[s-cars] Teen cars

[Cory Pio]

Well here's somee testing for you. I feel asleep at the wheel on my  
half and a half commute to work. I was working in the union as a  
bricklayer right out of high school doing 50 hours a week while taking  
classes at night. So I ran a stop sign and flew into someones tree  
head on at 50. The footwell crumpled in alittle. I was able to climb  
out the window and walk away. The tree was about 5 feet in diameter.  
B5 audis are very safe.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have the time to expound on your post thoroughly, but offset  
> crash
> performance of older cars is very poor compared to newer cars.  
> Calling a c3
> audi or a 900 series Volvo good is a joke. If you pull video of older,
> supposedly safe cars doing the current euro ncap test, you'd be  
> shocked how
> poorly they perform. You're arguing a ridiculous point. Don't take it
> personally, it makes no difference what your credentials are.
>
> My point is that newer cars are much safer. There is no comparison  
> between a
> 10 or 30 yr old car vs current tech. It has everything to do with  
> energy
> absorbing structural design and designing the car to do well in more
> realistic crashes.
>
> You are absolutely wrong about structural integrity of older cars in  
> crash
> tests, especially offset collisions. Even a top rated car of its day  
> like a
> w126 s class is a poor performer today. The biggest issue is  
> preserving the
> passenger compartment, which old cars do not do.
>
> I'm not going to argue this point any further because you insist on  
> points
> that cannot be supported by current crash data and falling back on  
> your
> credentials in an attempt to bolster your argument is not helping  
> your case.
> This is a discussion, not a personal attack. If you insist on being a
> proponent of incorrect information, I'll keep on hammering this home.
>
> Taka
>
> On Dec 9, 2009 4:20 PM, "LL - NY" <larrycleung at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not trivializing things. I believe that empirical data from one  
> crash
> video (I'm not counting the '59 Impala with the current Malibu, that's
> taking things too far back) and calling that totally generalized  
> trend is
> going too far. There WERE some well crash designed vehicles from the  
> later
> 80's that could fare fairly well in terms of passenger compartment  
> integrity
> (as Paul points out, even early Benz's and many 50's 'Murican cars,  
> could do
> that, albeit w/o functioning crush zones) and by the mid-eighties  
> energy
> absorption was achieved externally by means of crush zones,  
> internally with
> frontal airbags appropriate collapsing internal structures designed  
> to lower
> the internal acceleration of the occupants.  Heck, in a frontal  
> collision, a
> 1989 C3 actually does very well, by means of airbags, seatbelt  
> tensioners,
> and overall structural design. The concept described by the lay  
> people of
> the media called "energy channeling" is kind of bull. That would  
> imply that
> the energy (and the reality here is we are looking at forces, not  
> energy) is
> not "channeled" to places unknown (in that Fifth Gear video, was  
> there any
> damage, thus implying work, thus implying forces to the REAR of the  
> Renault?
> If so, THEN energy was somehow transferred to the rear of the car,  
> if not,
> it was absorbed by the front of the car, and by the kinetic energy  
> of the
> Renault, which bounced back considerably more than the Volvo, and was
> displaced from the point of impact further, indicating a greater  
> kinetic
> energy change. What the Renault did that the Volvo didn't do there  
> goes
> directly to my point, INTERNAL *management* of crash forces has  
> improved
> tremendously. Airbags, crushable interior panels, side and curtain  
> airbags,
> have seen the greatest improvements, thus making the Renault the  
> better of
> the two cars demo'd in the video. That the Volvo was the weaker of  
> the two
> structurally was a result of the vehicle selected, it was chosen on  
> rep, but
> I'd venture a contemporary M-B (were they called E-class back then)  
> would've
> fared considerably better.  Structurally, were 30 year old designs as
> consistent? No. But were they possible and put into practice by  
> some? I'd
> say the answer is a likely unproven (unless someone wants to go out  
> and
> crash some cars), yes. I just don't think it's justifiable to put  
> ALL of the
> older vehicles in one catagory there.
>
> As for FEA, the concept is practically applied using computers  
> (because of
> the tedium involved) but it is capable of manual application. It  
> doesn't
> take a super computer to do the work. The incentive (as in profit  
> margin)
> wasn't as there in the 80's, so few (I believe actually M-B was  
> applying it
> as was probably Saab, since it would've tricked down from their  
> aircraft arm
> back when they were one and the same) would do it, but the  
> technology was
> there, and it was doable with the computing equipment at the time,  
> we were
> doing it in my 400's level design class.  I agree, the black box  
> data has
> improved things (and no, there were no auto applications then). but I
> digress, the biggest gains in safety has come from the management of  
> forces
> (thus, passenger accelerations which are still directly proportional  
> to
> forces) in the interior, particularly in side impacts. Frontal impact
> improvements have been comparatively smaller (I don't mean non- 
> existent,
> just to be perfectly clear, particularly in the lower extremity  
> region) than
> side. But Chris' original post was about a header, not a T-bone or  
> offset
> crash.
>
> I'm not sure if somehow I haven't been clear in my earlier posts,  
> but I did
> actually state all of this in them. Re-read them if you care to and  
> you'll
> see what I mean. I did spend 8 years in the Engineering field with  
> both
> static and dynamic systems, and by the nature of my teaching  
> continue to
> study the concepts. Generally, empirical data is either the  
> beginning or the
> endpoint of the "theory", not the whole kit and kaboodle.
>
> LL - NY
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Taka Mizutani <t44tqtro at gmail.com>  
> wrote: >
>> I think you're trivi...
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> http://audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
> http://www.audifans.com/kb/List_information