You will get a real kick out of this one.56k users,it's worth the wait
;-) Not a crash video,but a tweaked out Smart doing serious burnouts
(well for a Smart that is)
He is certainly hammering his axles and tyres.
For really impressive car dancing one should go to the MPH show. Went for
first time last November. Extraordinary.
Where are you based?
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
"Nutz4Benz" < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
Ridiculously wrong. Of course Crash test dummies are used for a
reason, and there a lot small flying bits that can easily kill you. Or
even small bumps in the interior of the passenger compartment.
The aim of the test is to see if the cage survives. Of course there could be
tidbits that could kill you but overall if you're in
the cage and it survives it won't matter what car. I'da thought that the cage in
the smart wouldn't survive.
The aim of that test was to demonstrate what happens when you hit a concrete
barrier at 70 miles per hour - it was done by a UK TV company for TV, not
scientific purposes. They also crashed a Corsa (Opel / Vauxhall) which was
I remember them saying afterwards that the chances of survival in either car
were slim due to the forces involved.
Cocker Spaniel Pups for Sale - ready now - one black dog left
That is soooo wrong that there is no way of telling you how wrong that is!!
Having been an automotive test engineer for nearly 20 years and having done
crash tests just like that and development of safety restraints, I can tell
you that the g level alone of a crash like that would likely kill you. If
not, you would still be in the hospital for a very, very loooong time. Just
because the car structure survives does not ensure that the occupants will.
That hurt just watching it. But very interesting!!!
This comment does bring back memories of another very sad crash
involving a Benz and concrete (with a certain princess inside) where at
least 1 passenger (properly restrained) did survive.
Are you saying the decceleration curve is too steep for a car like the
smart? i.e. big crumple zones on big cars make for "gentler" crashes?
I don't know what the decel curve for the Smart is without the data, but I
know that for sure I would not want to be in that car! The commentator says
that the crash took one second. I would bet that the ride-down was more
like <200 milliseconds judging from the airbag deployment which, for a
driver's side, is around 60 to 100 ms. Yes, larger crumple zones can help.
But that is also no guarantee. I have seen a lot of vehicles that have a
lot of structure out front but it collapses too easily causing lower leg
injuries to the 1st row occupants. The femur loads go off the chart and
indicate that there would have been some serious leg injuries. The factors
that drive survivability largely depend on the conditions at the time of the
crash and where the occupant is in relation to that impact - and as you
said - how they were restrained.
There is virtually NO crush zone on the front of the Smart and the only
thing that survives is a VERY HARD cage which is evidenced by the
operability of the doors - i.e. - no passenger compartment deformation (it's
built like a blinking tank!!). Look into the structure of racing cars. I
think that the Indy style cars had the same problem, despite the cages
designed into the vehicle drivers were getting serious injuries, until they
redesigned the nose cone to better absorb the impact. You must use up the
kinetic energy in such a way that it doesn't exceed the human body's
tolerance for g force's. If you go over that limit, people start having
closed head injuries, internal bleeding from torn arteries, detached organs,
etc., because they were decelerated too quickly. Back in the early days of
automobiles they made the structures very stiff under the assumption that
they would be safer. The cars came out of crashes looking pretty good, but
the people inside got pretty beaten up, thus the redesign to crush zones.
I couldn't agree with you more, Dave. You stated: "Having been an
automotive test engineer for nearly 20 years..."
I worked for one of the Big 3 car companies for several years TESTING
safety restraints in simulated crashes and reenactments of real world
accidents. Remember the HIC? I'm sure that your engineering and my
testing contributed to the manufacture of safer vehicles.
I sure hope so Hernando!!! Yeah, I remember the Head Injury Criteria.
Fairly primitive by today's standards but still in use with some updates and
so much more is required. Now the ATD's are sooo much better instrumented.
They have SID's, EuroSID, etc. dummies. I also did work in product
liability crash testing/reenactments.
I didn't finish what I was writing. After having read all your posts there's
nothing I disagree with and nothing I didn't know
before I read your posts. The cage has to survive to protect the occupant and
either the car or occupant has to absorb the
deceleration, preferably the car.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.