51 replies to this topic

[ray b]

in several resent crashes Ferrari's are breaking in half!!!!

now for sure hitting a lite pole at speed is not a good idea

but these cars are very heavy [3200lbs] and should be stronger then that

http://www.ocregiste...rrari-passenger

I could understand a sub 2000lbs car breaking up like that
but at 3200lbs there should some thing wrong

[jcbc3]

Steve Millen reckons he drove triple digit speed. (it's in the link in the article).

I'd challenge you to find any car that could withstand an impact like the one that happened there.

[ray b]

well owning Fieros and seeing a fair number of crashed ones [on line mostly]
but a few in junk yards too
at 2500 to 2800lbs they donot come apart like that Ferrari did
and that was not the only ferrari to break up like that

[Todd]

Remotely stock Fieros have a harder time achieving really high speeds on any given stretch of road. That being said, whenever I see photos of the results of local street racers in souped up econoboxes and AMG Mercedes, there often aren't any pieces left as big as what was left of this Ferrari. The problem might not be that Ferraris are dangerous. The problem might be that the wrong sort of people are getting their hands on them, and they really are extraordinarily faster than they were in the past. Just look at the specs. A new Accord will lay waste to anything europe was sending us 20 years ago; M3s, M5s, Ferraris, Porsches, Lamboughinis, whatever. Now, when someone does something stupid in a Ferrari or other penis substitute, they're able to achieve tripple digit speeds before impact in any theater.

[phantom II]

I didn't know that Accords could do 175mph.

Originally posted by Todd
A new Accord will lay waste to anything Europe was sending us 20 years ago; M3s, M5s, Ferraris, Porsches, Lamboughinis, whatever.

[phantom II]

If you become airborne in a 360 or an early 430, chances are that the windshield will break upon landing. It is difficult to design a light structure that will absorb energy in a front or 3/4 impact and also have properties necessary for chassis rigidity.

Originally posted by ray b
in several resent crashes Ferrari's are breaking in half!!!!

now for sure hitting a lite pole at speed is not a good idea

but these cars are very heavy [3200lbs] and should be stronger then that

http://www.ocregiste...rrari-passenger

I could understand a sub 2000lbs car breaking up like that
but at 3200lbs there should some thing wrong

[Todd]

Originally posted by phantom II
I didn't know that Accords could do 175mph.

True, but partly because they're governed. They have low drag coefficients and 270 hp, and they can still achieve speeds on short straights that exotics couldn't in the '80s.

[phantom II]

I have owned both a 928S4 and a Testa Rosa and it's there torque that makes them go. If you don't believe me, ask McGuire. Torque is what make cars go. Or is that HP? Wait a moment, they accelerate at a higher rate because the oxygen sensors....er. Somebody help me out here.

Originally posted by Todd


True, but partly because they're governed. They have low drag coefficients and 270 hp, and they can still achieve speeds on short straights that exotics couldn't in the '80s.

[gruntguru]

Originally posted by ray b
well owning Fieros and seeing a fair number of crashed ones [on line mostly]
but a few in junk yards too
at 2500 to 2800lbs they donot come apart like that Ferrari did
and that was not the only ferrari to break up like that

Maybe speed is the difference. Energy = 1/2mv2 so a 100 mph crash has 4 times the energy to dissipate compared to a 50 mph crash ie 4 times the damage. Why might be Ferrari's be travelling faster than Fiero's?

1. They have a higher top speed ex factory.
2. Ferrari owners on average are more likely to explore the limits of their purchase.
3. Ferrari oners are more likely to have the means to visit roadways where 2. above is feasible.

[gruntguru]

Originally posted by phantom II
I have owned both a 928S4 and a Testa Rosa and it's there torque that makes them go. If you don't believe me, ask McGuire. Torque is what make cars go. Or is that HP? Wait a moment, they accelerate at a higher rate because the oxygen sensors....er. Somebody help me out here.

No - its not the torque that makes them.....
.....oops sorry wrong thread.

[phantom II]

You'll find that on the fake diamond thread.

