Front engine safer than rear?
Discussion
Sump said:
In the grand scheme of things, a car is as dangerous as you want it to be.
Please, enlighten us, friend of mine got into an accident when he was going 0kph (= 0mph imperial, did the conversion for you), he broke his ankle and arm. Tell me, how did he put himself into that kind of danger?ZesPak said:
Sump said:
In the grand scheme of things, a car is as dangerous as you want it to be.
Please, enlighten us, friend of mine got into an accident when he was going 0kph (= 0mph imperial, did the conversion for you), he broke his ankle and arm. Tell me, how did he put himself into that kind of danger?
ZesPak said:
Sump said:
His parents decided to keep him
Why the , my point was that yes, you can drive a s
tbox or a bike, but if the inevitable goes wrong (it doesn't have to be your fault), safety does matter.The old "you make it as safe as you want" therefore is utter tripe.
Sump said:
In the grand scheme of things, a car is as dangerous as you want it to be.
No it isn't.....It cannot be 100% safe. Nor can it be as dangerous a exploding a bomb in the cockpit of a 747 whilst over a densely populated city.
However is this really relevant to the OP's question as to whether front or rear is a better for crash protection?
Anyway in the "grand scheme of things" most things (particularly on PH) are totally irrelevant...
balls-out said:
No it isn't.....
It cannot be 100% safe. Nor can it be as dangerous a exploding a bomb in the cockpit of a 747 whilst over a densely populated city.
However is this really relevant to the OP's question as to whether front or rear is a better for crash protection?
Anyway in the "grand scheme of things" most things (particularly on PH) are totally irrelevant...
What about if I drove it, laden with hand grenades, into a 747 bomb making factory (whilst setting light to my shoes), that has been set up in the most densely populated city in the word, next to a set of flimsy tower blocks full of families? THAT is more dangerous than your exploding 747...It cannot be 100% safe. Nor can it be as dangerous a exploding a bomb in the cockpit of a 747 whilst over a densely populated city.
However is this really relevant to the OP's question as to whether front or rear is a better for crash protection?
Anyway in the "grand scheme of things" most things (particularly on PH) are totally irrelevant...
GraemeP said:
What about if I drove it, laden with hand grenades, into a 747 bomb making factory (whilst setting light to my shoes), that has been set up in the most densely populated city in the word, next to a set of flimsy tower blocks full of families? THAT is more dangerous than your exploding 747...
Yes good point - clearly I've not given this enough thought.BUT
Would you be more dangerous in a car with a front or rear engine - that's the key point.
Baryonyx said:
The original A Class was notoriously unstable though, wasn't it?
Yep, as hinted at in my original post. Sorted to some extent I believe - much like the handling of early TT's which also liked going off the road backwards even though the engine was in the front.hoegaardenruls said:
Wasn't the original Merc A-class designed so that the engine went under the passenger compartment in a frontal collision? Still, that assumes it didn't see an elk and topple over..
As somebody alluded to before, I would think most mid/rear engined cars have a lower bonnet line than the equivalent front engined car. This would probably negate any advantage from the bigger crumple zone, especially against a 4x4. I certainly wouldnt want a head on with a Chelsea tractor in my MR2. Even at relatively low speed I would probably end up with its bumper in my lap 
JoeMk1 said:
As somebody alluded to before, I would think most mid/rear engined cars have a lower bonnet line than the equivalent front engined car. This would probably negate any advantage from the bigger crumple zone, especially against a 4x4. I certainly wouldnt want a head on with a Chelsea tractor in my MR2. Even at relatively low speed I would probably end up with its bumper in my lap
Oh I don't know, that gives you a deceleration zone the entire length of the car you hit: 
kambites said:
Max_Torque said:
The limiting factor in most frontal impacts these days is the wheel/tyre assy. (massive stiff wheel, that gets forced backwards into the footwells........)
Surely it can't be hard to design a system which deflects the wheels out beyond the sills in an impact? In actual fact, it is surprisingly difficult to control the path of the wheel/tyre in an accident, because it tends to get "trapped" in the wheel arch area and is held there by the (very stiff) suspension links etc. If you look under the plastic wheel arch liner of any modern car, you will see a massive pressed high strength steel stiffener / impact absorber fitted to attempt to catch the wheel/tyre and direct the loading out across the bulkhead, and not directly into the footwell:
kambites said:
Oh I don't know, that gives you a deceleration zone the entire length of the car you hit:
I suppose its in the lap of the gods really, whether you'd fare better in a 'conventional' collision where your legs are at risk, or one like that where your face/torso is in the firing line...JoeMk1 said:
I suppose its in the lap of the gods really, whether you'd fare better in a 'conventional' collision where your legs are at risk, or one like that where your face/torso is in the firing line...
I think if you submarine under another car, you're generally fine with that tub. The problem comes if you hit something that wont move upwards, like a motorway central reservation. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff