Which one looks better? - it has turned into car talk

Posted by anze89 
I don't like what they call safety is very bad. IMO the car shouldn't be smashing like hell only to minimaze the forces. every car should have a roll cage like a racing car, only smaller so that the front would still smash but would stop before drivers legs. Seat belts should be stronger, like racing ones. A few years ago honda Civic and Zastava 101 crashed, Zastava could continue without problems, but Honda was un-driveble because the front smashed too much






wtf, that makes no sense!

The cars smash to absorb the impact. If they dont, then the people do. I would rather have a car thats a complete write off, but im fine, than a car which only needs minor repairs, but my spines in a mess!

Cars are ment to deform, something needs to absorb the impact, so the car is built as a safety cell around the cabain area and the rest of the car is deigned to crumple and take the forces so the people inside take as little damage as possible

A roll cage would never stop the car being crushed back into the drivers legs. A roll cage does what it sounds like - a cage to protect the car when rolling. It has side bars and a "halo" around the roof. The safety cell will stop the parts of the car coming back into the drivers legs.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
I meant saftey cell

I agree that cars must smash, but they are smashing too much. On the highway in Srbia a man on the motorcyle was doing a suicide and went into the wrong way on the highway. He smashed with full speed into a car and the bike literally almost entered the cabin. That should never happen



you can see the rear wheel of the motorcyle there










Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2005 10:15PM by anze89.
Erm... unless cars are built like tanks, there'd only be that outcome mate... no amount safety features would save either in that example.
lol anze. You cant make cars survive stuff like that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
if rally cars can survive a massive crash into a tree...






Road cars cant be built like Rally cars. I dont think you quite understand what your asking for. Road cars would suddenly cost around £100,000, just for the companies to break-even. Its not financially possible. You have to work within sensible limits

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
That impact would be worse than a rally car could ever do.

Say the motorbike does 70mph (at least) hits a car doing 60mph, thats an impact speed of 130mph!!



RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009

Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)
Re:
Date: July 07, 2005 08:37PM
Posted by: Habi
-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2012 06:23PM by Habi.
Red Sam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That impact would be worse than a rally car could
> ever do.
>
> Say the motorbike does 70mph (at least) hits a car
> doing 60mph, thats an impact speed of 130mph!!

Im not sure if what im about to say is right, someone might know. But i once read of some messed up physics thing which means if a car was doing 70, and another car doing 70 hit head on, the impact speed is not 140, it is much much higher as the forces involved do not increase in proportion with the speed, so the impact goes much much higher

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
I see that I fu*ked up a little






Ultimately, it comes down to the people who are driving/riding to be responsible

Im not sure if what im about to say is right, someone might know. But i once read of some messed up physics thing which means if a car was doing 70, and another car doing 70 hit head on, the impact speed is not 140, it is much much higher as the forces involved do not increase in proportion with the speed, so the impact goes much much higher


not sure if its what you mean but the kinetic energy involved is 0.5 x Mass x Velocity squared, so basically the energy increases very quickly as the velocity does.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2005 12:51AM by matthewp.
Yeah, so fundamentally the forces involved in a 140mph collision is not 2 times greater than at 70mph, it would be 4 times greater!
I think thats it Matt/Zyklef, i cant really remember, but that sounds about right :P

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
rust like a mufucker

lol at this phrase Dave!

and there's no denying that italian cars in particualr have a sort of funny stereotype of being poorly built an unreliable, and have done for many many years.

on Top Gear this week they had the new Brera, and talked about Alfa's, that you put up with tonnes of disappointment and problems, just for pleasure you get for the miniscule amount of time everything works perfectly.

anyoen got that comic strip of Sepang '99? it shows them saying the ferrari bareg boards are the wrong size. then someone justifies them by saying, "Well, it is an Italian car..."

of course these days any new car, even ones we consider to be shite, and stil built way better than they were 10-15 years ago, so maybe its time for this stereotype to be forgotten?




RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2005 12:43PM by Muks_C.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Maintainer: mortal, stephan | Design: stephan, Lo2k | Moderatoren: mortal, TomMK, Noog, stephan | Downloads: Lo2k | Supported by: Atlassian Experts Berlin | Forum Rules | Policy