Not sure if y'all have seen this already but the search function seems to take longer than the wait for the RX8 so I thought I'd just post it anyway!

This is what awaits you in the H2!!! The little POS folded up like a piece of origami... I'm sorry if I'm too easily entertained but this cracked me up!!!

JESUS CHRIST!

what the hell happened?
________
FIDELITY BOND ADVICE (http://www.insurance-forums.org/fidelity-bond/)

just another quality gm product.

That's what I call a crumple zone.

I presume that this was all done at less than highway speeds? Now, imagine a serious wreck at faster highway speeds. There's no crumple zone left over.

-Mr. Wigggles

h2 yah its funny... but what's more funny if that was a h1... you will only see a scratch.

Originally posted by moogle
h2 yah its funny... but what's more funny if that was a h1... you will only see a scratch.

Yeah, right. The H1's hood is made of fiber glass. And even if the truck itself is stout (which it is), the interior is a safety engineer's nightmare. I have no idea how they got it past federal safety laws. Crash an H1 and the truck WILL survive. Then your family can use it to carry your casket to the cemetary. No need to rent a hearse! :D

Originally posted by Schneegz
And even if the truck itself is stout (which it is), the interior is a safety engineer's nightmare. I have no idea how they got it past federal safety laws.Both the H1 and H2 are so heavy that they are not classified as passenger vehicles, and are thus exempt from many of the requirements that come with that designation. They don't have to publish fuel ecomony figures either - pity, because 8mpg would probably deter some of the soccer moms who are buying H2's.

FYI, the H2 runs on a Suburban chassis. It is nothing like the original.

What do you expect when your driving a steel cube on wheels?

Let's put a humvee up against a consumer-level H2 and see the damage.

With the whole front end smashed in where does the engine go?

Right into the passenger compartment and kill the both front passengers.

Nothing like a high quality American made truck.

actually the engine mounts are supposed to break away allowing he engine to "submarine" under the vehicle. That's to keep intrusion into the cabin minimal. Any modern vehicle will basically look the same in a head-on collision since the crumple zones are designed to absorb impact energy.

Originally posted by Kawi
... Any modern vehicle will basically look the same in a head-on collision since the crumple zones are designed to absorb impact energy.

except the other pick-up in the wreck... The H2 looks much worse off IMO.

I guess the truch wasn't as "modern".

-Mr. Wigggles

That vehicle is in good shape! The passenger compartment is still intact and looks habitable. The doors might even open which is good news for the occupants. All this is assuming that the engine isn't where the driver was of course. We're missing crucial data: what was the impact speed, at what angle (head on it appears), where's the engine, any footwell intrusion, etc???

How many other objects did it hit before it got to the pickup?:D

It looks like the front end crumpled and absorbed the energy of the impact while the engine fell down low.. the passenger compartment is intact which is exactly what you want to happen right? :confused:

Originally posted by eccles
Both the H1 and H2 are so heavy that they are not classified as passenger vehicles, and are thus exempt from many of the requirements that come with that designation. They don't have to publish fuel ecomony figures either - pity, because 8mpg would probably deter some of the soccer moms who are buying H2's. I get it. 8mpg is pathetic.

Hummer should make an H3 that is about the size of a Jeep Wrangler but with all wheel indipendent suspension. That would be interesting. Throw in a machine gun mount on top and I'm sold! :D

Originally posted by Schneegz
I get it. 8mpg is pathetic.

Hummer should make an H3 that is about the size of a Jeep Wrangler but with all wheel indipendent suspension. That would be interesting. Throw in a machine gun mount on top and I'm sold! :D

funny you should mention that... this is from caranddriver.com

Winner: A Surprise Cash Cow
Y'all bought 19,222 of GM's Hummer H2s in 2002. That's impressive considering the economy is under the table; the H2 costs about $50,000; it didn't go on sale until July 1, 2002; and it's the only vehicle produced by GM that didn't come with a cash-back or sweetheart financing deal. At that rate, a full 12 months should be worth 38,444 sales. The max the factory could turn out in a year is 40,000. No wonder then that GM will introduce a smaller H3 model in the next couple of years.

oh crap this is bad... here we go... vehicular HELL.... can't see crap as is without H2 everywhere yet...

"How many objects did it hit before the truck?"

- That kind of damage is only expected if one of those objects is Mt. Rushmore!

