![]() |
|
![]() |
#31 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bundaberg
Posts: 604
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |||
Constant annoyance
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
|
Quote:
I've already explained it, it's mostly relevant in two car collisions (not when a car hits an immovable stationary object, though still relevant for movable stationary objects like a pole or brick wall). But mass has a huge effect on the resultant force on each of the bodies - less force means less impact through a reduced change of velocity. To put it in terms you can understand; the more your car weighs over the other object you collide with, the more gently your head will bash the dash. If you still don't get it that's fine, but don't give me rubbish about the cars ability to protect you...
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | ||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
|
Quote:
The force of any collision depends on many factors like weight, speed, angle of impact etc. How well you survive will depend on your cars ability to protect you from the force of the impact. To keep it simple for you, try this experiment, put a raw egg in a box and drop the box from say 1.0m. I'm hoping you don't actually need to do this to realise that the egg will break. Now try it with the box full of cotton wool and egg on top of the cotton wool. My kid did this at school years ago in year 4 or 5. Egg usually survived intact. For god sake if 9 year olds can get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream! Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
|
Sorry I got a little nasty there, had a bad day and I think safety is important.
You are right xy500, the bigger mass of your car may well mean it will survive the crash better than the hatchback, but we as humans are basically giant water bags getting thrown around inside these containers. If the mass difference is big enough (eg goods train versus car), then the bigger mass just continues and those inside feel little, but there generally isn't enough difference even between big and small cars to make the forces we experience inside irrelevant.
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream! Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |||
Constant annoyance
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
|
Quote:
My point was that there will be a significant difference in impact force between a one tonne hatchback and a 2 tonne plus luxury vehicle.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | ||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
|
Quote:
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream! Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |||
Constant annoyance
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
|
Quote:
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | ||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
|
Quote:
Just did a bit of research, and seems old fairlanes are about 1500-1600kg. A current model Ford Fiesta weighs 1075kg (even a Nissan Micra is 965kg), so at best you are probably going to hit something 2/3 the weight of your car. I really think you are WAY overestimating (not to mention misinterpreting) the benefits of a bigger car here. There have always been big and little cars, its the advent of modern safety features that have reduced the road toll as a percentage of vehicles on the road. I'm not going on about this to try and convince you xy500. We all have our own ideas and concepts that are hard to change, me included. I just don't want someone putting thier "P" plater kids in a big old car thinking they are somehow protecting them because its got a lot of mass.
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream! Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | ||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
A 30 year+ year old Fairlane has a great crumple zone.
It's called the passenger cell. Back to the OP, I think it's just another attempt by our leaders to keep us all scared by the warming threat. As long as we're living in fear of environmental amagedon it's not hard for our leaders to strip us of our rights and freedoms by telling us that it's for our own protection. We're all so stupid that we let them legislate our lives down to the lowest common denominator so we can all be "safe", because we're obviously to stupid to take responsibility for our own actions. Has nobody pointed out that you can have an older car in Japan, you just have to pay more for rego? |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | ||
71Mach1
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melb
Posts: 465
|
just ask any motorcycle rider if it protects them...
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi.../91/7/1076.pdf the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate...
__________________
roses are #FF0000 violets are #0000FF all my base are belong to you |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 436
|
I thought the video I posted earlier sums up the debate pretty well.
For those who care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecdOBCFjI |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | ||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
Got a '81 Fairlane in the drive and personally I love a big older car (I'd prefer a ZD to be honest) but I'm not sure how well a crumple zone's going to work if some peanut blows through a stop sign and t-bones me in the drivers door.
I think safety all comes down to the nut behind the wheel, but it's all relative depending on who your relatives are. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | ||
Constant annoyance
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
|
geez we can't stay on topic, too many people here seem to think old cars are the devil, along with benjamin franklin... and boobies.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
|
LOVE old cars, got two Datsun 260Z clunkers I hope to one day make into 1 decent ride, I'm just under no illusions as to their shortcomings compared to todays cars.
No way I'll be handing them over for $2000 either, but then I'm fortunate enough not to have to rely on them as daily drivers. As others have said the policy is a joke, but importantly it is not mandatory. There are a handful of people who will be moving from old bombs into new cars, but its only really only going to benefit people who have had a major change in their income (eg uni students after they get their first job). Stupid thing is, these people would probably upgrade their car anyway, the scheme is only really there to stop the car yards on selling the old cars to the used car market. Can't really believe that this incentive is going to make or break the decision to get a new car for many (if any). They would be better off implementing some sceme whereby those in society who can only afford an old bomb are at least helped to maintain it to a roadworthy standard, (maybe get TAFE students to work on them) or open the scheme up to allow the rebate for changing to a newer, cleaner car rather than a new one. Again, voluntarily so that it doesn't effect those of us paaionate about our old classics.
__________________
Reality is an illusion caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream! Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | ||
Steve
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sth East Qld
Posts: 1,284
|
Try not to hit anything and you'll be ok ...
