why would you link to links that rave about how great the S2 is. it is talking about how sturdy the chassis is for a convertible. and 2835 lbs is quite a bit more than the 2365 lbs my civic coupe weighs in street trim, as is. with all the aftermarket stuff i have added. and yes, the article mentions that it is comparable to a coupe. thats what im trying to say. you are the one trying to prove they are crap and not anywhere close to as good as a civic coupe. and i am comparing apples to oranges. the civic coupe is 10-15 grand less expensive than the S2, so its possible hat the s2 has a little bit of money tied up in bracing. and seat belts hold you to the seat to a point, but if that impact had been in a truck, then the passenger would have been killed as well, so thats a horrible argument. and the driver would not have had that big reinforced center tunnel it talks about in the links you posted to protect him. and if you read the thread that has the pictures on it, it says that the cops told him he was moving at about 80 mph when he hit the tree, and really, the ecu wont tell much as it relates engine speed, not velocity. if he was moving sideways, it wouldnt tell how fast he was moving.

 

i will never own a sports car that is not a vert. i laught at dumbasses who buy vette coupes. a vert can be jsut as sound as a coupe. its called jsut dont drive like an idiot. ive seen plenty of pics of stang coupes in jsut as bad of shape if not worse that that s2k

 

I am just putting up some information on the subject. do you have a problem with that?

first of all, the current basic civic is 2456lbs and second, the more "performance" oriented civic (Si hatch) is 2782lbs (ie. comparing apples to apples). Comparing this wieght to the 2835 for the S, the difference is only 53lbs...

this is what you said I'm arguing this point. What's wrong? Besides, I even wrote in my last post it COULD be true.. but i just find it hard to believe. That's why I put up those articles.. They show that it is not WAY STIFFER as you suggest.

This is true. This is why I said it COULD be true. My problem with your statement was the WAY STIFFER part. In order to be WAY STIFFER, the car will either weigh much more or it will cost much more. Steel reinforcement will make the car much heavier than it is and lighter materials will make the car much more costly than it already is. Aluminum with properties comparable to steel is easily 4-5 times more expensive than steel. And titanium is even more...

So. you tell me if convertible is worth paying all that extra money for "comparible" rigidity. This is why it is crap. Besides, we are only looking at SIDE impacts. Wait till i get started on rollovers. Again, this is why i say convertibles are crap and are for "looks" and being "cool". Save the money, get a coupe and put in a roll cage.

It is certainly possible that the passenger would have been killed too if it had been a truck. I am not arguing with you on that. Your post implied the DRIVER would have been killed if it had been a truck. And that is also possible too but I'm trying to say that the chaces of survival (for the driver) in a truck are higher than in the S2.

Horrible arguement? Even if we WERE talking about the passenger, the truck would STILL be safer. You saw the picture of the S2k.. Would you rather be sitting in the passenger seat of the S2k or a truck that has a much more rigid cage? Be honest. And another thing, trucks nowadays are not "bench" style anyway. The interior of trucks are pretty much the same as cars/SUV's. Again, we have to compare apples to apples. You can't compare 10 year old trucks to a relatively newly designed S2k. A 2004 truck compared to a 2004 S2k (or a 2000 truck and 2000 s2k).

so what? he wouldn't need it if the passenger door was more rigid and protected him. Would you rather the passenger side of the car collapse up to your right arm or would you like a little room? Personally, I'd go for the extra space.

ok. i didn't read the post. i just looked at the pictures.. so they may have written down the speed. Ummm.. how do you think the cops figured out how fast he was moving when he hit the pole? They do it the quick (and old school) way of approximating the speed using the last known speed from the speedo, tire wear, tire tracks, etc. In accident reconstruction they take data from the ECU and perform calculations to determine many factors. Many modern ECU's track data on pedal position (gas and brake), speed, and even yaw. This gives a pretty good idea on how fast the car is moving, even sideways.

I am assuming when u say engine speed you are referring to rpms.. vehicle speed is easily calculated from rpms and the gear selected... Also note: velocity is simply speed with a direction..

 

go look at the statistics for accident casualties for convertible sports cars as compared to modern trucks. nuff said.
also, how much better would the driver have been? he got knocked out and had a broken arm. a friend of mine was in a wreck in a truck and it didnt look quite as bad as that S2, and he was in a body cast for over 6 months, and that was a modern truck, i believe it was a 99-00 tacoma.

 

and i agree with you about rollovers. thats obvious.

 

here.

and here. notice the star ratings.

 

lol, you want to talk statistics? are you serious? nuff said? Statistics don't prove anything. You show me any statistics and I can make them look good or bad.

Take a look at this list (apples to apples again)
(1) There are MANY more trucks on the road than convertibles
(2) Trucks are ususally carrying a load which significantly increases vehicle wheight and chances of roll overs
(3) Trucks may be pulling trailers which change vehicle dynamics and behaviour
(4) Convertibles are only driven on roads, whereas some trucks are driven on unfinished roads, uneven roads, etc.

I can think of many more to add to this list. Find me statistics that address even some of these issues... you won't be able to find it. This is called statistical bias..

And as for your friend.. was it the same side impact on a pole (apples to apples)? Looks aren't everything. Just last week a car near where i live flew off a bridge, fell 40ft to the road below, landing on the roof of the car, rolled (i think it was) 5 times, and was stopped by a concrete telephone pole. The lady inside got out walked to the nearby gas station to use the phone. She walked away with ONLY bruises.. nothing was even broken. In accidents there is a thing called luck. I said in my post that the CHANCES are better in a truck in the accident WE were talking about. It is possible to beat the odds and conversly, being unlucky, you could DIE from a seemingly minor accident.. it happens.

As for crash ratings.. I have only been talking about the specific S2k accident which is a side impact. Your truck crash rating doesn't even have a side impact crash rating. how is that link relavent? On top of that, all crash testing is different. You probably won't find a crash test that simulates side impact into a pole. This is like the statistics example I gave above. It depends on the way the test is conducted. Besides, there are so many different models of truck out there, I'm sure you can find one that is worse and I can find one that is better. So this is a moot point.

But to humor you.. Goto http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/. Pick 2004 Ford F150 (most popular truck) and pick 2004 S2k. You will see that the S2k is only 4 stars while the F150 is 5 stars. And before you go on to say that the S2k rollover rating is better than the F150, take a look at what the rating means. The rollover rating for this test is the CHANCE of rollover only, not how well it performs IN a rollover. As expected, the much lower sports car will obviously have a better rating.

 

[Deleted by Admins]

 

[Deleted by Admins]

 

Guess folks are not much for convertibles...generally the statements regarding the handling of convertibles ring true.
There are notable exceptions, and a few of the forum members have correctly pointed to the S2K.
Choose ANY main sportscar mag (Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track) over the last 5 years and you'll find
that the S2000 runs with a pretty fast crowd...Road and Track this month gathered what they considered to be the
"Best All-around Sports Car". To be real, they placed a cap on dollars spent (around $100,000).
The competition?
BMW Z4 3.0i | Chevrolet Corvette Coupe | Dodge Viper SRT-10 | Honda S2000
Lotus Elise | Mercedes-Benz SLK350 | Nissan 350Z 35th Anniversary
Porsche Boxster S | Porsche Carrera S Coupe
In this heady crowd (most of us wouldn't be allowed in the show room/sit in, let alone test drive the Lotus, Porsches,
or the Mercedes), the Honda S2000 was right in the middle as number 5.
Not one of the professional test drivers found its suspension lacking rigidity, in fact, it was characterized as nearly
neutral (weight, fore and aft), track-ready suspension...
Have you who were quick to be critical, driven one?