Front engine safer than rear?
Discussion
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
Racing is a totally different story and has nothing to do with road cars.
Would you mind explaining the 1962 Caddy vs the 2002 Caddy, in a straight head on? Link posted a page back.
In the case of the old Caddy it seems obvious that the square head on format produced better results penetration wise than offset.However it seems obvious that the newer Caddy's ability to resist deformation and penetration of it's bulkhead area outweighed the ability of the older Caddy to crumple.Hence the older Caddy lost on energy transfer to occupants.Would you mind explaining the 1962 Caddy vs the 2002 Caddy, in a straight head on? Link posted a page back.
As for Bangers that isn't exactly racing it's more about destroying road cars by colliding them.Somehow I don't think there will be many people mixing it with these with a modern shopping trolley let alone a late model 911.But the option is there for anyone who'd want to try.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUOLfLQjsoU
As for the Caddy crash, which one do you think the driver has the biggest chance to survive in? The guy in red seems to have a sore head and some chest pains, most likely he died at the scene, while in the newer car you could probably walk away with lesser injuries.
As irritating as it is with new cars that seem to fall to pieces from a parking shunt, when it comes to a real crash you are far more likely to survive in a new car that crumples and absorbs the energy of the crash to protect you.
Pan Pan said:
I saw a huge Caterham crash at Castle Combe some years back, where the car tumbled end over end, heaven knows how many times before it finally hit an earth bank at speed. The driver got out and walked away from it.
That sort of crash is a damned slight easier to survive than going head-on into something solid because the energy is dissipated gradually. I don't think the fact that F1 drivers survive huge crashes has much to do with the weight of the vehicle. It's a combination of an exceptionally strong structure preventing intrusion, a full harness spreading the decelerating load across the chest in a very carefully controlled manner, and the helmet/HANS protecting the neck and head. The fact that drivers are extremely fit helps too, I doubt you or I could shrug off a 50G deceleration event.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 28th August 08:39
kambites said:
Pan Pan said:
Probably just a gut reaction to the question, but to use an analogy, if I was at a fort about to be attacked by the Indians, would I prefer to have a big heavy wall in front of me, or behind me?
A more accurate question would be whether you'd rather have a big wall in front of you AND one behind you, or two in front of you. Finlandia said:
kambites said:
Pan Pan said:
Probably just a gut reaction to the question, but to use an analogy, if I was at a fort about to be attacked by the Indians, would I prefer to have a big heavy wall in front of me, or behind me?
A more accurate question would be whether you'd rather have a big wall in front of you AND one behind you, or two in front of you. Pan Pan said:
Finlandia said:
kambites said:
Pan Pan said:
Probably just a gut reaction to the question, but to use an analogy, if I was at a fort about to be attacked by the Indians, would I prefer to have a big heavy wall in front of me, or behind me?
A more accurate question would be whether you'd rather have a big wall in front of you AND one behind you, or two in front of you. ZesPak said:
This is the Cayman that crashed a couple of years ago next to my door:
I know my cars, but I had to see the rear lid to know what porsche that was :S.
Not to frighten you or anything.
A mate of mine was a passenger in the front of a 911 that was involved in a serious crash. He had a burning wheel front wheel end up in his lap. He died 6 times and was revived, he spent over 3 years in a coma and is now paralysed from the waist down. What we don't know is would the outcome have been different of the engine is in the front?I know my cars, but I had to see the rear lid to know what porsche that was :S.
Not to frighten you or anything.
Fortunately, this hasn't diminished he love of cars, since the accident he has had a Gallardo, and a DB9 and is now talking about getting a Hurracan
Finlandia said:
Pan Pan said:
Finlandia said:
kambites said:
Pan Pan said:
Probably just a gut reaction to the question, but to use an analogy, if I was at a fort about to be attacked by the Indians, would I prefer to have a big heavy wall in front of me, or behind me?
A more accurate question would be whether you'd rather have a big wall in front of you AND one behind you, or two in front of you. blueg33 said:
ZesPak said:
This is the Cayman that crashed a couple of years ago next to my door:
I know my cars, but I had to see the rear lid to know what porsche that was :S.
Not to frighten you or anything.
A mate of mine was a passenger in the front of a 911 that was involved in a serious crash. He had a burning wheel front wheel end up in his lap. He died 6 times and was revived, he spent over 3 years in a coma and is now paralysed from the waist down. What we don't know is would the outcome have been different of the engine is in the front?I know my cars, but I had to see the rear lid to know what porsche that was :S.
Not to frighten you or anything.
Fortunately, this hasn't diminished he love of cars, since the accident he has had a Gallardo, and a DB9 and is now talking about getting a Hurracan
blueg33 said:
Pan Pan said:
Ax posted above in a `proper' crash it probably best to regard cars as being made from tin foil.