S

Originally posted by sjt


funny you should mention that... this is from caranddriver.com



oh crap this is bad... here we go... vehicular HELL.... can't see crap as is without H2 everywhere yet...
It may be smaller than the H2, but that leaves a LOT of room for size. The H2 is massive. I want a Wrangler-sized rock croller/mud slinger/trail runner.

Truth is I'll probably never own anything like that. Too much of a single-purpose vehicle.

Originally posted by Schneegz
Truth is I'll probably never own anything like that. Too much of a single-purpose vehicle. Me neither, unless I hit the lottery or something. I surely hope that the people that can afford this type of exorbident and totally unneccessary spending is giving at least the same amount of $ to some worthy charity. Seriously, what a waste!

Please don't forget they are ugly as sin... In my opinion of course. ;)

--JiM

So the US introduces Safety legislation and emissions control.

Then forgets to apply them to 'trucks' so everyone builds huge nutter tree-killing human killing 'trucks' for mom to take the kids shopping.

US has to address this one day soon...

Squash the SUV loophole and you'll see a lot less of them. Out of 19k vehicles how many do you think we'll be written off completely next year? Quite a large percentage. That's why they call it a "hummer of a loophole".

Write your congressman today...

RotaryStalker

OK, you guys are going overboard now.
I surely hope that the people that can afford this type of exorbident and totally unneccessary spending is giving at least the same amount of $ to some worthy charity.
Gimme a break. An H2 costs about $50K. Would I pay that much for it? HELL NO. But I don't hear anyone on this board complaining that $50K sports cars and sedans are exorbitant and unnecessary and owners of M5's and such should give an equal amount to charity.
So the US introduces Safety legislation and emissions control. Then forgets to apply them to 'trucks' so everyone builds huge nutter tree-killing human killing 'trucks' for mom to take the kids shopping.
First of all, the H1 and H2 are the only SUV's exempt from those laws, and both of them are very low volume vehicles. And let's not forget that the RX-8 is no fuel miser, and the FD was worse.
Squash the SUV loophole and you'll see a lot less of them. Out of 19k vehicles how many do you think we'll be written off completely next year? Quite a large percentage. That's why they call it a "hummer of a loophole".
Oh, sure. Write your congressman. Good idea. Then we'll all be driving Civic Hybrids and Toyota Priuses (or is that Prii?).

I detest the hypocrisy I see in many sports car fans when they talk trash about SUV's. In case you haven't noticed, sports car mileage is not much better, and often worse than that of SUV's. Furthermore, plenty of SUV's seat up to 7 people, which makes them good car pool vehicles. How many sports cars can do that?

I don't like SUV's, but what I do like is freedom. I like the freedom to ride my motorcycle, or a sports car, or any damned vehicle I can afford. And I want everyone else to have that freedom too, even if I don't like what they drive.

Does anyone NEED a 5,000lb behemoth SUV? No. Does anyone NEED a 250HP sports car? No. Does anyone NEED a 140HP motorcycle? No. We, as a free and prosperous people, tend to drive what we WANT, not what we NEED. So quit'cher damned hypocritical bitching.

Hmmm, words are very important to me. That being said maybe you should read and then attempt to comprehend what the meaning in behind the combined words.

I could care less about how many SUVs are on the road. There is a loophole in the law which encourages the purchase of larger vehicles allowing them to then be completely written off as a tax deduction. This law has been in place since 1987.

Now do you want to argue that you should be allowed to be an attorney and deduct a 50,000 hummer completely? Go right ahead. At the same time remember that when someone takes advantage of the loophole average tax payers pay the bill. This has nothing at all to do with the freedom to drive whatever you want. The point is simple, the government encourages the purchase of larger vehicles by business owners by allowing them to be deducted as a capital expense. This is part of the reason you see more of them on the road. The explosion of popularity is partly the reason, combined with every accountant encouraging the use of 179 and you have a US full of SUVs.

Now you want to defend such a stupid loophole as your "right" go right ahead. It's your money paying for these Hummers.

RotaryStalker

I don't really see it as a loophole as the cost of purchasing and using a vehicle for business is legitimate. I certainly don't want to use my personal car for business. If I do the cost of driving the car should be re-emburst by the company as it is profiting from my use.

That having been said, in Canada at least, there is an upper limit on how much of the cost of my company car it can deduct. Also, as long as it keeps the vehicle only a part of the cost is deductable, it gets close but never reaches 100%. This upper limit does not apply to delivery vehicles, just those used for moving people around.

If someone wants to buy a car that is worth more then the limit, they loose the extra depreciation amount but some people would rather have the status that goes with the car then the money saved.

