News Report re: Hybrid Accords
04-19-2006 | 04:53 PM
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >>
>> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >>
>> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >
>> >
>> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>>
>> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> it gets plenty complex.
>>
>> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> etc.
>
>Hello,
>I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
and overly basic evaluation.
I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
energy.
A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
ofrces may be ---> <---
If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
vehicle for a given deflection.
Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
(bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
difference, its where those energies go.
>Jason
>In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >>
>> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >>
>> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >>
>> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >
>> >
>> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>>
>> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> it gets plenty complex.
>>
>> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> etc.
>
>Hello,
>I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
and overly basic evaluation.
I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
energy.
A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
ofrces may be ---> <---
If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
vehicle for a given deflection.
Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
(bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
difference, its where those energies go.
>Jason
04-19-2006 | 05:29 PM
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 05:29 PM
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 05:29 PM
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
though
> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >>
> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >>
> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >>
> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> etc.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>
> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> and overly basic evaluation.
>
> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> energy.
> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>
> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> ofrces may be ---> <---
> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> vehicle for a given deflection.
>
> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>
> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>
> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>
> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>
> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> difference, its where those energies go.
Hello,
I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
agree with this statement:
"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
in most windstorms.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 07:03 PM
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
04-19-2006 | 07:03 PM
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
04-19-2006 | 07:03 PM
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
>In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
>> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
>> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >flobert wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
>though
>> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
>> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much
>> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
>> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
>> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
>> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
>> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
>> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
>> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
>> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
>> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
>> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
>> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
>> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
>> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
>> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
>> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
>> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
>> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
>> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to
>> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely
>> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take
>> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections.
>> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
>> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small
>> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs
>> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
>> >>
>> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
>> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
>> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
>> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
>> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
>> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
>> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
>> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
>> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
>> >> it gets plenty complex.
>> >>
>> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
>> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
>> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
>> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
>> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
>> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
>> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
>> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
>> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
>> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
>> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
>> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
>> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
>> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
>> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
>> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
>> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
>>
>> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
>> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
>> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
>> and overly basic evaluation.
>>
>> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
>> energy.
>> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
>>
>> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
>> ofrces may be ---> <---
>> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
>> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
>> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
>> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
>> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
>> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
>> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
>> vehicle for a given deflection.
>>
>> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
>> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
>> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
>> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
>>
>> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
>> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
>>
>> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
>> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
>> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
>> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
>> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
>> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
>> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
>> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
>> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
>> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
>> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
>>
>> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
>> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
>> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
>> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
>> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
>> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
>> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
>> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
>>
>> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
>> difference, its where those energies go.
>
>Hello,
>I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
>sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
>truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
>said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
>He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
>agree with this statement:
>"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
>over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
>and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
head.
>I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
>did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
>in most windstorms.
used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
wander when its windy. Its what they do.
>Jason
04-19-2006 | 07:24 PM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <v3gd42dpkagu5gcfsf5lnf9cptkp8r3gd3@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 07:24 PM
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <v3gd42dpkagu5gcfsf5lnf9cptkp8r3gd3@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 07:24 PM
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
In article <v3gd42dpkagu5gcfsf5lnf9cptkp8r3gd3@4ax.com>, flobert
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
<nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:29:36 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >In article <nd7d429g4vbvdjpo67udrens3g5bbs3pa7@4ax.com>, flobert
> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:16:51 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <neuc42d63a15lf165s348oiichol788uq1@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:54:18 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8flc4218gbpo3sn41i39qhmliqvapj1895@4ax.com>, flobert
> >> >> ><nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:46:46 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >flobert wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense,
> >though
> >> >> >> >>>the safety aspect concerns me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the
monster
> >> >> >> >trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not
so much
> >> >> >> a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit
> >> >> >> with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton
> >> >> >> vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger
> >> >> >> car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one,
> >> >> >> andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc.
> >> >> >> Its another situation where only one side of the equation is
> >> >> >> considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up
> >> >> >> and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on
> >> >> >> google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier
> >> >> >> at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a
> >> >> >> vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can
> >> >> >> park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a
disadvantage to
> >> >> >> >the occupants in a crash.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> >> >> >> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> >> >> >> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The
shogun
> >> >> >> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed
> >> >> >accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could
> >> >> >easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge
pickups to
> >> >> >be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be
less likely
> >> >> >to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most
accidents take
> >> >> >place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at
intersections.
> >> >> >In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or
> >> >> >upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people
inside small
> >> >> >cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster
sized SUVs
> >> >> >and monster size pick-up trucks.
> >> >>
> >> >> says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting
> >> >> away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both
> >> >> vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case
> >> >> is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather
> >> >> more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real
> >> >> accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation
> >> >> of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a
> >> >> heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there,
> >> >> and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see
> >> >> it gets plenty complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20
> >> >> years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design
> >> >> regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to
> >> >> be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini'
> >> >> if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable
> >> >> as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for
> >> >> rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll
> >> >> pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i
> >> >> remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda
> >> >> etc.
> >> >
> >> >Hello,
> >> >I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to
> >> >turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord
> >> >or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks
> >> >and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design
> >> >are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top
> >> >heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy.
> >> >For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy.
> >> >However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident
> >> >because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point?
> >>
> >> I know what you're saying, and again, its very simplified. "top
> >> heavyness" is to the rollability of cars on an impact, what a tennis
> >> ball hitting a wall is to two cars impacting. its a very simplified
> >> and overly basic evaluation.
> >>
> >> I'll put it simply, into moresimple terms. a heavier car carries more
> >> energy.
> >> A taller car has a higher center of gravity.
> >>
> >> now, in an impact between a large car and a smaller one, the intial
> >> ofrces may be ---> <---
> >> If, however, the surfeaces are not completely perpendicular, and the
> >> collapsing equally uniform, there will be a vertical element to it, as
> >> a proportion of its total energy. I greater vertical energy value (due
> >> tot he greater overall energy value) means a greater rotational moment
> >> about the pivot. The higher the COg, the less of a rotation the
> >> vehicle needs to roll. So, a larger vehicle has a greater energy, and
> >> a higher COG meaning its rollover will be greater than a smaller
> >> vehicle for a given deflection.
> >>
> >> Next, add in the physical height. A bigger vehicle has bigger wheels.
> >> Often much greater suspension travel. Its impact sports will impact
> >> higher up on the other vehicle, and thus will ride over. This produces
> >> a greater deflection value for a bigger vehicle.
> >>
> >> Bigger deflection, rotating with more energy, and a higher COG = very
> >> liekly to roll in an impact with a smaller vehicle.
> >>
> >> Its not rocket science. you just ca't look at it in terms of wooden
> >> blocks for vehciles. you have to look at shapes, energies, and a
> >> step-by-step look throughout the collision. Its like you're watching a
> >> ball hit a baseball bat and thinking ball (small light) hits bat
> >> (bigger heavier) so ball will always come off worst (and go out of the
> >> park) It aint so, its curved, there's all sorts of energy deflections
> >> and transfers. A simplistic model, such as the one you're using is
> >> fine for a very eough estimate. but thats all it is, a very simplistic
> >> ball-park figure. Heck, you rear-end someone, a big factor is their
> >> brakes. if they were applied, a lot more damage is done thn if they're
> >> not, yet your model takes none of that into consideration.
> >>
> >> just as a closer, another video clip springs to mind - its of a
> >> security post arangement. one of those powered bollards. Whole thing
> >> was probably about 300lbs all told, for the enetire system. They
> >> tested it by driving a 5ton truck into it at 30mph. Stopped the truck
> >> dead. by your modeling methods, the post should probably have been
> >> napped right off. It was, after all, a lot smaller and lighter. Truck
> >> stopped, bollard was through to between the drivers seat, and the
> >> truck almost ended up on its nose (high cog again) but it stopped it.
> >>
> >> In short, its not so much the magnitudes of the energy that make the
> >> difference, its where those energies go.
> >
> >Hello,
> >I understand your points. I have a neighbor that once owned a monster
> >sized pick-up truck. He had a full sized camper mounted on the bed of the
> >truck. He told me that a major wind storm almost blew over the truck. He
> >said that he was afraid to drive the truck whenever there was a storm.
> >He does not have a camper mounted on his new truck. Please tell me if you
> >agree with this statement:
> >"Monster sized pick-ups and SUVs are more likely (than most cars) to roll
> >over in a high speed accident. The reason is because monster sized pick-ups
> >and SUVs are more top heavy than most cars."
>
> ANY large truck or SUV is. doesn't have to be monster sized (like the
> one my wife's cousin drives - an f350 whose wing-mirror I can walk
> under, and where my 2yo can walk under the engine without hitting her
> head.
>
> >I should note that I have driven my Honda Accord in a major windstorm and
> >did not have any problems controlling the car. It would NEVER blow over
> >in most windstorms.
>
> used to have a 98 daihatsu hijet as a work vehicle. We'd take the 4
> rear seats out, and literally lioad it to the window level with gear,
> inlcuding some 350lb of batteries. COG was really low (lower than most
> cars, in fact, since the engine was mounted under the front seats) a
> moderatly windy day would blow it around even then. Any high-sided
> vehicle will wander, when its very windy. Heck, my 87 and 97 minivans
> wander when its windy. Its what they do.
We are in agreement. Last year, I had to use a rental car and took the
cheapest car on the lot to save money. It was Toyota Echo. I was amazed
that a company like Toyota would build a car like the Echo. It's really
narrow and was even taller than my Honda Accord. It also had really small
wheels. Despite the fact that it is a car--it is very high profile (aka
top heavy). I drove the car thru a wind storm and had a very difficult
time keeping the car under control. I was driving at a high rate of speed
on the freeway and the wind almost blew the Echo into a car in the other
lane. I have driven my Accord thru the same sort of windstorms and never
had trouble controlling the vehicle. I know that the drivers of monster
sized SUVs and pickups trucks that have a camper mounted in the bed will
agree that High Profile vehicles are more likely than cars to turn over in
a high speed accident or major wind storm. Even high profile cars like the
Echo are also at risk of turning over or turning upside down in a high
speed accident. Do you agree?
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
04-19-2006 | 10:14 PM
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:38:33 -0400, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
04-19-2006 | 10:14 PM
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:38:33 -0400, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
04-19-2006 | 10:14 PM
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:38:33 -0400, flobert <nomail@here.NOT> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:00:07 GMT, Larry the Free
><usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>Waiving the right to remain silent, jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:
>>
>>> Those people that want to impress their friends and Co-workers
>>> with a Hybrid vehicle would prefer the Toyota Prius since
>>> it looks like a Hybrid.
>>
>>What does a Hybrid "look like"..? Why should it look any different than
>>an ordinary car..?
>
>Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how
>'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000
>miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production,
>however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take,
Cars are considered a major source of pollution. Flashlights aren't.
The hybrid system is saving maybe 800 gallons of gas over 100,000
miles and emit eight tons less CO2. The batteries don't weigh that
much and they will certainly be recycled.
>and how
>they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy
>electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass,
>reduce the mass, you need less force
This is demonstrably false (not F=MA, the part about achieving the
same economy if weight of the hybrid system were removed) The hybrids
compete against similar size and performance cars which don't have the
hybrid electrical system and the hybrids get much better millage.
Milage
pounds HP EPA Consumer Reports
Civic EX 2740 140 30/38 28
Civic Hybrid 2875 110 49/51 37
Prius 2890 110 60/51 44
>>Honda's original Hybrid looked so odd, it's no wonder they couldn't sell
>>them.
>
>not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on
>coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why
>motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars,
>movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht
>the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race
>around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie
>chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.
What are the coolest cars out there? Must be Toyota Camry, Honda
Accord, Honda Civic, they are the best sellers. No doubt being cool
can sell some cars but it is far from the only motivator.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
04-20-2006 | 12:02 AM
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
flobert wrote:
> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>
Interesting theories, but the real world data is very straightforward,
for example:
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see chart below), there were 142
fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That
figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For
large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. "
That was from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/saf...8/article.html
IIHS and others have studied this issue extensively, and the occupants
of smaller automobiles die in accidents much more often than to those in
larger cars. You can try to handwave it away with driver demographics,
but that doesn't add up either.
John
> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>
Interesting theories, but the real world data is very straightforward,
for example:
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see chart below), there were 142
fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That
figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For
large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. "
That was from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/saf...8/article.html
IIHS and others have studied this issue extensively, and the occupants
of smaller automobiles die in accidents much more often than to those in
larger cars. You can try to handwave it away with driver demographics,
but that doesn't add up either.
John
04-20-2006 | 12:02 AM
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: News Report re: Hybrid Accords
flobert wrote:
> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>
Interesting theories, but the real world data is very straightforward,
for example:
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see chart below), there were 142
fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That
figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For
large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. "
That was from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/saf...8/article.html
IIHS and others have studied this issue extensively, and the occupants
of smaller automobiles die in accidents much more often than to those in
larger cars. You can try to handwave it away with driver demographics,
but that doesn't add up either.
John
> As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of
> all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically
> - a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun
> comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.
>
Interesting theories, but the real world data is very straightforward,
for example:
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (see chart below), there were 142
fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That
figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For
large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. "
That was from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/saf...8/article.html
IIHS and others have studied this issue extensively, and the occupants
of smaller automobiles die in accidents much more often than to those in
larger cars. You can try to handwave it away with driver demographics,
but that doesn't add up either.
John