Speculation isn't necessary since there are people who crash test cars for a living and the results are published. See the image I just posted for a comparison between the 2002 Mini Cooper and Ford F150.

/ J

That's a silly argument with all due respect. A main battle tank is pretty much a cost-no-object war machine. It's sole purpose is to destroy without being destroyed. I would guess that the manufacturer is not that worried about cutting cost to maximaize profit.

Now look at your average road going vehicle. Sure it's designed as transport, but it's purpose is to make $$ for the company that produces it - full stop. It's a money making machine. The comapny behind that will do whatever it can to penny pinch the vehicle for all they're worth and to push up the price on the other end to maximize profit.

I would imagine that a pasenger car wouldn't stand up too well to incoming fire.

You're on to something I think. I don't think you'd find that many full size pickups in Europe.

The real world test would have the smart car and 1/2 ton truck getting up to speed and then colliding into each other. I see a ton of vehicle collisions on the highway and in intersections. Simple physics dictate the bigger car will "win". My sister-in-law got rear ended waiting at a red light by a delivery truck. Most likely had she been in a smart or mini cooper she would not have survived. Pro's and con's in any direction.

So now all large vehicles perform to the same substandard as the poorly built F-150?

The same is true for a main battle tank. You think General Dynamics makes the M-1 to lose money? The truth is the M-1 could have all kinds of additional features and capabilities if money wasn't an issue. As it is now it is already an extremely expensive tank.

At any rate, my point was that just because something does not have to be tested against a certain criteria doesn't mean it wouldn't perform that criteria extremely well. I am sure an M-1 would absolutely own the various crash tests in use today even though not one seconds thought was ever put into doing such. ;)

In general, assuming equal construction and equally well thought out designs, the larger vehicle is always going to perform better- it's just physics.

Hit a smart car with the aforementioned F-150, and the smart car is going to react just like a baseball when struck by a bat. It may be intact, but it is still going to be the loser the the collision occurs. The F-150 is the bat- the SC is the ball.

My point exactly.

Size matters:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...rum_Ago_lg.jpg
hehe

I would like to see how the occupants of an M-1 look after hitting an immovable wall at 50 mph, compared to the occupants of a Mini Cooper (which has crash deformation zones and airbags).

Of course in a Mini vs Abrams collision the safe bet would be on the Abrams! :)

awwww..... :(

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1213738576.gif

In the Apr 05 Thunder Run into Baghdad, M-1s were confronted with Highway dividers(like those on the NJ turnpike, the ones that taper out toward the base) 4 feet tall, double thick, linked end to end accross highway 8, blocking their path to the Baghdad airport.

The solution? The Abrams accelerated to max speed(about 45mph) and rammed/ jumped them until the dividers were reduced to rubble. No crewman were injured.

Imagine ramming a highway divider head on in a mini-cooper!!!

LOL! Story of my life. :-P

I posted this in another thread earlier.

MINI Cooper Struck by a Suburban both rammed into guardrail, MINI owner walks away Suburban driver carted off with 2 broken legs.

I'll take my chances with the MINI cooper, besides every time we have a road closing wreck on I95 down here, its an SUV rolled over in the median with passengers scattered everywhere.

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16992&

Getting knocked into a guardrail is hardly the same as smashing head on into a concrete highway divider. ;)

Actually the worst car crash i ever had was a VW rabbit into a steel utility pole at about 40mph head on.

I walked away.

Quality of construction obviously has MUCH to do with it.

So that explains your posts here on PPOT. :)

Been staggering my way through life ever since my brother. :D

Yes, but I gave you a real world example of that happens when a MINI and Suburban get into t a typical traffic accident in an afternoon rush hour situation.

If you think that the guy in the Suburban would be in better shape than the guy in the MINI after having a head on collision with a concrete barrier go right ahead.

Physics tell me the 4,000 lb vehicle is going to bleed a lot more energy hitting that barrier than the 2700 MINI. My example above proves that point, both hit a guardrail at the same speed, MINI driver walks away without a scratch and the Suburban driver breaks both legs and smashes his face real good.

Again, I'll take my chances in a nimble little car that has proven it can take a beating and keep the driver safe.

The larger car has larger crumple zones to decelerate the vehicle more gradually.

I prefer medium sized cars myself. I feel they add the best of both worlds. Mass and maneuverability.

There are very few walls that would be considered "immovable" with an M1 strike at 50 mph.

I'm not in disagreement with you at all: I'm simply interested in separating fact from myth. I haven't found any objective data on what would happen if a Mini collided with a 1/2 ton truck, but if you want to take the simple physics route let's see where it will go.

If you assume that the Mini weighs half of the pick-up truck and they hit head-on each going 40 mph, conservation of momentum implies that the Mini will experience what amounts to a 47 mph crash into a solid object while the pick-up will experience the equivalent of a 33 mph crash.

Now looking at the total amount of energy that needs to be absorbed by each vehicle in the crash, the Mini has a 40% larger velocity change to cope with but since it only weighs half as much the energy absorbed is the same for both vehicles (actually 2% less for the Mini).

What remains is how well the deformations zones of each car are engineered. This is an area in which huge improvements have been made, and I think the major reason why weight alone is not sufficient to decide whether a car is safe or not.

/ Johan

You didn't read the crash tests for the pickup trucks did you?

exactly, they might perform great if you run them into the same bridge as a Suburban, they are lighter, less energy to dissipate. But if hit by the Suburban, the big vehicle is going to just crush the smaller one. I even bet it would cushion the deceleration of the larger vehicle as it used up the crumple zone of the Smartcar first.

I think the danger is more from the performance of the driver, than from the vehicle

This is the most important realization of the whole discussion. Although, basic physics might suggest which auto might absorb more energy, physics doesn't address the engineering of safe zones, graded crush (vs instantaneous or more rapid decelerations), or structural integrity. Large trucks, (and many truck based SUV's) suffer from structural issues ie old-style body-on-(ladder)- frame construction, which is very poor in absorbing energy in accidents, but cheap to make (GM and Ford were laughing all the way to the bank). In addition, the attention to wheel-footwell encroachment in the typical US truck (important for head on crashes) is lacking as demonstrated by numerous safety tests. What one needs to compare, is a unibody crumple engineered chassis in a heavier vehicle vs a smaller vehicle. Example, ML series vs Smart car. Then the ML will more likely come out the winner.