Vehicle mass: What effet does it have in an accident?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by RPI

ANCAP do not smash cars into a large immoveable wall, the car hits a large crushable metal block which is designed to collapse in the impact.
see clip, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfhkrSYh9pc

sorry, looked like an imoveable wall to me.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

This is the bit giving you most trouble.
You believe that if the passenger cell remains okay then the passenger survives? A cell can be designed to survive a 100km/h head on, but the passengers wont.

I am so glad yo have put me straight on that one, there I was thinking that the people I have attended and the other patients I have seen bought in after crashes at 100 km/h+ were actually still alive (they look it to me), seems I was wrong.

It also seems I was seeing things when I have seen race drivers walk out of crashes after hitting a barrier at far in excess of 100 km/h, even the one that occured right in front of me at caltex chase during the Bathurst 1000 a few years ago. I was sure the driver walked away but it seems dead men can walk.

If a passenger cell maintains integrity and the passenger is adequately restrained, survival with nil injury is possible and happens frequently in racing. Why do you think they spend so much effort in restraints and bar work in race cars. The problem is this is not too convenient for the average road user having to climb over bar work and strap into multi point harnesses and hans device. To think they live through all those crashes in race cars and not a single airbag in site.

I do not mean to be rude but you know what my experience is, what is yours?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

sorry, looked like an imoveable wall to me.

I too was under the impression it was a imoveable wall too, it does however have a replaceable face surface that is designed to crush a certain amount on impact.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by RPI

ANCAP do not smash cars into a large immoveable wall, the car hits a large crushable metal block which is designed to collapse in the impact.
see clip, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfhkrSYh9pc

Weeeell, the first foot or so might be crushable but the big block behind isn't going anywhere!

[colinl]

Originally Posted by RPI

ANCAP do not smash cars into a large immoveable wall, the car hits a large crushable metal block which is designed to collapse in the impact.
see clip, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfhkrSYh9pc

What about the pole test?

[geckoGT]

I have been a putting a bit of thought into this over the last few days, primarily this concept that energy is never transferred from the car to the occupant as Sudszy has pointed out a number of times. To be honest this concept has not sat too well with me and seems to contradict much of my research regarding occupant injury patterns in severe road trauma.

So this is what I have come up with based on my limited knowledge of physics (physics theory is not my strong point), my knowledge of trauma injury patterns (a good working knowledge in this area) and my experience of many road crash cases that I have attended.

In a crash that involves a moving car crashing into a solid object or two cars of equal speed and mass colliding with the occupant moving forward and striking an interior surface of the vehicle. Sudszy is correct, the car exerts no force on the occupant and it is actually the force of the occupant being exerted on the car. Think of it as an egg being dropped on the floor. The egg is moving, the floor is not so it is the egg imparting energy on the floor that damages the egg.

This is also the case where there is a crash involving two vehicles without equilibrium of mass and/or speed but the passenger cell of the car retains integrity and the passenger strikes the interior of the car. As the interior of the car has retained shape and it is the passenger that has struck the interior, it is the passenger that has exerted force on the car. Think of this one as a Focus crashes into a Patrol in a head on but the firewall of the focus remained intact. If the driver of the focus is unrestrained and strikes the steering wheel, as long as the steering wheel has remained in its normal position (ie not displaced towards the driver), the passenger has exerted force on the car.

Now according to my logic, these situations are true for all the ANCAP frontal tests and also the ANCAP side impact tests where the door structure has maintained structural integrity and not been displaced towards the occupant. So in those circumstances Sudszy is correct in his statements.

The situations Sudszy is incorrect is where there is sufficient force in an opposite direction to the travel of the occupant to cause failure of the structure of the vehicle resulting in the interior surfaces of the vehicle to move towards the occupant.

Using my egg analogy, if you have a rolling egg and you hit it with a cricket bat, although the egg has its own energy due to its movement, the bat certainly imparts energy on the egg also.

Think of the scenario where the occupant is in a passenger vehicle of 2,000 kg and collides with a truck of 40,000 kg. The truck hits the car and exerts more force on the car than the car does on it, resulting in structural failure of the car and displacement of the firewall and dash surfaces in the car. In this situation the passenger moving forward does exert force on the car, but the components being pushed back by the truck also exerts force on the passenger. The injury causing force then becomes the sum total of the force from both the passengers movement and the movement of the car towards the passenger and away from the truck, in effect being pushed by the truck. Now before some say that is the force of the truck and not the car, remember the truck exerts force on the car, which is transferred to the car, which then moves and exerts force on the occupant. So at the point of impact of car/occupant, that force has come from the car.

This situation is also true of any crash where the occupants car is stationary, therefore the occupant is stationary and they are hit by a moving vehicle. The moving vehicle exerts force on the stationary vehicle, this displaces structures of the car and they in turn move into the occupant exerting force on the occupant. This can be seen in both a stopped car being hit by a moving car, car hit from behind by vehicle of greater velocity and/or mass or a T bone crash where the struck car is traveling at a vector which is 90 degrees to that of the striking car.

The key point in this situation is that the vehicle of the occupant is struck by some force sufficient to deform the passenger cell, causing it to move one of the interior surfaces towards the passenger. Therefore although the passenger may be exerting some force on the interior through their own movement, the movement of the interior surface certainly exerts its own force on the passenger. This makes the idea that the car never exerts force on the passenger and the passenger always exerts force on the vehicle incorrect. It greatly depends on the mechanics of the crash and the forces involved.

I know from my experience I have certainly seen examples of both many times at the many crash scenes I have attended.

[302 XC]

Great post gecko,
In all fairness, text book teaching and % factors dont help when your pulling out remnants of bodies from wrecks
Its also a known fact
That driving tired or DUI results in less injuries as the body doesnt tend to stiffen up /or freeze comin into an impact
A bit more body movement if u like

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Its also a known fact
That driving tired or DUI results in less injuries as the body doesnt tend to stiffen up /or freeze comin into an impact
A bit more body movement if u like

Very true. I have on a number of occasions seen the drunk occupant or pedestrian walk away from significant crashes with considerable forces involved with little to no injury. Meanwhile the sober person sustains significant injury with similar forces. Perhaps higher conscious function and muscle tone sometimes works against us.

Not that I condone being drunk as an injury mitigation method.

[2011G6E]

It isn't mass as such, it's difference in mass.

You can be driving the latest 5 star rated small car, filled with airbags and bristling with the latest safety gear, but unless you hit something of similar size, as opposed to a collision with Uncle Fred in his 80 series Landcruiser fitted with a steel bar, they'll do you NFG...

Then there is speed. Experts have said that, above 80kph in an impact with a solid immoveable object (bridge pylon, telegraph pole, big gum tree, etc), it is "basically unsurviveable". No matter how many airbags and safety toys your car has, the human body just can't take such a massive deceleration quickly.
Occasionally people will get out of simply massive accidents on the highway, but that's more down to pure luck than safety items, and you certainly can't drive around relaxed and not taking care, trusting the safety gear to protect you and letting your mind wander.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

It isn't mass as such, it's difference in mass.

You can be driving the latest 5 star rated small car, filled with airbags and bristling with the latest safety gear, but unless you hit something of similar size, as opposed to a collision with Uncle Fred in his 80 series Landcruiser fitted with a steel bar, they'll do you NFG...

See what you are saying but not entirely true, depends on the direction of impact and the direction of movement of the vehicles. I have seen two small cars get rear ended by trucks and both occupants walked out without a scratch.

The first was a small suzuki stopped at the lights got rear ended by a inattentive driver of a loaded B double. The B double punted the small car clean across a 6 lane intersection and there was destruction to the boot area of the car with a minor shortening in the back seat area of the passenger cell, nil injuries at all in the car.

The second was a small modern hatch that pulled out of a service station at night into a 80 zone in front of a loaded semi. The car was doing about 20-30 km/h and the semi 80-90. The impact did very similar damage to the suzuki I mentioned before, again no injuries.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Sudszy is correct, the car exerts no force on the occupant and it is actually the force of the occupant being exerted on the car.

Firstly, Im delighted that you have taken what Ive said on board, however, the second half of the 1st sentence Ive quoted from you violates Newton’s 3rd law of motion, this idea was put to rest earlier in the thread: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...8&postcount=29 and any conclusions based on this are very likely to be very flawed.....

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Think of the scenario where the occupant is in a passenger vehicle of 2,000 kg and collides with a truck of 40,000 kg. The truck hits the car and exerts more force on the car than the car does on it, resulting in structural failure of the car and displacement of the firewall and dash surfaces in the car. In this situation the passenger moving forward does exert force on the car, but the components being pushed back by the truck also exerts force on the passenger.....

Again, the logic has the violation of Newton’s 3rd law as its keystone, and the rest of your reasoning follows this.
I won’t critique the rest of what you said, just point out some things that will help you with the next step, I didn’t expand on this before as you hadn’t accepted the first part of what I was saying, but did add:

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ive deliberately left this as the car(any vehicle) into the wall example, but the same concept applies occur whether its car on car or truck on car.

Consider the following collisions:
A: Car at 100km/h into stationary brick wall
B: Brick wall at 100km/h into stationary car.
C: identical cars in head on at 100km/h
D: car at 200km/h into identical stationary car

There is no difference in the collisions, as the relative velocities are the same.
Collision B obviously has a lot more KE than collision A, but to the occupants of the vehicle the collision is exactly the same and basically involves a sudden change in velocity of 100km/h, there will be no difference in the injuries experienced, the extra energy of collision B does not appear as more damage to carA.
One of the confusing factors here is KE, is a relative term, as it depends on the relative velocities and the frame of reference used.
What about the case of the unequal mass vehicles in the head on, I covered this earlier:

Originally Posted by sudszy

..., but if its a focus 1300kg colliding headon with a 4wd-2600kg at 50km/h, then the best case scenario for the focus if it "sticks" to the 4wd is that it would go from 50km/h to 16.6km/h in the opposite direction, a velocity change of 67km/h, or the equivalent of slamming into a concrete barrier at the same speed, probably not survivable.

For the 4wd, it has continued to move forwards at the same speed as the focus stuck to the front:16.6km/h , same thing as hitting a brick wall at 33km/h, very survivable.

The underlying point here is that every accident can be reduced to on object colliding with a brick wall.
The focus above has had the equivalent accident of 67km/h into a brick wall and the 4wd a 33km/h into a brickwall.
If we do the numbers for a 40 tonne truck and a 1 tonne car having a head on at 100km/h(There is no difference in the collision if the car is doing 200km/h into a stationary truck or vice versa, however, the KE of the system is very different depending on your frame of reference.
The truck continues at 95km/h has had an equivalent crash of 5km/h into a brick wall and the car continues with the truck at 95km/h in the opposite direction and has had the equivalent crash of 195km/h into a brick wall, yes those occupants will be very damaged.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The truck has had an equivalent crash of 5km/h into a brick wall and the car has had the equivalent crash of 195km/h into a brick wall, yes those occupants will be very damaged.

Ok, so the occupant of a car is restrained and stationary and another car of equal mass collides with it at 195 km/h, causing failure of the structure of the vehicle and the steering column to impact with the stationary occupants chest. Which way was the force exerted, passenger on the car or car on the passenger. Remember, the victims car is stationary, the passenger is stationary before the impact.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ok, so the occupant of a car is restrained and stationary and another car of equal mass collides with it at 195 km/h, causing failure of the structure of the vehicle and the steering column to impact with the stationary occupants chest. Which way was the force exerted, passenger on the car or car on the passenger. Remember, the victims car is stationary, the passenger is stationary before the impact.

The answer is both, think of what would happen if you put a set of heavy duty bathroom scales between the passenger and the steering wheel, the scale would read whatever, perhaps go up to a reading of the equivalent of 4000kg. It is recording how much force the end of the steering column experiences and how much force the person experiences, equal and opposite.

Newton's 3rd law is simple to state, but a not so easy concept to apply to all situations and probably Im not doing it justice.

There are lots of sites, videos etc that do, perhaps start with:http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...laws/u2l4a.cfm.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The answer is both, think of what would happen if you put a set of heavy duty bathroom scales between the passenger and the steering wheel, the scale would read whatever, perhaps go up to a reading of the equivalent of 400kg. It is recording how much force the end of the steering column experiences and how much force the person experiences, equal and opposite.
.

So what you are saying is that in some circumstances, the car will exert force on the occupant?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So what you are saying is that in some circumstances, the car will exert force on the occupant?

No, in all, the forces occur in action/reaction pairs.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, in all, the forces occur in action/reaction pairs.

Not what you have said before.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Stationary objects have no kinetic energy to give away...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not what you have said before.

There is nothing wrong with either of the statements, and they dont contradict each other, force and KE are not the same thing.

