harddrivin1le

Go drive ANY passenger car into ANY other parked car @ 80 MPH and tell me how you feel afterwards.

You'll likely be dead - airbags or not.

harddrivin1le

Tell you what:

1) Get into your glorified Accord.

2) Obtain 80 MPH

3) Drive it into any parked car of your choosing

4) Post a thread telling us how good you feel afterwards. :lol2:

mspence3

OFF TOPIC!!

harddrivin1le

Everything else being equal, doubling the speed delta between the two colliding cars will essentially QUADRUPLE the crash energy inparted to the vehicles and the drivers.

silverbishop

Just to point out that such a collision cannot be treated by using high-school physics. You do not care about energy RELEASED, but for the energy TRANSFERED!

tizo

[QUOTE=TLGator]If you find him so annoying, why do you respond to his posts? Trolls go where the action is. If you really want him to leave, just ignore him completely.

For me the entertainment is priceless. You could say the sky is blue and he'll say, "Prove it is blue," or he'll say, "It is only blue if you define the spectrum of color that way," or he'll say, "You're wrong. At night the sky is, in fact, not blue." When he's right he gloats arrogantly, when he's wrong he twists the argument into semantic nonsense, and when he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, which is most of the time as far as I can tell, he either makes stuff up or demands you prove your point. Great tactics. Classic stuff.
[QUOTE]

so true... i don`t find him annoying though, it`s good to hear the other side of things... i just can`t understand most of the reasoning... therefore i continue to provide you with ongoing entertainment... ... may the excitement continue...

harddrivin1le

Airbags are great for parking lot/around town collisions.

They're essentially useless at elevated speeds.

How many airbags do you see in NASCAR?

TLGator

Yes! Yes! Perfect! Keep it coming! ROFL!!!! Now you're arguing some stupid irrelevant off-topic point with me, even though I've never said a word about the argument one way or the other! For all you know I might agree with you! You're too busy just replying and arguing to even think straight!

Wonderful! A+ performance!!!!! Bring on more stupidity! Even boltjames can't hold a candle to your level of hilarious nonsense!

mspence3

Exactly!

harddrivin1le

[QUOTE=tizo]We know that...

harddrivin1le

[QUOTE=tizo]We know that...

That doesn't mean that the reasoning is wrong, though.

How many airbags do you see in NASCAR or any other bonafide racing series?

silverbishop

Does the term momentum look familiar to you?

tizo

ummm... 200+mph, roll bars, and helmets... hahaha... funny...

harddrivin1le

They'd use airbags if they helped at those speeds....

But they don't.

harddrivin1le

Again, a doubling of speed produces a 4X increase in the amount of energy imparted to any given vehicle striking any given object.

The relationship isn't linear.

Many ASSume that everything is linear and what works "fine" @ 35 MPH will still work "pretty good" at 70 MPH. Such is not the case.

tizo

okay, let me take it at this angle... in the current physical state that my fiance is in now... a 35mph crash could kill her... again, i`d rather her take a hit in that TL than many other vehicles out there... whether the TL would of changed anything before is redundant, i based my purchase on what has already happened to me prior... does that help your direction a little??? now think of something else we can argue about, we`ve worn that topic... i`m sure everyone agrees...

silverbishop

OK, I am too bored to tutor in physics, but if you have any idea of sophomore physics, just put the equations down and calculate the energy that is transfered. Just to make the problem simpler for you, assume that the two cars have similar mass (if you keep it constant after the collision, that is up to you).
Nobody said that the relationship is linear (you do not extrapolate results from one area that you can have data to another only in linear relationships; extrapolation is quite common in physics)

harddrivin1le

I'd rather be in a Hummer with a full NASCAR style rollcage.

Why don't you buy one of those?

harddrivin1le

Kinetic Energy = 1/2MV^2

That is the basis of the energy that is imparted to any vehicle during a collision.

Velocity is a 2nd order determinent of impact energy.

Period.


www.rec-tec.com/CX4.html

COLLISION TIMES FOUR

Copyright Ó George M. Bonnett, JD 1997 All rights reserved.

