The New 2014 Corvette Stingray

are Corvettes still built from the same plastic that wheelie-bins are made of, yeah ?

I'm not keen on the looks, prefer the original, or even the mad curvy 70's one tbh

 

oh I remember that. Clarkson pressed the boot I think it was, and it flexed like the plastic a new toothbrush is packaged in :rofl:
Scary shit in a 200mph car tbh

 

Sometimes that flex is taken into account and can actually make the car stick better in high speed turns and allow for better cooling during slower speed maneuvers. We were even doing that with lexan bodies for slot and radio control cars back in the day...

 

anything that absorbs collision energy is good, even at full speed, but the point is probably moot considering the car becomes a flying projectile at high speed when it loses road adhesion or becomes airborne. We have all seen cars designed to absorb tremendous force in a collision only to be tossed about like a leaf against stationary objects, thus killing the driver.
You could be suited up like the STIG and still suffer internal injuries from just stopping at high speed.
This may be one for the Boffins, but buying a sports car implies a certain willingness to take extreme risks with life, including your own right?

 

Depends how you drive it, Falstaff.

I'm not sure a plastic bootlid necessarily implies that the whole car is similarly built. I imagine it's extremely rigid where it counts, and has decent crumple zones.

Still, I'm no fan of Corvettes at all. I'd take a Porsche 911, Nissan GT-R, Jaguar XK-R or one of many other competing products before I'd take a Corvette, but overall I'd rather not drive around in any car like this. They're a waste of money and fuel, they make you look like a tw*t, and they're impractical for regular use (it'd get keyed at the supermarket etc.).

 

A Corvette is a real blast to drive, and eventually with patience and engineering, corner as well as any production Japanese or European car, but it is pure muscle and sex where it counts and wins that hands down. Would I own one? Oh hell no.
The Corvette is a girl magnet, a performance car, an icon and emblematic of what is powerful and fun about America.
this is more my taste:

 

Unfortunately it doesn't do all that wel in some other aspects...

IT doesn't really look entirely that different from a standard corvette...

And i wouldn't doubt that the newest Ford Shelby Mustang 350 would run circles around it.

Modern cars are designed to fly apart even without a real collision.

You so much as plow a modern car into a snow filled ditch, and you end up with thousands of dollars worth of damage. You do that with a vehicle that was made in the late early 70's and below.. and you don't have to worry, the snow will happily move out of the way for you.

I'm still finding that if they built cars heavy enough and comparible to that of the cars from the early 70's but with modern tech to make them safe, we'd have extremely durrable cars capable of taking a bit of a shit kicking and still be safer than what we have now.

A head one or t-bone collision with a modern car and an older one pretty much guarantees that the driver of and most of the passengers of the newer car are pancakes while the older one ends up with a few dints and it's driver has provided they were paying attention, a we bit of whiplash. If older cars were retrofitted with modern safety, i'm sure it'd be even better. It's the "hard" stops that hurt/kill, and they have designed modern cars to simply "disappear" allowing for as much of a coushion as possible, but it's gotten so incredibly out of hand that the most minor of situations results in the car giving way. Shit just driving roads and nearly every car manufacturer has their vehicles falling apart at the seams... 5 years and your car is entirely worthless... really pisses one of considering their old beast ends up being in better shape than their new one. Old one costing significantly less too to upkeep.

Although i'm still eyeing a newer dodge challenger, i'm more inclined to buy a older vehicle, and improve it, using the money i would have spent on something that no only will last, but will actually be worth more in the end.

Hell even the Cobra II being a late 70's (which is when lighter materials and builds were being used) will end up pumping more miles onto it then a new one.

 

I'm sorry to say that in any well built modern car, that's just not true.

Below video is of a Renault Modus (very much a car you'd need new airbags and bumpers on after driving into a field of snow) and a Volvo 940 (which is not at all a fragile car).



You are less likely to drive away from an accident in a newer car. But this is because they prioritise the passengers' safety over the car's - you're also far less likely to die in a newer car.

All responses 100 words or less please.

 

Modern cars from any manufacturer are required to meet safety standards and are considered superior in crash performance if they exceed that standard. For example, the much maligned Ford Focus was designed to absorb impact energy from several different axis with the intention that the occupant had some chance of survival at predictable speeds. Crash test science proves that over and over again, otherwise we would not have the carbon fiber coffins of racing today in our Formula One automobiles.
I survived being broadsided in a Ford Focus Wagon when a pickup truck hit me at an estimated speed of 60 mph, because he struck the direct center of the body, and it collapsed and pushed my car twenty feet with airbags deploying within that "nano-second" period.
Imagine if you will, I am sitting in a Corvette of the latest vintage and also being struck at that speed by pickup truck, would I fair better? Chances are YES I believe, but it would take some raw numbers and few crash tests to convince me 100 percent.
You will find however, like most high end sports cars, Corvettes are not officially crash tested. Buyer beware.
In that respect, I think I would rather have a sooped up C class Mercedes in an accident, but then I have a peculiar taste in cars.

 

If you're going to be in an accident, you want heavy, modern and stable. Probably something like a Mercedes R-Class.

Old Volvos and similar are great for low-speed impacts because chances are any damage will be fixable with a hammer, but they're less likely to save your life in a high speed impact.

 

Under test conditions.. but considering real world results and having "seen" them first hand what can happen in the real world on real gravel roads and such, there are more accidents here caused by the light and poor/flimsy design of modern cars, yes more accidents...... then what has involved older ones that have not only the weight and durrability. Nothing like a new vehicle that finds it's brake lines seveared due to gravel wear, utterly fantastic.

It's utterly poor design.