__________________
Currently no Fords . 2005 Statesman International 5.7, Mazda 2 and a Hilux. Former Fords: 2010 Ford Escape 2007 BF11 GT, TE50 Series 1 ,AU V8 One Tonner ,EL Falcon Wagon, ED Fairmont , EB Falcon Series 1. Mk 2 Cortina Company Fords : 3 BA Falcons , EB 11 Falcon Wagon , Ford F350 351 V8. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
|
Quote:
How much do YOU weigh? Your ZJ will be quite happy with minimal damage MEANWHILE you will go flying into your dash/steering wheel or have huge stresses placed on small stripes of your body (old tech seatbelts) as there is no slow release or pretensioning mechanism or airbags to spread the energy of the crash across your whole body. You all also seem to have this fixation that every prang is your steel monster vs a 800kg plastic bubble car. Here is a bit of a newsflash. The majority of vehicles on the road weigh MORE than your ZJ and trees/walls/rocks/posts do not care how much you weigh. You are going the same speed as your car before the crash, you are also going the same speed at the car after the crash. It is made of stronger material than you. The car will be in better condition but your body will be in worse. You can always buy a new car.......... |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |||
Formerly D3v[]
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() imo id rather be in a crash in a classic because at least then il be doing it in style! ![]() but in all seriousness any car can be safe and reliable and good on emissions but its the people behind the wheel or the people looking after the vehicle that determine weather it will be safe/ reliable etc |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |||
Constant annoyance
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
|
Quote:
re-read this: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...t/91/7/1076.pdf the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate... And now tell us all again how mass difference has no effect! We're not talking about damage to cars AT ALL, we're talking about forces and impact on passengers. All vehicles will crumple, older or newer. Obviously newer cars crumple more effectively, but not in such a dramatic way that they make all old cars completely unsafe. The biggest factor is the speed of collision, go fast enough and you won't survive in any vehicle, hence the major issue is the driver not the age of the car. Coming from the biggest old car hater on the forum I'm not surprised. Flappist; it's pretty obvious from this thread there are more old car haters than turbo haters on the forum, what the heck is your point with this? Do the thread a favour and check what has already been said before you start another of your tirades against old cars. I tire of your demonising of old cars.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 18,985
|
we are bags of meat and water.........
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | |||
VFII SS UTE
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,353
|
Quote:
__________________
I don't often hear the sound of a screaming LSX. But when I do, So do the neighbours.. GO SOUTHS
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
|
Quote:
http://www.varietyqld.org.au/bash I personally saw what happens when they hit each other, hit trees, run off the road into a creek or down the side of a hill. The point is that I don't hate old cars (I had several of them new) but I also do not look at them with rose coloured glasses and see them for what they are. All the fantasy and wishing in the world will not make and old car safer, faster or more economical than a new one anymore than a Commodore 64 can be used as an iPhone. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | ||
Chairman & Administrator
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 1975
Posts: 107,058
|
I've split this thread from the cash for clunkers thread.
Please try and remain civil while discussing your opposing views or this one will end up closed. Cheers Russ
__________________
Observatio Facta Rotae
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
Flappist, I assure you they will never get it, I have been trying to dispel this myth that older, bigger and stronger cars are safer than newer cars with more advanced safety features for a long time. Well here is some food for thought for all those that believe stronger is better. It is not the force of the car hitting the other car that kills occupants, it is the force transmitted to the occupants that kills them. By having the car crumple it reduces the force on the occupants and therefore increases the chance of survival. Second thought for you all, I have peeled more dead bodies out of pre 1990's cars than any post 1990's cars. In the older cars we normally see the car and think that it does not look too bad, but the occupants are either dead or seriously injured. In new cars, the car is normally a write off and looks spectacular, and then we find the occupants sitting on the curb thanking their lucky "5 stars". By the way, that is not theory or opinion, that is experience at a lot of crashes. Personally I have nothing against old cars, quite the opposite actually as I want to find an old classic to do up. When I do and I drive it, I will certainly have it in the back of my mind that I am more likely to die in it in a crash, as well as more likely to be in a crash in the first place. That thought will probably cause me to be a bit more cautious with my driving and avoid the crash.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | ||
Where to next??
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
|
I think we can link as many youtube clips and try to explain it in as many different ways with as many different scenarios as possible. Some people are just set in their ways, as well as in their thinking.
Any older car is built solid, granted. I remember as a lad running on the roof and bonnet of dads XA. Never had a fear of denting that old tank. But that's what it was, a tank. There was minimal consideration to safety, so it was perceived that the stronger it was built the better. Newer cars are designed to crumple and give way. They are not 'weak' or 'inferior', rather a sacrificial item designed to decelerate your body in a somewhat orderly and metered manner. I would be an a newer car any day if I knew I was to have an accident. The forces at play on the body when you decelerate from 100-0 in a few metres / milliseconds are deadly. Anything that can soften the final blow is worth it. If it happens to be the car you are in then all the better for your body. I remember being shown an 'after accident' video in high school. Designed to scare the tripe out of us young kids who were all just starting to drive. I think it was an old falcon sedan? 60's-70's model perhaps. Anyway, the car slammed into tree with such force that some loose coins on the parcel tray became projectiles within the cabin. One embedding itself into the head of one of the passengers. All of which died instantly. When you abruptly stop in a collision, then you become the flying projectile. The less give in the steel around you, the faster you get catapulted. What was that saying? They don't build them like they used to? Well thank God for that! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | ||
Size it up
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
|
LMAO. I was going to suggest this thread this afternoon, but seriously, the title says it all.