Originally posted by gruntguru
No - its not the torque that makes them.....
.....oops sorry wrong thread.

[ray b]

any Fiero will top a 100mph
the V6 cars will go 120-130 stock
motor swap cars [like my car with a NorthStar V8]
will get very ferrari like speeds ie 150++
and I bet there are as many 300 to 500hp fieros
with all the swap cars with chevy small blocks
super charged buick 3800 and turboed motors too
on the streets in the USA as there are ferrari's

some street driven Fiero's turn 10 sec 1/4 mile times
many in the 11 to low 12's

the point being they donot snap into two peices
and ferrari's DO
and no it ain't like they can't go fast enuff to fail
they just do not
and at 400-700lbs less weight then the red guys

[Todd]

I suppose it is true you didn't use a question mark, but the word 'why' in the thread title misled me to believe you were looking for an answer.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by phantom II
I didn't know that Accords could do 175mph.

No the slow peices of rubbish can only get to about 150+mph.

Family cars these days can achieve outrageous speeds and accelerations considering whom they are marketed to and then theres motorcycles, all young men (and some not so young men) need a 180hp, 180kg, 200 mph missile don't they.

[GreenMachine]

Originally posted by cheapracer


No the slow peices of rubbish can only get to about 150+mph.

Family cars these days can achieve outrageous speeds and accelerations considering whom they are marketed to and then theres motorcycles, all young men (and some not so young men) need a 180hp, 180kg, 200 mph missile don't they.

CR, is that a statement or a question?

(Just sharing it around Todd ;) )

[primer]

If you strike some kind of utility pole (electric, telephone wire) sideways, the car will cut itself into two easily. It is not just Ferrari cars, a couple years ago there were gore pictures circulating on net of a Honda Accord(?) that was neatly split into two.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by GreenMachine



CR, is that a statement or a question?

(Just sharing it around Todd ;) )

Probably a statement, really a bit of preaching to the deaf. Most any quality family sedan today can whip a 20 year old Ferrari's ass around most tracks and in a decidely greater amount of comfort too besides actually being able to drive home afterwards. I love old Ferrari's by the way, hell who doesn't.

Bikes are just a sad expression of freedom, go see all those free young men expressing themselves in rehab to understand what I mean - Australian Nurses call motorcycles "donarcycles". I love bikes, grew up on 'em, certified to fix and inspect 'em but logically they should be banned. Japans got the right idea, you can only buy up to 750cc 150hp, 180mph, much safer bikes there.

[Ray Bell]

Just about every time I see a young-ish man in a wheelchair, on crutches or limping I think of motorcycles...

When you get amongst the serious motorcyclists, there are always some with broken bones or recent scars.

[phantom II]

Yeah, I suppose you are right. I took a 93 ZR1 to Europe. I was behind a new turbo Opel Kadet, a tiny little car, on a 270 degree on ramp onto the autobahn. I thought I was going to go blasting by him. I couldn't pass him till 140mph. He had four people in the car and it was me and my wife. The 928 and the Testa Rosa are probably the worst two cars ever made.

Originally posted by cheapracer


Probably a statement, really a bit of preaching to the deaf. Most any quality family sedan today can whip a 20 year old Ferrari's ass around most tracks and in a decidely greater amount of comfort too besides actually being able to drive home afterwards. I love old Ferrari's by the way, hell who doesn't.

Bikes are just a sad expression of freedom, go see all those free young men expressing themselves in rehab to understand what I mean - Australian Nurses call motorcycles "donarcycles". I love bikes, grew up on 'em, certified to fix and inspect 'em but logically they should be banned. Japans got the right idea, you can only buy up to 750cc 150hp, 180mph, much safer bikes there.

[mariner]

This is an interesting question in terms of safety. I can only quote UK safety data but the UK has probably one of the highest concentrations of high performance cars in the world due to the popularity of company car schemes which let people " buy" cars they would never purchase themselves. So if you drove around the M25 London orbital motorway at say 8 am about 20% of the cars ( as opposed to commeriacal trafic) will be BMW and Mercedes all capable of 140mph or more.