Please read the 1st link I gave you on newton's 3rd law, and perhaps read some others, and perhaps come back in 24hrs with more when you've had time to think it through, and Ill address your concerns again.

[Tealglow]

About time for some physics -


Kinetic Energy = mass x velocity x velocity x 1/2.
(We all know E = mc^2 where c= speed (or velocity) of light)

At 100 km/h, you are travelling at 28 m/s and your kinteic energy is 0.5 x 28 x 28 x 1500 = 588,000 Joules in a 1500kg vehicle

A 3000kg vehicle @ 100km/h has kinetic energy of 1,176,000 Joules

If you were doing 200 km/h then your energy is 2,352,000 Joules (using the same formula).

The 2 cars (1500kg + 3000kg) travelling at 100km/h possess 3/4 the energy of 1 car at 200km/h

Note that a 100kg person travelling inside the 1500kg car posesses thier own potential energy of 58,800 Joules which is part of the total vehicle energy calculated and can be transformed into kinetic energy in a sudden stop.




Now to the impact


The dissipation of energy in a crash creates deformation of all structures and a resultant change in acceleration (G Force) on each vehicle (after deformation is complete).

Conservation of momentum occurs but not on a simplistic liner level as discussed to date in this thread- think of two billiard balls colliding as a linear system (no deformation) compared to an F1 crash leaving debris in it's wake.

Similarly, each occupant is subjected to energy dissipation (force) and change in acceleration when thier kinetic energy is dispersed when they contact their seatbelts, airbags, dashpad, windscreen because their velocity remains at 100 km/h after the vehicle begins to slow.

Conservation of energy dictates that the total energy of the system is conserved, so that the vehicle kinetic energy is used up deforming the other vehicle or occupant or whatever.

This is a simplistic approach as rotational elements and other factors are also acting.

Now a change in energy does not hurt us, or we would die every time we got behind the wheel and accelerated or braked.
The change in force is what affects us (and our car). Some force can be tolerated, but a large and sudden force cannot.
Like the old saying, it wasn't the fall that killed him, rather the sudden stop at the end.

Newton's 3rd Law

The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body.

Force = mass x acceleration. Gravity is a force, hence the term G-Force (the force in proportion to gravity 9.8 m/s/s).

Notice how velocity does not (directly) figure in this equation.

The change in acceleration (e.g. 100km/h to 0 in 1 sec = 28 m/s/s) provides the g-force on the occupant, so the longer the crash takes, the less the force exerted on the occupants, hence the existance of crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts and padded dashes, all of which deform to an extent to absorb energy to save occupants.

Essentially, mass of vehicle contributes to the total force in an impact, and vehicle design dictates the survivability.

As a side note i proudly drive an F Truck (Bronco) which scatters all small cars before it, regardless of the physics in play.

[geckoGT]

I do see your previous point regarding the occupant exerting force on the car rather than the widely advertised concept that the car exerts force on the occupant, which is often incorrect (such as in the car into wall scenario).

I think what needs to be realised is that this is a concept that is probably not easily understood by the popular masses, this would confuse many people. That confusion would make education more difficult, better off letting a small technicality go unaddressed and get the message through.

A unrelated example in my trade is the defibrillator, you ask just about anyone and they will tell you that it "jump starts" the heart in a cardiac arrest.

The truth of the matter is that a defibrillator completely overides all electrical activity in the heart, causing it to flatline, in the hope that something more organised takes over, something that produces a pulse. It is also a misconception that defibrillator is used on a heart in flatline (correctly known as asystole), it is not as there has to be electrical activity in the heart (and only 2 specific types) for the defibrillator to have any hope of working.

Those in the medical field rarely attempt to correct this misconception as it too difficult to counter this popular opinion for no real benefit in community understanding.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There is nothing wrong with either of the statements, and they dont contradict each other, force and KE are not the same thing.

Please read the 1st link I gave you on newton's 3rd law, and perhaps read some others, and perhaps come back in 24hrs with more when you've had time to think it through, and Ill address your concerns again.

A force is a push or a pull upon an object that results from its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions! As discussed in Lesson 2, some forces result from contact interactions (normal, frictional, tensional, and applied forces are examples of contact forces) and other forces are the result of action-at-a-distance interactions (gravitational, electrical, and magnetic forces). According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. When you sit in your chair, your body exerts a downward force on the chair and the chair exerts an upward force on your body. There are two forces resulting from this interaction - a force on the chair and a force on your body. These two forces are called action and reaction forces and are the subject of Newton's third law of motion.

So it seems no matter how the crash happens, the car exerts a force on the occupant and the occupant exerts a force on the car.

Anyway, none of this really matters. As car design improves, crumple zones absorb force before the passenger cell, stronger passenger cells keep internal surfaces away from the occupant and better restraint systems prevent the occupant from moving towards the interior surfaces at a tolerable rate. As these improve, one day we will be at a point where a car can hit a solid barrier at 150 km/h and all occupants will walk away, like they do in F1 racing.

So now I am off to stick my head back in the books and study what I should be studying, neurological dysfunction (neurological dysfunction is what this thread is causing for me).

[sudszy]

Looks like some things have been resolved here

Though this I have difficulty with:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

As these improve, one day we will be at a point where a car can hit a solid barrier at 150 km/h and all occupants will walk away, like they do in F1 racing.

The current f1 regs: http://f1-dictionary.110mb.com/crash_test.html, tells us present f1 cars must meet a 54km/h head on test and not subject the driver to more than 60g.

A 150km/h crash into a unmoving barrier would be an average deacceleration of about 250g minimum(thats assuming it doesnt bounce off in the opposite direction,(according to the info, there is about 0.35m of crumple zone) even if the driver was restrained and didnt hit anything, his brain would be scrambled.
You have witnessed such a crash?, who, where and when?

By contrast:

http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-...data-revealed/

data from Robert Kubicas montreal crash revealed he survived 75g, where his car hit a barrier at 230km/h, but it was a glancing blow - and was still moving for quite a distant after hitting, not a head on.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Looks like some things have been resolved here

Though this I have difficulty with:


The current f1 regs: http://f1-dictionary.110mb.com/crash_test.html, tells us present f1 cars must meet a 54km/h head on test and not subject the driver to more than 60g.

A 150km/h crash into a unmoving barrier would be an average deacceleration of about 250g minimum(thats assuming it doesnt bounce off in the opposite direction,(according to the info, there is about 0.35m of crumple zone) even if the driver was restrained and didnt hit anything, his brain would be scrambled.
You have witnessed such a crash?, who, where and when?

By contrast:

http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-...data-revealed/

data from Robert Kubicas montreal crash revealed he survived 75g, where his car hit a barrier at 230km/h, but it was a glancing blow - and was still moving for quite a distant after hitting, not a head on.

You take things a little too literal, I have seen many F1 crashes that a driver walks away from, put a normal car in that crash and you would be hosing out the driver. Where did I say direct head on? The majority of road crashes are not direct head on anyway, I have been to maybe 10 direct head on crashes in 7 years. The rest of the frontal crashes have some offset or angle to them.

All I am trying to illustrate is that if we could get passenger car safety near that of FI, BTCC, NASCAR etc, our road toll would be a different figure. Before you start, yes I know it is virtually impossible to achieve this and still have the road car tolerable for everyday life but it does not hurt to dream.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

All I am trying to illustrate is that if we could get passenger car safety near that of FI, BTCC, NASCAR etc, our road toll would be a different figure. Before you start, yes I know it is virtually impossible to achieve this and still have the road car tolerable for everyday life but it does not hurt to dream.

I think having too much safety could become counterproductive.

I have read of morons stealing cars and smashing into objects just to experience the airbag going off. Without the airbag, who would attempt it?

Likewise there would be morons who think 5 star ratings give them immunity from injury. What would these people do if they had F1 style safety encapulating them?

There would be people who view Hollywood stunts as being representative of motor vehicle accident survivability too, we don't need to encourace any more risk taking than is necessary.

Bottom line, if you hit something with sufficent speed or it has sufficient mass or both, then no matter what ANCAP rating you have, you're likely to get seriously injured (or die). That is the message that needs to be posted.

[Ben73]

If my 9000 ton train hits your 5 ANCAP star 2 ton car you won't stand a chance. And it's likely I will be fine on the train with zero safety features, not even a seat belt.
Even if you had F1 safety standards.
I know that's an extreme situation of mass in a crash, but it still happens.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You take things a little too literal,

I can only comment on what people write, not what they may be otherwise thinking

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Where did I say direct head on?

You mentioned being able to walk away from hitting 'unmoving' barrier at 150km/h, in the context of this thread, we were hardly talking about glancing blows which could be survivable at any speed depending on angle.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The majority of road crashes are not direct head on anyway, I have been to maybe 10 direct head on crashes in 7 years. The rest of the frontal crashes have some offset or angle to them.

That maybe so, but for both our ancap testing and formula one testing standards are met by testing to that criteria(and others) and are those by which guide the manufacturers.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

All I am trying to illustrate is that if we could get passenger car safety near that of FI, BTCC, NASCAR etc, our road toll would be a different figure. .

Are you sure about that, the frontal impact standards for F1 cars really fall well below that of passenger cars atm.

Im guessing the best thing we could take from F1 and other motor sport would be for people to be wearing full harness and helmet, but, reality says that isnt going to happen.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

That maybe so, but for both our ancap testing and formula one testing standards are met by testing to that criteria(and others) and are those by which guide the manufacturers.

no, the ancap testing is offset.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

You have witnessed such a crash?, who, where and when?

imola 89, tamburello curve - taken flat out at over 300kph. gerhard berger lost part of his front wing and instead of turning left to follow the track went straight on at virtually undiminished speed. it was virtually a head on with an immovable concrete wall. it is fair to say that he suffered some burns, but the burns were the result of the fuel cell tearing while the car was spinning to a halt directly alongside the wall. without the fuel cell tearing, he would have just unbuckled and stepped out


indy 92, turn 4 - taken virtually flat out at around 320 kph - the entry to the corner has a higher speed. nelson piquet lost control at the entry to the corner and completed a 360 degree spin and then hit the wall directly head on. the pics from the accident show his head at the point of hitting the steering wheel, which was millimetres from the wall. he suffered horrific leg injuries, but they were due to the fact that they hit the wall. if he was sitting around 300mm further back, he would have unbuckled and climbed out


for sure these two examples had injuries involved, but if you dropped the speed to half, which would equate to around 150kph, then not many would doubt about their ability to walk away with nothing more than some bruising


of course the 2 drivers in my examples were elite athletes and the average person would have no chance of surving those accidents - but they are examples of accidents happening as head on as you can get at (just) over 150kph and surviving. and we all know just how dangerous 65 is compared to 60, so i assume that 300 would be just a little more devastating than 150

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by cheap

I think having too much safety could become counterproductive.

I have read of morons stealing cars and smashing into objects just to experience the airbag going off. Without the airbag, who would attempt it?

Likewise there would be morons who think 5 star ratings give them immunity from injury. What would these people do if they had F1 style safety encapulating them?

There would be people who view Hollywood stunts as being representative of motor vehicle accident survivability too, we don't need to encourace any more risk taking than is necessary.

Bottom line, if you hit something with sufficent speed or it has sufficient mass or both, then no matter what ANCAP rating you have, you're likely to get seriously injured (or die). That is the message that needs to be posted.

One answer, Darwin's law (as in Charles Darwin)

[302 XC]

"Bottom line,if you hit something with sufficient speed or it has sufficient mass,or both,then no matter what the ANCAP rating,you have,youre likely to get seriously injured (or die)"

Not correct in all circumstances , unfortunately

I hit at 100Ks a cow (of mass wieght ???) head on in a car with no ancap rating
and walked away to tell the story
Speed hitting mass wieght
Big bull bar and 4x4 saved my life,oh and height of car


Physics are all good on paper but unfortunately life isnt so cut and dry
Im sure gecko could attest to that in his line of work
Pulling someone from a wreck and saying "oh but accordinging to physics he/she should be alive" wont wash
But a good thread all the same

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

Physics are all good on paper but unfortunately life isnt so cut and dry
Im sure gecko could attest to that in his line of work
Pulling someone from a wreck and saying "oh but accordinging to physics he/she should be alive" wont wash
But a good thread all the same

How very true, I have pulled up to many crash scenes and thought to myself after seeing the contestants and the damage involved that we are going to be pulling out a dead body or two. To my surprise they are out walking around, my latest was a b series that ran under the back of a truck, the windscreen was smashed, firewall damaged and dash displaced. The driver did not have a mark on him.

The other side, I have pulled people with serious injuries out of a car that looks repairable, admittedly this scenario is more often an older car.