|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=28534 |
|
| Comments: 156 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 11-19-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Vehicle Misc |
|
|
Description:
Honda Accord! |
Showing page: 1 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
 |
| #2 |
11-19-2003 @ 05:36:02 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Ummm.... why was this on wreckedexotics.com? Not exactly too exotic. Made in Japan/manufactured in Ohio... Reeaal exotic.
Now for the typical MxCx response: Not an Accord!
|
|
| #5 |
11-19-2003 @ 05:53:05 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, i meant "oh no, not an accord!" i know that it is one.
|
|
| #8 |
11-19-2003 @ 10:33:54 PM |
| Posted By : SacrifRICE |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I think I'd still much rather have a body-on-frame car that won't rip itself in half in a crash like this. I mean, I'd still probably be dead, but there'd be less pieces of me to pick up afterwards from, say, a pickup truck in this accident than this unit-body Accord.
|
|
| #9 |
11-20-2003 @ 01:47:14 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#8, it depends tho...i think that unit-body cars absord crash energy better than cars with frames
|
|
| #10 |
11-20-2003 @ 01:51:47 AM |
| Posted By : Biohazard |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, I dont know about that. This one just appears to have absorbed the pole into itself. Now for an example of a car with a solid frame, see pic 28156
|
|
| #11 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:03:13 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
what i mean is, the car comes out better after an accident if it has a frame, but the thing is that the driver gets more stress from the impact in that case, where the vehicle does not absorb as much impact as a unit-body car would...there is a reason a nissan pathfinder had one of the best crash-test scores out of all suv's a few years back, it was unit-body
|
|
| #12 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:04:42 AM |
| Posted By : SuperDave479 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
ambient, it's uni-body.
[Edited by SuperDave479 on 11-20-2003 @ 02:06:18 AM]
|
|
| #13 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:06:25 AM |
| Posted By : Biohazard |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#11, I would still rather in that Volvo in an accident than in this one. The logic you are using is similar to those who say that if you don't wear your seatbelt, you will just get flung from the car unharmed.
|
|
| #15 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:15:48 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#13, i duno...old volvos dont have air bags or energy-absorbing belts...i would much rather be in a newer car in a serious accident
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 11-20-2003 @ 02:16:21 AM]
|
|
| #16 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:18:39 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#13, the logic YOU are using says that you would be safer in a vehicle that gets damaged less in a crash...well, then you could also say that a person in a tank could crash into something immovable and not get a scratch from it just because it's a tank
|
|
| #18 |
11-20-2003 @ 02:19:53 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
the more energy of the crash is taken by the car, the less likely is the driver to be injured...thats it
|
Showing page: 1 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
