Front engine safer than rear?

Front engine safer than rear?

Author
Discussion

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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.

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
Notice in the banger racing how none of the shunts are head on at road speeds, also the cars have been prepared and the drivers wear safety gear, none of this is true for road cars and road use.

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.

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe
Not to forget, would you intentionally go head on with the Indians or would you try to avoid them? wink

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe
Not to forget, would you intentionally go head on with the Indians or would you try to avoid them? wink
If they were chucking spears, and firing arrows at me, I think I would prefer it if the wall was in front of me, rather than behind me!smile

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe
Not to forget, would you intentionally go head on with the Indians or would you try to avoid them? wink
If they were chucking spears, and firing arrows at me, I think I would prefer it if the wall was in front of me, rather than behind me!smile
Yes, yes, but would you intentionally position yourself so that you get directly hit by the arrows and spears? wink

blueg33

35,577 posts

223 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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?

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 smile

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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. hehe
Not to forget, would you intentionally go head on with the Indians or would you try to avoid them? wink
If they were chucking spears, and firing arrows at me, I think I would prefer it if the wall was in front of me, rather than behind me!smile
Yes, yes, but would you intentionally position yourself so that you get directly hit by the arrows and spears? wink
Ever wonder why, in a conflict, people prefer to have a big bloke standing in front of them!smile

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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?

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 smile
Ax posted above in a `proper' crash it probably best to regard cars as being made from tin foil.

blueg33

35,577 posts

223 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 foil

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 foil
My Dad had a little Citroen hatchback, which seemed to be mainly made of plastic, I dreaded to think about the results of having a `proper' accident in one those.

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
Pan 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. hehe
Not to forget, would you intentionally go head on with the Indians or would you try to avoid them? wink
If they were chucking spears, and firing arrows at me, I think I would prefer it if the wall was in front of me, rather than behind me!smile
Yes, yes, but would you intentionally position yourself so that you get directly hit by the arrows and spears? wink
Ever wonder why, in a conflict, people prefer to have a big bloke standing in front of them!smile
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 arrowssmile

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 arrowssmile
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 smile

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

126 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 arrowssmile
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 smile
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?

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 smile Makes you wonder why modern cars are made so safe, when we can steer right at the object in the case of a crash.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 speeds
The fact is a head on collision at a combined speed of 100 mph is very unlikely to have a happy ending regardless.Having said that I'd guess that given a Westminster v a 911 in a head on at that speed the 911 would probably provide all the missing crumple ability to cushion the impact that the Westminster might arguably need.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
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 speeds
The fact is a head on collision at a combined speed of 100 mph is very unlikely to have a happy ending regardless.Having said that I'd guess that given a Westminster v a 911 in a head on at that speed the 911 would probably provide all the missing crumple ability to cushion the impact that the Westminster might arguably need.
So do you think those banger racing crashes have similar energies to high speed but survivable road crashes involving modern transverse front engined cars?

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Mave 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 speeds
The fact is a head on collision at a combined speed of 100 mph is very unlikely to have a happy ending regardless.Having said that I'd guess that given a Westminster v a 911 in a head on at that speed the 911 would probably provide all the missing crumple ability to cushion the impact that the Westminster might arguably need.
So do you think those banger racing crashes have similar energies to high speed but survivable road crashes involving modern transverse front engined cars?
As I've said it's all about getting the right balance between crumpling to cushion the impact and being able to resist penetration and intrusion,the two factors being contradictory to each other.While at the same time transferring more crumpling and intrusion on the opposing car.

In 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

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
So is that a yes or a no? :-)

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
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

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
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.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:50


Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 29th August 00:56
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...