Avoid This New Mid Engine Corvette at All Costs
video description
Date: 2020-08-25
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Archimedes
You are a simple man scotty is the problem. Sure, this shouldn't be an issue. Chevy overreached on trying to provide historical truck performance. key flob or internal electric button, front trunk release by button push just like traditional rear trunks. Aerodynamics precludes this similarity in function. Of course without redundant front hood release common on front engine cars, the front trunk lid can catch air causing an accident due to high speed pressure under the front trunk lid. That is why redundant latches on front engine cars are so robust which defeats 'ease of access' common to trunks where owners are in and out of them all the time. The lower speed mitigates the front trunk lid flying up and off. A greater safety margin to keep the car from losing its hood. But worse case is. front trunk lid flying back and obscuring driver vision which can create a crash at speed and probably has. GM will try to settle these out of court before bankrupting the company. making an early design change to stop accidents due to this issue.
Yes this should have been caught and no, it is difficult to failsafe the front trunk lid without a redundant hood latch and why one exists on virtually all front engine cars that require a lot more work to open than virtually all rear trunks that open without redundant latches. You see if somebody leaves their rear trunk open at 50-100 mph, it will not cause catastrophic failure. Redundant latches are more tolerated because owners don't go under the hood often. Some owners not nearly enough, perhaps we agree. Some owners are so ignorant about opening the front hood, they don't know where the redundant latch is and can't open their hood.
And to dig deeper, Chevy's challenge is come up with a fix. likely to mitigate a recall. to be able to stop at the dealer without a hardware and just a software change. Translation? Lower cost and reduced timing to not retool a new part(s) and new owner called by the dealer to catch this issue with minimum fan fare. Maybe throw in an oil change for inconvenience. Longer term/next model year. even as a running change. different hardware with redundant latch will likely be installed and owners will have to manually disengage the front trunk as with traditional front engine cars. This is a step backward for ease of usage and step forward for safety. Both are important.
If you think any of this is easy. and your comments of this ilk are always the same. 'why couldn't they', you have no idea what an engineer's job is. What design is about. How many master's are served in design and for what purpose to create a best in class car. Best in class cars is creating a car that does more things better than the competition. As a designer, if you err on the side of caution too frequently, you create a lousy and uncompetitive performance car that is heavier than the competition. These margins portent to everything from engine durability to tire life. Lighter is faster with better fuel economy and lighter often breaks more often. Where is the correct line in the sand if creating a clean sheet design. Only a savant can see this line through copious analysis including the aid of computer modeling. A redundant clasp front trunk is a step back in function and performance and a step forward for safety. A tank is safer than an automobile for reasons discussed. There are documents created for each subassembly that evaluate cross purposes and failsafe of every safety critical part. Part failure is typically more about interaction with mating parts than it is about single part integrity. This document is called a DVP&R.
Scotty, you live in a simple world without seeing the big picture and the real world is much more complicated.
reply
You are a simple man scotty is the problem. Sure, this shouldn't be an issue. Chevy overreached on trying to provide historical truck performance. key flob or internal electric button, front trunk release by button push just like traditional rear trunks. Aerodynamics precludes this similarity in function. Of course without redundant front hood release common on front engine cars, the front trunk lid can catch air causing an accident due to high speed pressure under the front trunk lid. That is why redundant latches on front engine cars are so robust which defeats 'ease of access' common to trunks where owners are in and out of them all the time. The lower speed mitigates the front trunk lid flying up and off. A greater safety margin to keep the car from losing its hood. But worse case is. front trunk lid flying back and obscuring driver vision which can create a crash at speed and probably has. GM will try to settle these out of court before bankrupting the company. making an early design change to stop accidents due to this issue.
