Eek! Smart Car crash video...amazing!
Discussion
neil_cardiff said:Remarkably intact considering the impact speed.
Shamelessly ripped from the heroes at B3ta.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660573076707
Not that an occupants of the car would be able to appreciate it, with an impact like like their brains would quite likely have come out of their nose. The relative lack of crumple zone means the energy has to be dissipated in a very short space of time, so internal injuries to the passengers are likely to be higher despite the post-crash integrity of the bodyshell.
Still, it shows how well the little Smart would cope with a lesser impact. What's always worried me though is the proximity of the seats to the rear of the car. I'd like to see a crash test with an HGV slamming into the back of a stationary Smart.
Towards the end of January this year, I was unfortunate enough to witness an accident involving a smart at VERY close range.
To cut a long story short, the car two in front of me lost control on icy roads, spun and rolled into trees by the side of the road. Everyone came to a halt, three guys poured out of an oncoming lorry and immediately attended to the rolled car while some people, myself included walked up the side of the road to flag down traffic coming in.
This was a hilly, twisty NSL road with a crap road surface at the best of times, iced up.
The smart hit the car at the end of the queue, I was by the drivers door of the car (turning to dive away) while he barrelled into the back of it. I'd guess he was doing in excess of 40 at the time of impact. He braked hard, but didnt have much space to do it in, on ice.
The driver and the passenger got out after a minute or so, the smart looked miraculously intact considering the accident I'd just seen, far better than the back of the Astra. Bits of the smart were scattered upto about 20 metres from the impact - the big bits I could see, smaller btis were probably further.
To cut a long story short, the car two in front of me lost control on icy roads, spun and rolled into trees by the side of the road. Everyone came to a halt, three guys poured out of an oncoming lorry and immediately attended to the rolled car while some people, myself included walked up the side of the road to flag down traffic coming in.
This was a hilly, twisty NSL road with a crap road surface at the best of times, iced up.
The smart hit the car at the end of the queue, I was by the drivers door of the car (turning to dive away) while he barrelled into the back of it. I'd guess he was doing in excess of 40 at the time of impact. He braked hard, but didnt have much space to do it in, on ice.
The driver and the passenger got out after a minute or so, the smart looked miraculously intact considering the accident I'd just seen, far better than the back of the Astra. Bits of the smart were scattered upto about 20 metres from the impact - the big bits I could see, smaller btis were probably further.
victormeldrew said:
Shamelessly ripped from the heroes at B3ta.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660573076707
Not that an occupants of the car would be able to appreciate it, with an impact like like their brains would quite likely have come out of their nose. The relative lack of crumple zone means the energy has to be dissipated in a very short space of time, so internal injuries to the passengers are likely to be higher despite the post-crash integrity of the bodyshell.
Still, it shows how well the little Smart would cope with a lesser impact. What's always worried me though is the proximity of the seats to the rear of the car. I'd like to see a crash test with an HGV slamming into the back of a stationary Smart.
Never understood that arguement about decelleration. F1 drivers decellerate at many many g's and are ok.
Isn't it the duration that matters. Ie, it's like g's per second over a certain threshold that is bad. 10G over 10 seconds could black you out and comatise you maybe, wheras 100g over 1/10th of a second can be quite survivable.
Not gonna try it like, but I bet in a Smart you'd be ok at 50mph into a solid concrete wall. Might hurt or brake bones, or knock you out, but I can't see you dying because of it. Whiplash would be a bugger too!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Shamelessly ripped from the heroes at B3ta.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=660573076707
Not that an occupants of the car would be able to appreciate it, with an impact like like their brains would quite likely have come out of their nose. The relative lack of crumple zone means the energy has to be dissipated in a very short space of time, so internal injuries to the passengers are likely to be higher despite the post-crash integrity of the bodyshell.
Still, it shows how well the little Smart would cope with a lesser impact. What's always worried me though is the proximity of the seats to the rear of the car. I'd like to see a crash test with an HGV slamming into the back of a stationary Smart.
Never understood that arguement about decelleration. F1 drivers decellerate at many many g's and are ok.
Isn't it the duration that matters. Ie, it's like g's per second over a certain threshold that is bad. 10G over 10 seconds could black you out and comatise you maybe, wheras 100g over 1/10th of a second can be quite survivable.
Not gonna try it like, but I bet in a Smart you'd be ok at 50mph into a solid concrete wall. Might hurt or brake bones, or knock you out, but I can't see you dying because of it. Whiplash would be a bugger too!
Dave
100g over 1/10th of a second would likely leave you looking remarkably like strawberry jam. Your weight magically jumps to 100 times its current level? Splat.
