deks

I realize this is a volatile subject, and I don't want to incur another round robin flamefest, but I did run across an interesting study done by Lawrence Berkeley at:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/teepa/pdf/LBNLDC0702.pdf

The interesting point was that the safest subcompact & compact cars have the same driver risk as an average SUV, and quality of vehicle design appears to be a better predictor of risk than weight. Foreign cars, more expensive cars, do a lot better.

Although, sports car drivers are pretty high risk regardless

G-man

At this risk of this thread getting out of hand like the other "family man" thread, I thought I would pose the question another way:

For those of us 20-40 and having kids, what are your thoughts about the RX-8 and is it your primary or secondary mode of transportation? Those of you without kids or without a clue need not bother with a reply.

Just so you know where I stand... my wife has an Acura MDX SUV for hauling the kids around and that is great. It handles so much like my NSX did it isn't funny! Anyway, as much fun as the MDX is, I don't always want to drive it in the event that the entire family (2 kids under 4 + wife and myself) need to go somewhere. My personal cars have always been 2 seaters or 2+2 and I spend some of my weekends at the track doing track events. Now that the entire family wants to spend a weekend at the track, it is kind of hard jamming everyone into the Porsche 911 Turbo.

So, I think it was smart of Mazda to look at building a car that doens't look like a 4 seater or a 4 door sedan but has more Porsche 911 proportions and dimensions yet is layed out much more sensibly. Now the RX-8 won't be a waste on the track and it can hold the family and the gear needed for the weekend. The most fun I ever had on the track was 1999 when I tracked by 1999 Miata sport. It isn't always about the speed or 0-60 times, it is about how much fun the car is to drive and being able to drive it more often now that the family can come along.

PS: sure there are trade-offs and compromises, but hey! That is life.

Like Porsche says in their adds for their SUV "I'm a Dad, but I am not dead!" That is for sure... too bad the Porsche SUV is a disaster.

Elara

I'm buying this with the intention that we won't have to give up our fun car when the kids start arriving. We will probably buy a 5 series as well, as the primary vehicle(and preferably a roadster at some point as well, for trips w/out the kiddies). Overall, I think Mazda had a great idea with this.

G-man

Yeah, I think it is interesting how things go. At the height of my vehicular insanity, I had an SUV (MDX), a large sedan (740iS), a convertible (Miata), a sports car (911 C4S), and an exotic (NSX)... oh and a race car (911S). That was the most cars I ever had at one time, but they all filled a very specific niche' in use.

I think at some point I am going to have to buy another Miata or a Boxster, since it will be hard to be without a Porsche and also hard to be without a convertible... but, neither of these are practical with kids. Of course, the Boxster ad showed Mom and Dad getting way from the kids and read something to the effect of "VERY PRACTICAL" with kids. Because, sometimes you just got to get away.

deks

For me, the 8 will be a secondary transport, behind a WRX wagon as primary. But my garage is one car behind another, so if the 8 handles getting the kid in and out easily, and the trunk is an okay size for all the child rearing debris, it may do decent stretches as a primary vehicle when I don't want to swap the cars around.

In some ways I'd like to specialize more with more cars, but I hate putting cars on the street (gotta move them around for street sweeping, among other things) and I just don't have garage space.

Apex Eater

My intention is make the 8 my primary driver. The 8 provides me with the ability to drive a sporty car and still be able to pick up the baby from daycare on the way home from work. My SUV will be my wife's primary driver and will be used most of the time when all of us are together. G-man summed it up perfectly, I will have a niche car for all of my needs: the SUV for safety and cargo space and the 8 for fun with some every day practicallity and the Miata when we need to get away :D

JSG

You guys have too much money &/or garage space! I'm jealous!

rooster

Ditto

Lock & Load

HEY you guys sound like you like to spend your money quicker than i can make it . IDB( in daddys bussines ) PHG (PAPPA HAS GELT ),OR you have a money tree .

gord boyd

This should be a good thread. My perspective is to look at
how the engineers problem solve our needs, in this case, Mazda
vs. Toyoto's 2nd gen. hybrid announced for Sept. release:

Performance: RX-8 vs. other
Acceleration--2X but equal in overtaking
H.P.--2X on std. pwr, 2.3X on GT
Torque--1/2
Weight--higher by 200 lbs
Toyota is claiming 4 cyl. Camry performance equivalence.

Efficiency/Cost Performance
MPG--1/2
Coeff. of Drag--higher by significant .03
Trunk Space--1/2 and no fold-down
Size--2 categories smaller, 1 passenger less, 5" less rear legroom
Cost--significantly more

Safety:
Assumption has to be same crash safety, but obviously better
crash avoidance in RX-8. However crash history will result
in huge insurance premiums for RX-8 vs. Toyoto's Prius.

