WTF?! Evora Production Halted Temporarily Due to "Airbag Exemption"?

[jet37ski]

Originally Posted by Asulil

this is more recent and more relevant:

http://saferoads.org/files/2012-08-0...86%20FINAL.pdf


This document is well worth the read. They slam Lotus.

Hard to say this is more relevant considering it is a comment filed by an advocate group that holds zero bearing in law making or decisions of the NHTSA.

I do love their "research" on the relevance of Lotus's claim that the car will be unlikely to carry children. They googled it and found a discussion from this site in which over 15 entire people replied! The subject, by the way, was "Anyone use child seats in the back of the Evora." That, along with the 448,000 other results supposedly undermine Lotus's claim. I just googled "brown speckled safety advocates dildo" and found over 1.5 million results. I think we should really reconsider our priorities here.

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by Asulil

Lotus comments to the second document:

In this document Lotus states that they are only asking for a very narrow exemption, and that they plan to be fully compliant by MY2015. From the docket (go to: regulations.gov and the docket no. is :NHTSA-2012-0086) that there has been no ruling as of yet. Only the advocacy group had comments. Lotus's reply seemed calm and measured. They spoke of recent management shake-ups, their inability to use bank financing for the Evora, the losses (those are deleted), and the fact that they intend to be compliant by MY2015. I think it would be hard for the agency not to give an exemption. If they fail to give them an exemption however - my guess is that will trigger enough covenants in their loan agreements that it would cause significant strain.

So cut to the chase and print the NHTSA final ruling

[Asulil]

Originally Posted by jet37ski

Hard to say this is more relevant considering it is a comment filed by an advocate group that holds zero bearing in law making or decisions of the NHTSA.

I do love their "research" on the relevance of Lotus's claim that the car will be unlikely to carry children. They googled it and found a discussion from this site in which over 15 entire people replied! The subject, by the way, was "Anyone use child seats in the back of the Evora." That, along with the 448,000 other results supposedly undermine Lotus's claim. I just googled "brown speckled safety advocates dildo" and found over 1.5 million results. I think we should really reconsider our priorities here.

yes I agree the second document is from an advocacy group. I meant more relevant in the sense that it provides more context than LOtus's petition. And some of their arguments are weak. I think all three documents should be read (Petition, Advocacy Petition, and LOtus' Answer to the Adovcacy) - I think after reading all three the fair thing to do would be to give Lotus the exemption (it is a narrow exemption) - until MY2015 as they asked.

[Abe]

Originally Posted by David Craig

On the other hand if Lotus were selling 1000 cars a year in the US it would probably be good to force them to compy with the newer air bag standard.

If Lotus sold 1000 cars a year in the US, Lotus wouldn't have a problem complying

[Julian73]

Still no goverment rule based on the docket review.

Orginal Lotus petion is interesting reading. So our 5th tiny wives or kids are safer in the front seat without a seat belt than with. or throw them in the back.

[martinm1]

All very interesting reading. What is in fact amazing from a perspective standpoint is that this advocacy group or for that matter the federal government would choose to spend even a few minutes on this matter relative to other much more impactful concerns. The numbers are so small that Lotus could probably install razor blades on the dash as standard equipment (not recommending this.) and there would be less risk to the general public than any small issue with an Accord or Camry. To have Lotus disappear from the US market over this is probably worth a letter writing campaign for existing Lotus owners as this would be rather disastrous for warranty work, resales, etc. Just sayin.

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by martinm1

All very interesting reading. What is in fact amazing from a perspective standpoint is that this advocacy group or for that matter the federal government would choose to spend even a few minutes on this matter relative to other much more impactful concerns. The numbers are so small that Lotus could probably install razor blades on the dash as standard equipment (not recommending this.) and there would be less risk to the general public than any small issue with an Accord or Camry. To have Lotus disappear from the US market over this is probably worth a letter writing campaign for existing Lotus owners as this would be rather disastrous for warranty work, resales, etc. Just sayin.

Hear you, we should start such letter writing .. Lotus the company that brought mid-engine to our Indy cars (in their Chapman succesful days, not last years joke) can not be forced to leave the USA

[GuppyCaptain]

Originally Posted by Asulil

are you waiting on a front seat version only? It seems the exemption doesnt apply to the 2+2?

Yes, I ordered a 2+0.

