I just gotta say this...
He who thinks crumple zones are rip offs should study physics a little bit.
Particularly inertia.
Patrick Barber wrote:
> GatesDavid@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > A "modern" car is actually designed to be destroyed in an accident. The
>front
> > and rear of the car are intended to smash in and act as a giant shock
>absorber
> > thus sacrificing the car and saving the people. This is called the crumple
> > zone for obvious reasons. Older cars were built with the idea that the more
> > rigid the car is, the safer it would be. Hey, if the car survived, so would
> > the people. In fact what happens is the car comes to a very sudden stop (no
> > shock absorption) and the passengers fly forward. The car may survive with
> > minimal damage but the passengers could suffer far worse injuries than the
> > newer car that is now totaled.
> >
> > David Gates
> > '73 Spitfire 1500 (rigid, but love it anyway)
> > Hawaii
> >
> > In a message dated 98-07-31 21:10:07 EDT, you write:
> >
> > > This whole safety issue hit home yesterday when I was driving home. As
> > > I started around a bend in the road, I noticed all sorts of flares
> > > burning on both sides of the road. As I rounded the bend, I saw the
> > > rear of a chrome bumper MGB on one side and the front of some
> > > nondescript modern car on the other. The modern car's bumper and grill
> > > were well caved-in. As I passed the MGB, I noticed that very little
> > > damage had occurred to it even though the accident was obviously a
> > > head-on.
> > >
> > > So, I must conclude that although safety standards have been updated in
> > > recent years, the cars are not necessarily any stronger because of it.
> I am glad to see that this thread has been started. Last Wednesday
> 7/29, I totaled out my 74 Spit in an crash at a local intersection (only
> 5 days since I was at VTR in Hudson). Both vehicles involved in the
> crash were in pretty bad shape. The Frame and Bonnet on the Spit were
> completely destroyed. I believe that if the accident involved a heaver,
> stiffer framed vehicle (such as my 98 F150) the Other vehicle would most
> certainly have sustained much greater damage. As it turns out, nobody
> was injured in the slightest way. I will greatly sacrifice any
> automobile for the safety and security of me or my passengers.
>
> BTW, I have seen crash videos from the 60's and 70's. I truly believe
> that car and trucks are much safer due to crumple zones and energy
> absorbing designs. Just watch a CART Indy car hit the wall at over 200
> MPH and tell me that if the car had remained in 1 piece that the driver
> would have as well...
> --
> Patrick Barber
> 74 Spitfire 1500 (FM14774U)
> "Go Red Wings" ... 1998 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
|