Driving Dynamics: (A Driving Machine vs. An Appliance)
Stick shift vs. none
Drive--RWD vs. FWD
Rigid Architecture/Chassis--significantly greater
Comfort--do not know (since JSG found seats very uncomfortable)

Dads everywhere will be choosing. Toyoto's sales I'm guessing
will be much higher, and collectively Dads' compromises will be much higher. Where the rubber meets the road.

msydd

I've got teenage kids and previously have owned both an MX5 and Toyota MR2 as my car. This was used to and from work, and for the odd single kid duties. Also, for my wife and I to escape.

I'm expecting to use the RX8 for a lot more family duties. I'm expecting it to hold the kids in comfort and enable more of us to enjoy the fun together.

I'm also expecting the rear doors to make it easier than a 2+2 for drop offs.

Elara

Try "working my *** off and squirreling money away every place I can.".

:D

red_base 95

I think my situation is going to be very similar to a lot of others.

This will be my primary driver, back and forth to work, mostly by myself. I have 2 kids (ages 9 & 4) that ride with me sparingly. My wife has a Mitsubishi Montero Sport that fills the family hauling duties well. But I need a car which can transport all 4 of us when we don't need/want the SUV. Going to church, ballgames, out to dinner or movies. Perhaps a trip to the grocery store or the mall. I won't be hauling furniture or lumber in the 8.

I don't plan on using the 8 for vacations or trips to Home Depot, but certainly this car should be able to fulfill the other requests listed above. The ability to carry 4 people to and from a destination, with a nominal amount of cargo.

pelucidor

The RX-8 is to be MY primary mode of transport (daily driver).

The Acura MDX (great SUV - well engineered and worth the money) that my wife drives is the FAMILY's primary transport. Family includes new 2-week-old daughter and two large Golden Retrievers. My wife doesn't work (actually she works damn hard, just not in an office for money) so she will do most of the baby hauling in the MDX, but my RX-8 is available if necessary.

Lawrence Berkeley Study Details
The study linked to is worthless to me to rate SUV safety - their sample is tiny and these are the only SUVs that they considered:
Chevy Blazer
Chevy Tahoe
Chevy Suburban
Ford Explorer
Jeep Cherokee
Toyota 4-Runner
that's it...

All models are pre-1999 and all are based on very old body on frame designs. These sturdy vehicle frames are designed for towing etc (see pickup trucks) and may not crumple nicely like a unibody vehicle e.g. cars and most modern foreign SUVs. By contrast the Lexus GX470 is an example of a new body on frame design that would probably be safer than ANY vehicle in the study.

Furthermore I would be very surprised if a Lexus RX300 or BMW X5 or Acura MDX or Volvo XC90 or ANY recent unibody SUV would not do vastly better than these vehicles too - I would expect results to match or beat those of the Toyota Avalon (luxury import) or Dodge Caravan (minivan) which had highest scores in the study for other-car safety and own-car-driver safety respectively.

Finally although this study shows that for the vehicle driver a Tahoe or Jeep Cherokee is about 25 points worse than the best vehicle in the test (Dodge Caravan). But that same Tahoe/Cherokee is about 90-120 points better than Cavaliers/Escorts/Neons etc. See slide 9 of 22 for real hard data points as opposed to misleading summaries...

ed hall

one of the reasons why I pre-ordered the car over the TT and the 350Z were the rear doors and the rear seats of the RX8. My wife and I are ready to start a family and this car is ideal. We can't afford a second car at this stage so we need something that will keep me happy from a performance point of view while at the same time keeping my future family requirements satisfied.

welles

If you're judging the safety of a vehicle by how well it crashes into things, you're missing the point - or at least not seeing the whole picture.

As a starting point, addressing only the "crashability" issue, all vehicles sold in the United States that are not classified as trucks (trucks are subject to a LESS stringent set of criteria) must meet the same safety standards. While the laws of physics to some extent dictate that if you crash your new 8 into a Crown Vic you will come out on the losing end, the relative difference between the best and worst new cars in pure crashability terms is small. Bottom line, all new cars are safe in terms of structure and energy management.

But does this make them "safe" in a statistical sense? Hardly. Looking at real world crash data, it quickly becomes apparent that your choices and actions as a driver have as much if not more to do with your safety on the road as the strength of your vehicle. Accident avoidance should be the goal, along with reasonable precautions to protect yourself in the event of something TRULY unavoidable (as opposed to events that WOULD have been avoidable had you been paying attention).

In practical terms, safety means (in approximate order of importance):

1. Wear your seat belt.

2. If you're drinking/using drugs - don't drive.

3. Pay attention (i.e. do not talk on your cell phone, do not do your makeup, do not turn to look at your passenger as you speak. DO watch your mirrors, DO be aware what is happening in your immediate vicinity).

