RX SUV. Yours is a bit more aerodynamical, perhaps about the same as the car that was named after the coefficent, the Citroen CX

Modern cars are more likely to average around the 0.30 mark, or much better with exceptionally streamlined models like the Audi A2 and the Honda Insight. <nerd> or are we going to talk Tatra? </nerd>

mike65

Nerdy?

The Audi 100 was the first car to have a drag coefficient of 0.30 and the CX was'nt very aerodynamic!

Mike.

ds20prefecture

mike65 wrote:

The Audi 100 was the first car to have a drag coefficient of 0.30 and the CX was'nt very aerodynamic!

Mea culpa - The 1968-1975 DS had a Cd of 0.34 - better than the CX's 0.36. The 1981 Sierra was the first car to match it, but then only with skinny tyres (which the DS had as standard!). Ditto the Audi, BTW - they used 155 section tyres and removed the door mirrors to acheive the 0.30.

BTW - the Saab 92 of 1947 had a Cd of 0.30, and as Unkel rightly reminds us, the Tatra T77 of 1935 had 0.212.

Goes to show you - there's no more meaningless metric than the Cd!

mike65

Slippy fella.





Mike.

BrianD3

What about the Citroen GS, IIRC it had a very good Cd? Great car in many other respects too.

mike65

Can't find a number for the GS but I did find the groovy Alfa Romeo Disco Volante which has a cd of 0.26



edit found it 0.30 so i can't imagine why I thought the Audi 100 was the first mass produced car to hit 0.30. They did make a fuss about it at the time.

Mike.

ds20prefecture

Audi once famously remarked that to put a spoiler on a car is to admit engineering defeat - the old less is more, vorsprung durch technik, see if I don't, mode of thinking. I'd imagine the bitter pills were 2 a penny in Ingolstadt when the TT started going arseways through hedges due to rear end lift above 90mph and they were forced to issue a recall to fit a spoiler.

Can you believe that Audi were once frightened of Citroen as a competitor? Still, in the end, in a battle of marketing vs engineering marketing always wins.

PS: I think the GS was 0.31, so you're still good with the 100.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Vegeta wrote:

I think the black surround is like go faster windows, no real use is it

SOME of use use darkened rear windows in commericals so noobs dont see what in rear ,like work gear etc,as for rest ,dont know

Sparky

I have to use a van everyday, bar the weekends really, and with the back two panels blanked out, its a bitch to park in certain locations. Also a terrible blind spot when you are reversing out of car spaces, your head is nearly over the wheel to see if any car or some person is heading your way.

ninty9er

I can agree with Mike on the Xsara, the facelifted even more so, The rear visibility below 4 feet is crap. However the visibility in My 00 Corsa is great and whatever car you drive you eventually become able to tell exactly where the arse ends (well I have good perceptual skills I think the DAT test said). The purpose of the rear view is more to watch traffic approaching from behind. I use the wings more for parking

mike65

Sparky-s wrote:

I have to use a van everyday, bar the weekends really, and with the back two panels blanked out, its a bitch to park in certain locations. Also a terrible blind spot when you are reversing out of car spaces, your head is nearly over the wheel to see if any car or some person is heading your way.

I use a van (Scudo) in my job and strangly I find it easier to park (including reverse parallel style) than a car.

Mike.

RoundyMooney

BrianD3 wrote:

Yeah older cars generally have much better visibility. I drove a BMW 3 series E30 a couple of years back and it was a joy for visibility with very thin pillars, large glass area and a square, low shape which meant that you could see every inch of the bonnet and boot.

I was just thinking the same thing! A blind geriatric nun could park my E30 with ease... it's a nice aspect to the car.

Andy_R

I have a new Civic and the rear visibility is dire but the wing mirrors are huge which almost makes up for it.

RoundyMooney

mike65 wrote:

I use a van (Scudo) in my job and strangly I find it easier to park (including reverse parallel style) than a car.

Mike.

Ditto. I drive various large trucks, and every since I started off in a (relatively) small Transit. I find it impossible to park with the head over the shoulder routine. I find it cumbersome, awkward, and unsafe to a degree (as you can't quickly alternate between front and rear views).


It looks n00b too!

Sparky

mike65 wrote:

I use a van (Scudo) in my job and strangly I find it easier to park (including reverse parallel style) than a car.

Mike.

Mines a 206 car/van, but I must say I use my mirrors nearly all the time, but its the reversing out of spaces that the arse.