Yup. I say a Pug 306 once that had been in a motorway smash, it looked exactly like crumpled tin foilPan Pan said:
Finlandia said:
Pan Pan said:
Finlandia said:
kambites said:
Pan Pan said:
Probably just a gut reaction to the question, but to use an analogy, if I was at a fort about to be attacked by the Indians, would I prefer to have a big heavy wall in front of me, or behind me?
A more accurate question would be whether you'd rather have a big wall in front of you AND one behind you, or two in front of you. Pan Pan said:
Apologies Finlandia I should have answered your question, I guess the best position when having spears and arrows chucked at me would be with a nice heavy wall in front of me, and between me and said indians, spears and arrows
I was more on about the option of deliberately steering towards the other part of a collision to make it a head on instead of trying to avoid the collision and perhaps hitting the other part offset Finlandia said:
Pan Pan said:
Apologies Finlandia I should have answered your question, I guess the best position when having spears and arrows chucked at me would be with a nice heavy wall in front of me, and between me and said indians, spears and arrows
I was more on about the option of deliberately steering towards the other part of a collision to make it a head on instead of trying to avoid the collision and perhaps hitting the other part offset impact be more severe at the impact site on the vehicle, than a direct head on, because the forces involved are being concentrated into a much smaller area?
Pan Pan said:
I guess you mean a bit like the Titanic and the Iceberg, I am only guessing but would a corner to corner
impact be more severe at the impact site on the vehicle, than a direct head on, because the forces involved are being concentrated into a much smaller area?
Yes, and that is why we need to crash head to head with everyone Makes you wonder why modern cars are made so safe, when we can steer right at the object in the case of a crash.impact be more severe at the impact site on the vehicle, than a direct head on, because the forces involved are being concentrated into a much smaller area?
Mave said:
XJ Flyer said:
The important point being that those arguable higher G's are survivable.While those supposedly 'low energy collisions' aren't as low energy as they might seem.
Well 2 cars head on at 50mph have 8 times the energy of one car at 25mph hitting a near stationary car so no, I don't think those banger crashes are particularly high energy. Put 2 of those bangers together head to head at 50mph and those g levels which are survivable on the track quickly become unsurvivable at road speedsXJ Flyer said:
Mave said:
XJ Flyer said:
The important point being that those arguable higher G's are survivable.While those supposedly 'low energy collisions' aren't as low energy as they might seem.
Well 2 cars head on at 50mph have 8 times the energy of one car at 25mph hitting a near stationary car so no, I don't think those banger crashes are particularly high energy. Put 2 of those bangers together head to head at 50mph and those g levels which are survivable on the track quickly become unsurvivable at road speedsMave said:
XJ Flyer said:
Mave said:
XJ Flyer said:
The important point being that those arguable higher G's are survivable.While those supposedly 'low energy collisions' aren't as low energy as they might seem.
Well 2 cars head on at 50mph have 8 times the energy of one car at 25mph hitting a near stationary car so no, I don't think those banger crashes are particularly high energy. Put 2 of those bangers together head to head at 50mph and those g levels which are survivable on the track quickly become unsurvivable at road speedsIn general the reasons as to why no one would want to mix a modern transverse engined car in a banger race against something like an old Westminster would arguably be no different in the case of a head on impact on the road.IE ( the right type of ) old tank could probably create that balance better in most cases than the modern shoe box.Which then leaves the question of something like a 911.
All that notwithstanding certain exception which prove the rule.Such as in the case of the examples of offset head on collisions,involving the longitudinal front engine layout v transverse layout and/or tests involving seperate chassis and unstressed body construction v monocoque.
Mave said:
So is that a yes or a no? :-)
I'll go with close enough to be able to make a comparison.In this case it is at least a reasonable assumption that I think I'd prefer to be sitting in the Westminster ( or the XJ ) in the event of meeting a 911 in a head on collision possibly including up to that 100 mph combined speed.As for something with a transverse front engine the answer is not going to be so easy but I still think my money would be on the tank in general in that regard.Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:50
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:56
XJ Flyer said:
I'll go with close enough to be able to make a comparison.In this case it is at least a reasonable assumption that I think I'd prefer to be sitting in the Westminster ( or the XJ ) in the event of meeting a 911 in a head on collision possibly including up to that 100 mph combined speed.As for something with a transverse front engine the answer is not going to be so easy but I still think my money would be on the tank in general in that regard.
See, in that situation you'd be worst off in the Westminster. Stop thinking of it as a competitive with the other car where you need to "defeat" it, and think of it as s competition with energy. Once your Westminster has "defeated" the crumple zone of the other car, it's your body that is taking the brunt. If you had a crumple zone as well, there would be less energy left over for your body to take...Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:50
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:56
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff