Ok so what's the real scoop on Lotus? - Page 3 - LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community
 
LotusTalk.com is the premier Lotus Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2012, 09:28 AM   #41 (permalink)
Registered User
 
JonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 550
The US regulations are that the airbags should be able to save the life of an unbelted, 170lbs, male in a 30mph collision.

This leads to airbags that are dangerous for short people, who are at risk of braking their necks.

In other words, lives are put at risk to protect over-weight, stupid people.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
JonS is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-05-2012, 10:15 AM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
vincesf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 598
Images: 3
Given today's safety and other prodigious regulatory requirements, which vary in different markets/countries, it is virtually impossible for a carmaker to make a profit relying soley on low-volume / low-priced specialty cars. In my opinion, Bahar's 5-car model business plan may have gone in the direction that some feel was necessary, but let's face it, was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. To say Danny was correct is only partially true, as it could never have passed any semblance of a REALITY check, and no surprise, it did NOT. For the U.S., we are left with the Evora, probably the finest all-around car that Lotus has introduced to the U.S. market, but will sales and variations of this model provide enough sales for Lotus to introduce other models to the U.S.? I am hoping that Lotus will with the Esprit, but can they sell enough to justify the cost. I mean really, look at the 28 years of sales numbers for the Esprit in the U.S., and the expected price tag, can they sell enough to justify it? Lastly, I am hoping for an all new minimalist Elige, but if I ask for this third model, I too may be accused of losing any semblance of reality.

vincesf

Last edited by vincesf; 12-05-2012 at 10:45 AM.
vincesf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:17 AM   #43 (permalink)
Registered User
 
fitfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego!
Posts: 6,699
there are really only 2 explanations... DRB bought proton and had a plan, that didn't pan out (someone somewhere backed out?) or DRB bought proton and has a plan and it has yet to be played out. in that case - survival of lotus doesn't seem to be high on the list...

don't forget TVR, you cant drag that percentage of money, for that long. sooner or later even the hardiest will call it sunk costs and walk away.

ask your self this - what is more important to DRB, to report a good FY?, or a long term niche market strategy?
__________________
"I really started paying attention to cars was when they came out with the Nissan Z, the first body. Then I seen the Cherokees, the old square ones, and I was like, “Wow, that’s cool.” Then I seen the Isuzu jeeps and I seen the Wranglers."
-Lotus Cars VP of Global Design
fitfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:32 AM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Secret Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonS View Post
The US regulations are that the airbags should be able to save the life of an unbelted, 170lbs, male in a 30mph collision.

This leads to airbags that are dangerous for short people, who are at risk of braking their necks.

In other words, lives are put at risk to protect over-weight, stupid people.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App

What a moronic statement. People over 170lbs are not overweight by definition. 170lbs is an average healthy weight for a 5ft10 male. Overweight people are not stupid by definition either. Those folks may just make poor eating decisions or have a genetic predisposition.

Airbag regulations assure safety for the average sized person. As a result, the safety of people at either extreme (really small/light and really tall/large), can be somewhat compromised.
__________________
2007 Exige S - Storm Titanium
1961 Austin Mini - restoration and turbo install in process
Secret Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:43 AM   #45 (permalink)
Registered User
 
fitfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego!
Posts: 6,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Chimp View Post
What a moronic statement. People over 170lbs are not overweight by definition. 170lbs is an average healthy weight for a 5ft10 male. Overweight people are not stupid by definition either. Those folks may just make poor eating decisions or have a genetic predisposition.

Airbag regulations assure safety for the average sized person. As a result, the safety of people at either extreme (really small/light and really tall/large), can be somewhat compromised.
i think he ment if you are unbelted, you are stupid. - i agree with him. if thats how an airbag is engineered to work, it is made to save stupid people.

170lbs is not average for 5'-10", its is defiantly on the "large" end of the spectrum. (overweight is a bit of an exaggeration, could be overweight, or could be just big framed). around 155 is average. overweight and obese are 2 different things.
__________________
"I really started paying attention to cars was when they came out with the Nissan Z, the first body. Then I seen the Cherokees, the old square ones, and I was like, “Wow, that’s cool.” Then I seen the Isuzu jeeps and I seen the Wranglers."
-Lotus Cars VP of Global Design
fitfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:01 PM   #46 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitfan View Post
i think he ment if you are unbelted, you are stupid. - i agree with him. if thats how an airbag is engineered to work, it is made to save stupid people.

170lbs is not average for 5'-10", its is defiantly on the "large" end of the spectrum. (overweight is a bit of an exaggeration, could be overweight, or could be just big framed). around 155 is average. overweight and obese are 2 different things.
Have to disagree. Standard height and weight tables would not consider 5' 10" 170 lbs to be large. See either the MetLife tables or the US Army tables. Make sure you adjust for both age and frame size. Note that the Army has different charts for enlistment weight and post-initial training. For white males age 40, the 50th percentile height is 70 inches. The corresponding 50th percentile weight is just a tad over 180.

