PDA

View Full Version : Re: Is Bigger Better?


Cory Dunkle
July 13th 03, 09:20 PM
"Harry K" > wrote in message
om...
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
>...
> quote:
> > Geo wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH
> > head on collision (100MPH combined impact speed)
> unquote.
>
> The force of impact on each vehicle of equal mass, both moving 50 mph,
> is 50mph, not 100mph. With two vehicles of disimilar mass the one
> with less mass will experience something more than 50mph, the other
> something less but nowhere near 100mph until the mass discrepancy
> approaches infinity, e.g., a Metro against a loaded semi.

Would not a Geo Metro heading East at 50 MPH and a Geo Metro heading West at
50 MPH which collide head-on have the same effective impact speed and force
as a Geo Metro headed north which hits a concrete barrier at 100 MPH?

Oh, nevermind... I just figured it out. I feel stupid. :) The decelleration
from the 100 MPH Geo would be much greater than that either 50 MPH Geos
experienced. Esseentially it's as if in the first scenario both Geos hit a
concrete barrier.

In any case, when I wrote that I was thinking of a Geo Metro colliding head
on with a Suburban/H2 or Excursion at 50 MPH. Either way you're right
though.

Cory Dunkle
July 13th 03, 09:26 PM
"Ian St. John" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ian St. John" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Paul" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Don Quijote" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Larger vehicles, the argument goes, may guzzle more gas but they
> > offer
> > > > > > more protection, whether one hits a tree or another car. The
> > argument
> > > > > > has been a central one when efforts emerge in Congress to raise
> fuel
> > > > > > economy standards.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two ton mom mobiles are safer, eh. Tell that to the dead girl.
> > > > > See the following.
> > > > >
> > http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/met_12884481.shtml
> > > >
> > > > Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and
> 80s
> > > > were station wagons, which weighed at least two tons, except maybe
the
> > > > compact station wagons like the falcon which probably weight a few
> > hundred
> > > > pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight
in
> > the
> > > > neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs,
> > > because
> > > > cars used to be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days
> that
> > > > still are two tons or more.
> > >
> > > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever
design )
> > are
> > > dead and the roads are safe. Remember that SUVs kill more in two car
> > > collisions and yet are not safer for their drivers or passengers
because
> > of
> > > roll instability and vision blockage. This has nothing to do with
> history
> > or
> > > what went before. It has to do with creating an unnecessary threat to
> > life,
> > > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler. It is just ANOTHER bad design.
> >
> > In that case _every_ vehicle on the road is "an unnecessary threat to
> life,
> > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler". In times of old people used to live
> > close to work, and for those that lived fartehr from work they rode a
> horse.
> > Cars are _not_ needed at all to survive. Any time a human moves faster
> than
> > he was designed to (i.e. faster than he can run) he risks his life, as
the
> > human body wasn't made to take the impact of such high speeds. Anything
> that
> > uses more gas than a horse is wasteful.
>
> It is indeed all relative. Check the safety rating of cars before 'Unsafe
at
> any speed". The citizens of 1905 were horrified at the breakneck speed and
> dangerous recklessness of these new 'horseless buggies'. We have improved
> the safety and regulation to a point where it is acceptable. But like the
> Chevy Corsair and it's dangerous handling, there are issues where we say
> 'not good enough' which is what is being applied to SUVs.

There is nothing inherantly dangerous about the way a SUV handles. Just as
there is nothing inherantly dangerous about teh way a Chevy Corsair handles.
The driver must simply know how his vehicle handles and waht it is capable
with and drive accordingly.

> > The only reason people die in car accidents is because the accidents
> > occurred in the first place. Attack the problem at it's root, unsafe
> drivers
> > and unsafe laws. The type of vehicle someone drives is irrelevant.
>
> Unless you are going to 'perfect' humans you are talking through your
anus.
> Is this some sort of bioengineering proposal? Otherwise we just have to
> minimise the danger by improving the instrument. **** happens and you will
> not get a better breed of human to cut down on the danger. That is really
> far out and weird logic even for you.

I'm not talking about a better breed of human, or even a smarter human. I'm
simply talking about engineering our roads, traffic signal, traffic control
devices, and traffic laws entirely for safety and expedious travel. Do that
and you drop traffic accidents by a huge amount simply from making the roads
safe. Now make stiffer requirements for written and road tests and throw in
good, logical enforcement and you've greatly reduced the amount of bad
drivers getting on the roads as well as the number of accidents due to
unsafe roads.

Harry K
July 14th 03, 02:58 AM
"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message >...
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Cory Dunkle" > wrote in message
> >...
> > quote:
> > > Geo wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH
> > > head on collision (100MPH combined impact speed)
> > unquote.
> >
> > The force of impact on each vehicle of equal mass, both moving 50 mph,
> > is 50mph, not 100mph. With two vehicles of disimilar mass the one
> > with less mass will experience something more than 50mph, the other
> > something less but nowhere near 100mph until the mass discrepancy
> > approaches infinity, e.g., a Metro against a loaded semi.
>
> Would not a Geo Metro heading East at 50 MPH and a Geo Metro heading West at
> 50 MPH which collide head-on have the same effective impact speed and force
> as a Geo Metro headed north which hits a concrete barrier at 100 MPH?
>
> Oh, nevermind... I just figured it out. I feel stupid. :) The decelleration
> from the 100 MPH Geo would be much greater than that either 50 MPH Geos
> experienced. Esseentially it's as if in the first scenario both Geos hit a
> concrete barrier.
>
> In any case, when I wrote that I was thinking of a Geo Metro colliding head
> on with a Suburban/H2 or Excursion at 50 MPH. Either way you're right
> though.

Yeah, the 100mph misconception is common. Just picturing what is
happening clears it up tho. Question, from what speed does each
decelerate? Ansewer 50mph. When phrased that way, even the hardcore
holdouts seem to get it.

Harry K

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home