The jacking of the last thread was more to do with big vs. small. If anybody really believes older is safer then new, well, Darwin's natural selection should take care of that way of thinking. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
I have watched the impact and the scenes of the passenger cells a number of times and some things need to be pointed out. Notice the door of the volvo, that passenger cell is now considerably shorter than it used to be as evidenced by the crumpling of the door skin and the kink in the roof behind the B pillar. That driver now has both of his femurs shattered as his knees got punched into the dash (you can see this as his knees are still inside the dash). The femur is capable of loosing up to 2L of blood into the tissues around it, break both and you may have 2/3 of your blood volume missing, a fatal injury. The renault door is intact and the roof line is not kinked showing there has been minimal shortening of the passenger cell. When you look at the foot well and dash there is almost no evidence of impact from the drivers knees. In the video of the crash you will notice the driver of the volvo moves forward a considerable amount even though they are restrained, resulting in an impact with the steering wheel. The renault does not do this as it is highly likely it is fitted with seat belt pre-tensioners, more effectively holding the occupant in the seat. Evidence of this can be seen in the interiors of both cars, the volvo has a deformed lower section of the steering wheel as a result of the driver hitting it with great force on their chest. This driver would without doubt have a collapsed lung or two and most likely a tension pneumothorax (a severe increase in pressure in the chest that leads to cardiac arrest in seconds). The driver of the volvo may also have suffered an aortic transection, which is a deceleration injury where the aorta rips off the top of the heart which always leads to death (yes always, no one has survived this injury to my knowledge or in any of the literature I have studied). This is all without considering you can bet that the liver, pancreas and spleen have all been damaged, leading to massive internal haemorrhage, there goes the remaining 2L of blood. The impact on the wheel would also have caused enough force on the neck and head to result in a significant neck injury. If you watch the driver of the volvo, the face hits the steering wheel top, result of that would be massive brain injuries as well as facial fractures that in themselves can give life threatening airway obstructions. The renault driver will have considerable bruising from the seat belt but because there was no impact with the steering wheel (no deformation of the wheel), they will be sore but alive. Extrication of the two drivers will be vastly different. The volvo will require a A and B pillar cut and roof peel with a dash roll, which all takes time (about 5 minutes with a good fire crew, try holding your breath for 5 minutes). This driver does not have time and would likely be in cardiac arrest as emergency crews arrive. Due to the time to remove the patient and delay to resuscitation, the chance of survival would be less than 1% (we could not apply any worthwhile resuscitation in the vehicle). The renault passenger would require no vehicle cutting to remove, we could slide them out with full spinal precautions just bending that door back. The renault drivers chance of survival is excellent, I highly doubt they would even get a hospital stay overnight, just a few hours observation in the ED. The end result of that crash would without doubt be a dead volvo driver and a renault driver with minor to moderate injuries. Trust me, I have a lot of training and real life experience in assessing vehicle damage and calculating what the likely occupant injury patterns are.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | |||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
Quote:
Very true, both old and new cars will crumple. The difference is older cars will continue the crumple into the passenger cell, shortening the passenger cell and injuring passengers as I discussed earlier. Newer cars are designed to crumple in front of the passenger cell to dissipate energy but maintain passenger cell structure to provide safety. Bringing unequal mass into the discussion is muddying the water and preventing effective discussion. If you really want to compare new with old in terms of safety and crash survivability, keep it to equivalent vehicles. I would suggest something like a XC falcon compared to a FG, which do you think you would have a greater chance of surviving a 80 km/h head on crash in? I know which one I would prefer to be in.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 56
|
I cannot believe what i am reading! Some of the opinions in here are so ridiculously ignorant. Yes, in collisions a vehicle of bigger mass experiences less change in momentum but the forces experienced by both vehicles IS IDENTICAL (Newtons 3rd Law). As seen in the Chevy impala crash test it's all about where the energy goes. In the new car its directed around the passenger cell and in the old it goes right through collapsing the pillar (I know which car I'd rather be in). In the crash test with the smart car v wall the drivers cell STAYED IN TACT and it would've been the G-forces that killed the person. I'm an automotive engineering student and if someone TRY say this to a lecturer they'd be kicked out of the course - yes, in LOW speed collisions new cars come of second best but this thread is unbelievable!
__________________
_______________________________________________ 1977 XC Fairmont Factory 351 - FOR SALE Sale thread here: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...77#post3722277 |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |||
Chasing a FORD project!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide
Posts: 5,114
|
I hope you all read and respect gecko's comments. As an ambo driver gecko has the most accurate point of view on this subject. Not only this but maybe if some of our younger users here on AFF read his posts above, they might live out their lives accident free on our roads...
__________________
Quote:
1996 BMW 740iL V8. TV, phone, leather, sunroof, satnav, all as standard. Now with 19" TSW Brooklands, 2 1/2" stainless steel exhaust, plus more coming soon. |
|||
![]() |