Mr Whippy said:
Never understood that arguement about decelleration.
Clearly!
Mr Whippy said:
F1 drivers decellerate at many many g's and are ok.
Isn't it the duration that matters. Ie, it's like g's per second over a certain threshold that is bad. 10G over 10
seconds could black you out and comatise you maybe,
This is because your heart can't provide enough force to move the blood around your body under high G and so it "pools", leading to oxygen starvation, unconciousness and eventually death.
Mr Whippy said:
wheras 100g over 1/10th of a second can be quite survivable.
Utter bollox. You'd be deader than M. Dead of Deadsville's pet Dodo.
If your theory is correct, the test would be to jump from the top of the nearest tall building and see how alive you are when you hit the pavement.
victormeldrew said:
What's always worried me though is the proximity of the seats to the rear of the car. I'd like to see a crash test with an HGV slamming into the back of a stationary Smart.
Well, side on, the Smart's frame is triangular - so any impact at the back would dissipate through the frame as it would for a frontal. You've also got the engine block which might take a bit of the brunt. Also, the back of the smart seats are made of steel - not sure how thick it is, but it's pretty sturdy...hence it's not advised to change the seats in a smart, as they form part of the safety!
I reckon it would probably be comparable to a frontal impact, or a game of billiards...
Rob.
With regards to high G loading -
David Purley, was in the Guinness book for the highest surviveable G shock.
Crashed his race car (Brands Hatch?) - from 150+mph to a dead stop in 11".
I seem to recall it was 174G shock loading....
He survived (albeit with massive injury, but made a full recovery)
I'll be off now
Chris
David Purley, was in the Guinness book for the highest surviveable G shock.
Crashed his race car (Brands Hatch?) - from 150+mph to a dead stop in 11".
I seem to recall it was 174G shock loading....
He survived (albeit with massive injury, but made a full recovery)
I'll be off now Chris
chris.mapey said:
With regards to high G loading -
David Purley, was in the Guinness book for the highest surviveable G shock.
Crashed his race car (Brands Hatch?) - from 150+mph to a dead stop in 11".
I seem to recall it was 174G shock loading....
He survived (albeit with massive injury, but made a full recovery)
Chris
Thanks for that Chris.
I knew I'd seen people surviving silly G loadings.
It IS all about the G and the duration. Afterall, flicking your nail against a steel surface must be something silly like 1000g decelleration of your nail in that point of impact, but it doesn't smash your nail off.
It's quite easy to obtain huge decelleration numbers between two ball bearings moving at maybe 0.1m/s...
Guess it's how of you is allowed to carry on while the rest of you decellerates that is the problem. Hence why helmet straps, tight seats, and 4 point harnesses are key to being ok in F1 crashes!
Dave
Dave
falcemob said:
Wouldn't an impact like that break your neck and kill you? I thought this sort of impact is why the HANS device is now being used more and more in motor racing.
your head going forward isn't the problem, its the side impact as your neck is unable to cope with that motion and it snaps top of your spine.
scorp said:
Ive seen people testing tolerances to G's using missiles on tracks (on some discovery channel). The guy ended up with 2 pure red eyes afterwards.. ouch!
There is also a big difference in the way the body deals with horizontal and vertical G.
a bit like an egg if you crush it in one direction it can take a lot of force and in the other direction it crushes easily. the body is the same i think somthing like 10g vertically even for a small time will kill crushing the spinal cord. horizontaly over 100g has frequently been survived in motorsport
as well as bloodshot eyes, people also bruise the inside of their eyelids when their eyes hit them !!!!tinman0 said:
Wouldn't an impact like that break your neck and kill you? I thought this sort of impact is why the HANS device is now being used more and more in motor racing.
your head going forward isn't the problem, its the side impact as your neck is unable to cope with that motion and it snaps top of your spine.
Your head going forward IS a problem. The head is thrown forward and suddenly downwards. The chin will break the breastplate and in very high G incidents, the spinal cord will snap, as it is stretched beyond its elastic limit. I have witnessed both of these examples happen in different racing environments.
For the above reasons I have bought a HANS device for use in 2006 and onwards.
Mika Hakkinen's frontal impact at Adelaide made his harnesses stretch so much that he headbutted the wheel - that is what caused his almost fatal injuries.
The extremely high G impacts that are survivable are generally the rear impacts, such as Nigel Mansell hitting the wall at Phoenix in 1993/4 going from 170mph-0 in about 1 second. There is more support to prevent body parts from moving in nasty ways.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff