|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
19-12-2009, 10:12 PM | #24 | ||
Ich bin ein auslander
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
|
I found a very interesting article on motor vehicle crash physics. Read the section on 2 car crashes, it explains a hell of a lot.
Physics article Essentially they are saying that two cars of similar characteristics traveling at a similar speed in opposite direction colliding is equivalent to hitting a solid, immovable object at the same velocity. It goes on to say that most modern cars are survivable in a crash at 35 (56 km/h) mph into a solid object, therefore two cars traveling at 35 mph (70 mph or 112 km/h closing speed is survivable). There are some limitations to this theory, the most import one for our dilemma is that of structural integrity of the vehicles involved. All vehicles have sections of the front that have more longitudinal strength than other areas. For this above theory to be true, strong sections must strike strong sections on the other car in order to maximise use of the crumple zones. If the stronger areas are offset to each other, one vehicle will take a higher proportion of the load from the impact. Now lets look at a simple truth that we all know, true head on with another vehicle is very rare. I have been to a number of head ons and I have never seen one that was a direct head on where structural members of the two cars would be even closely aligned. I also asked around work and I could not find another paramedic that had been to a direct head on, even those that were traveling in true opposite directions were offset from each other. That was asking every paramedic I ran into at station and hospital, more than 300 years combined experience talking there. Additionally all stated physics aside, the prangs they have been to, the head ons were always worse than static object collisions at speeds of 100 and over. I also asked each one to answer one more question. If they were driving at 100 km/h and two cars came at them in the opposite direction at the same speed, across both lanes, leaving them the choice of hitting a car or a very large tree. Would they take the car or the tree? Most answered the tree. So, in summary. If you are ever faced with this choice you can take either as long as you can guarantee the other car is traveling at the same speed (more is bad, less is good), it is the same mass (not a loaded falcon ute etc), has the same fuel and passenger load, does not have illegal mods altering its frontal rigidity and will line up perfectly with the front of your car. If you can not guarantee all these factors will be equal, take the wall or tree.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Last edited by geckoGT; 19-12-2009 at 10:21 PM. |
||