Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I just hate those walls moving at me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I just hate those walls moving at me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I just hate those walls moving at me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
> need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
> vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
> would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
> from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
> vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
> lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
> velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
> or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
> same in both cases.
>
> Matt
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> 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
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >>bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> >
> > The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
> > metro.
> >
> >
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> 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
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >>bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> >
> > The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
> > metro.
> >
> >
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
> 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
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >>bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> >
> > The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
> > metro.
> >
> >
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>
>
With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>>
>>>
>>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>>metro.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>>generates more momentum
>>
>>
>
>
> With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> ultra safe!
excellent point
> In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin@el.net says...
>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
> With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> ultra safe!
excellent point