Coffee1018 wrote:降舞之劍 wrote:現代車表面滲碳跟其...(恕刪)滲碳??這是增加表面硬化吧?採購合約會定需求與檢驗標準吧? 進料檢驗機制呢?不到標準就退啊? 跟哪國產的有關? 韓國鋼鐵又不是只在車輛，連日本汽車廠都採購使用，所以進口車也別買??
是呀 有到標準呀 但是就跟別人不一樣 你說呢？ 這在同業之間也不是新聞了~
revive wrote:
強制標配6氣囊成本部會增加太多
氣囊成本一顆大約在250美元，再加上系統和感應器，一顆台幣7500~10000應該跑不掉
6氣囊就要佔車價的5~10%，倒底這算不算多，就各自解讀了。
至於氣囊的效用，除了救人，有時也會殺人:
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch12.htm
The total number of driver and right-front passenger fatalities in cars and light trucks remained relatively unchanged from 1994 through 2002 even as the percent of drivers with airbags increased from 13% to 60% and the percent of passengers with airbags increased from 3% to 50%.
從1994年到2002年，雖然氣囊的比例從13%增加到60%，美國駕駛的死亡人數幾乎沒有什麼變化
Air bag...., reaching speeds of around 150 mph. The goal is that when the occupant first contacts the airbag it should already be inflated. However, if the occupant is in the space into which the airbag inflates, he or she will be struck at up to 150 mph rather than striking the vehicle interior at a speed that could be as low as 10 mph.
氣囊爆炸的速度是150英里/小時，如果使用者在氣囊充氣完成前撞到氣囊，
即使車子的時速是10英里/小時，乘客受的衝擊還是150英里/小時
Drivers of short stature sitting at their most comfortable distance from the steering wheel are out of position. Concerns about the injuries that inflating airbags might cause children appeared in the technical literature from the 1970s.8,
NHTSA reports that, as of July 2003, there were 231 confirmed deaths caused by airbag deployments in crashes that would otherwise not have been life threatening. Most of those killed were children. However, 77 drivers were killed, 58 of them female, and 28 of these of height 62 inches or less.10
NHTSA數據顯示，2003年7月，因為安全氣囊暴炸不當所導致的死亡人數是231人。其中，約有1/3的死亡對像為女性，小孩子。
以同時期車禍死亡人數一年四萬人來看，約有5～7%的死亡人數是由氣囊本身所引發的。
（在車禍中要推斷出死亡原因不是車禍本身，而是氣囊，其實條件很嚴苛。）
降舞之劍 wrote:
是呀 有到標準呀 ...(恕刪)
不一樣，所以呢？
你收還不收? 退還不退?
你若是要不收，退貨，就是找出不足處，訂SPEC，重談採購，不然?
同業如何? 我也是有認識的在國內鋼廠，
跟我靠要Posco打入不只日本車輛市場，還有特殊鋼，
我只能說你就加油，不然能怎樣?
Coffee1018 wrote:降舞之劍 wrote:這不是收退的問題，...(恕刪)所以有訂硬度驗收標準，有COC，但只是因為用的不是業界公開的技術，所以有不明確的風險?哈哈 有趣所以原廠耐久測試都在作假的?可靠度設計有瑕疵，亂跑一通都會pass就對了材料想換就換，反正沒制度???那肯定買日系進口車也要當心，因為說不定採購用的是P家的鈑金，馬達的產品也是小心點買國產A車或L家的車囉！因為高雄C家買A還有員工價呢！ 不支持自己生產材料怎麼行，?但是組裝零件會不會採購用到進口材料，駮杯好了買陸系，日系，韓系，美系，歐系電器都還會用台灣設計
是啊~ 依照原廠要求做的 要求如此結果就是如此 反正短時間也看不出來~ 反正測試也會過 這不是台灣代工的問題 而是原廠要求就是跟人不一樣 反應就消費者身上 不然CP值怎樣來？
請問氣囊的比例60%增加到?%
請問美國駕駛的死亡人數幾乎沒有什麼變化?
2. 時至今日,氣囊科技也跟著進步,從火藥填充,分階段充氣等等皆有改善
請問
氣囊爆炸的速度是150英里/小時，如果使用者在氣囊充氣完成前撞到氣囊，
即使車子的時速是10英里/小時，乘客受的衝擊還是150英里/小時
這個數據有沒有變化?
3. 請問
以同時期車禍死亡人數一年四萬人來看，約有5～7%的死亡人數是由氣囊本身所引發的。
（在車禍中要推斷出死亡原因不是車禍本身，而是氣囊，其實條件很嚴苛。）
這個數字有沒有變化?
如果沒有新的數據,請不要拿14年前的東西出來誤導大家
我就是愛拍照 wrote:
氣囊成本一顆大約在250美元，再加上系統和感應器，一顆台幣7500~10000應該跑不掉
6氣囊就要佔車價的5~10%，倒底這算不算多，就各自解讀了。
至於氣囊的效用，除了救人，有時也會殺人:
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch12.htm
The total number of driver and right-front passenger fatalities in cars and light trucks remained relatively unchanged from 1994 through 2002 even as the percent of drivers with airbags increased from 13% to 60% and the percent of passengers with airbags increased from 3% to 50%.
從1994年到2002年，雖然氣囊的比例從13%增加到60%，美國駕駛的死亡人數幾乎沒有什麼變化
Air bag...., reaching speeds of around 150 mph. The goal is that when the occupant first contacts the airbag it should already be inflated. However, if the occupant is in the space into which the airbag inflates, he or she will be struck at up to 150 mph rather than striking the vehicle interior at a speed that could be as low as 10 mph.
氣囊爆炸的速度是150英里/小時，如果使用者在氣囊充氣完成前撞到氣囊，
即使車子的時速是10英里/小時，乘客受的衝擊還是150英里/小時
Drivers of short stature sitting at their most comfortable distance from the steering wheel are out of position. Concerns about the injuries that inflating airbags might cause children appeared in the technical literature from the 1970s.8,
NHTSA reports that, as of July 2003, there were 231 confirmed deaths caused by airbag deployments in crashes that would otherwise not have been life threatening. Most of those killed were children. However, 77 drivers were killed, 58 of them female, and 28 of these of height 62 inches or less.10
NHTSA數據顯示，2003年7月，因為安全氣囊暴炸不當所導致的死亡人數是231人。其中，約有1/3的死亡對像為女性，小孩子。
以同時期車禍死亡人數一年四萬人來看，約有5～7%的死亡人數是由氣囊本身所引發的。
（在車禍中要推斷出死亡原因不是車禍本身，而是氣囊，其實條件很嚴苛。）
(恕刪)
天災人禍我們避免不了,但車輛主被動安全,我們可以有選擇的權力!!!
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X