fool crunch
Brett Dikeman
brett at cloud9.net
Mon Sep 29 22:35:26 PDT 2008
On Sep 30, 2008, at 12:23 AM, cobram at juno.com wrote:
> 6 month old rice burner, about a year ago, Brett. Actual
> experience, not some experiment or controlled simulation.
Right, I forgot that uncontrolled sample sizes of one are more
reliable than scientific process.
> Current crash tests are highly open to interpretation
What reputable people or organizations have questioned crash testing
methodology? Society has been crash-testing vehicles for more than
half a decade, and it's not even remotely disputed that this has led
to a constant improvement in vehicle safety and crash survivability,
save when manufacturers specifically choose to build inferior vehicles
to boost profits (like when Ford used substandard steel in the A-
pillars of Ford Explorers.) There are at least three major crash-
testing organizations in the world- Euro-NCAP, DOT, and IIHS. Audi
and other manufacturers now conduct internal preliminary crash
simulations on supercomputer clusters to help with the design process.
> Regulations, tests and methodology have changed so much over the years
The basic tests have not changed much at all- only the data
collection, analysis, and rating criteria have become more
sophisticated. They still take a car and smash it into something
completely immovable or something designed to deform like another car,
and either full-on or offset. There has also been the introduction of
pole (Euro-NCAP) and side-impact (IIHS and DOT) tests.
Brett
More information about the quattro
mailing list