Here's why many Americans think small "city cars" are a bad idea... NSFW, Graphic!

Spectre

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,832
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Here's why many Americans think small "city cars" are a bad idea... NSFW, Graphic!

Though this took place outside the US, here's a very graphic representation of why many Americans think that tiny cars are a bad idea.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

EXTREMELY GRAPHIC.

CONTAINS PICTURES OF HUMAN DISMEMBERMENT.

DO NOT FOLLOW LINK UNLESS YOU ARE OVER 21.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebel420/sets/72157603694277668/show/with/2186622491/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me guess, the car crash from Brazil where the dude is cut in half?
 
That car had a head-on collision with the truck, and I doubt there's any car, let alone an American car, that would've prevented the passengers from getting hurt. Having a head-on collision with a truck (on a highway, from what I can gather from the pictures) in any car would result in serious injuries.

But that said, being in a city car in a head-on collision with a truck is the absolute worst scenario. I'm sure that had that guy been in an American car/pick-up/SUV, he wouldn't have died, as the largely proportioned front of these cars would have crumpled and taken much of the force from the impact.
 
VW Polo (or something like it) vs a Big Rig your going to know who wins that fight, really tho I wonder how much modern day "Normal" size cars would put up in a fight like that. Also I wonder what the speeds where.
Just because people think that way does not make it true. The whole more mass == more safe does not really equate unless you have total supremacy in mass like in the case of the big rig.
 
isn't it the case that Volkswagen fox's made in Brazil are built by a lower a safety standard than their European counterparts? i read somewhere it was to keep the cost down, the south American rules are much looser than the strict European ones :|

but i still doubt if a European fox could've saved this guy, guess not.
 
Zuhaib said:
VW Polo (or something like it) vs a Big Rig your going to know who wins that fight, really tho I wonder how much modern day "Normal" size cars would put up in a fight like that. Also I wonder what the speeds where.
Just because people think that way does not make it true. The whole more mass == more safe does not really equate unless you have total supremacy in mass like in the case of the big rig.
Click to expand...

More mass in the form of a car with a large front section/bonnet, would act as a crumple zone of sorts. That's what I was notioning. In the Polo, there's basically no crumple zone, the crumple zone is effectively the whole car because of it's size. But in something like this (which I presume is a typical American car, no stereotypes here):

Truck-1990's_Dodge_Ram-LeftFront.jpg


the front would act as the crumple zone, absorbing some of the force from the impact and is more likely to keep the driver and passengers from death.

But you could argue that because that car doesn't have actually crumple zones designed into it, in the event of a crash the crumpled bonnet/engine would intrude into the cockpit and injure the driver further...

I guess it's all a matter of car type/size/safety feathers/speed etc.
 
Another thing to consider is how Supercars are so safe, it is mainly because of their strong construction, and wedge shape, in the Gumball in 2004 someone hit the back of a car at very high speeds and the Lamborghini Gallardo was almost fine and the car it hit was shot off the road.

Very sad to see that happen to a person, I hope he died instantly and did not have a painful death. Death is a always a sad even more so when the person is killed young.
 
Here is why many americans are wrong..... Truck Crash ;)
090108trkcsh_024_wideweb__470x311,0.jpg


If you have an accident with a big truck you are pretty well fucked no matter what you drive... even another big truck. :p
 
Last edited:
Gman333-X-ferrari said:
More mass in the form of a car with a large front section/bonnet, would act as a crumple zone of sorts. That's what I was notioning. In the Polo, there's basically no crumple zone, the crumple zone is effectively the whole car because of it's size. But in something like this (which I presume is a typical American car, no stereotypes here):

Truck-1990's_Dodge_Ram-LeftFront.jpg


the front would act as the crumple zone, absorbing some of the force from the impact and is more likely to keep the driver and passengers from death.

But you could argue that because that car doesn't have actually crumple zones designed into it, in the event of a crash the crumpled bonnet/engine would intrude into the cockpit and injure the driver further...

I guess it's all a matter of car type/size/safety feathers/speed etc.
Click to expand...

Well all (modern) cars have crumple zones, but more importantly they have passenger cabins that should transfer force around and act like a cage. In the case of the VW, there was so much force it pretty much intruded that cage and nothing could save him.
As for the Dodget Ram you mention, which is a 1990 (the file name seems to mention that) it had a poor rating from the IIHS http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=6 . It is really more about how the Engineers plan to transfer the amount of force around the car and offset the force in terms of crumple zones and and etc. You can see in the photos that the passenger cabin did not hold up and did not transfer the force around it. You then look at the model of the same car after a redesign and you see how much it changed: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=147 .
But really nothing is going to save you in a head on collision with a big rig, I dont even think my S-Class with its Pre-safe and other high tech things are going to save me if one day while doing 65 i cross over the center divide and hit a big rig coming in to me at the same speed. Maybe my body might be in once piece but i dont think i would be living, and if i was living i might actually be wishing i was dead (if my brain was alive, as you head would be really messed up).

Also if you check the flickr page you notice the title is about a drunk driver, so, that should put in context what the drive was doing before he found himself head on with a big rig.
 
Gman333-X-ferrari said:
More mass in the form of a car with a large front section/bonnet, would act as a crumple zone of sorts. That's what I was notioning.....
the front would act as the crumple zone, absorbing some of the force from the impact and is more likely to keep the driver and passengers from death.
Click to expand...

cdbob said:
Another thing to consider is how Supercars are so safe, it is mainly because of their strong construction, and wedge shape.
Click to expand...


Good cushioning (crumple zones) does work well, and in a head on crash of course you'd want a car with large or very well constructed front end to absorb the impact. The problem is that engines don't generally absorb the energy well if at all, so having a front engined car or truck in a head on accident is actually a no-no, i would imagine small fwd car with "cab-forward" designs are the hardest to design properly.

The best situation is one where you have large unfilled areas on each end of the car that are designed to smoothly distribute the force, as its not just cabin invasion but linearity of the impact that can account for safety. I would imagine something front engine thats actually safe would be a Honda S2000, as it has a small engine and lots of extra room in the front end that can be used to absorb a impact.

A great, if not crazy wonderful study is to look at F1 and Indy car design. In particular i like the fact that you can crash a modern F1 car into a solid wall at 40mph with NO injury, even better is that you can crash one into the same sort of wall at about 200mph and only mess up your ankle.


I didn't click on the link, partly because i don't care for snuff, and party because i own a VW Rabbit and i'm already pretty scared to drive it. The Ford Tempo i have now probably isn't that safe, but it feels safe to me since I've crashed it into so many things without ever dying even once.
 
G-Wagon FTW!
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p1c8d_Hieg[/YOUTUBE]
 
Flynn said:
But this is a southern American incident, what does it have to do with north America?
Click to expand...

has to do with how Americans can sometimes be presumptiuous towards things they don't fully understand, just like any other group of people. Although in this particular case the presumptions work to keep Americans buying big wasteful cars that annoy greenie meanies.
 
Gman333-X-ferrari said:
More mass in the form of a car with a large front section/bonnet, would act as a crumple zone of sorts. That's what I was notioning. In the Polo, there's basically no crumple zone, the crumple zone is effectively the whole car because of it's size. But in something like this (which I presume is a typical American car, no stereotypes here):

Truck-1990's_Dodge_Ram-LeftFront.jpg


the front would act as the crumple zone, absorbing some of the force from the impact and is more likely to keep the driver and passengers from death.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There was a large pickup head-on collision with a big-rig around the area where I live just last year. The pickup driver and passengers were instantly killed. It doesn't matter what you drive, if you collide with a big-rig, you're screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top