They can make a heavy and very durable car like they did in the past that can withstand minimum impacts and general wear and tear on road here, they can. AND they can implement safeties and such that would result in crumple zones and protect the driver and passengers at the same time. It can be done, they don't... they would rather you have to buy a new car constantly with the excuse of "well it's just safer" than to have to actually build something decent.

40mph btw is totally unrealistic for a head one or t-bone style collision here as well... If i could find the damn video, there was a team that invested in doing tests involving some vehicles such as the Lincoln Mark V Continental (a 1979) vs a more modern vehicle such as the one above... (almost everything today is built NEARLY identical). Suffice it to say, at speed of 60mph or more (although common road speeds here are 110km-120km/h which is in around the 70mph), the lincoln continental mark V cut through the entire other car killing ALL occupents instantly and the only damange to the the lincoln continental mark V was a wrecked front bumper, destroyed windshield which still managed to sheer away additional debree and the side door was crushed/jammed shut. Of course the entire side fender was missing but aside from that, the driver would have had some serious issues due to a poorly design steering collom (likely killing him/her and their feet broken, the rest of the vehicle was mostly unharmed and the vehicle could be fixed up again.

But as i said, the other car.... simply nothing left... all passengers would have been completely dead, parts of them would have to be picked up from around the crash zone.

And i don't even have to get started with Semi trucks, that really makes a mess, they also travel 110-115km/h.

Again, losing control and being a road hazard on gravel roads is a constant problem here.. people are unable to maintain a speed above 30-40km/h and some of them venture up to 60km/h. One road that is frequently traveled which happens to run alongside our section of land has a relatively constant number of vehicle rollovers (straight level road btw.. no curves or hills) simply because i'd blame poor drivers #1.... and number #2.... poor vehicles with terrible handling.

People say "well such and such a car was used for rally races, it should handle perfectly fine.. blah blah blah"... have you seen the rally race tracks.... they are fantastic usually in comparison. Usually groomed for the most part, PLUS the drivers are pros, they have some of the beefiest handling systems built into the cars that mostly will never see the light of day in a modern car, specially since most people buy the cheapest vehicle on in the series, and the drivers also "know" what's coming up and they still roll their cars and destroy them.

I'm not entirely saying that an older car is always going to be safer.... but they are a considerably more reliable drive and in many accident cases, generally result in the driver/passengers and the car being mostly unharmed where as a 5km/h bumper bump can result in thousands of dollars worth of damage.

 

I just found this puttering on the internet, and its probably accurate:

The value of an accident claim varies depending on whether you’re talking to the accident victim or to an insurance adjuster. Naturally, the adjuster usually places a much lower value on the claim when compared to what the accident victim thinks his or her claim is worth. After a car accident, the key in any settlement negotiation is to have concrete numbers (and a reputable formula from which those numbers were derived) to support what you're asking for. That's where the Baldyga Auto Accident Settlement Evaluation (BASE) formula comes in. You can use the Baldyga formula (named for Dan Baldyga, who created it) to estimate the dollar value of an injury claim and present your argument to the other side. This article explains how the BASE formula works, and how it might come in handy in your case.
How the BASE Formula Works
Damages Multiplier. The four BASE values are known as:
low value
core value
mean value, and
premium value
Each of these values corresponds to a multiplier:
2 is the multiplier for the low value
3 is the multiplier for the core value
3.5 is the multiplier for the mean value, and
4 is the multiplier for the premium value.
Quantifiable Damages. The first step in using the BASE formula is to total up the plaintiff’s quantifiable or provable damages, and factor that number in with the multipliers listed above. Quantifiable damages can include:
medical bills (emergency services, hospital stays, treatment from specialists, pharmacy expenses, and physical therapy)
cost of future medical treatment
lost income, and
lost future earning capacity (if you're unable to hold the same job you had before the accident).
Next, you plug the provable damages in against the multipliers to arrive at the low, core, mean, and premium values of your case.
For example, let's assume that Bryce is in a car accident, and his total quantifiable damages (including medical bills and lost income) are $10,000. Here's what the value of Bryce's case looks like at each BASE value level:
low level value = $20,000 (2 x $10,000)
core level value = $30,000 (3 x $10,000)
mean level value = $35,000 (3.5 x $10,000)
premium level value = $40,000 (4 x $10,000)
Calculating Pain and Suffering Compensation. The next step is to factor in the variables which can impact the pain and suffering component of a personal injury settlement. These relevant variables may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, but generally include:
severity of the injuries
scope of treatment for the injuries
whether the plaintiff will be permanently scarred or disfigured
whether the plaintiff is likely to make a full recovery
whether the plaintiff complied with the prescribed course of medical treatment
the degree of emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff, and
the plaintiff’s age, occupation, and marital status.
Putting It All Together
Of the four BASE value levels, the core value level is the starting point under the BASE formula. Sticking with our earlier example, the core value of Bryce's case is $30,000. The variables discussed in the previous section will either move Bryce up to mean ($35,000) or premium ($40,000) value, or bump him down to the low value ($20,000).
After factoring in all the relevant information about your case, and settling on an appropriate BASE value, you are ready to begin negotiations with the insurance company. Your settlement demand number should always be two to three times more than the BASE value plus any property damage (i.e. cost of getting your vehicle repaired).
-- stolen from the internet---

I guess no matter what point or idea we attempt to wrap our thoughts around, its bloody expensive to have an accident, and perhaps Sports Cars like the Corvette represent the Apogee of loss in material, time and money regardless of the extent of the damage.

YOU PLAY
YOU PAY

 

Oh my. that looks like a Lotus or Toyota, what are they doing.

 

I think if you pile on enough marketing layers and buzz about it long enough someone will definitely buy it.
http://www.corvettenewsblog.com/tag/c7-vette/