[06x10] July 31st, 2005

[Volvo_S70]

Alright, I'll stop here...

[watto]

Originally Posted by Volvo_S70

More physics than apparently you know...

I wont continue arguing about something that is obvious.

Well, I'm terribly sorry for not being as smart as you

[Volvo_S70]

LOL, dont take it too seriously, I already had a bad day, I didnt really mean that...

[watto]

Apology accepted mate.

I've got an awful hangover ( ) and have been studying for supplementary exams for Uni all friggin day... I too have had a bad day

[NexTourer]

Prius:

The car has a very strong and stable passenger safety cage. The restraint systems worked well and kept the driver’s chest and head away from the steering wheel

RR:
However, the driver experienced fairly high impact forces on his chest and, in a real crash, these pose a risk of injury.

F=ma. That's right. So if you crash into a stationary object, there's a higher chance you'll suffer injuries because of greater mass. I've seen a Prius hit t-bone a pickup truck at 80km/h (truck was trying to cross) and the occupants walked away with minor cuts and bruises. Granted, most cars today in that situation will more or less act the same way and you'll survive. It's the way the cars are designed to crumple and divert force away from the passengers inside the vehicle. If a new small car were to smash into an 80s truck, yeah the small car will be totalled while the truck be in working condition but the people inside the truck will suffer more internal injuries than the people in the small car.

Trust me, small != not safe nowadays (smart being one of it. Fifth Gear smashed one at 70mph didn't they?)

[Leppy]

Originally Posted by NexTourer

Prius:

The car has a very strong and stable passenger safety cage. The restraint systems worked well and kept the driver’s chest and head away from the steering wheel

RR:
However, the driver experienced fairly high impact forces on his chest and, in a real crash, these pose a risk of injury.

F=ma. That's right. So if you crash into a stationary object, there's a higher chance you'll suffer injuries because of greater mass. I've seen a Prius hit t-bone a pickup truck at 80km/h (truck was trying to cross) and the occupants walked away with minor cuts and bruises. Granted, most cars today in that situation will more or less act the same way and you'll survive. It's the way the cars are designed to crumple and divert force away from the passengers inside the vehicle. If a new small car were to smash into an 80s truck, yeah the small car will be totalled while the truck be in working condition but the people inside the truck will suffer more internal injuries than the people in the small car.

Trust me, small != not safe nowadays (smart being one of it. Fifth Gear smashed one at 70mph didn't they?)

Mate stop talking now cause you are dead wrong. No other way to put it.

Read what I and fbc have been saying. The mass of the car that you are in has nought to do with the injuries you will sustain when coming into contact with a stationary object in simple terms.

You are using F=ma wrong. The force that is exerted on your body in a crash is the mass of the person multiplied by the decceleration it experiances.

The way you were describing it was the force that was felt by the stationary object that the vehicle hit.

The reason why we said that the people in the SUV would experiance more injuries (a generalisation on an over simplfied model) is because the crumple zones on SUVs are not as well developed (read not as good as cars) and therefore stop in a shorter amount of time. (ie decceleration is large)

But having said that, what the SUV lacks in crumple zone technology, it gains in being heavy (therefore carrying more energy, KE=1/2mv^2.) which gives it an ability to plough through other cars, hence taking advantage of the smaller cars crumple zones.

[NexTourer]

You're right about the person part, my bad. But wouldn't that mean that an SUV will have to absorb more force then? So if the crumple zone is crap like you've said, more of that deceleration force would have to be taken care of by the seatbelt.

[fbc]

Originally Posted by Leppy

But having said that, what the SUV lacks in crumple zone technology, it gains in being heavy (therefore carrying more energy, KE=1/2mv^2.) which gives it an ability to plough through other cars, hence taking advantage of the smaller cars crumple zones.

And that, sadly, is what sells a lot of SUV's. I'm safe, screw the other guy...

[Leppy]

Originally Posted by NexTourer

You're right about the person part, my bad. But wouldn't that mean that an SUV will have to absorb more force then? So if the crumple zone is crap like you've said, more of that deceleration force would have to be taken care of by the seatbelt.

Originally Posted by Leppy

The reason why we said that the people in the SUV would experiance more injuries (a generalisation on an over simplfied model) is because the crumple zones on SUVs are not as well developed (read not as good as cars) and therefore stop in a shorter amount of time. (ie decceleration is large)

As alread said in the same post.

[Ilpav]

When Mark Webber finished his F1 laptime in the Liana and Jeremy gives him the "I am The Stig" T-shirt and he says not to show it to Michael (Schumacher?) because he doesn't always wear red and that he has been "hanging around here to much; I'll say no more than that." What does Jeremy mean?

Thanks.

[nomix]

He is trying to joke about some people thinking Schumacher is the Stig.

[Ilpav]

If he said that because some people think Shumacher is the Stig, then why did he say that his driving was a little sloppy last season? Is it because he was so busy being the Stig that he wasn't focused on F1?

[nomix]

Yes, I believe that is his point.