Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl
+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.
|
I tend to agree with you here John. I think we are both heading in the same direction but you appear to have more experince looking at a real situation. I would guess that the the g forces in a accident in a normal car could well overcome the occupants muscle strength, so their body is pretty much out of control. This will undoubtedly lead to parts of their body making contact with parts of the vehicle causing injury. If the g force can be minimized and the body restrained then I agree that the risk to the occupant is significantly reduced. I suppose the airbags probably work as more of a restraint device to prevent movement rather than as a cushion.
I think the reason a racing driver can withstand such high g impacts is that they are strapped in the car with their head restrained and have very little space for thier limbs to flail around. As a result they can't really go anywhere, plus the components intruding into the driver compartment are minimized. I imagine it helps too that the Formula type cars tend to disintergrate on impact which absorbs a large amount of energy.
It's interesting that you mention the Schumacher accident. If you look at the aftermath of that crash, or virtually any crash in a Formula car, the vehicle is pretty well destroyed. I was always amazed at Earnhardt's fatal accident which looked like nothing from the outside and left the car pretty much intact. I guess the difference was attributable to the energy passed on to the driver from the impact coupled with the comparative lack of driver restraint?
I think this brings us back to your statement about occupant protection versus vehicle protection.
Please critique as required...