Any actuaries out there?
Dylan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:17 PM   #47 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Secret Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitfan View Post
i think he ment if you are unbelted, you are stupid. - i agree with him. if thats how an airbag is engineered to work, it is made to save stupid people.

170lbs is not average for 5'-10", its is defiantly on the "large" end of the spectrum. (overweight is a bit of an exaggeration, could be overweight, or could be just big framed). around 155 is average. overweight and obese are 2 different things.
I understand what he meant. It's just that every single 'fact' he cited was incorrect and he made inappropriate generalizations.

170 is on the large side of 'average' depending on what website you just checked before posting that rebuttal. 50th percentile is 145-180 (dep on frame size) according to a medical textbook I have here at my desk.

Airbags are designed to work in conjunction with seatbelts...not as a replacement for them.
__________________
2007 Exige S - Storm Titanium
1961 Austin Mini - restoration and turbo install in process
Secret Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:27 PM   #48 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Plackslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 3,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitfan View Post
i think he ment if you are unbelted, you are stupid. - i agree with him. if thats how an airbag is engineered to work, it is made to save stupid people.

170lbs is not average for 5'-10", its is defiantly on the "large" end of the spectrum. (overweight is a bit of an exaggeration, could be overweight, or could be just big framed). around 155 is average. overweight and obese are 2 different things.
I am ~5'9 and weight 223 as of this morning, I am considered fat using traditional BMI yet ask anyone who has seen me, I am a bit padded - but definitely not fat

These generalizations always have outliers.
Plackslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:36 PM   #49 (permalink)
Elise Driver
 
Sarasota Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 166
5'10 at 150LBS, you have to be joking right????

We are talking about men right? Geez, no wonder all these guys are wearing skinny jeans.
Sarasota Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 09:10 PM   #50 (permalink)
anglophile in exile
 
Aedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 4,785
Images: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by robains View Post
You mean like that dopy safety (smart airbag) restriction we have? Yeah who needs safety in those other markets:

Crazy drivers - traffic - intersection - in India - YouTube

no...

I mean things like the emission standards that prevented the S1 Elise ever hitting US shores... and the completely stupid 2.5mph bumper standard... the one that makes people think that braille parking is an acceptable technique and has nothing to do with safety
Aedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:40 PM   #51 (permalink)
Registered User
 
JonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Chimp View Post
I understand what he meant. It's just that every single 'fact' he cited was incorrect and he made inappropriate generalizations.

170 is on the large side of 'average' depending on what website you just checked before posting that rebuttal. 50th percentile is 145-180 (dep on frame size) according to a medical textbook I have here at my desk.

Airbags are designed to work in conjunction with seatbelts...not as a replacement for them.
Not wearing a seat belt is stupid.

Yes, I was exaggerating a little on the over-weight. Loosen up a little, will you? Don't you know that stress, like being over-weight, is bad for you.


Sent from my iPhone using AutoGuide.com Free App
JonS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:27 AM   #52 (permalink)
Registered User
 
WayneAuch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Im not sure about the law in the US but here in Ireland (And the rest of Europe) If you are caught without a seatbelt you are automatically fined on the spot and given penalty points on your drivers licence. also the driver receives a fine and points if any of his/her passengers are unbelted.

So the likely-hood of having an accident over here and relying solely on the airbag are very very low. almost 100% of car users will be belted in.
WayneAuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:32 PM   #53 (permalink)
Registered User
 
robains's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA, Bay Area
Posts: 3,737
Changes nothing, some very highly paid executives got away with a ton of cash for failing. No wonder there is so much corruption in business - why work when you don't really have to.

I believe one source indicated that salary costs was a major portion of expenses and why Lotus was not profitable. Two schools of thought:

1. Move the labor to china because it's cheap and so is the quality
2. Keep the labor "expensive" but produce high quality

Lotus did neither 1 or 2 for many many many years, but they did hire an idiot who apparently didn't know his ass from his elbow (or maybe he did and was really just another bobble head to collect cash and move on +1 for his plan) and decided Lotus was a bling bling company that could produce $200K-$300K cars for some imaginary market that didn't exist. What a genius! And then we had Proton and the banks backing the idea ... yet another set of disconnected corporate muppets.

Funding a car that couldn't make it to the US was about as stupid as stupid could get ... it would have been better to say, here Lotus employees, just keep the money and go have a good time on us ... your Ex-CEO did.

Whatever the safety and smog regulations it didn't comply with, it really doesn't matter - does it?

Anyway, the lack of information is just great! Peachy! But given the endless stream of corporate bone heads Lotus has been passed thru, this "strategy" shouldn't be much of a surprise should it. Maybe I'm just really jealous because I don't have a job that pays me to be really stupid.

Rob
__________________
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
robains is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community > Lotus Discussions > General Discussion (Lotus related)



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.