Having said that the truth is that Uk road deaths have been falling steadily despite the cars not only getting faster but becoming so insulated that you can be doing 100 mph and hardly notice. This MAY be due to speed cameras but whilst they have reduced deaths the best estimate the government has made is about 100 per year out of a base of about 3200. So safety cameras seem to help but as speed is only a CONTRIBUTORY factor in 29% of Uk road deaths cameras are not the main reduction reason.

I THINK the biggest reason si that new cars have so much more passive safety and better active safety plus 99% of the time they never exceed about 85 mph ( the practical maximum on Uk motorways unless you want to risk your licence).

So maybe it is a two edged sword. As cars get ever heavier they get more power to get 0 - 60 times under , say, 10 seconds, so top speed climbs. that is bad but the extra weight gives the extra passive safety so as long as the 95th or so percentile is under 80 mph road deaths go down.

Great for safety but lousy for Co2 emissions, without the swing to diesel in Europe ( now maxing out) and diesel technology advances I think teh Euopean CO2 story would look grim. Now th eEU has largely copied the US and gone to a sort of CAFE ( suitably modified to protect BMW and MB) it will get more interesting.

[merlyn6]

To get back to the question I think its because those that have broken in two have been rear/mid engined cars that break right at the weakest part of the chassis, where the door opening is at its widest and they hit something going sideways.

[Greg Locock]

The next time you drop a packet of rectangular cookies on the floor, check where they break. Across the middle. No weak point required.

[gruntguru]

Originally posted by ray b
any Fiero will top a 100mph

Any Ferrari will do 150mph. Thats 50% faster = 125% more kinetic energy to dissipate in a crash.

[cheapracer]

Greg would there be a metal difference in a Falcon to a Ferrari, possibly the Fazza having a more stiffer grade hence a more brittle steel alloy?

Having scoured many a wreckers in my life I have seen a lot of Falcons/Commodores that the front has met the rear (via a lampost stopping the middle) with the 2 sills touching each other but no tearing of the steel.

[Greg Locock]

Young's modulus (stiffness) for steel is almost invariant with grade and heat treatment. If you chuck enough crap in you can degrade it, that's why SS is relatively low. However I suspect you meant strength - Falcadores are mostly stamped, mostly from a fairly low yield (200 MPa) steel, and then spot welded. Most of a conventional modern car is limited by stiffness not strength. This stuff is easy to stamp, and has good ductility (same thing, practically), so it is great at plastic deformation in a crash. Spotwelds are also more robust because they have built in crack stoppers - you have to break each weld separately.

When I worked on Ferraris they had a whole bunch of different construction techniques, but I suspect most of them are MIGGed or TIGGED welded up tubular frames, usually some sort of bastardized space frame. As such their plastic behaviour will not be as good as a conventional car because of HAZ and so on.

[Powersteer]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
The next time you drop a packet of rectangular cookies on the floor, check where they break. Across the middle. No weak point required.

Thanks for pulling back on topic, the Honda Accord today Lamborghini Countach yesterday was getting boring. Probably the Ferrari's chassis is design to be much more rigid but not flexible at all while the family saloon monoque is less single minded. Is it tubolar? If it is then it won't hold the torn bits too well if it is damaged. Take a round pipe and bend it, soon it would be in two.

[benrapp]

I believe the mid-engined cars are designed to break apart at the firewall in major crashes in order to protect the safety cell. It seems to be the more recent middies that are coming apart in this way. With reference to the thoughts about stiffness, the 360 and 430 are aluminium, and the Enzo is carbon fibre.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Powersteer
. Take a round pipe and bend it, soon it would be in two.

Maybe in China (which it does), but I can bend Oz tube steel to flat without it tearing and further more it takes quite an effort of bending it back and forwards to intentionally get it to tear.

[mjsv]

It's not just Ferraris:

Audi RS6

P.S. apparently the driver made it alive



cheers,

--
mjsv

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by mjsv
It's not just Ferraris:

Audi RS6

P.S. apparently the driver made it alive



cheers,

--
mjsv

I bet the local tree huggers bandaged that tree first then attended the driver

Just dial in "wrecked exoctics" into Google, many examples of "ouch".

