View Single Post
Old 03-23-2013, 12:44 AM   #162
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
Nothing against your trained firefighters opinion, but from my knowledge and experience paid trained firefighters know about water and a magnesium fire.
Being that less than 30% of all firefighters are paid professionals, you have over 70% chance of having a volunteer firefighter respond to your call. There are many good volunteers who do awesome work, but there are also some who are not as trained or skilled. You WILL see magnesium fire accidents with water used. It is already happening, and we have not started using stamped panels commonly yet!

Quote:
So, you state there will be accidents and mishaps because of undertrained people working with this material? As opposed to what other technology do you base you conclusions on besides your own opinion? Provide some statistics. There are none in place. Many body/repair shops have been set on fire because someone welded too close to a gas tank. And that has happened more than you would like to know, or like to admit because it works against your advancement of technology argument and the presumed ingnorance of the world dealing with such so therefore we should not head in that direction.
Actually that SUPPORTS my position. I know of many examples of cutting torches cutting fuel tanks or fuel lines and starting a gas fire. If it can happen with gas then it will happen with magnesium. I assert that magensium is far more dangerous when burning than a run-of-the-mill pretroleum fire.

Imagine if the garage has a state required sprinkler system and one of these things touches off in a room full of mechanics?


Quote:
Let's make the Fred Flintstone mobile, and we would only have to worry foot injury, hows them apples? How long has gasoline technology been around and the mishandling of that technology causing physical harm? Ignorance is everywhere, even with posts on C5 for example. See above quote.
Why is anything they do in the name of fuel economy automatically a GOOD idea? Would you pay $3000 more for an extra 3MPG that you have to drive using $4.00/gal gas for 150K miles to break even on?

You seem like an intelligent person who can think it through. Why add additional hazardous materials to a car, which will never pay for themselves over the life of the car, just so that the manufacturer can meet an ARBITRARY mandate?

If you're so interested in saving weight at any cost, why not have your car made from Beryllium? It's way lighter than porky-pig magnesium!
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote