OT: Big Car Versus Small Car: IIHS confirms the law of physics.

[an]

[quote=ucodegen]
And you have just demonstrated that you can take a quote out of context, as well as miss the point I was making… The point I was making was that a vehicle flipping is not all that dangerous, particularly if the occupants remain strapped in (seat belted to begin with). The biggest problem is when the passenger compartment is intruded upon in the crash. The only microcar that I would consider driving is the Mercedes Smartcar because the passenger compartment remained intact after the collision.
[/quote]
Here’s a link from autoblog. They have pictures. Here’s the picture of the Smart after the crash. If you noticed the knee part, although the a-pillar is still intact, your knee probably would be busted and the dash got way too close to the face. Here’s the picture of the Fit. I think you’ll be better off in a Fit than a Smart, considering how the dash is still a good distant away from the face. However, neither look very good.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]To me, this is an issue of relativity. While it is absolutely true that wieght is an important factor in survivability, it is only true in a relative sense. It isn’t the absolute wieght of the vehicle that makes it safe (or dangerous), its the relative wieght of the vehicle compared to the one its going to hit.
[/quote]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]To me, this is an issue of relativity. While it is absolutely true that wieght is an important factor in survivability, it is only true in a relative sense. It isn’t the absolute wieght of the vehicle that makes it safe (or dangerous), its the relative wieght of the vehicle compared to the one its going to hit.
[/quote]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]To me, this is an issue of relativity. While it is absolutely true that wieght is an important factor in survivability, it is only true in a relative sense. It isn’t the absolute wieght of the vehicle that makes it safe (or dangerous), its the relative wieght of the vehicle compared to the one its going to hit.
[/quote]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]To me, this is an issue of relativity. While it is absolutely true that wieght is an important factor in survivability, it is only true in a relative sense. It isn’t the absolute wieght of the vehicle that makes it safe (or dangerous), its the relative wieght of the vehicle compared to the one its going to hit.
[/quote]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Noob]To me, this is an issue of relativity. While it is absolutely true that wieght is an important factor in survivability, it is only true in a relative sense. It isn’t the absolute wieght of the vehicle that makes it safe (or dangerous), its the relative wieght of the vehicle compared to the one its going to hit.
[/quote]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[equalizer]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=sdduuuude]

Such as trees, ditches, fences, walls, houses, sign-posts ? Maybe we should make all these smaller, too.

By the way, when FLU cites “Physics,” he means this:

For the same rate of decelleration, the cars may perform the same. The problem is, when a 1000 lb car hits a tree it decellerates much faster than when a 3,000 lb vehicle hits a tree, and it is decelleration that hurts you.

It really is simple physics. The weight of the vehicle doesn’t necessarily protect you because it is stronger or built better. They are simply heavier and carry more inertia or potential energy. You simply can’t design around this.

They say falling doesn’t kill you, its the sudden stop at the end. Such is a traffic accident. In a heavier vehicle, the stop is simply less sudden than in a lighter vehicle.

[/quote]

Both vehicles decelerate at the same rate (or at least close enough to make no difference, assuming crumple zones and such are somewhat larger on a larger vehicle) when they hit a stationary object.

The only case where this isn’t true is where the stationary object is light enough to be destroyed or moved by the heavier vehicle and not by the smaller vehicle.

Mass only comes into the potential energy of the collision assuming an impact with a stationary object. The large car NEEDS larger crumple zones and such because it has much more potential energy to be absorbed than the small car.

p = mv.
[/quote]
Some of us straight F guys could really use Dr. Feynman. 1988 we cry for you.

[Author]

Posts