Yes this should have been caught and no, it is difficult to failsafe the front trunk lid without a redundant hood latch and why one exists on virtually all front engine cars that require a lot more work to open than virtually all rear trunks that open without redundant latches. You see if somebody leaves their rear trunk open at 50-100 mph, it will not cause catastrophic failure. Redundant latches are more tolerated because owners don't go under the hood often. Some owners not nearly enough, perhaps we agree. Some owners are so ignorant about opening the front hood, they don't know where the redundant latch is and can't open their hood.
And to dig deeper, Chevy's challenge is come up with a fix. likely to mitigate a recall. to be able to stop at the dealer without a hardware and just a software change. Translation? Lower cost and reduced timing to not retool a new part(s) and new owner called by the dealer to catch this issue with minimum fan fare. Maybe throw in an oil change for inconvenience. Longer term/next model year. even as a running change. different hardware with redundant latch will likely be installed and owners will have to manually disengage the front trunk as with traditional front engine cars. This is a step backward for ease of usage and step forward for safety. Both are important.
If you think any of this is easy. and your comments of this ilk are always the same. 'why couldn't they', you have no idea what an engineer's job is. What design is about. How many master's are served in design and for what purpose to create a best in class car. Best in class cars is creating a car that does more things better than the competition. As a designer, if you err on the side of caution too frequently, you create a lousy and uncompetitive performance car that is heavier than the competition. These margins portent to everything from engine durability to tire life. Lighter is faster with better fuel economy and lighter often breaks more often. Where is the correct line in the sand if creating a clean sheet design. Only a savant can see this line through copious analysis including the aid of computer modeling. A redundant clasp front trunk is a step back in function and performance and a step forward for safety. A tank is safer than an automobile for reasons discussed. There are documents created for each subassembly that evaluate cross purposes and failsafe of every safety critical part. Part failure is typically more about interaction with mating parts than it is about single part integrity. This document is called a DVP&R.
Scotty, you live in a simple world without seeing the big picture and the real world is much more complicated.
reply
Thomas
The reason the key fob needs to be able to open the drink is twofold. It is standard on fobs to be able to open the trunk or frunk. My Dad's 93 Civic could. Customers expect this functionality. Also, having an indent in the front to have a frunk button like many cars have for a trunk would mess up aero.
Really, this should have never been an issue. Even trunks should stay closed while driving. This was a major engineering oversight that can thankfully be solved in software, but probably should have been a hardware fix such as locking the shifter when the key is out of ignition even if the car has no battery inside it. If the car is in Drive or, for a manual, in any gear other than R or neutral, then the frunk/trunk shouldn't be able to open.
reply
The reason the key fob needs to be able to open the drink is twofold. It is standard on fobs to be able to open the trunk or frunk. My Dad's 93 Civic could. Customers expect this functionality. Also, having an indent in the front to have a frunk button like many cars have for a trunk would mess up aero.
Really, this should have never been an issue. Even trunks should stay closed while driving. This was a major engineering oversight that can thankfully be solved in software, but probably should have been a hardware fix such as locking the shifter when the key is out of ignition even if the car has no battery inside it. If the car is in Drive or, for a manual, in any gear other than R or neutral, then the frunk/trunk shouldn't be able to open.
reply
Mark
Let s not take ownership for our actions and blame the corporation. Typical. I know enough not to put fragile electronic devices in a pocket that might put pressure on it when I sit down. I just remember to move it first. If I carry my cell phone in a friend or rear pants pocket I move it to my shirt pocket or somewhere else. When I carry my fancy push button key fob I do the same thing. It s a good habit to get into. Probably what is happening to the Stingray is: it s cheaper so more middle income people are buying it. They aren t used to all the functions on the fob (and the trunk being in the front in a vehicle they can afford
reply
Let s not take ownership for our actions and blame the corporation. Typical. I know enough not to put fragile electronic devices in a pocket that might put pressure on it when I sit down. I just remember to move it first. If I carry my cell phone in a friend or rear pants pocket I move it to my shirt pocket or somewhere else. When I carry my fancy push button key fob I do the same thing. It s a good habit to get into. Probably what is happening to the Stingray is: it s cheaper so more middle income people are buying it. They aren t used to all the functions on the fob (and the trunk being in the front in a vehicle they can afford
reply
69fcortina
Remote opening. Not a new thing. Customers want it. The 82 mph was probably an estimate of the strength of the remaining partial latch catch. All pretty explainable, but it's so much more fun to just mock and not actually find out what's going on. Yes, the car will likely have multiple teething problems, as it is a revolutionary design for GM. It also delivers performance of cars that cost 60K more. What are you willing to put up with for that savings, and how long will it take to perfect? All considerations, but not a reason to discard the vehicle as crap.