[GuppyCaptain]

Originally Posted by Ron Avery

That sucks, It is worth the wait. Trust me I know, I ordered my car in April of 2010. The car was built the last week of June and the first week of July.
It was shipped two weeks later. It was first shipped to China, then it was off loaded from the first ship and sat on the dock for three weeks. Then it was loaded onto another ship to Long Beach California. It arrived in Long beach the last week in September. Then it was loaded (still in it's container) on a truck to San Diego. Lotus did rush the car for me once it arrived ib San Diego, the car made it to the dealer in one week (the second week of October). I later found out that Lotus will ship the car, air freight from the UK to the USA. It is around $8 K.
Once I got my Evora it was well worth the wait. I do know what you are going through however, hang in there.
Ron

I'm sure it's worth the wait, Ron but I'm not so sure I'm willing to put up with the bu!!$hit if this is going to turn into a six month debacle like yours did. That's completely uncalled for. I ordered the car in October so that it would arrive in the spring and I could take full advantage of our short driving season. I will be LIVID if I take delivery at the end of the summer or in the fall. It was hard enough to not have my Elise last summer. Then to have my dream car show up just in time to put it away for the winter will be sheer torture.

I hope I don't sound like a cry baby, but I do expect things to go as quoted. Sue me for feeling that way. I was told a build date of January and delivery in April. Let's hope it doesn't start to look like it'll be any later than May. It's not the dealer's fault obviously.

[invictusmaneo]

interesting..compliance by 2015...does that mean a new model to offset the cost of the new airbags by then? Right now it doesn't financially make sense for Lotus-they're too hard up and unfortunately unlike window switches and door hinges airbags are not 100% drop in...maybe that partnership will pay off

[KCZ]

Originally Posted by Julian73

"They" being a self proclaimed "consumer" rights organization, a lobbyist group, that would just as willingly ask the government to outlaw any car that can go over 85 mph.

"They" in this case being a lobbyist group for the insurance industry. A lot of their reports are funded directly by insurance companies.

Originally Posted by jet37ski

Hard to say this is more relevant considering it is a comment filed by an advocate group that holds zero bearing in law making or decisions of the NHTSA.

These lobbyists do influence NHTSA decisions. And unfortunately, Lotus doesn't have the political clout that the Detroit automakers and the UAW do in Washington.

[Ron Avery]

Originally Posted by GuppyCaptain

I'm sure it's worth the wait, Ron but I'm not so sure I'm willing to put up with the bu!!$hit if this is going to turn into a six month debacle like yours did. That's completely uncalled for. I ordered the car in October so that it would arrive in the spring and I could take full advantage of our short driving season. I will be LIVID if I take delivery at the end of the summer or in the fall. It was hard enough to not have my Elise last summer. Then to have my dream car show up just in time to put it away for the winter will be sheer torture.

I hope I don't sound like a cry baby, but I do expect things to go as quoted. Sue me for feeling that way. I was told a build date of January and delivery in April. Let's hope it doesn't start to look like it'll be any later than May. It's not the dealer's fault obviously.

I get it, let's hope it all works out. Hang in there.
Ron

[Notorious L.R.G.]

So 1 in 20 chicks would be injured in a frontal crash in an Evora.

Can we settle for a warning sticker on the visor?

Statistically insignificant.

[GuppyCaptain]

Thanks Ron.

[mbiamonte77]

Any laws that make safety equipment required should be tempered against an educated person's ability to choose. The next thing you know, all bicycles will be required to have training wheels because somebody figured out that - oh my - they FALL OVER when stopped.

If we succeed perfectly in protecting the stupid from themselves, how will we evolve?


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

[brgelise]

Airbags unnecessary because---due to lightness ---vehicle can actually stop more quickly than your average overweight safety laden dime a dozen sedan. That's our counter letter. We should demand that all production vehicles sold in the US should lose 500lbs so they can stop quicker, and thus, avoid a collision!!!

[addertooth]

In Lotus's original petition in 2006, they asked for a 6 year exemption to develop and afford the safety features. They got their 6 years, but still did not meet the current requirements. If I recall correctly, the expired airbag exemption on the Elise/Exige was one of the major reasons they stopped importing those models as well. Time to pony up Lotus, and apply that technology to the Elise/Exige lines as well as the Evora. There is a market for those cars in the USA as well.

[Dylan]

Judith Lee Stone is President of the Board of Advocates. From her extensive biography of committee and board positions:


"Ms. Stone was a Member of the Clinton-Gore transition team from 1992 to 1993, focusing on transportation personnel placement."

Here is Tesla's response when Advocates recommended they not be granted an airbag exemption.

[invictusmaneo]

man someone should have proofread that letter from Tesla...

[Julian73]

Originally Posted by addertooth

In Lotus's original petition in 2006, they asked for a 6 year exemption to develop and afford the safety features. They got their 6 years, but still did not meet the current requirements. If I recall correctly, the expired airbag exemption on the Elise/Exige was one of the major reasons they stopped importing those models as well. Time to pony up Lotus, and apply that technology to the Elise/Exige lines as well as the Evora. There is a market for those cars in the USA as well.

Elise did not meet the pre 2012 version of the law and was pulled from US market because the 2zz enegine was no longer US compliant and pulled by Toyota