| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:41753 Activity:high |
2/7 Wanna get killed in a Smart car? It's easy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6605730767077503480
\_ How much better do you think a "normal" car would have done?
\_ That looks like quite impressive crash performance for a
collision with a concrete wall at 70mph. -tom
\_ Sure the frame is alright, but what about the crash dummy?
How good the car looks after a crash has no bearing on how
well the passengers
\_ There wasn't a crash dummy, but I can't imagine that any
car would perform significantly better than the Smart car
does in that demonstration. And of *course* how well the
frame looks has a bearing on how the passengers do; do I
need to put the Mini vs. F150 page in the MOTD again? -tom
\_ Mini vs F150
http://csua.org/u/7gp
"Most accidents involve only one car?" Does he mean
"fatal accidents?" or "injury accidents" or what?
I've been run into like 3 times, but all were pretty
slow. I do agree that head-on collisons are a stupid
thing to worry about. Rear-ending is more common and
T-bones are more dangerous.
\_ You mean 'wanna LIVE in a Smart car? It's easy."? (just looking at
the video)
\_ Wanna get killed in any other car? It's also very easy ..
\_ If the comparison thru 70mph head-on collision is "Smart car hitting
massive object" vs. "Civic hitting massive object", yes Smart car
will do better. Likewise, if the comparison is "Smart car hitting
Crown Victoria" vs. "Civic hitting Crown Victoria", again Smart car
will do better. However, in the latter case the Crown Victoria will
survive better than both the Smart car and the Civic because of it
mass. So, in which of the three cars do you want to be during a
head-on collision with another car?
\_ Mass translates into kinetic energy. I think the premise that
a vehicle with higher kinetic energy is more likely to be
safe in a collision is unfounded. -tom
\_ KE needs to be considered with P
\_ Yes, I'm sure it will be comforting when your large car
decides to do work on your skull. -tom
\_ In a head-on, which would you rather be in:
Locomotive vs. 18 wheeler:
18 Wheeler vs. Hummer:
Hummer vs Civic:
Civic vs. RIDE BIKE!:
RIDE BIKE! vs sneakers:
Locomotive vs sneakers:
Taking all of 2 seconds to think about this should make
it clear that mass of the vehicle will keep the person
in the larger vehicle safer overall than the person in
the smaller vehicle. Obviously not being in a wreck at
all is best case but we can't always avoid a collision.
\_ The head-on collision without any angular vectors
is simply not very common. In the real world, lots
of different kinds of fatal accidents happen,
and most of them are not head-on, and those
that are classified as head-on are mostly not
pure-headon-inelastic-collision. Heck, the Smart
car may wind up becoming a ramp for your Crown
Victoria. -tom
\_ Uhm, so what? Take any angle you want. Which
transport would you rather be in in any of the
above situations?
\_ There are plenty of accidents where it is
better to be in a smaller car. That's why
big cars have just as many fatalities. -tom
\_ DUCK! "I can name that accident in 3
collisions!" "Tom, name that accident!"
\_ This is not always true. Many big boaty cars of
1970s and 1980s were very unsafe because they did
not have collapsing steering columns. In an
accident
not have collapsing steering column. In an accident
the steering column would pretty much squash your
chest and/or head. If the hummer had a steering
column like that, I'd take my chances in the civic.
\_ This isn't the 1970s and 1980s. How many of
those cars are still on the road?
\_ Then you'll like the massive locomotive, which
does not have a steering column.
\_ Then you'll like a locomotive, which does not
have a steering column.
\_ Unless it's diesel or steam, in which case
you'll probably be smooshed in 50 million
pounds of steel AND doused with hot burning
shit, or electric, which will tangle you up
in high tension wires! -John
\_ More likely the little car would get
smashed aside with everyone killed by the
loco's cow fender on the front. A bad day
for the loco engineer but he's going home
to his family. The civic passengers are
dead at any reasonable rate of speed.
\_ Ah, but a gigantic blob of gore may
fly in a spectacular arc towards the
driver's cabin of the locomotive and
spatter the driver with bits of bone
and brain, thereby inflicting traumatic
dry cleaning bills. -John
\_ Yeah, that counts as a bad day for
the engineer, but the dry cleaning
bills should be picked up by the
company if he was wearing the
company uniform. Or maybe the gore
will just splatter across the
wind shield. Wind shield fluid is
pretty cheap.
\_ What if it hits him in the eye,
and it just happens to be a bit
of stomach lining, and the prior
owner just had a really spicy
Mexican meal? -John
\_ That might work if you are in a demolition derby but
in the real world that KE is often gonna end up
smashing into some largish inanimate object before
too long. Or a pileup of other cars. At which
point the safety engineering becomes more important
than the mass. What percentage of crashes are head
on collisions where the cars don't deflect off in
some way? I bet it's not that high.
\_ What percentage of non-headons result in death or
life long injury? Headons and side impacts to
where someone is sitting are the 2 killers.
Getting rear ended at most speeds means you get
some painful soft tissue damage and some cash.
My 4 door sedan with steel bars in the side
panels bounced an SUV coming in at a 45` angle at
about 20-25 mph. They bought me a new door. No
biggie. My civic would have been totalled. (Yes,
I owned a civic too). I rear ended another large
vehicle (sigh) at about 15 with the sedan. We
both drove home with minimal damage. The civic
got caught in a 4 car (car #3) and pretzeled at
about 25mph and the driver (not me) was injured.
Maybe my experience runs counter to the odds but
I don't think so. I'll stick with my big
vehicles for safety, thanks.
\_ How old was the Civic? The door strength I
think isn't necessarily tied to the overall
vehicle mass. Maybe that Civic just wasn't
very safe regardless. A lot of older small
cars were, that didn't necessarily have to
be (probably goes along with small cars
generally also being cheap cars). Shrug.
\_ Civic was 2000. True that putting steel
bars inside a puff box only means the
passengers get steel bars in their chests.
The rest of the car has to be big enough
and structurally sound enough to take that
hit and spread the force without smashing
a passenger. All else being equal, the
bigger vehicle is going to take a hit better
than a smaller one. Get Thee To Ye Ol'
Locomotive, Sir!
\_ Hmm, why did the narrator in this British video use mph instead of
km/h? --- yuen
\_ Um, perhaps the narrator is British, but the video is not?
\_ But the license plate of the Smart car is UK format. Okay
maybe it's a British narrator reporting a UK crash test on an
American channel. I don't remember which other countries
still use the imperial system and have English TV. --- yuen
\_ The Brits use a mix of imperial and metric units. Speeds,
at least automotive speeds, are generally given in units
of mph. -gm
\_ Um, freeway signs are metric in UK. Are you talking
racing world? Or are you talking out of your ass?
\_ I admit I haven't been to the UK in a few years,
but speed limit signs, at least, were definitely in
mph; I think distance signs were as well, but I don't
recall exactly. The UK Metric Association agrees:
http://metric.org.uk/Campaign/mess.htm
If you have a more definitive souce, I'd be happy
to see it. -gm
\_ Whoa, I'm smoking the crack.. Sorry.
Now I'm wondering where I went...
\_ Brits talk in miles quite often. Officially they
use km on road signs. -John
\_ Another point that always gets left out of the Mass vs. Safety debate
is the maneuverability of the smaller car. If only 3/4 of potential
accidents are realized in a more maneuverable vehicle, that's a
pretty big safety win. SUV == passive safety.
\_ There's no way a smaller car is going to be able to avoid 25%
of their wrecks. Most wrecks either come out of nowhere or
you have no place to escape to. And frankly, most people don't
know how to drive their car anyway and couldn't avoid a wreck
under optimal conditions. We call those "fender benders" and
they're incredibly common.
\_ Or worse, some drivers try to maneuver their cars to avoid a
wreck when they shouldn't (e.g. speed too high, no room on the
side), and end up with a bigger wreck like rollover or head-on
100+mph collision with opposite traffic, killing others with
their stupidity.
\_ and let us note, bigger cars are more likely to roll...
\_ Huh? A Sienna is less likely to roll than a 2-dr RAV4.
I've driven both, although not actually encoutering any
near-rollover conditions.
I've driven both, and the Sienna rolls less during fast
turns. I've not actually encoutered any near-rollover
situations though.
\_ No facts please.