4. Learn your vehicle's limits under controlled conditions (i.e. the track or an empty piece of road during daylight hours), so that you don't have to learn them under UNcontrolled conditions.

5. Maintain your tires, brakes, and suspension religiously - dollars "saved" on tires or brakes are no savings if they compromise the vehicle's performance.

and very last of all

6. Buy a vehicle that crashes well.

Hercules

Amen to that. Nothing is safer than driving cautiously and calm... and even then you can still have a blast

babylou

Weight in the form of properly designed structure is good for crash safety. Weight in the form of large engines, power operated seats, 20" dubs, navigation systems, etc. are all detrimental to crash safety. All of this non-structural weight simply increases the energy that the structure must absorb.

I also saw, in passing, a TV report stating that the latest statistics showed that nearly 25% of all traffic deaths in the US were due to rollovers of trucks and SUV's. If this is accurate then I doubt these vehicles have any safety advantage.

TroyRX8

My wife/kid won't ride with me in my Z28 because I drive it a little fffffast so thats a dead issue (no pun intened)

I am more concerned about how the RX8 holds up if it were hit by an SUV driven by a soccer mom and some kids -- Seriously I have reservations about the tiny RX8.

bwayout

And I was actually thinking of doing that, if none one else beats me to it ...

:D

bwayout

I also plan on having the RX-8 is to be my primary mode of transport (daily driver).


My wife has a 2000 Passat (we're also one of those families that will not own a SUV) that is used as the family car. We have a 5 and a 2 year old ... but on the weekends, I really want to take the family out for some short and long "road trip" adventures in the RX-8 that might last an afternoon or a couple of weeks!

:D

Which also means that I will be using every space that is available for storage in the RX-8 ...



So I guess that until I get to test drive one a couple of times (I'm sure I'll love the way it handles) - I just hope that I'll still be as excited about the ability of the RX-8 to fit all of our family and my needs?

pelucidor

I agree - and weight in the form of a rigid frame designed for towing (pickup and some body-on-frame SUVs -see my previous post) is probably the worst type of structure for absorbing crash energy - even worse than a NAV system and power seats perhaps .



Not accurate - about 25% (10,647) rollover fatalities out of 42,000 total traffic fatalities occurred in 2001. But that 10,647 was spread 52% vs 48% between SUVs/light trucks vs cars (i.e. about 13% of all fatalities were SUV/truck rollovers and about 12% were for cars).

Amazingly over 50% of those 5,300 fatalities in SUVs and light trucks were single vehicle accidents (i.e. driver error or accident avoidance) so driving safely is of paramount importance for high CG vehicles. One would think common sense would dictate driving more slowly on bends in this kind of vehicle but apparently not. Moreover 72% of those SUV rollover fatalities were not wearing a seatbelt and were ejected from the vehicle - that's amazing and almost 3 times as high as the national average of not wearing seatbelts. Perhaps there is a correlation to driving a truck/SUV badly and not bothering to war a seat-belt - evolution in action?

Source: http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5041

Relevant Quote:
The agency is concerned about the rollover risk of pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans. This light-truck category accounted for 52 percent of the 10,647 fatal crashes involving a rollover in 2001, while constituting only 35 percent of the nations fleet of vehicles. Another source gave me 42,000 total traffic fatalities - a number that has been constant for many years now

Physics dictates that light trucks are easier to roll than passenger vehicles, based on their track width relative to their center of gravity. But this stability factor is not necessarily predictive. As noted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, some light trucks with virtually identical stability factors have far different rollover rates in the real world.

For example, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Toyota 4Runner have indistinguishable stability factors, and received identical risk ratings from NHTSA. Yet, the fatality rate for the Grand Cherokee 27 per million registered vehicles is on a par with that of passenger cars, while the 4Runners fatality rate is 119.

The risk of a rollover also varies dramatically depending on driver behavior. More than 90 percent of rollovers occur after a driver loses control and runs the vehicle off the road. Moreover, the most lethal injuries result when occupants are ejected from the vehicle - a tragic reality reinforced by the fact that 72 percent of those killed in rollover accidents were not wearing a seatbelt. In other words, the NHTSA appears determined to hold automakers responsible for drivers negligence in protecting themselves.

In fact, theres virtually no difference in overall fatality rates between vehicles in the light truck category and passenger cars. In 2001, for example, there were 1.2 fatalities involving light truck occupants per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared to 1.28 for cars. As for injuries, passenger cars posted a rate 28 percent worse than light trucks.

