|
|
|
|
|
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: 7 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
 |
| #121 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:39:04 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#117, Yeah, because adding crumple zones will magically turn all stock cars into open-wheel racers, where cockpit intrusion is exactly 2" away at any given time...
|
|
| #122 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:39:59 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
No, I am right!!
Go altima and your crumplezone goodness!
|
|
| #123 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:40:25 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#116, It's called "humor". I'm trying to keep things light here.
And at what point did I use a straw man?
|
|
| #124 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:40:38 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#120, "Each part that breaks off or deforms absorbs crash energy that isn't transferred to the vehicle's occupants" BINGBINGBINGBINGBING!! This is exactly why those multiple-rollover insane NASCAR crashes have fewer fatalities than the ones that end with less drama.
|
|
| #126 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:43:46 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#121, *cough* Exaggeration *cough*
Here's what I end it with: I don't trust any safety feature that involves anything deliberately collapsing. And in a low-speed crash, I'd much rather take a few hits myself than have my car totaled.
|
|
| #127 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:44:28 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#124, Exhibit A
Ricky Craven catches the fence at Talledega, barrel rolls, falls 3 stores to the apron of the track, reduces car to nothing but a pile of tubular steel, walks away
Dale Earnhard hits wall, bends hood, dies
|
|
| #128 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:46:03 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#123, You've set up a chain of "facts" that presupposes that all modern car designs suffer from extensive passenger-compartment intrusion (which is exactly the opposite of what they're really trying to do--they're trying to destroy as much of the car as possible WITHOUT getting into the passenger compartment), but that's beside the point.
You used running into a brick wall with a metal and cardboard box as an object lesson (or at least I think you suggested that), but that's not really representative of the matter either. Yet I nonetheless pointed out that, with the steel box in front, the force of the collision would, almost by definition, be equal to that of running straight into the wall outright, whereas the deformation of the cardboard would actually "waste" some energy that a purely elastic collision would not.
|
|
| #129 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:46:07 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
It's math time!
Volvo is the safest car on the road
Volvo has Crumple zones
Thus, Crumple zones = safest type of car on the road.
<winnar>
|
|
| #130 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:46:19 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#127, Most drivers who hit a wall and bend their hood don't die. Particularly when they wear their neck braces, unlike Earnhardt.
|
|
| #131 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:47:14 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#126, The idea is that things are supposed to collapse DOWN TO A RIGID CELL IN THE MIDDLE beyond which no further deformation is desirable. That is the engineering challenge. Period.
|
|
| #132 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:47:17 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
There really isnt a point of continuing this argument. No more posting on this thread for me :P
|
|
| #133 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:48:42 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#130, Okay, go drive a stock car straight into a wall at 100+ miles per hour; even with a neck brace you are still likely to rupture some organs.
|
|
| #135 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:49:45 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#132, I've had enough fun with this, too. I can only revisit Physics I so many times before I get bored.
|
|
| #136 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:50:16 PM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#128, That was me.
Oops, I swear this ones my last...
[Edited by MxCx on 11-20-2003 @ 10:50:59 PM]
|
|
| #137 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:52:16 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#128, You've set up a chain of "facts" that presupposes that all modern car designs suffer from extensive passenger-compartment intrusion
That statement, in and of itself, could be considered a straw man. I have never once called anything I'm saying fact. If I have, correct me and I'll eat crow. What I'm saying is opinion, based entirely off of anecdotal evidence. I don't use anecdotal evidence in a serious debate, but then again, this isn't a serious debate. Or at least it isn't supposed to be.
You used running into a brick wall with a metal and cardboard box as an object lesson (or at least I think you suggested that),
That was MxCx. I just went along with it.
|
|
| #138 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:53:52 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#131, You really like saying "Period" don't you? You've used it in every discussion we've ever been in.
|
|
| #139 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:53:59 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#137, "That was MxCx. I just went along with it."
Oh, OK. Lost track.
|
|
| #140 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:54:31 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#133, Drive ANY car into a wall, crumple zones or not, at 100 mph.
|
Showing page: 7 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