\_ URL to mroe info on smart car? |
| 5/25 |
|
| video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6605730767077503480 Send copy to myself Send Link Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this video onto a web page. |
| csua.org/u/7gp -> www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now there's no question what would win in a head-on collesion between th e two but then again the majority of accidents involve only a single car . All you have to do is look at the dummy's legs and you can get an idea of what would happen if you hit a wall in either car. The MINI had almo st no intrusion which "indicates that the driver's survival space was ma intained very well" - the F150 on the other hand had "Major collapse of the occupant compartment that left little survival space for the driver. " I'm interested in how a company could create a modern vehicle that could perform so badly on this test. Furthermore Ford had lots of space to wor k with to make this a safe vehicle. For BMW/MINI to do the job in 1/4 th e space is what engineering is all about. Broken Window Keep in mind also this is the best selling vehicle in the US. One would t hink that Ford, knowing this, would have put more effort into the engine ering of this truck. this platform is also the basis of b oth the Ford Expedition and to some extent the Ford Excursion. Both are marketed to be tough, safe, go anywhere SUVs and are sold as family tran sportation. Why are they more interested in 5mph bumper tests - shouldn't this be front page news somewhere? article in t he New Yorker with some interesting information. The statistics were compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berke ley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at th e University of Michigan. The information comes form a recent article in teh New Yorker: "The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for driv ers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit." Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyot a Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jett a die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same ra nge as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular SUV models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jim my. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a w ay to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits o f being nimble--of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble--are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big." Now granted this doesn't change t he fact that Ford designed and released the previous generation of F150s knowing there were safety concerns. Further it doesn't change any of th e statistics showing larger vehicles cause more havoc on the roads. But it does show that Ford clearly understood the issues with the previous g eneration and worked hard to alleviate them. I think the government is willing to look th e other way on a lot of things because the economy is tight. Maybe because they all drive thes e ridiculous vehicles? org) quote: "Why can't I compare vehicles from different categories? The kinetic ener gy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so offset tests are more demanding of heavier vehicles. But people in he avier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better th an people in lighter vehicles (in many single-vehicle crashes, weight of fers no safety advantage). This is why test results shouldnt be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. "Now there's no question what would win in a head-on colles ion between the two but then again the majority of accidents involve onl y a single car" My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a col lision with each other. Since most accidents involve only one car my poi nt is I was comparing the results of the off-set crash tests themselves. This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company spe nt designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's ba cked up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are m ore dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as w ell. If identical tests are performed o n vehicles, the results can, and should, be compared. That the vehicles are from different classes doesn't make the dummy in the pickup any less dead. Permalink Where is the data that proves that "most crashes involve same-class vehic les or a single vehicle only"? I just can't imagine that a Mini driver i s going to coincidentally have an accident with a VW GTI or Honda Civic, when, in fact, our roadways are crowded with Jeep Grand Cherokees and F ord Explorers. BTW, a handful of popular SUVs have a better crash rating than the Mini. Ford GM, Mercedes and others are run by bean coun ters and they sell steel, plastic and glass by the pound. Their customer s are the share holders, not the person that buys the car. Why would a bean counter make an F-150 safer when they sell at a better p rofit margin without the extra work? The vehicle that is for sale is not the one they could build but the one the bean counters think you will buy. Ford engineers are no different than others and could build something bet ter if.... Permalink Larry - I guess that begs the question: Does Ford think so little of us? Why do BMW, Mercedes, and others engineer this safety into their cars fo r the mass market? Several Euro automakers even have teams that go out a nd investigate crashes on site right after they happen then take them ba ck to the lab for further study. Ford ma kes much more profit on a totally loaded F150 than BMW makes on a 32,000 325i. I don't think there's much questi on that a Mini would not fare so well in a collision with a pickup. Howe ver, don't you think that the occupants of an automobile ought to have d ecent chances of survival if they were to run off the road? I certainly wouldn't want to be in a collision between a tree and an F150. Yes the MINI is small - it has what's call ed active safety built in. Because it's incredibly agile and can allow p eople to get out of bad situations before they get into them. Most peopl e forget about the idea of active safety - but it's probably the most im portant part of the equation. this (thank s Azwed) National Center for Statistics and Analysis Study. Even though there are more cars on the road trucks are almost 25% more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Permalink Raymi - please read the above comments before posting. If you did you'd s ee the point you were trying to make was discussed before. "My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a collision with each other." Since most accidents involve only one car my point is to compare the results of the off-set crash tests themselve s This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company s pent designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don 't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. Permalink Thanks for the great pictures showing so clearly that bigger does not nec essarily mean better. Accident a voidence capability (good handling, steering, brakes) has been an import ant car purchase criteria for years, and my current modern Mini is one o f a series stretching back to Austin Minis. Permalink I think this shows that people may think the SUV's and bigger vehicals ar e the answer to safer driving, but really a smaller car gives you a safe r compartment in a head on collision. That F150 picture makes me never w ant to get into a truck again. This article isnt comparing the two vehicals hit ting eachother, it is comparing the saftey compartment! My Dad has been concerned abo ut the size of the Mini and he drives a truck. If a MINI hits a brick wall at 40mph, th e driver lives - if he does the same thing in the Ford, he's toast. However, I've seen LOTS of photo's of wrecked MINI's - and I've... |
| metric.org.uk/Campaign/mess.htm The mess we're in British weights and measures are in a mess. On the one hand, the international metric system (SI) is the official, legal system for most purposes in the UK. Yet, at the same time, much of British everyday life remains untouched by the metric system and continues to use imperial units. Consider the following examples: Metric Imperial Most of British industry and government, including major companies, the NHS, the armed forces, the police and local authorities, use the metric system in their internal operations and in some of their public or official communications. In everyday conversation, many British people freely use feet, stones, acres and miles per gallon, while even people who use metric units in their work (eg as designers, maths teachers or engineers) feel faintly uncomfortable or embarrassed at using metres, kilograms or hectares outside the workplace. Much of the non-specialist media gives primarily imperial units (rarely with metric equivalents). Schools teach mathematics and science primarily in metric. Outside the maths or science lesson, many schoolteachers continue to use imperial units. Some British sports (including rugby union, athletics and swimming) use metres and kilometres. Roads are designed and buildings constructed using exclusively metres. Regulations for the dimensions of parking bays, road signs and road markings are given in metric units. Commercial vehicles are required to be equipped with tachographs which record using kilometre-based measurements. Distance signs and speed limits are exclusively in miles, yards and miles per hour, whilst feet and inches predominate in height and width restrictions. Court orders to restrain the movement of an individual are specified in metres. Descriptions of criminals wanted by the police are given by the media exclusively in imperial units. All British meteorological measurement, whether temperature, rainfall or visibility, uses metric units. Many weather reports and forecasts in the media give temperatures wholly or mainly in degrees Celsius. Holiday brochures often give summer temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit. Most shops (especially larger stores and supermarkets) give prices per kilogram or litre. Many market traders and some small shopkeepers display weights in pounds and ounces - sometimes (in defiance of the law) without their metric equivalent. Planning applications and permissions must be expressed exclusively in metric measurements. Estate agents give floor space in square feet and room and garden dimensions in feet and inches. Ordnance Survey maps give distances and heights in kilometres and metres respectively. And why have successive British governments been so reluctant to bring the changeover saga (now lasting 38 years and counting) to a conclusion? Why has it been so difficult to persuade British people to accept the obvious benefits of the changeover? Regrettably, the answer must be that successive governments have lacked the political courage to carry through a necessary reform. As a result the public has often been ill-prepared and has felt that the changes were introduced by stealth. There is no rationale for introducing metric labelling on packaged food in 1995 and waiting five years for metric weighing of loose food in 2000. There is no sense in introducing the sale of petrol in litres in the late 1980s and keeping road distances in miles. In both examples the consumer has been left struggling with two systems at once. The result of this feeble reliance on a voluntary and gradual approach has been that progress has been excruciatingly slow - and in some fields virtually imperceptible. It is not too much to say that the voluntary approach has failed - a failure of government. Read UKMA's Report A very British mess' For a more complete analysis of Britain's measurement unit mess and how to fix it, read UKMA's report. A very British mess, which was launched by Lord Howe of Aberavon on 8 July 2004 is now available in an attractive hardcopy format. The report is printed as a 64 page paperback in full colour. The report draws attention to Britain's measurement unit mess caused by failing to complete the conversion from imperial to metric units. The report explains how Britain got into the mess, why it is important and how to get out of the mess. |