Any valid risk assessment must also weigh the safety benefits of light truck design. Only 14 percent of light-truck fatalities resulted from a side-impact collision in 2001 compared to 25 percent for passenger cars. Light truck occupants also are safer than passenger-car occupants in non-rollover, single-vehicle crashes.

babylou

Pelucidor,

I am glad I said "if accurate" regarding my statement. Note that your quote mentions 52% of rollover fatalities are in trucks but only comprise 35% of the vehicle fleet. This basically equates to one is twice as likely to experience a deadly rollover in a truck than a car.

I do not agree that many truck rollovers can be attributed to driver error. I am of the opinion that a vehicle should be stable enough to slide before rolling. This is a design flaw that everyone has pushed on the manufacturers in their quest for perceived "safety" and to have a "commanding view". That damn view thing pisses me off more than anything because since 50% of new vehicles sold are trucks of the same height the view is no better than if they were all cars. I guess people will start wanting vehicles as high as a semi truck.

If trucks were as rollover resistant as cars then their fatality rate would be about 50% lower. That would save about 5,300 lives.

If trucks were replaced by cars then the fatality rate would drop even more since when a car is struck by a truck the car is forced to absorb so much energy. Who knows how many more lives can be saved.

Basically, this truck craze pisses me off.

G-man

I am not sure what happend to my thread, since it seems to have gotten all moved under this one?! What is up with that? Anyway, I appreciate all the "on-topic" replies with regard to family and multi-use. I think the RX-8 and SUV combo is pretty typical. Throwing in a Miata here and there for good measure sure won't upset the folks at Mazda. In fact if Mazda made an SUV as good as the MDX (even if it cost more) I would buy the Mazda in a minute. <HELLO FOLKS A MAZDA!>

Anyway, I always find the "crash test" talks rather interesting since it assumes that you are going to be in a crash. Talk about not being the optimist?! I have always felt that the best defense is a good offense, so therefore I have always driven a "sports car". The RX-8 out handles and our brakes almost anything on the street with performance numbers from 60-0 almost as good if not better than my Porsche Turbo. I think the best accidents are always the ones you manage to avoid.

Granted, that in the event of your ticket getting punched and you being unlucky enough to have the entire family in the car, you would like a higer degree of servivability, but keep in mind that I spend my weekends at the track in showroom stock cars that are just the the ones on the street and they run into stuff too at 130 mph+ and seem to do ok with minimal additional safety equipment. So, I think the point is kind of pointless. Unless the RX-8 gets a "MARGINAL" or "POOR" rating, chances are you will survive. The kids get RECARO car seats, so they have a solid steel frame around them.

Anyway... I WANT MY THREAD BACK!

pelucidor

G-Man

I agree that accident avoidance is vastly more important than accident survival (prevention is better than cure and all that). I have stated in another thread that a sporty car with good handling and braking wil be much better at missing that accident than any other type of vehicle. However no matter how safe I try to drive (belted of course) one day someone might unexpectedly hit me, or a cat might run into a road and cause me to swerve (and naturally roll over if I'm driving the MDX or any other SUV)...

However the first item on this thread talked about a Lawrence Berkeley study which I think was somewhat misleading in it's conclusion (re SUVS are less safe in a crash than some subcompacts etc). Having gone to the effort of studying the whole presentation with the expectation that I should sell my MDX and get a Neon, I find that that only older examples of the Chevy Blazer/Tahoe/Suburban, Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee and Toyota 4 Runner were considered in the study. Furthermore the Chevy Blazer was 120 points better than a Neon for surviving a crash (and only 25 points behind the best performer in the study). I assume that the MDX will do a lot better than a '95-'99 Blazer so will also be better than the Neon. I am keeping my MDX...



Babylou:

You are right - I was wondering if someone would notice that only 35% of vehicles are SUVs/trucks. However that 52% for SUV fatalities is massively effected by 72% of SUV drivers in fatal crashes not wearing seat-belts (as opposed to about 18% of car drivers). If one wears a seat belt in an SUV than the odds change in your favour dramatically. Put another way: 82% of cars in rollovers will be fatal even if the driver is wearing a seatbelt, but only 28% of SUV rollovers are fatal if the driver is belted in. Sounds very different that way doesn't it. Wish my dad hadn't been an actuarist - made me morbid I think.
But actually you only need to read the the last paragraph I quoted to see a normalised value that is independent of the different quantity of each type of vehicle on the road (even allowing for seatbelt avoiders and bad drivers that don't understand CG that SUVs/trucks seem to encourage):
In fact, theres virtually no difference in overall fatality rates between vehicles in the light truck category and passenger cars. In 2001, for example, there were 1.2 fatalities involving light truck occupants per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared to 1.28 for cars. As for injuries, passenger cars posted a rate 28 percent worse than light trucks.