Nate Nagel

Kevin wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a
>>> roll cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as
>>> close to bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>

Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
a semi)

I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Nate Nagel

Kevin wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a
>>> roll cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as
>>> close to bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>

Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
a semi)

I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Matthew S. Whiting

Dave Milne wrote:
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Yes, I was wondering about the units as well. I didn't load the file as
it is 3.1MB which takes some time on a dial-up line, but I wonder if
that isn't million miles rather than billion miles.


Matt

Matthew S. Whiting

Dave Milne wrote:
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Yes, I was wondering about the units as well. I didn't load the file as
it is 3.1MB which takes some time on a dial-up line, but I wonder if
that isn't million miles rather than billion miles.


Matt

Matthew S. Whiting

Dave Milne wrote:
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Yes, I was wondering about the units as well. I didn't load the file as
it is 3.1MB which takes some time on a dial-up line, but I wonder if
that isn't million miles rather than billion miles.


Matt

Nate Nagel

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
>>>otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
>>>vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
>>>and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
>>>ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
>>>other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
>>>corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
>>>accidents.
>>>
>>>Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
>>>convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
>>>and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
>>>vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
>>>accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
>>>would they stay the same?
>>>
>>
>>Basically, yes. An auto crash is fairly inelastic, the safety of the
>>vehicle occupants will primarily depend on how progressively the
>>vehicles crush. The amount of energy dissipated will increase
>>(dramatically) but the end result will be the same. Since energy
>>increases linearly with increased mass, it ought to scale fairly roughly
>>as you describe it.
>>
>>This is, of course, a fairly simplistic explanation and the crash
>>performance characteristics of the vehicles will be the primary factor
>>in whether the occupants walk away or not. A head-on collision between
>>two identical vehicles is essentially the same thing as a head-on crash
>>into an immovable wall at the same speed; so crash test performance is
>>the best gauge of safety in your scenario.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> On the "two identical vehicles head-on = one vehicle into an immovable
> wall" thing, it seems self-evident that you could also extend that
> analogy and say that a heavier vehicle and a lighter vehicle head-on
> would be equivalent to the lighter vehicle hitting a wall that is moving
> at some advancing speed (i.e., more damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle), and the heavier vehicle hitting a wall that is
> receding at some speed (i.e., less damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle)
>

That's about right, assuming that it's a true head on collision.
Another way to look at it is to consider the point where the bumpers of
the vehicles meet - you can add up the vectors and see which vehicle is
going to get pushed back, and how quickly. (again, collisions - at
least head on ones - are fairly inelastic, so the point of impact can be
considered as a new point where you can sum the vectors and determine
where that point will go.) Or yet another way to look at it would be to
calculate a new equivalent speed of crashing into a stationary wall.
However, if one vehicle crumples progressively and one stays fairly
rigid that will throw off your calcs and occupants of *both* vehicles
will actually fare less well than when both vehicles crush in a
progressive manner.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Nate Nagel

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
>>>otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
>>>vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
>>>and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
>>>ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
>>>other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
>>>corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
>>>accidents.
>>>
>>>Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
>>>convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
>>>and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
>>>vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
>>>accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
>>>would they stay the same?
>>>
>>
>>Basically, yes. An auto crash is fairly inelastic, the safety of the
>>vehicle occupants will primarily depend on how progressively the
>>vehicles crush. The amount of energy dissipated will increase
>>(dramatically) but the end result will be the same. Since energy
>>increases linearly with increased mass, it ought to scale fairly roughly
>>as you describe it.
>>
>>This is, of course, a fairly simplistic explanation and the crash
>>performance characteristics of the vehicles will be the primary factor
>>in whether the occupants walk away or not. A head-on collision between
>>two identical vehicles is essentially the same thing as a head-on crash
>>into an immovable wall at the same speed; so crash test performance is
>>the best gauge of safety in your scenario.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> On the "two identical vehicles head-on = one vehicle into an immovable
> wall" thing, it seems self-evident that you could also extend that
> analogy and say that a heavier vehicle and a lighter vehicle head-on
> would be equivalent to the lighter vehicle hitting a wall that is moving
> at some advancing speed (i.e., more damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle), and the heavier vehicle hitting a wall that is
> receding at some speed (i.e., less damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle)
>

That's about right, assuming that it's a true head on collision.
Another way to look at it is to consider the point where the bumpers of
the vehicles meet - you can add up the vectors and see which vehicle is
going to get pushed back, and how quickly. (again, collisions - at
least head on ones - are fairly inelastic, so the point of impact can be
considered as a new point where you can sum the vectors and determine
where that point will go.) Or yet another way to look at it would be to
calculate a new equivalent speed of crashing into a stationary wall.
However, if one vehicle crumples progressively and one stays fairly
rigid that will throw off your calcs and occupants of *both* vehicles
will actually fare less well than when both vehicles crush in a
progressive manner.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Nate Nagel

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
>>>otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
>>>vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
>>>and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
>>>ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
>>>other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
>>>corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
>>>accidents.
>>>
>>>Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
>>>convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
>>>and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
>>>vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
>>>accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
>>>would they stay the same?
>>>
>>
>>Basically, yes. An auto crash is fairly inelastic, the safety of the
>>vehicle occupants will primarily depend on how progressively the
>>vehicles crush. The amount of energy dissipated will increase
>>(dramatically) but the end result will be the same. Since energy
>>increases linearly with increased mass, it ought to scale fairly roughly
>>as you describe it.
>>
>>This is, of course, a fairly simplistic explanation and the crash
>>performance characteristics of the vehicles will be the primary factor
>>in whether the occupants walk away or not. A head-on collision between
>>two identical vehicles is essentially the same thing as a head-on crash
>>into an immovable wall at the same speed; so crash test performance is
>>the best gauge of safety in your scenario.
>
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> On the "two identical vehicles head-on = one vehicle into an immovable
> wall" thing, it seems self-evident that you could also extend that
> analogy and say that a heavier vehicle and a lighter vehicle head-on
> would be equivalent to the lighter vehicle hitting a wall that is moving
> at some advancing speed (i.e., more damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle), and the heavier vehicle hitting a wall that is
> receding at some speed (i.e., less damage than head-on into a
> same-weight vehicle)
>

That's about right, assuming that it's a true head on collision.
Another way to look at it is to consider the point where the bumpers of
the vehicles meet - you can add up the vectors and see which vehicle is
going to get pushed back, and how quickly. (again, collisions - at
least head on ones - are fairly inelastic, so the point of impact can be
considered as a new point where you can sum the vectors and determine
where that point will go.) Or yet another way to look at it would be to
calculate a new equivalent speed of crashing into a stationary wall.
However, if one vehicle crumples progressively and one stays fairly
rigid that will throw off your calcs and occupants of *both* vehicles
will actually fare less well than when both vehicles crush in a
progressive manner.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Matthew S. Whiting

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>>...Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
>>limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
>>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
>>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
>>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
>>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.
>
>
> Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
> goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
> people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

That is good to hear. I'd hate to think that someone of Streisand's ilk
was out contaminating public restrooms...

Matt

Matthew S. Whiting

Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>>...Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
>>limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
>>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
>>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
>>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
>>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.
>
>
> Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
> goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
> people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

That is good to hear. I'd hate to think that someone of Streisand's ilk
was out contaminating public restrooms...

Matt