reply
Remote opening. Not a new thing. Customers want it. The 82 mph was probably an estimate of the strength of the remaining partial latch catch. All pretty explainable, but it's so much more fun to just mock and not actually find out what's going on. Yes, the car will likely have multiple teething problems, as it is a revolutionary design for GM. It also delivers performance of cars that cost 60K more. What are you willing to put up with for that savings, and how long will it take to perfect? All considerations, but not a reason to discard the vehicle as crap.
reply
Donald
When I was a teenager in the 1950's I was in two cars, both Fords, when the hoods came up. I was the driver in one of the cases but one thing I can say for sure is that even 26 MPH is too fast if that happens. I always assumed that the secondary hood latch that has been used for many years was done to prevent a hood coming unlatched and flying up when the car is moving. Chevrolet must have fired all their competent engineers or let the bean counters take charge of engineering.
reply
When I was a teenager in the 1950's I was in two cars, both Fords, when the hoods came up. I was the driver in one of the cases but one thing I can say for sure is that even 26 MPH is too fast if that happens. I always assumed that the secondary hood latch that has been used for many years was done to prevent a hood coming unlatched and flying up when the car is moving. Chevrolet must have fired all their competent engineers or let the bean counters take charge of engineering.
reply
pete
Some of the reason for signs are nobody takes responsibility for their own actions, people and companies try to blame someone or something else, no moral compass in a lot of people, imagine a modern car with only minimal sensors for the engine, maybe air bags, nothing else, what would the fuel economy be like, it would be an interesting exercise to see something like that
reply
Some of the reason for signs are nobody takes responsibility for their own actions, people and companies try to blame someone or something else, no moral compass in a lot of people, imagine a modern car with only minimal sensors for the engine, maybe air bags, nothing else, what would the fuel economy be like, it would be an interesting exercise to see something like that
reply
Thomas
I've been trying to read about these frunks popping open. And all the data I have found sounds like it's user error with not latching it when they close it and hitting the button accidentally. But im sure there will be more potential fixes as it's a new body style so they need some time to work out the bugs.
reply
I've been trying to read about these frunks popping open. And all the data I have found sounds like it's user error with not latching it when they close it and hitting the button accidentally. But im sure there will be more potential fixes as it's a new body style so they need some time to work out the bugs.
reply
InTheZone
soctty I see challengers all the time around here and I would say I've seen more people speed in those base model v6s that look like a fat kid with skinny legs more than the v8 versions. I also see plenty of demons and hellcats and have only ever seen them accelerate quickly, but not speed in traffic.
reply
soctty I see challengers all the time around here and I would say I've seen more people speed in those base model v6s that look like a fat kid with skinny legs more than the v8 versions. I also see plenty of demons and hellcats and have only ever seen them accelerate quickly, but not speed in traffic.
reply
Robert
Dangerous water. well why do they need warning labels on bleach that reads 'do not drink'? It's obvious, but people use the lack of warning to sue companies if not there. Warnings for the most part are just for the companies to protect themselves from money-hungry people looking for an easy buck.
reply
Dangerous water. well why do they need warning labels on bleach that reads 'do not drink'? It's obvious, but people use the lack of warning to sue companies if not there. Warnings for the most part are just for the companies to protect themselves from money-hungry people looking for an easy buck.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
