James wrote:
> I remember seeing a crash documentary on tv here are some of the things
> it mentioned.
>
> 1987 Ford Fiesta (Small 700 kg hatch back) v a 1975 RR (2000 kg) 50 mph
>
> Fiesta occupants killed (driver drunk and should have looked before
> crossing the duel carriageway), car looks like one of those miniature
> tin pie cases. It was hit side on.
>
> RR looks ok, and driver survives but it was a write off, because there
> were no crumple zones to protect the strong chassis, the chassis took
> the impact, and bent.
>
> There are some Japanese car's with prototype pedestrian air bags, they
> fire when you hit a pedestrian, and gently cushion them before the fall
> off the car into the gutter.
>
> Air bags in America fire with twice the velocity, 4 times or more the
> energy of EC based air bags. This is meant to protect people who refuse
> to wear seat belts. As a consequence more children are killed in
> accidents in car's with the airbags than car's without. Which would you
> rather protect the kid wearing it's seat belt or the adult refusing to
> where it's seat belt. So a car like the Spitfire is much safer for
> kids, especially infants in rear facing child seats than the front seat
> in a car with any air bag.
>
> There was this accident researcher in the late 60's who set out to prove
> that high speed impacts were not dangerous, along as the human is
> properly with strained. He rigged himself up a test chair, an was
> propelled from 100 mph to 0 in 0.5 of a second. Although he black out
> he did survive and went to work the next day. If on the other hand had
> he not been facing forward, rather side on he would have been dead. (He
> didn't seem that keen to prove it).
Speaking of stopping short, don't forget daily carrier landings. About 130
knots to 0 in less than two seconds.
>
>
> So I am now looking for an ex-rusian non track armoured personnel
> carrier.
> --
> James Carpenter
> Yellow '79 spit wired by a trained marmot
|