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by mjsv
It's not just Ferraris:

Audi RS6

P.S. apparently the driver made it alive

The driver is the guy in the green plaid shirt, not just alive, but uninjured. I was sent a Powerpoint presentation showing several high-resolution photos of the scene. The passenger seat was destroyed, shredded and strewn out about ten feet long, fortunately unoccupied. Just dumb luck... I was surprised how cleanly the structure simply pulled apart...
.

[Powersteer]

Looking at the pictures of the Ausi RS6, I am betting the car did not roll which is a contributing factor to why the driver is on his cellular phone text messeging after the incident thankfully. The speed must have been immense, knife the car on impact and the cutting process killed the speed down. The car is cut in three pieces with the right hand side still missing.



EDIT: Wonder if he or insurance will put the engine/drive on ebay soon?

[Knot]

Smack ANY street car sideways into an unyielding object at high speed and it will split.

The reason why Fieros don't split in two at high speeds when hitting something is because they have fallen apart long before they can hit something.

[mjsv]

Originally posted by Engineguy


The driver is the guy in the green plaid shirt, not just alive, but uninjured. I was sent a Powerpoint presentation showing several high-resolution photos of the scene. The passenger seat was destroyed, shredded and strewn out about ten feet long, fortunately unoccupied. Just dumb luck... I was surprised how cleanly the structure simply pulled apart...
.

I think I got exactly the same .ppt show - didn't just want to post pics that I don't have the rights to so I had to google a link

Cheers,

--
mjsv

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Thanks for pulling back on topic, the Honda Accord today Lamborghini Countach yesterday was getting boring. Probably the Ferrari's chassis is design to be much more rigid but not flexible at all while the family saloon monoque is less single minded. Is it tubolar? If it is then it won't hold the torn bits too well if it is damaged. Take a round pipe and bend it, soon it would be in two.

The chassi found in Ferrari 360/430 and similar is probably less stiff than what you find in a good passenger car. Steel monocoques are generally very stiff these days to keep down NVH.

The Ferraris uses an aluminum (non tubular) spaceframe that is made by Alcoa. It is made of extruded, cast and stamped sheetmetal aluminum pieces bonded together through MIG welding and rivets; similar to what is found in other cars with aluminum spaceframe chassis, such as Corvette ZR1, Audi A8 and Audi R8.

Pictures of the Ferrari 360 chassi can be found at Alcoa's website: http://www.alcoa.com... 360 Spaceframe
The weight of the 360 chassi is listed by Alcoa as 153 kg, considerably lighter than your average steel monocoque, but torsional stiffness is only about 14,000 Nm/deg.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Powersteer
Looking at the pictures of the Ausi RS6, I am betting the car did not roll which is a contributing factor to why the driver is on his cellular phone text messeging after the incident thankfully. The speed must have been immense, knife the car on impact and the cutting process killed the speed down. The car is cut in three pieces with the right hand side still missing.



EDIT: Wonder if he or insurance will put the engine/drive on ebay soon?

It doesn't appear to be the latest generation RS6 though, those are really insane when it comes to performance from a 'regular' car. Software tune one of those and you got a car with 700 hp; in other words, even most sports cars does't match it when it comes to acceleration and top speed.

[GeorgeTheCar]

Originally posted by gruntguru
Any Ferrari will do 150mph. Thats 50% faster = 125% more kinetic energy to dissipate in a crash.

My arithmetic says 225% more energy

[Chui]

Originally posted by cheapracer


Probably a statement, really a bit of preaching to the deaf. Most any quality family sedan today can whip a 20 year old Ferrari's ass around most tracks and in a decidely greater amount of comfort too besides actually being able to drive home afterwards. I love old Ferrari's by the way, hell who doesn't.

Bikes are just a sad expression of freedom, go see all those free young men expressing themselves in rehab to understand what I mean - Australian Nurses call motorcycles "donarcycles". I love bikes, grew up on 'em, certified to fix and inspect 'em but logically they should be banned. Japans got the right idea, you can only buy up to 750cc 150hp, 180mph, much safer bikes there.

