Re: shoulder harness failure

From: curt peregoy (
Date: Fri Jun 12 1998 - 09:10:03 EDT

>From Fri Jun 12 04:20:41 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost) by
(8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA06288 for dakota-truck-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998
07:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from (
[]) by (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id
HAA06284 for <dakota-truck>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:16:03 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from by via smap (V2.0)
> id xma002770; Fri, 12 Jun 98 07:15:50 -0400
>Received: from ( [])
> by (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26295
> for <>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
> (envelope-from
>Received: from ( [])
> by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA09929
> for <>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:10:50 -0400
>Message-ID: <>
>Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 18:05:55 -0400
>From: Skeptic X <>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Re: DML: shoulder harness failure
>References: <>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailing-List: The Dakota Mailing List
>X-Unsubscribe-Info: Send "unsubscribe dakota-truck" to
>Craig Baltzer wrote:
>> Luv these "they should have crashed thousands and then averaged the
>> results like "real science"" comments. They took a vehicle, crashed
>> under controlled conditions, and came up with the "poor" rating.
>> was a Dak that rolled off the line and when crashed faired poorly.
>> cares if the next 2 did well, and then the 3rd did poorly again?
>> is Dodge is making trucks that fare poorly in these tests, and there
>> no "SURVIVE" option code to make sure you don't get one exactly like
>> one that failed. For the "scientific" guys, this is the negative
>> of the asertion that "Dakotas are very safe trucks in crash tests";
>> don't need to crash any more trucks once you've found one that is
>> unsafe.
>Why is it that you can so easily see the negative side, but can't
>the positive? Sure, if you get a "bad" Dakota you can expect problems.
>That's an inherent risk with buying any vehicle. If you buy a "good"
>though, you can expect to have fewer problems (and there's no reliable
>I'm aware of to figure that out ahead of time). You can understand that
>As far as the lack of repetition in the 40mph off-set crash test; it IS
>scientific draw-back, whether you'd rather see it as a black and white
>or not. Perhaps there is a problem with Dakotas and head injuries at
>off-set collisions--probably so, according to the indications of the
>But one test of a randomly selected vehicle is shoddy science. Sure,
>TEST conditions are controlled, but suppose the Dakota used for the
test had
>a few critical welds that weren't properly done? and what if it had a
>critical welds that were OVERdone for some reason, and therefore
>than average? The results of a single trial aren't very reliable. We
>have a smaller problem in a collision than the test indicates, we may
have a
>larger one, or the test may have been nominal. Unless more Dakotas are
>tested we simply won't know.
>Yes, it IS important to do such things scientifically in order to
>reliable results.
>Skeptic X
Yeah man I agree with you whole heartedly. even if my dak was the worst
death trap on the road as far as crash tests go i still love my truck
and turn heads every day. So i dont really care about those tests my
tests have passed with flying colors and thats the test of reliability
style and unsurpassed style of witch I havent seen since the late 50's
early 60's....

                       loyal-proud dak owner
                             curt peregoy

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:55 EDT