+1
A simple-minded focus on relative mass of the two vehicles, which is Island's error, ignores what actually injures the occupant. Typically, occupants are injured when they impact the inside of the car (or are ejected, that's another story).
Old American cars had lots of mass, but practically no occupant restraints or other passive safety. So while the car itself would sustain less damage than a modern, smaller, lighter car, the occupant is in fact less protected.
That's why Island's reliance on what works in a demolition derby is so misguided. In a demo derby, you want the
car to resist repeated impacts and survive to be the last car running. In a real-world accident, you want the
occupants to survive a single impact, and you could care less how the car fares.
Anyway, the '66 Galaxy in a demo derby is not a stock '66 Galaxy. I looked up the official rules for some demo derby organizations. The original fuel tanks are removed, there is some sort of fire supression system, there is usually some degree of roll cage, the drivers wear helmets and are securely belted in. The doors can be welded shut, the glass is removed, and so on.
So, like I said, if you offer me a '66 Galaxy with full roll cage, racing seat, five-point belts, fire suppression, etc - yeah, I'd take that over a Prius. But a stock '66 Galaxy - no way. I'd prefer not to punch my face through the windshield while my chest is crushed against the (non-collapsing) steering column and the rest of me is ejected through the opening doors.
P.S. Remember Schumacher's 1999 British GP accident when his Ferrari went straight into the tire wall at 125 MPH. He decelerated from 125 MPH to zero in appx 10 feet. Because he was well restrained, he survived with just a broken leg. The body can survive huge acceleration, as long as there isn't impact with the car interior or something penetrating the interior.
Do you think Schumacher would have been better off with half the deceleration (say, 60 MPH to zero in 10 feet) but
unrestrained? That's the '66 Galaxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerkuld
The damage to an occupant in an imapct is due to the rate of change of velocity, otherwise known as acceleration. Of course we are talking about a negative acceleration here. You will ofter hear in an accident, particularly in racing cars because they have instruments to record this data, of a XXX 'g' impact. You know that 1g is the acceleration due to gravity which has a value of 9.81 m/s^2. The higher the negative decleration in an accident the greater the damage to a person in the accident due to the increased gravitational force acting on their body. It stands to reason that the negative acceleration will be lower if the imapct energy is absorbed slowly. This is what a modern car with a imapct safety system is designed to do. It takes the energy that the car has and distributes as much of it as possible over as long a time as possible, hence lower negative acceletation. A Ford Galaxy was never designed to do this. If it hits something it will stop very quickly, resulting in a very high negative acceleration and more damage to the occupants.
Now I know your next course of argument is going to be based on "...when the big car hits the little car". In this instance I suggest you find some data on fatal accident statistics*. You will see that a large majority of fatal accidents are single vehicle accidents and do not involve an imapct with another vehicle. Even with this information you may also want to think about the possibility of a big car hitting another big car. The truth is the smaller car is safer and not just for the occupants of the small car!
Please correct me if I have made any whopping errors in this explanation.
*I posted something about this in another thread. I'll see if I can find it.
|