JetDriver480
FRF Addict
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,040
- Reaction score
- 701
Great now the Gen 1 guys are going to move from V-8 complaints to Aluminum complaints.
Anyone interested in seeing the inside of a Raptor?
- Thread starter BBLV
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
More weight = more better for vehicle impact, all else equal. The physics is simple. You want to be the heavy object that doesn't move, and the other guy be the light object that endures the harshest acceleration.
You can design crumple zones out of any material you want. But the same design that is heavier will protect you more in a crash than the lighter counterpart. Again, basic physics applies here.
Gen 1 and Chevy should team up.
Using words like "more better" only help prove the point that you don't know what you are talking about. If heavier equals better, then explain how the 1959 Impala with it's obvious weight advantage was outperformed by the 2009 Malibu in the video.
Simply put, weight is only an advantage if the object in question has no negligible effects from transferred inertia. The more g-force the human body is subjected to during lateral deceleration, the more dangerous it is.
Now as for basic physics, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Newton's 2nd law. Force equals mass time acceleration. Simply put, at the same rate of acceleration (or deceleration), an object with more mass will have more force. All this force must be decelerated in a collision. Stopping a heavier vehicle will create more force on it's occupants.
Yes crumple zones can be made from any material, but the lighter the material, the less force applied and the faster it can dissipate the inertia.
If you are hitting another car- more weight/momentum is good. There's much less chance that you will be exposed to massive g-forces. An 18 wheeler has a big advantage when it runs head first into a Toyota Tercel. The driver of the car will be dead, the truck driver will walk away uninjured. Crumple zones only can crumple so much. Once they are crumpled and the energy of the wreck is still not dissipated, it goes into the cabin/passengers.
That video is apples and oranges. Damn near all crashes are modern vehicles versus a modern vehicle or fixed object. No one expects a 1960s car to do well in a crash. Run that 59 Impala into a 59 Beetle and you'll see a bit different story emerge.
Last edited:
2014RubyRed
FRF Addict
I like having the heaviest vehicle in a crash. Let the lighter vehicle crumple and absorb all of the momentum. Riddle me that, Captain Literal.......
This is only true if you have enough mass to overcome the opposing force. Which means that if the acceleration is the same for both vehicles, you would need to be in a vehicle that weighs more than twice that of the other vehicle. So of course an 18,000 pound tractor trailer will only experience minimal deceleration when impacting a 3,000 pound compact car. considering that most vehicles on the road weigh an average 4,000 pounds, you would need to be in a vehicle weighing more that 8,000 pounds to see any advantage from the weight.
Again, I see why people think heavier is better, but the science says otherwise.
---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------
Enjoy your rapid deceleration.
Using words like "more better" only help prove the point that you don't know what you are talking about. If heavier equals better, then explain how the 1959 Impala with it's obvious weight advantage was outperformed by the 2009 Malibu in the video.
Simply put, weight is only an advantage if the object in question has no negligible effects from transferred inertia. The more g-force the human body is subjected to during lateral deceleration, the more dangerous it is.
Now as for basic physics, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Newton's 2nd law. Force equals mass time acceleration. Simply put, at the same rate of acceleration (or deceleration), an object with more mass will have more force. All this force must be decelerated in a collision. Stopping a heavier vehicle will create more force on it's occupants.
Yes crumple zones can be made from any material, but the lighter the material, the less force applied and the faster it can dissipate the inertia.
Man for someone who thinks he's so smart, you sure sound dumb.
1) The '59 and '09 weigh about the same. The difference is due to a lack of anything called a crumple zone on the '59, not materials. I don't even think the Malibu is aluminum so I don't understand your point there either.
2) Newton also has a 1st law. There's a reason that when a bug hits your windshield, one keeps moving while the other disintegrates.
It's ok to get confused sometimes.
Man for someone who thinks he's so smart, you sure sound dumb.
1) The '59 and '09 weigh about the same. The difference is due to a lack of anything called a crumple zone on the '59, not materials. I don't even think the Malibu is aluminum so I don't understand your point there either.
2) Newton also has a 1st law. There's a reason that when a bug hits your windshield, one keeps moving while the other disintegrates.
It's ok to get confused sometimes.
The guy who says "more better" wants to call people dumb. Whatever.
1. 3,400lbs vs 3,800lbs is not about the same weight. The Malibu is not aluminum, but the point was not about materials but about mass and inertia.
2. Newton's 1st law would be applicable to both the bug and the windshield and has nothing to do with why the bug disintegrates and the windshield doesn't. It has to do with force and the differential. More mass onlybe comes beneficial if you have enough force to exceed that opposing force. Of course a bug has less mass than a moving vehicle.
It's ok if you don't understand physics, but if not, don't pretend you do.
Last edited:
Similar threads
