rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/19/84)
Au: >You have not heard the theory that little cars just get bunted out >of the way when hit, rather than resist and get crumpled. Open to >debate of course. Getting "bunted out of the way" means bouncing the occupants of the vehicle much harder than if you just bring them to a stop. Sorry, but the physics says that, other things being equal (which they absolutely are not!), it's better NOT to get bounced away. Consider the collision from a center-of-mass viewpoint. In fact, what you really want in a collision (!) is to have your vehicle ABSORB as much of the collision energy as possible without destroying the passenger compartment. That means, in some sense, maximizing the destruction to the car itself - but cars are easier to repair than people (cheaper, too), especially if you need replacement parts. -- ...Are you making this up as you go along? Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (04/19/84)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh The federal government publishes data on the fatality rate of each make of car. This is a measure of the number of fatalities per car on the road each year. The highest fatality rate by far is the small Japanese car. It is much higher than the comparable American and European cars. The lowest fatality rate is the Cadillac and Lincoln type American cars and the Volvo, and Audi class cars of Europe. The fatality rate decreases as the weight of the car increases except for the small Japanese cars which are much worse and the medium size European cars which are much better. One factor this includes is the type of person which buys a particular model of car. As an example the Olds Cutlas ranked better than other GM cars which should be the same. Olds drivers must be better or stay at home more.
jb760@uofm-cv.UUCP (Jim Beyer) (04/20/84)
I think the question is a bit more complicated than that. Bouncing can occur, depending on the collision. Note that while many accidents occur during the winter, few serious ones occur because icy roads cause cars to BOUNCE about more, and generally off the roads and into snow banks. And I remember from Driver's Ed that if youing are running off the road and out of control, to try to run over small bushes, etc. to slow yourself down, instead of headlonging into trees. This is the relevant point. Bouncing is fine if the collision is not headlong (defined I believe, by colliding with something 4 inches or more into your bumper). If you have a head-on, then you only 'bounce' backward, which tends to damage occupants. The bottom line is yes, small cars bounce okay on non head-on collisions, but the collisions to be concerned about are head-ons, and in that case, I want is much engine between me and the object as possible, i.e. a BIG car.
prophet@umcp-cs.UUCP (04/21/84)
<>
A recent netter said something like "You won't catch me driving one of those
small, unsafe foreign cars, or those flimsy American cars." He went on to
imply that large cars (such as his trans Am) Are much safer.
If this is true, then why in the April issue of Consumer Reports does it
rate several Small and compact cars as being better than any of the large
cars that were tested for crash protection?
Also, smaller, lighter weight cars handle better and stop quicker than their
larger competiters, which makes avoidance of an accident much easier and
more probable. I would rather avoid an accident altogether, no matter how
"big and safe" a casr I was driving.
Dennis
--
Call-Me: Dennis Gibbs, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Center.
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!prophet
CSNet: prophet@umcp-cs
ARPA: prophet.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relaybmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (04/23/84)
I have not noticed any consideration of the fact that mass is involved. The larger a car is, the more slowly it comes to a stop in a collision with anything. Bouncing is NOT safe, because the car goes in the opposite direction while you do not. Much better(for you, anyway) if the car's momentum wants to keep going. All else being equal(it never is), the larger vehicle is always safer in a collision. It's not getting munched inside the vehicle that causes the most injuries, but getting knocked around because the car changes speed and\or direction and you don't, the most commonly fatal of these being the ones Au mentioned about the brain getting accelerated, etc. (yechh!) by the way, I drive a 69 Toyota Corona like a maniac, but I try to be a nice maniac.(i know, who cares?)
bob@wucs.UUCP (04/24/84)
I had the unfortunate experience of being in a 50MPH accident between a VW Dasher (mine) and an MG something or other (the bum who cut in front of me :-). In this case a relatively small amount of the force of the accident was absorbed by the passengers in my car, as the peculiar structure of the Dasher frame simply folded a bit without "compromising" the passenger compartment. The MG was set flying (into another car standing at a crossroad), and suffered considerable disfigurement. Judging from that I would rather be in the car that stays put rather than the one that goes flying. The passengers in the other car were probably spared severe injury only because of the fact that they were stoned out of their minds. Bob Israel Washington University
an@hou2h.UUCP (A.NGUYEN) (04/24/84)
-- > Jim Knutson: > I don't know about this accelerated brain mass unless it's your head > smashing against the steering column. Imagine this. You're in a Volvo, going 120 mph (will a Turbo do that? (-:). You're wearing seatbelts like a good non-*ssh*le. You hit a brick wall head on. Your fancy schmancy crush zone crumples like papier mache, but the passenger compartment is perfectly protected. Your body meanwhile has decelerated, all without hitting *anything*, from 120 mph down to 0 mph in about 4 feet, the length of the crush zone (never mind where the motor went for now!). That's easily over 40 G's, which will give you a concussion. (Physics majors only are welcome to question my guesstimate (-:). Your nose will bleed and your eyeballs will pop out to say the least! Let's not worship racing cars man! A purpose-built racing car is a thing of beauty, capable of tremendous acceleration, deceleration and lateral acceleration. It is also a true monocoque: a tight little bath tub with hardly any superfluous room around the driver. You take the steering wheel off to get out. Road cars are but a poor fascimile of a true monocoque what with door openings and hood and trunk lid. Ever seen the motorcycle commercials that show a racing bike: they always say, at the end and in fine print, "Photographed under controlled conditions with a professional rider." I.e. "Don't try this at home, kids!" Re: spectacular racing accidents in which the driver walks away. Strong monocoques and racing harnesses definitely help there, but they are not the whole story. A.J. Foyt told of an accident at Indy one year. Niki Lauda (?) lost it coming into turn 3. He maneuvered the car so it hit the wall at a glance. Foyt thinks that if Lauda didn't do anything and hit the wall head on he would have died. Like I said, "professional drivers ..." Au
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/26/84)
[] The under the car engine ramp was introduced by Studebaker in the Avanti along with many more safety features such as the pop out windshield, Mercedes door latches, integrated roll bar, Disk brakes (in the US), and more. You can still buy a new Avanti with all of these and more features. T. C. Wheeler
srradia@watmath.UUCP (sanjay Radia) (04/27/84)
my Datsun Stanza is much easier to control than many BIG american cars that
I have driven. It is probably easier to avoid accidents in a car that
is easier to control. Ofcourse, it is possible to build BIG cars that
allow the driver a lot of control but there aren't many of them in the market
(or maybe I haven't tried enough BIG cars). Also, many BIG cars
have lousy power steering which don't allow any "feel for the road".
--
sanjay
{allegra,decvax}!watmath!srradia