|
|
|
|
|
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: 4 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
 |
| #61 |
11-20-2003 @ 05:32:51 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#29, i couldn't make much sense from your comment, but im going to go ahead and guess that you like newers cars more in terms of safety?
|
|
| #62 |
11-20-2003 @ 05:47:02 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#61, Reading comprehension?
Yes, I was basically stating that today's cars come off worse in crashes because their crush zones are designed to dissipate impacts, thus reducing the likelihood of injury to driver and passengers in most scenarios.
|
|
| #64 |
11-20-2003 @ 09:58:47 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Bluntly: Crumple zones suck.
Look at any photograph of a 30 mph crash in a new car. The firewall will be twisted, the roof will be kinked, and the doors will be off their hinges. Oh yeah, that's REAL safe for the occupants. In short, no matter how rigid the passengers compartment is, if there's nothing sturdy in front of that, it's like driving a VW bus with a hollow alluminum extension on the front. It's not going to do a whole lot but get crushed. On the other hand, I recently saw a video from the 1960s of a 30 mph crash test in a full-sized Chrysler sedan, and the car crumpled no further than the front of its wheelwells. Passenger compartment was totally intact.
As for anyone who's worried about getting thrown around in a rigid car body: If you're really that worried, try wearing your damn seatbelt.
|
|
| #65 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:01:20 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#64, "Passenger compartment was totally intact."
Except for the passengers, whose necks were snapped by the force of the impact. :-P
|
|
| #66 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:03:28 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#65, Helluva lot better than having your head crushed into the steering wheel and deflated airbag because you're driving a VW bus with some alluminum in front of it.
|
|
| #67 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:05:00 PM |
| Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#15, not me. give me something that isn't made out of aluminum foil
[Edited by Adambomb on 11-20-2003 @ 10:05:51 PM]
|
|
| #68 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:05:20 PM |
| Posted By : Biohazard |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#65, Im sorry, but that really is a dumb argument. Seriously, how often do you hear of that happening?
|
|
| #70 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:06:39 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I would rather be in a new car in a serious accident to, mainly because I wouldn't want to wreck an old car. Wounds heal themselves, but dents don't. :P
|
|
| #71 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:07:02 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#65, Because thin aluminum is exactly the same thing as a freaking engine block, front suspension cradle, and forward unibody which acts as a load-bearing member under normal circumstances.
|
|
| #72 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:08:03 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#71, In a car with crumple zones: Yep.
[Edited by Skid on 11-20-2003 @ 10:08:39 PM]
|
|
| #73 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:09:35 PM |
| Posted By : Jurrell |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#68, newton's law!
If a big old car doesn't crumple up and take most of the impact, somethings going to keep on moving(i.e. you!) and lap belts suck.
Go america!
|
|
| #74 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:10:09 PM |
| Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I had a teacher with a mid 70s Ford torino Elite that got rearended by a new buick (I'm guessing this was in the 90s) and the whole front of the buick was destroyed. probably the whole car itself while the only damage on the Elite was a bent licesence (SP) plate
|
|
| #75 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:10:51 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#68, I wasn't being literal. My point remains that, the less the car deforms, the shorter a distance its deceleration occurs across. This translates to the passengers getting thrown about a bit more. Sure, there reaches a point when intrusion into the passenger compartment becomes excessive, and some newer cars do suffer from that. But there is a balance that has to be struck between "this sonofagun doesn't even dent when I hit it" and "wow, I can cut the metal with scissors". And I think that, plus engineering inexpensive passive restraint technology, is what automakers have been encouraged to do over the past several years.
|
|
| #77 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:12:17 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#73, That's what shoulder belts are for. They've been manufactered since the 1940s (I saw a 1949 Mercury with them once, original equipment), and have been standard (for the front, at least) in every American car since the 1970s. Hell, the '72 Delta 88 had around here had them.
[Edited by Skid on 11-20-2003 @ 10:13:35 PM]
|
|
| #78 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:12:43 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#72, Yeah, right, because despite being able to act as a load bearing member, it's obviously paper thin and hollow; how could I have missed that?
Guess what; the front of my car is a crumple zone. In terms of frontal collision safety, it's the highest rated that model has ever been.
|
|
| #79 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:13:17 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#76, Who was going, what? 150? I don't think crumple zones would have helped him much.
|
|
| #80 |
11-20-2003 @ 10:14:23 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#77, Airbags, restraints (seatbelts included) and all that stuff--have you ever stopped to think what it does? The same loss of momentum must occur regardless, but the longer the period of time over which you can spread the loss of momentum (and thus lower the impulse), the better.
|
Showing page: 4 of 8
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