I would hate to think of the cost of trying to enforce a rule that says only certain people can have certain cars while other people can't.

YMMV

Originally posted by RotaryStalker
Hmmm, words are very important to me. That being said maybe you should read and then attempt to comprehend what the meaning in behind the combined words.

I could care less about how many SUVs are on the road. There is a loophole in the law which encourages the purchase of larger vehicles allowing them to then be completely written off as a tax deduction. This law has been in place since 1987.

Now do you want to argue that you should be allowed to be an attorney and deduct a 50,000 hummer completely? Go right ahead. At the same time remember that when someone takes advantage of the loophole average tax payers pay the bill. This has nothing at all to do with the freedom to drive whatever you want. The point is simple, the government encourages the purchase of larger vehicles by business owners by allowing them to be deducted as a capital expense. This is part of the reason you see more of them on the road. The explosion of popularity is partly the reason, combined with every accountant encouraging the use of 179 and you have a US full of SUVs.

Now you want to defend such a stupid loophole as your "right" go right ahead. It's your money paying for these Hummers.

RotaryStalker

There is no such "loophole". The law only applies to businesses that use the vehicles, like a lumber yard or a flower shop that uses them to transport merchandise. And there is an upper limit to how much will be reimbursed. What's wrong with a business writing off a legitimate capital expense? The reason you see more SUV's on the road has nothing to do with this law. It has everything to do with the fact that people simply like them. Get over it.

Originally posted by Schneegz

It may be smaller than the H2, but that leaves a LOT of room for size. The H2 is massive. I want a Wrangler-sized rock croller/mud slinger/trail runner.

Truth is I'll probably never own anything like that. Too much of a single-purpose vehicle. Man dude, what happened to you today? You find out yours is still in Hiroshima?
Don't call me a hypocrit because you just don't know jack about me. I give more than 10% tithes & offerings to my church. Now you know, so call me a hypocrit now, you would be calling yourself a liar at the same time.
I don't feel that what I said concerning giving to a charity applies to an RX-8 neccessarily (although it would still be nice!) because...
Don't even try to compare an RX-8 to a Hummer:
An RX-8 costs less than 10k over your basic junky new car. $50k is almost double the price of an RX-8. Oink!
20mpg = 2.5 x 8mpg. That's one heckova big difference! Oink!
Tax loophole that you obviously don't know jack about concerning Hummers...OINK OINK OINK!!! :mad:

Originally posted by Schneegz
There is no such "loophole". The law only applies to businesses that use the vehicles, like a lumber yard or a flower shop that uses them to transport merchandise. And there is an upper limit to how much will be reimbursed. What's wrong with a business writing off a legitimate capital expense? The reason you see more SUV's on the road has nothing to do with this law. It has everything to do with the fact that people simply like them. Get over it. I don't know much about this but I keep tabs on Lexus - my favourite brand ;). A lot of Lexus customers are unhappy that their new $53k GX470s fall 30lbs short of the magic weight to qualify for a 100% tax write-off, and I suspect few of them use it to deliver flowers or lumber...

Originally posted by pelucidor
A lot of Lexus customers are unhappy that their new $53k GX470s fall 30lbs short of the magic weight to qualify for a 100% tax write-off

sounds like they need both front and rear bumper "crash beams" ;)

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Man dude, what happened to you today? You find out yours is still in Hiroshima?
Don't call me a hypocrit because you just don't know jack about me. I give more than 10% tithes & offerings to my church. Now you know, so call me a hypocrit now, you would be calling yourself a liar at the same time.
I don't feel that what I said concerning giving to a charity applies to an RX-8 neccessarily (although it would still be nice!) because...
Don't even try to compare an RX-8 to a Hummer:
An RX-8 costs less than 10k over your basic junky new car. $50k is almost double the price of an RX-8. Oink!
20mpg = 2.5 x 8mpg. That's one heckova big difference! Oink!
Tax loophole that you obviously don't know jack about concerning Hummers...OINK OINK OINK!!! :mad:

Man, talk about missing the point. I said that I haven't heard anyone on this board, including you, suggest that people that buy $50K sports cars give an equal amount to charity, as you suggested an H2 owner should do. And I mentioned the M5 as an example of a $50K sports car.

The hypocrisy is not in how much you give to your church. The hypocricy lies in your failure to criticize sports cars (like the M5) that are just as ridiculous and unnecessary as an H2.

The RX-8 is not as ridiculous as an M5 or an H2 (I never said it was), but let's not pretend that it's something anyone actually NEEDS.

Originally posted by Schneegz
The hypocricy lies in your failure to criticize sports cars (like the M5) that are just as ridiculous and unnecessary as an H2.

The RX-8 is not as ridiculous as an M5 or an H2 (I never said it was), but let's not pretend that it's something anyone actually NEEDS.

Man, shoot! How can I be called a hypocrit now for not criticizing.....yada yada yada.... when I didn't say a darned thing about them AT ALL? This thread is ABOUT THE HUMMERS. If it were about the M5 or some other rediculous or unnecessary sports car, there's a good chance I would have posted the same thing about that. Man, you sure are being strange about this!!!

People need to buy a car every once in a while. A lot of people who live above poverty level wind up buying a new car. Most of those people who buy a new car, buy one that is not bottom of the line. An RX-8 is just a tad more expensive than, say, a Mazda6 V6, plus or minus, given the selections of all the options to chose from. A bit higher than your average car, yeah, but hardly rediculous or unnecessary. So, who's doing the pretending here about what the heck is being pounded home? An RX-8 is a four door four seater, just like a Ford whatever. It's a darned good deal. It looks to me like Mazda could have gone a good bit higher than they did on the MSRP. They would have lost several buyers & stuff, but still done well in selling it out at say $32 base price, I think. So, we're getting a lot for our money here and it looks from the outside like we really spent the wad on our cars when we really didn't.

If you want to reply back again this time, just PM me. At least that way I can delete it.

Easy there.. Easy.:D Good times!

Originally posted by mantisflie
Easy there.. Easy.:D Good times!

Errr....world without humans? Hmmmmm.....

| | | | Yes....iinnnttteeerrrrreeesssssttttiiiiinnnngggggg gg!!!!!
| | | |
VVVVV

edit: I was almost in bed when the thought came to me that this post might raise undue concern to those who don't know that Mantisfile & I were having fun just a little while ago in another thread. Don't take this seriously, for cryin out loud! Right mantisfile? :)

J/K Interesting thought though.

Once upon a time, this thread was about a picture of a crashed H2. Let's try this on for size.... What I find interesting in the pic is that each vehicle seems to be impacted primarily on the right front. If they were passing, that means they each were on the wrong side of the other. Someone clearly was driving where he/she shouldn't have been. Also, since kinetic energy is proportional to mass times the square of velocity, for the H2 to be pushed up on the sidewalk like that despite its much greater mass that pickup truck must have been going way fast. Meaning one would expect to see much greater damage to the pickup. Can anyone offer anyother plausible explanation? Was there a third vehicle involved not in the picture?

In trying to find the source of this pic, I came across the following web site (http://www.wreckedexotics.com/newphotos/weird/). Two warnings are merited: First, it pops up each time with strange spam ads; just wait and they'll go away or click the tiny "skip" at the top. Do NOT click the ads.

Secondly, if you truly love exotic cars this page might be too painful to bear. You have been warned.

Their relative velocities were equal & opposite = V1 + V2.
Isn't that part V**2/2g? Oh well, g'night.

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Their relative velocities were equal & opposite = V1 + V2.
Isn't that part V**2/2g? Oh well, g'night.

I dunno, but my kid will take HS physics next year so maybe I'll learn then. I did a brain dump on this stuff few a few decades ago. One thing I can see: That H2 didn't get pushed straight back onto the sidewalk into its resting position. It slid there sideways. You can see the skidmarks for the two rear wheels. Maybe it was spinning around to come into that position. I'm trying to figure out how the heck that happened. There may be clues from where the debris is around the two vehicles plus some marks around the pickup. I'm not a crash investigator so I can't put it all together. Just glad I wasn't around when these two said "Howdy!"

There is no such "loophole". The law only applies to businesses that use the vehicles

What a bunch of crap. Do a search on Google for "SUV Loophole". Evidently there's millions of people who think you're flat out wrong.

Now read this here. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/p48468.asp

This is just one of thousands of articles on the subject. Look at the list of vehicles that qualify (and actually the GX 470 makes the list).

Notice that GX470 for example. See how it's GVWR is 6100 lbs. Notice the GVWR on a Toyota 4Runner (which the GX470 is based on) and you'll see the GVWR is 5500 lbs. The GX470 can be written of completely in 1 year, the 4Runner cannot. My point here is that Toyota are no idiots, even they recognize the existence of the SUV loophole and build there luxury trucks to qualify. Look at all the vehicles on the list. Almost all of them barely qualify for the classification of a commercial vehicle under the law. See how the GVWRs are 6005lbs, 6030lbs, 6015lbs, etc. This has been going on for years.

Now I just set up an S-Corp through which I do software contracting and get some royalty payments from an invention. Why would there be any reason why I wouldn't buy a new SUV or truck and write the whole thing off.

Hmmm let's see. I can write off any vehicle for business use. If I buy a BMW 540 I can write it off in about 20 years. If I buy a BMW X5 I can write it off in one year.

But wait. What if the big bad tax man comes to audit me. He may not allow the deduction. However, since taking the deduction DOES NOT increase your chance of audit why the hell should I worry about it? I won't. And even if I did get audited I'll simply show the IRS auditor a few pictures of the X5 loaded up with some boxes of computer crap. There, deduction fully justified.

You see Sneeze, you assume we live in a society where everyone has the integrity of Lincoln... We don't. Simple fact of the matter is the loophole does exist, auto makers cater to it, doctors, lawyers, software contractors, MLM business owners all take advantage of it.

RotaryStalker

It's a matter of semantics, RotaryStalker. Everything you say is true. You don't get more of a deduction for a hog like a hummer, but you get the deduction faster. Obviously this motivates many folks to "upsize" for that accelerated benefit. This is counter-intuitive to what many of us believe: There ought to be some kind of tax penalty for buying such a hog. That way, everyone can exercise their right to buy what they want, but they will bear a greater share of the social costs associated with profligate consumption.

Thanks for clarification. One point - Lexus overstated the GX470's weight by 130lbs (it's really 5970lbs - so close), that's why customers are upset.

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
That way, everyone can exercise their right to buy what they want, but they will bear a greater share of the social costs associated with profligate consumption.

How many profligates per gallon can we expect to get with the RX-8?

Anyway, the force applied in an auto accident does, I think, come basically from good old F=MA. M=mass, A=acceleration, where the acceleration is actually deceleration (negative value). That value (dvdt) is very high when the auto decelerates from, say, 60mph to 0 in the time of, say, 0.5 seconds. In a head-on, the 2 cars apply those forces to each other, and those forces must be equal and opposite (since there are no other external forces being applied to the "system"). That would mean M1A1 = M2A2. If M1 > M2, then A2 > A1. You can play with this a lot of ways...
Test:
1) What can be said about crumple zones here?
a) What do c.z.'s affect in the above formulas?
b) If one has c.z.'s, but the other doesn't, does that affect just the one car, or both?
2) If you have a head-on collision with a bug hitting your windshield, why does that not cause your car to decelerate to 0?
3) If you have a head-on collision in your RX-8 with a Hummer, why would be suddenly traveling in the opposite direction?

hehe that's funny pelucidor... I didn't know that. Oh the irony.

RotaryStalker

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
You don't get more of a deduction for a hog like a hummer, but you get the deduction faster.

There ought to be some kind of tax penalty for buying such a hog. That way, everyone can exercise their right to buy what they want, but they will bear a greater share of the social costs associated with profligate consumption.

as per your first comment, you might think that because the nominal amount claimed back is the same, your benefits are: this isn't quite correct. because you can claim back $50k all at once, as opposed to slowly, slowly reclaiming that cost. it doesn't take much to see that if you had all the money today and put it in the bank you'd end up with more money in the end than if you put all the money in the bank over time as you slowly accumulated it.

as per your second comment, the idea of progressive taxation is a really neat one, where those who have a higher means to pay end up paying for a higher relative social burden. rich righties are against it, poor lefties are all for it, for very obvious reasons.
the problem with increased tax for luxury goods is that the elasticity for luxury items is very very high, meaning that a small change in price will reflect a huge change in demand: increase tax a little, you sell a whole lot less SUVs.

depending on where you are in that system, you'll be either for it or against it, but in the end you're creating a larger Dead Weight Loss, where the nominal social benefit (increase in social profit) is way, way less than the nominal market benefit (decrease in luxury truck sales)... basically, you're impacting the GDP (decreasing consumption). now, before the righties get all up in arms saying "WE TOLD YOU SO!! GIVE US OUR FREE LUXO TRUCKS" i'll just append the little note with which i shut-up my first year micro-econ prof: the nominal measurement of social profit doesn't equate to the real social benefit; that small increase in money for child education, or crime prevention, or road works, or any social program may be in real terms far more valuable to everyone than a higher GDP with more luxury SUVs on the road.

the ultimate answer: "...it depends". everything in economics is conditional, it's all a comprimise.