Not sure I agree with your logic. I do understand the dangers of motorbikes. I love 'em just the same but I do NOT ride because I like my legs uncrushed and my skin is rather thin to be sliding on asphalt. However, I'd not like to see 1,000 cc bikes banned. I do fantasize about a 750 cc cruciform crankshaft crotch rocket with ABS, however. You see, I KNOW the R1 is too much bike for me - as if a 750 cc version isn't, either.

No, I'm not for banning supercars, super sport bikes, semi-auto pistols, rifles & shotguns or Pit Bulls. But, hey, I'm an American Southerner so what do I know? I do know that RESPONSIBILITY is missing in today's society and running & gunning 400 bhp cars or 170 bhp bikes is a HORRID idea for more reasons than the true lack of skill. Gotta run.

[Chui]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


The chassi found in Ferrari 360/430 and similar is probably less stiff than what you find in a good passenger car. Steel monocoques are generally very stiff these days to keep down NVH.

The Ferraris uses an aluminum (non tubular) spaceframe that is made by Alcoa. It is made of extruded, cast and stamped sheetmetal aluminum pieces bonded together through MIG welding and rivets; similar to what is found in other cars with aluminum spaceframe chassis, such as Corvette ZR1, Audi A8 and Audi R8.

Pictures of the Ferrari 360 chassi can be found at Alcoa's website: http://www.alcoa.com... 360 Spaceframe
The weight of the 360 chassis is listed by Alcoa as 153 kg, considerably lighter than your average steel monocoque, but torsional stiffness is only about 14,000 Nm/deg.

I believe the aluminum chassis is much stiffer than a conventional car body. Stiffness is measured in frequency (the square root of k/m). Static Bending another way of measuring "stiffness" without the mass term and is expressed in N/m/degree of deflection.

Not quite the same thing. In short the mass acts as a damper in the system: increase the mass and the "stiffness" as measured in Hz decreases but it still can have less static deflection than a similar frame/object with less mass and higher stiffness as measured by frequency.

[gruntguru]

Originally posted by Chui
I believe the aluminum chassis is much stiffer than a conventional car body. Stiffness is measured in frequency (the square root of k/m). Static Bending another way of measuring "stiffness" without the mass term and is expressed in N/m/degree of deflection.

Not quite the same thing. In short the mass acts as a damper in the system: increase the mass and the "stiffness" as measured in Hz decreases but it still can have less static deflection than a similar frame/object with less mass and higher stiffness as measured by frequency.

Certainly true if you view the chassis in isolation - the lighter weight increases the resonant frequency. However once all the other bits are bolted on (bodywork, running gear etc) the total weight is not a great deal less that a steel chassis equivalent and the resonant frequency ends up lower than the stiffer, heavier steel chassis equivalent.

[Todd]

Ugh,

[Greg Locock]

I'd also dispute his original point - the ratio of young's modulus to density is very similar for the two materials, so unless you can design a more efficient structure in one than the other then you won't see a difference in torsional frequency even of the bare structure.

Now, there are reasons why you can make a slightly more efficient structure from aluminium in some cases, which is presumably why commercial aircraft are mostly aluminium, but on the other hand you'll see that bike frames are pretty much the same weight whether they are CroMo or Al. For a car I doubt there is much in it. I suspect bikes and aircraft are strength limited, whereas most of the car is stiffness limited, at least for production cars.

[primer]

New Side-Impact Test to Be Added

One attractive survival strategy for automakers in today’s strained business conditions is the development of a so-called world car. The plan is straightforward enough: create a versatile model that can be adapted for many world markets with minimal changes, allowing the cost of engineering, tooling and manufacturing to be spread over hundreds of thousands of automobiles.
Skip to next paragraph

It’s no slam-dunk, though — far more complex than accommodating, say, Americans’ insistence on cup holders in the center console, where Europeans might prefer to have the parking brake. Also complicating the design of such a universal car are the very different priorities of government regulators in the United States, Europe and Asia.

