[06x10] July 31st, 2005

you're 80???

congrates, i think ur the oldest member here :p
 
MixtriX said:
you're 80???

congrates, i think ur the oldest member here :p

:D Well.. no.
 
That bit from Iceland with the snowmobile reminds me of when I filmed (for TV) a segment of a motoring fair, must have been in 1995 or something...
They were racing snowmobiles on the banks of a lake in Sweden called Orsasj?n, and one guy was going to attempt to cross it on his snowmobile.
The lake is about 5 km (3 miles) wide were he was going to cross, and it's more than 160 metres (525 feet) deep at it's deepest.
Sadly he had to cancel the attempt because the waves were a bit to high in the centre of the lake.
Would have been a cool thing to see (and shoot) him coming there across from the "open seas".
The races were cool enough though... :)
 
does anyone know the piece of music playing when James does the speedrun in the Bentley? Its on the tip of my tongue but damn if i cant remember it.
 
Didn't fifth gear establish that a higher car was better in a crash because it "climbs" the other car, and that's why the xc90 has installed weights in the front so it acts like a lower car in a crash???
 
tloekke said:
Didn't fifth gear establish that a higher car was better in a crash because it "climbs" the other car, and that's why the xc90 has installed weights in the front so it acts like a lower car in a crash???

Climbing the other car may be better for the climbing car's occupants (of course until the climbing cars rolls over at the other side...), but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in the climbed car

The xc90 has a second 'bumper bar' mounted at the same height as that of normal cars - it's role is to transfer the impact into the xc90's crash structure, so that - as you say - it acts like a normal car in a crash and absorbs it share of the impact forces. Brilliant piece of engineering if you ask me. Whereas other SUV's crush zones aren't activated in an impact with a normal car, so two things happen - the normal car absorbs most of impact and the occupants suffer unnecessarily increased injuries, and the occupants of the SUV may have to absorb the impact with their bodies, instead of the crash structure doing it's job.

This sort of thing should be mandatory on all SUV's
 
^But that's Jeremy's point. Untill all suvs have the bumper bar, you'd want to be in one of those.
 
No. Read what fbc said.

If the SUV hits a car and its crash structure is not "activated" ie the crumple zones do not function, the occupants of the SUV will suffer more because the impact takes less time (ie accelerations, therefore forces, are much larger)

and then there is the roll over factor due to, as you say, the SUV climbing over the top of the other car.
 
tloekke said:
^But that's Jeremy's point. Untill all suvs have the bumper bar, you'd want to be in one of those.

No you wouldn't, if we all did that and we all drove SUV's every accident would cause increased injuries. A lot of SUV's simply don't have as good a crash structure as normal cars - a lot of them still have seperate chassis for instance, so when an SUV hits another SUV less of the energy is absorbed by the vehicles and more is left for the occupants to deal with.

If *less* people drove SUV's this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
U guys have no idea of what u're saying..The Prius was under the same test as the Range Rover at EuroNcap...AND THE PRIUS BEHAVE BETTER IN THE CRASH THAN THE RR. The RR its not safer just cuz its bigger (where the heck did u hear that??) ..it all depends on how the car absorbs the energy and many other things. EuroNcap arent stupid, the dummies in the Prius werent as harmed as in the RR, close case. :bangin:
 
Volvo_S70 said:
U guys have no idea of what u're saying..
Who is this aimed at? Because this bit
Volvo_S70 continued and said:
The Prius was under the same test as the Range Rover at EuroNcap...AND THE PRIUS BEHAVE BETTER IN THE CRASH THAN THE RR. The RR its not safer just cuz its bigger (where the heck did u hear that??) ..it all depends on how the car absorbs the energy and many other things. EuroNcap arent stupid, the dummies in the Prius werent as harmed as in the RR, close case. :bangin:
agrees with what Leppy and I have been saying. A crash barrier test is a perfect example of how SUV's with less effective crush zones cause more harm to their occupants.
 
fbc said:
Volvo_S70 said:
U guys have no idea of what u're saying..
Who is this aimed at? Because this bit
Volvo_S70 continued and said:
The Prius was under the same test as the Range Rover at EuroNcap...AND THE PRIUS BEHAVE BETTER IN THE CRASH THAN THE RR. The RR its not safer just cuz its bigger (where the heck did u hear that??) ..it all depends on how the car absorbs the energy and many other things. EuroNcap arent stupid, the dummies in the Prius werent as harmed as in the RR, close case. :bangin:
agrees with what Leppy and I have been saying. A crash barrier test is a perfect example of how SUV's with less effective crush zones cause more harm to their occupants.

Not at u mate, I was talking about the guys that said that RR is safer just cuz its bigger... :)
 
Volvo_S70 said:
U guys have no idea of what u're saying..The Prius was under the same test as the Range Rover at EuroNcap...AND THE PRIUS BEHAVE BETTER IN THE CRASH THAN THE RR. The RR its not safer just cuz its bigger (where the heck did u hear that??) ..it all depends on how the car absorbs the energy and many other things. EuroNcap arent stupid, the dummies in the Prius werent as harmed as in the RR, close case. :bangin:




Go read up on the controversy surrounding ENCAP's testing procedures. :)


Basically, what a lot of car companies have been doing is designing thier cars specifically to perform well in the ENCAPS -- this however does not equate to real-world safety. It simply equates to laboratory results which suggest safety. These are two radically different concepts.

Thats why there are so many five-star rated cars now. The companies are playing the system, so to speak. Why do they do this? To sell cars.



On a side note, if you've ever trying to convince someone that your opinion is correct, try using proper English. :)
 
Of course EuroNCap tests are controversy. There are too many variables that you must consider.

Like fbc said:

RR vs Prius - RR occupants unscatched, Prius occupants badly messed up
Prius vs Prius - all occupants slightly messed up, no one seriously messed up
RR vs RR - *everyone* seriously messed up
RR vs tree - *everyone* seriously messed up
Prius vs tree - *everyone* messed up, but not as bad as RR vs tree
 
Jasruler said:
Go read up on the controversy surrounding ENCAP's testing procedures. :)


Basically, what a lot of car companies have been doing is designing thier cars specifically to perform well in the ENCAPS -- this however does not equate to real-world safety. It simply equates to laboratory results which suggest safety. These are two radically different concepts.

Thats why there are so many five-star rated cars now. The companies are playing the system, so to speak. Why do they do this? To sell cars.

Very very true. Remember when the NCAP tests started and all the car firms said what a load of bollocks they were, not representative of real world crashes etc etc (quite rightly too as you point out) and that they'd never use them to promote their vehicles? Well hasn't the worm turned...

Of course that doesn't change what I've said about SUV safety.
 
On a side note, if you've ever trying to convince someone that your opinion is correct, try using proper English. :)

What do you mean proper English? And I wasnt trying to convince you (anti-EuroNcap) guys, I was trying to defend what fbc and Leppy were saying. :|

Ohh, and you're right about the EuroNcap test being "not the best". In fact, the only manufacturer that realized that is Volvo. They have the best and most modern crash test center (where they can test cars at any speed, angle of collision, rollovers and many other things). In real life, as you said, cars dont crash at that exact speed and angle as in EuroNcap, but, what I was trying to say is... in that test, the Prius was safer than the RR. Just because a car is bigger doesnt mean its safer... ;)
 
What he meant wuz spelling out ur werdz and not writing them like those <-- ;)
 
Top