OT: Mini Cooper and the Ford F150, a matter of safety
02-13-2003, 02:56 PM
#18
Unaffiliated
It makes me feel just a bit better about my Mini for TWO reasons..
1. It's crashworthy
2. Neither of those two could FIT in it!!!
1. It's crashworthy
2. Neither of those two could FIT in it!!!
02-13-2003, 03:12 PM
#19
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Crash tests against brick walls are very misleading.
Why did the F-150 fare so much morse. Because it was involved in a much worse collision than the mini was.
Think about it. F-150 weighs say 4500 lbs. Min-cooper weighs lets say 2800 lbs (I don't know exact #'s) So the F-150 had the effect of 4500 lbs slamming into it (basically reflected from the wall) While the mini was only hit by 2800 lbs.
If you hit the mini with a 4500 lbs brick wall moving at 60mph it would decimate it. Conversely if you hit the F-150 with a 2800 lbs brick wall moving at 60 mph it would recieve much less damage.
All this argument about bigger vehicles being unsafe is just BS. Yes they cause damage to smaller vehicles. It basic physics and you cannot regulate that. Smaller cars are less safe, putting everyone in smaller cars doesn't make us more safe, it just changes the rules around. and lowers the energy equations, but I don't think it lowers the G equations for body impact. In a car crash the smaller car is always going to loose. Even if it's a Mercedes A-class against a Hyundai. With two evenly matched cars you are simply spreading the energy evenly.
I really don't understand these arguments. If I want to save the other guy I'll drive a motorcycle, that will make sure that 95% of the energy is transfered into me BUT I DON'T WANT THAT.
If you people who are so against SUV's (and it is an irrational hatred no matter what you think) really think smaller cars are safer, get rid of your Porsches and anything else and ride Vespa scooters, that is the way to make sure the other guy isn't hurt at all.
And since you care about how other people feel to your own detriment. Strap a shovel to the Vespa so they can clean you up after the accident.
Why did the F-150 fare so much morse. Because it was involved in a much worse collision than the mini was.
Think about it. F-150 weighs say 4500 lbs. Min-cooper weighs lets say 2800 lbs (I don't know exact #'s) So the F-150 had the effect of 4500 lbs slamming into it (basically reflected from the wall) While the mini was only hit by 2800 lbs.
If you hit the mini with a 4500 lbs brick wall moving at 60mph it would decimate it. Conversely if you hit the F-150 with a 2800 lbs brick wall moving at 60 mph it would recieve much less damage.
All this argument about bigger vehicles being unsafe is just BS. Yes they cause damage to smaller vehicles. It basic physics and you cannot regulate that. Smaller cars are less safe, putting everyone in smaller cars doesn't make us more safe, it just changes the rules around. and lowers the energy equations, but I don't think it lowers the G equations for body impact. In a car crash the smaller car is always going to loose. Even if it's a Mercedes A-class against a Hyundai. With two evenly matched cars you are simply spreading the energy evenly.
I really don't understand these arguments. If I want to save the other guy I'll drive a motorcycle, that will make sure that 95% of the energy is transfered into me BUT I DON'T WANT THAT.
If you people who are so against SUV's (and it is an irrational hatred no matter what you think) really think smaller cars are safer, get rid of your Porsches and anything else and ride Vespa scooters, that is the way to make sure the other guy isn't hurt at all.
And since you care about how other people feel to your own detriment. Strap a shovel to the Vespa so they can clean you up after the accident.
02-13-2003, 03:53 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">All this argument about bigger vehicles being unsafe is just BS. Yes they cause damage to smaller vehicles. It basic physics and you cannot regulate that. Smaller cars are less safe, putting everyone in smaller cars doesn't make us more safe, it just changes the rules around. and lowers the energy equations, but I don't think it lowers the G equations for body impact. In a car crash the smaller car is always going to loose. Even if it's a Mercedes A-class against a Hyundai. With two evenly matched cars you are simply spreading the energy evenly.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The point is that large trucks and SUVs ARE UNSAFE. They are made poorly! That's the point. To generalise and say that "smaller cars are unsafe" is a gross generalisation and holds zero merit.
To quote the guy from the link (he is more definitely more succinct - so read it AGAIN):
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. This test is just one way it's illustrated.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">One thing is for sure, I'd rather be in a well-engineered smaller car getting into an accident than a 4500 kiloton behemoth, hands down. We are talking about superior engineering here e.g., the Mini. Period. What an un-funny joke! People (like my cousin) thinking that they are safer in a big truck! Totally false pretenses. Trucks are good for utilitatrian purposes (like carrying hay and concrete) - but not for families and such like.
To quote the guy from the link (he is more definitely more succinct - so read it AGAIN):
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. This test is just one way it's illustrated.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">One thing is for sure, I'd rather be in a well-engineered smaller car getting into an accident than a 4500 kiloton behemoth, hands down. We are talking about superior engineering here e.g., the Mini. Period. What an un-funny joke! People (like my cousin) thinking that they are safer in a big truck! Totally false pretenses. Trucks are good for utilitatrian purposes (like carrying hay and concrete) - but not for families and such like.
02-13-2003, 03:59 PM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vis·cous
<a href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/****/V0120900.wav" target="_blank">(click to hear the word)</a> (vsks)
adj.
Having relatively high resistance to flow.
Viscid; sticky.
Whatever!
<a href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/****/V0120900.wav" target="_blank">(click to hear the word)</a> (vsks)
adj.
Having relatively high resistance to flow.
Viscid; sticky.
Whatever!
02-13-2003, 04:00 PM
#22
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
You got some formating issues there.
But your wrong. The F-150 in this recieved more damage because it was hit by a larger object. Namely an F-150. The mini was hit by a mini. If I was in an F-150, not moving, and a mini ran into me at 60mph, I would not recieve anywhere near the damage that, that F-150 did.
And Bulk always beats engineering in this. I will always take the 4500 kiloton behomoth everytime in an accident against another vehicle.
Against a stationary imovable object that is different, but also a very small recentage of accidents.
They are not made poorly, they are made simply. With ladder bar type constuction that is resiliant ot damage, until you cross the threshold, smaller cars are desigend to fold up. The entire argument is ridiculous unless you define exactly the circumstances of the accident. However, in general brawn beats itty bitty hands down everytime.
But your wrong. The F-150 in this recieved more damage because it was hit by a larger object. Namely an F-150. The mini was hit by a mini. If I was in an F-150, not moving, and a mini ran into me at 60mph, I would not recieve anywhere near the damage that, that F-150 did.
And Bulk always beats engineering in this. I will always take the 4500 kiloton behomoth everytime in an accident against another vehicle.
Against a stationary imovable object that is different, but also a very small recentage of accidents.
They are not made poorly, they are made simply. With ladder bar type constuction that is resiliant ot damage, until you cross the threshold, smaller cars are desigend to fold up. The entire argument is ridiculous unless you define exactly the circumstances of the accident. However, in general brawn beats itty bitty hands down everytime.
02-13-2003, 04:02 PM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And Bulk always beats engineering in this. I will always take the 4500 kiloton behomoth everytime in an accident against another vehicle."
Make sure you strap a shovel with that kind of thinking!
Make sure you strap a shovel with that kind of thinking!
02-13-2003, 04:07 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Monterey, CA
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is car safety simply equated to how it performs in a collision. Why not take into account it's ability to avoid a collision altogether? And weight really has a lot more to do with this than it seems people are aware. Why do you think there are so many more deaths in stock-car type series as opposed to open-wheeled type series? A Winston Cup car weighs in the neighborhood of 3500lbs., I believe. That's monsterously heavy in the world of racing. There is a lot more force involved of 3500 lbs. at 190 mph than there is of 1500 lbs. at 210-220 mph.
02-13-2003, 04:19 PM
#25
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
What in the hell does that have to do with anything at all.
Mass c : the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia and that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains and causes it to have weight in a gravitational field
Energy=Mass x acceleration (simplisticly, theres other ugly stuff in there) So for a given speed (same) the energy in a collision is ALWAYS going to be higher for the vehicle with the higher mass. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT! If you find a way to change that let me know, because I'm sure we can use it to get rich.
Changing physics is a lucrative and completely un-tapped market.
Mass c : the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia and that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains and causes it to have weight in a gravitational field
Energy=Mass x acceleration (simplisticly, theres other ugly stuff in there) So for a given speed (same) the energy in a collision is ALWAYS going to be higher for the vehicle with the higher mass. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT! If you find a way to change that let me know, because I'm sure we can use it to get rich.
Changing physics is a lucrative and completely un-tapped market.
02-13-2003, 04:22 PM
#26
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
"Why not take into account it's ability to avoid a collision altogether?"
Exactly. Which is why the 944, which is a very heavy car for it's size, is so safe. IT can void an accident, and when it does get into one it has the mass to protect itself.
Exactly. Which is why the 944, which is a very heavy car for it's size, is so safe. IT can void an accident, and when it does get into one it has the mass to protect itself.
02-13-2003, 04:25 PM
#27
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
"Make sure you strap a shovel with that kind of thinking!"
Just because I understand physics doesn't mean my intention is to strap on a huge vehicle and start ramming VW Rabbits.
Personally I prefer to avoid the accident altogether.
When driving my 944 I tend to go 80, when driving the Bronco I tend to go 60 65. Therefore if you ran the numbers the 944 might even have more potential energy in a crash. The 944 can handle 80 safely, teh Bronco cannot.
But in the end your all missing the point.
Just because I understand physics doesn't mean my intention is to strap on a huge vehicle and start ramming VW Rabbits.
Personally I prefer to avoid the accident altogether.
When driving my 944 I tend to go 80, when driving the Bronco I tend to go 60 65. Therefore if you ran the numbers the 944 might even have more potential energy in a crash. The 944 can handle 80 safely, teh Bronco cannot.
But in the end your all missing the point.
02-13-2003, 04:28 PM
#28
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porsh-uh: Agreed! I've always believed that NASHCAR is much more dangerous than say, F1, particularly when it comes to the track, the cars, and car weight, among other things. Then there's the exciting world of NHRA, cool!
oh, and most cars these days don't use "ladder bar" or whatever, they are unibody. "ladder bar" is for the Hummer, or Excursion or those types of land boats, no um, trucks. nonetheless, 40mph is still 40 mph, whatever a person hits.
The problem has a circle around it (<a href="http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/glance/index.asp" target="_blank">even when celebrating 100 years of truck excellence</a>)!
oh, and most cars these days don't use "ladder bar" or whatever, they are unibody. "ladder bar" is for the Hummer, or Excursion or those types of land boats, no um, trucks. nonetheless, 40mph is still 40 mph, whatever a person hits.
The problem has a circle around it (<a href="http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/glance/index.asp" target="_blank">even when celebrating 100 years of truck excellence</a>)!
02-13-2003, 05:04 PM
#29
Big thirst, Sore Thumbs
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
Rennlist Member
Napoleon
"no um, trucks"
Not new ones maybe (still think it's more than that). Mine does, so does my Duster.
And no 40mph is not 40mph, there is a variety of factors.
Not new ones maybe (still think it's more than that). Mine does, so does my Duster.
And no 40mph is not 40mph, there is a variety of factors.