For instance, a new federal safety standard that will apply to the 2011 models arriving in coming months adds a test for side collisions with a narrow obstacle like a tree or telephone pole — the most dangerous type of single-vehicle accident, according to Stephen T. Kozak, global chief safety engineer of Ford Motor. Side-impact tests currently required in many countries use a wide barrier that simulates vehicles colliding at 90 degrees in an intersection.

Safety standards are developed in response to local patterns of accidents and injuries, so it is logical that they differ from country to country. For example, the United States and Europe have similar numbers of total traffic fatalities; however, in Europe, where car ownership and population densities are different, 50 percent are pedestrians; here only 8 percent are, Mr. Kozak pointed out. In this country, where there is a large population of tall S.U.V.’s, rollovers are a serious concern; in Europe, where there are few S.U.V.’s, it is not.

These differences steer design priorities in very different directions. So a reasonable question is, “Can there be one platform — a world car — for many markets?” We thrive on contrasts in styling and features, yet the more constraints are imposed on design, the more similar all makers’ products must become.

To meet the new pole-impact standard, a vehicle will be slammed against a 10-inch diameter vertical pole at a 75-degree angle, hitting the driver’s door behind the front windshield pillar at up to 20 miles per hour. Compliance with the new standard will be phased in: 20 percent of an automaker’s 2011 vehicles must meet the standard, increasing to 100 percent with 2014 models.

The tools for meeting this new standard are an array of high-strength steels; thousands of hours of computer crash simulations; and the usual physical testing of prototype and production structures.

Cars can be made stiff enough to limit vehicle damage in the pole test, but structure is only part of the problem. The analogy is an egg inside a safe, dropped from the tenth floor. The safe won’t crumple, but the egg will smash.

To protect passengers in cars with the reinforced side structures — the eggs inside the safe — a two-section side air bag system will be necessary, safety engineers say. Its upper part will deploy more softly, appropriate to the vulnerable head and chest of the human driver. The lower part will provide firmer support for the more heavily-built pelvic area.

Engineers cannot reinforce new cars just by crossing out the material specifications on existing drawings and writing in new high-strength boron steels. Because of their strength, these materials can’t be formed as older steels are.

In one new process, blanks enter an annealing furnace — think of a pizza oven — in which the parts soften as they move on transport rolls. A hot blank is removed and quickly finish-formed by the die set in a stamping press. It attains its high strength in the process of being cooled by the dies, a process called die quenching.

Certain other materials can still be cold-formed, but their greater tendency to spring back to their former shape requires a different design of forming dies.

At present, it is planned that for those markets that require it, door apertures and doors may have extra pieces of such strong materials set into them; these can be deleted for other markets. This, of course, works against the goal of efficiently producing a single world car structure.

Automakers say the costs of computer crash simulation are very significant. Toyota bought Cray supercomputers primarily for this task; Ford, which sends large crash simulation problems to wherever in their global operations there is computer time available, says that safety calculations account for 60 percent of its computing power.

With the new standard comes a need for federal safety agencies to educate consumers. The pole impact test will be included in the vehicle ratings of the government’s New Car Assessment Program in 2011, along with new test dummies, revised injury force limits and other changes. Over all, fewer new vehicles are expected to earn the top five-star rating, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says.

What next? Maybe there is insight in what has happened in commercial jet engines, where development costs have risen to levels too great to be borne by any one company. As a result, new engines are now designed by consortia organized for the purpose. If conflicting safety requirements reach a similar level, the Nascar Car of Tomorrow concept might not be all that far-fetched.

[desmo]

At the risk of being accused of being a black helicopter riding, one world government supporting globalist, surely having uniform emissions and safety standards among the major markets would be of benefit to all. Why shouldn't the same car be legal in China, the US/Canada and the EU with at most minor changes?

[Canuck]

A myriad of economically driven reasons. Canada is a perfect country to serve as an example, and while not a 4-wheeled automobile, Harley-Davidson is the perfect example.

