RE: Time for tea? Why crumple zones are important
Monday 28th November 2011
Okay, so we're dressing up today's boiling caffeine solution-related timewaster in a smock of scientific respectability, but it really is interesting - and horrifying to - to see just how much difference an absence of passive safety systems makes.
Time for tea? Why crumple zones are important
1962 Cadillac meets 2002 Cadillac Deville head on
What we have for you (courtesy of Speed TV's 'Stuntbusters' programme) is a 2002 Cadillac Deville being flung head-on at a 1962 Cadillac Sedan de Ville, each car travelling at 50mph. Okay, so it's hardly the Volvo Cars Safety Centre in terms of scientific thoroughness, but it's still a sobering video.
And possibly a grown-up version of creating 'crashed' versions of your Corgi models with the artful use of a hammer...
Discussion
sparkster8 said:
Yep, driving old cars is definitely bad for your health!
Thing is I would rather drive the old car (assuming both in fair condition)..... just not into anything. Mind you if it was repeated with an original Mini it wouldn't be much fun either.
Problem is you would'nt hit someone in another Mini, which 'may' give you a chance, you would be hit by a Q7 on the School run.Thing is I would rather drive the old car (assuming both in fair condition)..... just not into anything. Mind you if it was repeated with an original Mini it wouldn't be much fun either.
50 mph was too fast. Most cars would receive severe damage at that speed, especially in what was a partially offset frontal impact. Plus, a 2002 is still a rather old car.
This has been done recently in more controlled conditions by the US insurance industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
This has been done recently in more controlled conditions by the US insurance industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
[quote=gck303]50 mph was too fast. Most cars would receive severe damage at that speed, especially in what was a partially offset frontal impact. Plus, a 2002 is still a rather old car.
This has been done recently in more controlled conditions by the US insurance industry.
That is a very interesting clip, even if that '57 was lacking an engine which looked a distinct possibility.... as we all know though you do drive older cars differently in light of things like this. Even getting into a relatively late car like a Sierra makes you realise how far things have come as they feel small & fragile nowadays in comparison with new stuff. Older cars for me are mostly more interesting but you cannot deny how far things have come.
This has been done recently in more controlled conditions by the US insurance industry.
That is a very interesting clip, even if that '57 was lacking an engine which looked a distinct possibility.... as we all know though you do drive older cars differently in light of things like this. Even getting into a relatively late car like a Sierra makes you realise how far things have come as they feel small & fragile nowadays in comparison with new stuff. Older cars for me are mostly more interesting but you cannot deny how far things have come.
This has got me thinking (no mean feat) - if I was to say that while I love old cars with big engines and a lack of grip for myself I would not really want my missus driving something like that so as much as I don't have much love her car I do appreciate the airbags etc etc.
Mind you she doesn't derive the same pleasure from going round a bend sideways that I do....
Mind you she doesn't derive the same pleasure from going round a bend sideways that I do....
Smashing a 50 year old car up for entertainment? That pisses me off. Especially when it's to demonstrate something we already knew. Old car not as safe as new car. HOLY s
t STOP THE PRESSES WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN EXCEPT EVERYBODY???
... and yes, I'd rather own the old car and I'd happy drive it fully aware of the safety issues.
t STOP THE PRESSES WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN EXCEPT EVERYBODY???... and yes, I'd rather own the old car and I'd happy drive it fully aware of the safety issues.
Looks like the director was so obsessed with all the usual formulaic jump cuts and other modern editing rubbish, he/she forgot to show us the interior of the '62, especially the footwells, though I can guess it was not too good in there. There was a certain amount of external corrosion on the '62, so who knows what internal weaknesses there were, not that I'm going to pretend for an instant that modern cars aren't a thousand times better in terms of passenger cell strength. Having said that, A-pillars are starting to get so thick now that I now tend to move my head about a bit when negotiating tight corners, junctions and roundabouts - it's amazing how cyclists coming round a roundabout can 'loiter' in the A-pillar blind spot during the final approach.
The Wookie said:
Have to say, I was quite impressed with how the old shed held up. If the seat hadn't sheared off and attempted to send itself along with its occupant into a ballistic trajectory it would have been a fairly unspectacular result
Actually, yes, I was expecting it to be much worse.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff