Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

stickguy

He’s lucky. BMW owner, not so much.

imidazol97

That'll buff right out.

benjaminh

My wife and I saw the latest James Bond movie in a theater last night. We both thought it was good. Lots of cars and car chases. Avoid spoilers if possible. If interested, I'd suggest seeing it sooner rather than later for that reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2FOYjCz38

qbrozen

imidazol97 said:

What is wrong with this BMW and its roof? They have powers we never knew they had!







https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/new-jersey-man-survives-9-story-plunge-by-landing-on-a-bmw/

That's a Jersey boy for ya. Walk it off, man.

snakeweasel

@benjaminh said:
My wife and I saw the latest James Bond movie in a theater last night. We both thought it was good. Lots of cars and car chases. Avoid spoilers if possible. If interested, I'd suggest seeing it sooner rather than later for that reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2FOYjCz38

When I was a teenager my dad, who was in counter intelligence during WWII, took me to a James Bond movie marathon at a local theater. On that day my dad ruined just about every spy movie for me.

oldfarmer50

imidazol97 said:

What is wrong with this BMW and its roof?

BMW's have powers we never knew they had!







https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/new-jersey-man-survives-9-story-plunge-by-landing-on-a-bmw/

Well, at least he had his mask on. In NYC that’s all that matters.

imidazol97

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

What is wrong with this BMW and its roof?

BMW's have powers we never knew they had!







https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/new-jersey-man-survives-9-story-plunge-by-landing-on-a-bmw/

Well, at least he had his mask on. In NYC that’s all that matters.

That's my belly laugh of the day award winner! I hadn't noticed that point. LOL

ab348

imidazol97 said:

That'll buff right out.

There's one in every crowd.

Seems like poor roof integrity on that BMW.

dino001

ab348 said:

imidazol97 said:

That'll buff right out.

There's one in every crowd.

Seems like poor roof integrity on that BMW.

I bet you most cars would do similar. They're designed to take some forces through the pillar cage in case of rollover/flipover, not a small area punching force. But I suspect it may not take a real life rollover as well as "advertised", either.

This reminds me crane drop test they did on Top Gear comparing old Saab 93 (or 900 don't remember) with its contemporary BMW. To say that the latter didn't do very well would be kind. One would hope that they improved over 25+ years, but perhaps not quite enough.

There is only one brand I fully trust in terms of attitude toward crashworthiness - Subaru. They are targeting to have full IIHS test array at top level for all their models every year. I remember they redesigned the door side of their brand new 2005 Legacy immediately after IIHS didn't give them best rating on one of the tests (it wasn't even Poor, just not Good, I think they call it Marginal). There is no other manufacturer that did that, ever. The rest always chooses to respond to any unfavorable test results with "blah blah blah, we're confident, blah, blah, blah, overall blah, blah, blah".

jmonroe1

@imidazol97 said:
What is wrong with this BMW and its roof?

BMW's have powers we never knew they had!

https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/new-jersey-man-survives-9-story-plunge-by-landing-on-a-bmw/

I hope his home owners policy covers the repair costs for the car.

jmonroe

imidazol97

Looks like the BMW might have a double pano roof. I just can't believe the guy fell
9 stories, and then survived the impact of the "stop."

I can the pano roof pieces and their framing giving a good hard resistance to the
impact but letting go after absorbing part of the energy. Then the rest was absorbed
by the seat backs, which have a metal framework I assume.

And the guy's walking. Usually falls of that height evoke forensic descriptions in murder
mystery books of the damage done to the human body by the forces involved during
the deceleration. I'll spare the details.

fintail

No pano option on that model (BMW never really embraced pano on most passenger cars) - maybe the jacket had good padding, or he was drunk and didn't tense up etc.

imidazol97 said:

Looks like the BMW might have a double pano roof. I just can't believe the guy fell
9 stories, and then survived the impact of the "stop."

I can the pano roof pieces and their framing giving a good hard resistance to the
impact but letting go after absorbing part of the energy. Then the rest was absorbed
by the seat backs, which have a metal framework I assume.

And the guy's walking. Usually falls of that height evoke forensic descriptions in murder
mystery books of the damage done to the human body by the forces involved during
the deceleration. I'll spare the details.

andres3

dino001 said:

ab348 said:

imidazol97 said:

That'll buff right out.

There's one in every crowd.

Seems like poor roof integrity on that BMW.

I bet you most cars would do similar. They're designed to take some forces through the pillar cage in case of rollover/flipover, not a small area punching force. But I suspect it may not take a real life rollover as well as "advertised", either.

This reminds me crane drop test they did on Top Gear comparing old Saab 93 (or 900 don't remember) with its contemporary BMW. To say that the latter didn't do very well would be kind. One would hope that they improved over 25+ years, but perhaps not quite enough.

There is only one brand I fully trust in terms of attitude toward crashworthiness - Subaru. They are targeting to have full IIHS test array at top level for all their models every year. I remember they redesigned the door side of their brand new 2005 Legacy immediately after IIHS didn't give them best rating on one of the tests (it wasn't even Poor, just not Good, I think they call it Marginal). There is no other manufacturer that did that, ever. The rest always chooses to respond to any unfavorable test results with "blah blah blah, we're confident, blah, blah, blah, overall blah, blah, blah".

The IIHS' bread and butter are those safety tests. However, given their rampant lack of honesty and credibility on just about everything they publish, it's hard to give their safety ratings any credence any longer. Integrity is certainly not the motto for people that work in the IIHS.

andres3

jmonroe1 said:

@imidazol97 said:

What is wrong with this BMW and its roof?

BMW's have powers we never knew they had!

https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/new-jersey-man-survives-9-story-plunge-by-landing-on-a-bmw/

I hope his home owners policy covers the repair costs for the car.

jmonroe

Wouldn't this be a vandalism claim on comprehensive auto insurance?

qbrozen

andres3 said:

Wouldn't this be a vandalism claim on comprehensive auto insurance?

I don't know about the term vandalism. But I do assume it is comprehensive covered, just like a deer strike.

However, I do think the insurance company could go after him since he apparently jumped. Willful destruction.

driver100

In this story a window washer fell 11 stories onto a Camry!
https://abc7.com/window-washer-falls-san-francisco-high-rise-fall-11-story/406890/
I think the BMW came out of it better than the Toyota:

Probably a GM wouldn't hold up as well as these two!

stickguy

Pretty good physics lesson there too.

oldfarmer50

dino001 said:

ab348 said:

imidazol97 said:

That'll buff right out.

There's one in every crowd.

Seems like poor roof integrity on that BMW.

I bet you most cars would do similar. They're designed to take some forces through the pillar cage in case of rollover/flipover, not a small area punching force. But I suspect it may not take a real life rollover as well as "advertised", either.

This reminds me crane drop test they did on Top Gear comparing old Saab 93 (or 900 don't remember) with its contemporary BMW. To say that the latter didn't do very well would be kind. One would hope that they improved over 25+ years, but perhaps not quite enough.

There is only one brand I fully trust in terms of attitude toward crashworthiness - Subaru. They are targeting to have full IIHS test array at top level for all their models every year. I remember they redesigned the door side of their brand new 2005 Legacy immediately after IIHS didn't give them best rating on one of the tests (it wasn't even Poor, just not Good, I think they call it Marginal). There is no other manufacturer that did that, ever. The rest always chooses to respond to any unfavorable test results with "blah blah blah, we're confident, blah, blah, blah, overall blah, blah, blah".

I suspect that the roof wasn’t designed for that type of blunt force hitting between the roof rails. Aren’t the rails what really counts in a roll over crash? The roof in between is probably designed to keep the rails from twisting inward. I bet the part that collapsed was aluminum to save weight.

driver100

@oldfarmer50 When we went through the MB plant in Stuttgart they said the sunroof made the roof of the car safer, it adds a lot of strength since it has steel rails.

jmonroe1

@driver100 said:
@oldfarmer50 When we went through the MB plant in Stuttgart they said the sunroof made the roof of the car safer, it adds a lot of strength since it has steel rails.

IIRC, one of our poster buddies says, it’s only good for adding weight.

jmonroe

qbrozen

@jmonroe1 said:

@driver100 said:
@oldfarmer50 When we went through the MB plant in Stuttgart they said the sunroof made the roof of the car safer, it adds a lot of strength since it has steel rails.

IIRC, one of our poster buddies says, it’s only good for adding weight.

jmonroe

More than one. ;b

And if MB truly believed that, why wouldn’t they include the rails with or without glass?

driver100

jmonroe1 said:

@driver100 said:
@oldfarmer50 When we went through the MB plant in Stuttgart they said the sunroof made the roof of the car safer, it adds a lot of strength since it has steel rails.

IIRC, one of our poster buddies says, it’s only good for adding weight.

jmonroe

Who you going to believe?
Different articles say different things. This one says a pano roof will not affect the strength of the roof adversely.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/sunroofs-do-they-compromise-performance-and-safety/
This article gives the reasons not to have a pano roof, yet they say it adds to the integrity of the body:
When it comes down to it, a panoramic sunroof is essentially a giant hole in the roof of your vehicle, and while they do contribute to the structural rigidity of the vehicle, it’ll never be as good or as strong as a vehicle with a conventional roof (does that even make sense?)
https://www.topgearbox.com/cars/your-car/6-reasons-to-avoid-a-panoramic-roof/
IMHO, I am just going by what they said at the factory, and it makes sense to me that with steel guardrails in the roof, the roof has to be stronger.

jmonroe1

@driver100 said:
Who you going to believe?
Different articles say different things. This one says a pano roof will not affect the strength of the roof adversely.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/sunroofs-do-they-compromise-performance-and-safety/
This article gives the reasons not to have a pano roof, yet they say it adds to the integrity of the body:
When it comes down to it, a panoramic sunroof is essentially a giant hole in the roof of your vehicle, and while they do contribute to the structural rigidity of the vehicle, it’ll never be as good or as strong as a vehicle with a conventional roof (does that even make sense?)
https://www.topgearbox.com/cars/your-car/6-reasons-to-avoid-a-panoramic-roof/
IMHO, I am just going by what they said at the factory, and it makes sense to me that with steel guardrails in the roof, the roof has to be stronger.

Please don’t shoot the messenger.

jmonroe

andres3

If the hole is accounted for structurally with ADDITIONAL Structural support to make up for the fact there's a hole in the roof, then it might be equal or stronger to one without a hole in the roof. If your comparing apples to apples, of course no hole is stronger.

andres3

I'm too mathematically logical to go to 20% standard tips. 15% is more today than it was 20 years ago due to the simple act of inflation. This is why percentages never need to move unless your the government and wanting to raise taxes.

stickguy

Driver, it is not a hole. It is just replacing some sheet metal with a glass panel, and the framing needed to make it work.

your windshield is not just a "hole" in the car either.

imidazol97

andres3 said:

I'm too mathematically logical to go to 20% standard tips. 15% is more today than it was 20 years ago due to the simple act of inflation. This is why percentages never need to move unless your the government and wanting to raise taxes.

What is the standard tipping rate in Europe? Long ago when 15% was considered standard here for _good_ service, above average, 10% was typical in Europe.

laurasdada

So, I've got this going for me:
"2021 Audi A7 plug-in hybrid named Best Luxury Plug-in Hybrid by U.S. News & World Report."

I can tell that you're suitably impressed.

imidazol97

I just checked the status of my paper tax return from 2020. They are now processing it!
Five months...

roadburner

My wife saw me taking this book off the shelf and said, "I knew we shouldn't have gone to see No Time to Die!"

roadburner

benjaminh said:

My wife and I saw the latest James Bond movie in a theater last night. We both thought it was good. Lots of cars and car chases. Avoid spoilers if possible. If interested, I'd suggest seeing it sooner rather than later for that reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2FOYjCz38

All the Stunts in the James Bond Thriller “No Time To Die” Are Real

oldfarmer50

imidazol97 said:

I just checked the status of my paper tax return from 2020. They are now processing it!
Five months...

My son still hasn’t got his and it was filed the same day as mine. The government stiffed him on all three stimulus checks except the third one which arrived several weeks after he filed his taxes.

driver100

stickguy said:

Driver, it is not a hole. It is just replacing some sheet metal with a glass panel, and the framing needed to make it work.

your windshield is not just a "hole" in the car either.

Stick, I don't think of it as a hole, I think the article said it was a hole. Racing guys might think it adds a lot of extra weight....about 200 pounds and that makes the car more top heavy. There is a small chance the glass could break which might make the people in the car more exposed to some dangers. Overall, I think what the guy at the factory said makes sense, the steel beams in the roof make the structural integrity stronger.
Opinions are all over the place, it is a case of believe what makes sense to you.

Michaell

roadburner said:

benjaminh said:

My wife and I saw the latest James Bond movie in a theater last night. We both thought it was good. Lots of cars and car chases. Avoid spoilers if possible. If interested, I'd suggest seeing it sooner rather than later for that reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2FOYjCz38

All the Stunts in the James Bond Thriller “No Time To Die” Are Real

Saw NTTD this afternoon. Not surprised that there wasn’t any CGI.

stickguy

I don't think a normal moonroof weighs 200 extra pounds. At least based on comparing models of the same car with and without them. But might have a little bit of extra weight, but nothing that is going to matter to a normal car driving on normal roads.

andres3

stickguy said:

I don't think a normal moonroof weighs 200 extra pounds. At least based on comparing models of the same car with and without them. But might have a little bit of extra weight, but nothing that is going to matter to a normal car driving on normal roads.

Acura would be offended if you are calling their vehicles "normal cars."

tjc78

Went to the bakery to pick up a cake for my Daughter’s birthday in @stickguy ’s neighborhood.

Cakes pay well apparently… all parked behind the store. Can’t argue with the color choice!

ag

andres3

Speaking of good car-observing parking lots; Engineering-type companies like Northrup-Grumman are excellent car spotting areas. Supra's, Tesla's, and more.

driver100

tjc78 said:

Went to the bakery to pick up a cake for my Daughter’s birthday in @stickguy ’s neighborhood.

Cakes pay well apparently… all parked behind the store. Can’t argue with the color choice!

They may be selling more than cakes from that location

driver100

stickguy said:

I don't think a normal moonroof weighs 200 extra pounds. At least based on comparing models of the same car with and without them. But might have a little bit of extra weight, but nothing that is going to matter to a normal car driving on normal roads.

I think it says according to C&D they can weigh as much as 200 pounds:
This means that the extra 200 pounds from the glass roof may affect your overall stability and handling. In terms of weight, you might compare the panoramic sunroof to having another passenger aboard at all times.

This 2 minute video shows how strong the glass is....if you flip ahead to 1 minute 40 seconds they drop an anchor on the roof;
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x306vj4

abacomike

@driver100 said:
I think it says according to C&D they can weigh as much as 200 pounds:
This means that the extra 200 pounds from the glass roof may affect your overall stability and handling. In terms of weight, you might compare the panoramic sunroof to having another passenger aboard at all times.

This 2 minute video shows how strong the glass is....if you flip ahead to 1 minute 40 seconds they drop an anchor on the roof;
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x306vj4

Too bad that they can’t put a windshield on a car that won’t crack or chip from an errant rock or stone from the road. But I guess you have to consider the force with which the rock or stone hits the windshield. My chips or cracks usually occur when I am on the highway or Turnpike doing 65 or 70 mph and a rock from a dump truck hits the windshield.

snakeweasel

@andres3 said:
Acura would be offended if you are calling their vehicles "normal cars."

Why are they special? Do they also fly or turn into submarines?

snakeweasel

@andres3 said:
Speaking of good car-observing parking lots; Engineering-type companies like Northrup-Grumman are excellent car spotting areas. Supra's, Tesla's, and more.

Went to breakfast one time and took this picture behind the restuarant.

snakeweasel

Sitting at the Honda dealership waiting for am oil change and inspection to be completed. I checked put the showroom and fell in love with the Goldwing they have out there.

imidazol97

abacomike said:

abacomike said:

@driver100 said:

I think it says according to C&D they can weigh as much as 200 pounds:

This means that the extra 200 pounds from the glass roof may affect your overall stability and handling. In terms of weight, you might compare the panoramic sunroof to having another passenger aboard at all times.

This 2 minute video shows how strong the glass is....if you flip ahead to 1 minute 40 seconds they drop an anchor on the roof;
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x306vj4

Too bad that they can’t put a windshield on a car that won’t crack or chip from an errant rock or stone from the road. But I guess you have to consider the force with which the rock or stone hits the windshield. My chips or cracks usually occur when I am on the highway or Turnpike doing 65 or 70 mph and a rock from a dump truck hits the windshield.

IIRC the glass was changed a decade or more ago. Thinner? Lighter in weight to suit the ever-controlling EPA types. But more subject to chips.

Around here some of the dump trucks have signs on the rear to fake out those who don't know the laws by misstating the law. They say "not responsible for rocks thrown from the road." Technically that's true, but they want folks to believe they're not reponsible for the rocks and material that falls from their truck, rails, beds, and ends up hitting a windshield behind them. That's not the case.

But I'm sure those signs fool a lot of folks. I've called the OSP when I've seen trucks with material big enough to damage cars behind sitting on their rails. Many of the newer trucks have slopes everywhere so no material, like rocks, can sit on the ledges and jiggle off when they hit a bump.

Funniest I saw was a scattering of 2-2.5 inch round rocks on the interstate where a truck had hit the bump at the end of an overpass and those fell and scattered over a hundred feet or so. I used the other lane to avoid hitting any of them. A thousand feet ahead all the way to the right shoulder at the end of a merging ramp was a pile of same round stones. I surmised the rear dump gate opened when he hit the bump. He stopped and had to work to get the gate closed. Then hurried away before a cop might have found him.

snakeweasel

@imidazol97 said:
IIRC the glass was changed a decade or more ago. Thinner? Lighter in weight to suit the ever-controlling EPA types. But more subject to chips.

Around here some of the dump trucks have signs on the rear to fake out those who don't know the laws by misstating the law. They say "not responsible for rocks thrown from the road." Technically that's true, but they want folks to believe they're not reponsible for the rocks and material that falls from their truck, rails, beds, and ends up hitting a windshield behind them. That's not the case.

But I'm sure those signs fool a lot of folks. I've called the OSP when I've seen trucks with material big enough to damage cars behind sitting on their rails. Many of the newer trucks have slopes everywhere so no material, like rocks, can sit on the ledges and jiggle off when they hit a bump.

Funniest I saw was a scattering of 2-2.5 inch round rocks on the interstate where a truck had hit the bump at the end of an overpass and those fell and scattered over a hundred feet or so. I used the other lane to avoid hitting any of them. A thousand feet ahead all the way to the right shoulder at the end of a merging ramp was a pile of same round stones. I surmised the rear dump gate opened when he hit the bump. He stopped and had to work to get the gate closed. Then hurried away before a cop might have found him.

The problem comes from proving the stone that chiped your windshield came from the truck and wasn't kicked up from the road.

snakeweasel

Saw an AMC AMX yesterday on a flatbed tow truck earlier today. IIRC they were only produced for three years with less that 25k made.

roadburner

snakeweasel said:

Saw an AMC AMX yesterday on a flatbed tow truck earlier today. IIRC they were only produced for three years with less that 25k made.

Yes- they were built from 1968-1970; after that "AMX" became a trim package on the Javelin. In high school a classmate who bought a 1968 Javelin with an AMX badge on it. He insisted it was an AMX even though it had a back seat...

snakeweasel

@roadburner said:
Yes- they were built from 1968-1970; after that "AMX" became a trim package on the Javelin. In high school a classmate who bought a 1968 Javelin with an AMX badge on it. He insisted it was an AMX even though it had a back seat...

A AMX with a back seat is like a Mustang with four doors or a Maverick with a tailgate.

driver100

Mavericks have tailgates!