Currency and market-demand fluctuations made for an interesting study of the market, specifically market local to me as it's a relatively low-tax environment for vehicles. The short version is - when the CAD is strong, but vehicle pricing from factory to dealers was based on a weak dollar, then US-sold vehicles become cheaper to buy and import than the same Canadian market one. IE - When the exchange rate was $1.45/$1.00 (CAD/USD), comparing the price of a new fully-loaded Ultra-Classic was comparitive, especially when taking into account transportation and import costs. However, within 12 months the rate changed to $1.15/$1.00 and dealers were still stuck with pricing based on the old rate. People found it very cost-effective to buy a new bike in the US and import it into Canada. As one might imagine, Canadian dealers didn't like this much and refused to honour warranties or offer service (and other petty games). A similar situation arose in the 4-wheeled market when the exchange rate shot past parity to $.92/$1.00. Suddenly the cost difference for the same vehicles mere hours apart was deep into the 5-figure range on a 5-figure retail tag. Even with the rate as it is now, in the $1.08/$1.00 realm, the difference on some products is upwards of $20,000 - a strong argument to spend $5,000 getting the car brought in. In the Harley example, an independant importer set up shop and sold US bikes into the Canadian market with sales volume equivalent to the local dealers. That's significant.

The same conditions also work in reverse (the same Harley dealers that were up in arms about US bikes coming to Canada gleefully sold bikes by the fistful to US buyers when the conditions were right. In fact, market demand and exchange rates combined to create a market in Calgary whereby local dealers were tacking on the usual PDI and Freight charges to inflated MSRP, and adding in 1st-year "Pre-Paid Service" based on performing all scheduled services up to 20,000 miles (which at the time was several given the factory schedule was every 2500 miles). This was not a negotiable portion of your sales price - if you wanted a bike, you paid the asking price - period. US-based buyers who were buying 6 and 8 eight bikes at a time had the same cash-grab applied to them, further padding an already padded margin. It doesn't hurt that most rides failed to attain even 10,000 miles in their first season either. Margin padding all over the place.

When the conditions were right, one Calgary-based outfit was converting and exporting 300 lease-back pick-up trucks per month into the US market. It did 2 things - drove the price of both new and used trucks through the roof and completey eliminated any desirable products from the used market. A smart buyer didn't buy a used high-spec truck in the local market for it was almost surely hiding some horrible secret that had kept it from being picked up by the exporters. A former associate/client of mine who lived a different life than most of us was the target of a successful hit while sitting in his pick-up one evening. His truck was cleaned of blood and brain matter, bullet holes patched and exported along with the rest of them.

So...at the end of the day, the same car can't be legal in all markets because all markets don't bear the same pricing levels or support the same margins. If the same car were easily altered to comply with any standard, then what's to stop me from buying up all the inventory I can in the "cheap" markets, converting them all to the expensive market spec and selling them, and in so doing depriving local retailers of market share and consumers and the original destination of product.

[Greg Locock]

Well, oK, but then I can't really see why if an iPod cost the same in Singapore as it does in the USA as it does in Oz, why the importers/manufacturers really think they can get away with different prices for cars in different markets.

There is an attempt to 'harmonize' requirements across the world, i'll be worm fodder long before they really get much done. One useful thing is the commonisation of test techniques, not too sure when that'll happen either.

[desmo]

A myriad of economically driven reasons.... [reasons]

Those are reasons but unfortunately all really really bad unpersuasive ones

[ferruccio]

I have seen post crash images of cars split in half before and in most cases, they were cut post-crash to extricate survivors. Because the article did not say so, we have to assume the car split on its own which means the car carried a lot of energy and this really was a freak occurence. rare but not impossible.

[Fat Boy]

Why shouldn't the same car be legal in China, the US/Canada and the EU with at most minor changes?

Should we all adopt the Chinese emission and safety standards? You sure as hell aren't going to tell them what standards they're going to adopt.

[Canuck]

Those are reasons but unfortunately all really really bad unpersuasive ones ;)

I can't say I disagree with you but Fat Boy made a rather perfect point.