Vehicle 1 strikes an identical vehicle (Vehicle 2) head-on (collinear). The overlap is 100%. Both vehicles are travelling at exactly 30 miles per hour, for a closing velocity of 60 miles per hour.
Vehicle 3, travelling at 60 miles per hour, strikes Vehicle 4, which is stopped. The closing velocity is 60 miles per hour. The vehicles impact front to front. The overlap is 100%. Both vehicles are identical, and are identical to Vehicles 1 and 2.
Vehicle 5, travelling at 45 miles per hour, strikes Vehicle 6, which is travelling 15 miles per hour in the opposite direction. The closing velocity is 60 miles per hour. The vehicles impact front to front. The overlap is 100%. Both vehicles are identical, and are identical to Vehicles 1 and 2.
Vehicle 7, identical to all of the other vehicles, strikes an immovable, non-deforming, barrier at 30 miles per hour. The closing velocity is 30 miles per hour.
How are these collisions similar? How do they differ? How does the damage to the vehicles compare in the collisions? Are any the collisions basically identical? Should any of the post-collision vehicles have similar or identical damage? If the collisions produce different results, what is the difference and what causes it?

If you feel uneasy about the answers you are probably in the majority. Even those reconstructionists with years of experience may be unsure of the answers. Many may come up with answers that are incorrect.

Let's examine each accident in detail and find out what they have in common and what they don't. First, a few simplifying assumptions:

There is no restitution;
There is no grade;
The vehicles are absolutely identical before impact;
The weight of each vehicle is 1 unit.
Collision 1

Both vehicles are travelling at the same speed.
Both vehicles have a weight of 1 unit.
Both vehicles have the same kinetic energy at impact, 30.0621 units based on the formula Kinetic Energy = .5 * Mass * Velocity^2.
Total collision kinetic energy at impact is 60.1242 units.
Collision 2

Vehicle 3 has 120.2484 units of kinetic energy at impact.
Vehicle 4 has no kinetic energy at impact.
Total collision kinetic energy at impact is 120.2484 units.
Collision 3

Vehicle 5 has 67.6397 units of kinetic energy at impact.
Vehicle 6 has 7.5155 units of kinetic energy at impact.
Total collision kinetic energy at impact is 75.1552 units.


Collision 4

Vehicle 7 has 30.0621 units of kinetic energy at impact.
Total collision kinetic energy at impact is 30.0621 units.


In Collision 1, the kinetic energy on both sides of the equation is identical. The net kinetic energy after the collision is zero, therefore all of the energy must be absorbed in the form of heat, sound, light, and damage to the vehicles. Since the vehicles have the same resistance to deformation, the damage to each vehicle must be the same.

In Collision 2, all of the kinetic energy is on one side of the equation. The post-collision energy results in vehicular motion. This motion is in the same direction (determined through momentum) as that of Vehicle 3 prior to the collision. This motion is dependent upon the inertia (resistance to change of velocity) of Vehicle 4. Energy not converted into motion, light, heat, or sound, must be absorbed in the form of damage by the vehicles. Any damage must be absorbed equally by the vehicles since they both have an identical resistance to deformation.

In Collision 3, there is an imbalance of energy on the opposite sides of the equation. The post-collision energy results in vehicular motion. The kinetic energy of Vehicle 5 is greater than the kinetic energy of Vehicle 6, and results in motion. Momentum dictates that the direction will be in the same direction as that of Vehicle 5 prior to impact. Energy not converted into motion, light, heat, or sound, must be absorbed in the form of damage by the vehicles. Any damage must be absorbed equally by the vehicles since they both have an identical resistance to deformation.

In Collision 4, all of the energy is on one side of the equation. By definition, the barrier is immovable and non-deforming. All of the energy that is not given off in the form of light, heat, or sound, must be absorbed by Vehicle 7. The energy absorbed by Vehicle 7 is the same amount of energy absorbed by Vehicle 1 and by Vehicle 2. Since the resistance to deformation of all three vehicles is identical, the damage must be identical.

While all of the proceeding arguments used the Law of Conservation of Energy as their foundation, almost identical arguments can be made using the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The difference between the approaches is that the Law of Conservation of Momentum does not involve damage. Energy can result in damage or motion. Momentum can only result in a change in the velocity vector, if the mass is not altered. The velocity vector has both scalar velocity (speed) and direction. A change in the velocity vector (delta V) can be a change in the scalar velocity (speed), or a change of direction. Since all of the above collisions are collinear, inline collisions, there is no force that could cause a change of direction except the opposite direction. Therefore, the delta V resulting from the four collisions can result in a change of direction or speed or both.

Do the facts given for Collisions 2 and 3 contain sufficient information to determine the post impact speeds of the vehicles? Will the vehicles separate after impact?

The collisions are collinear, with no restitution. There is no force to separate the vehicles in these collisions, and therefore they must have the same velocity. Because the total momentum before impact must equal the total momentum after impact, and the velocities and masses of the vehicles are all identical, the post impact velocities for Collisions 2 and 3 can be computed. The post impact velocity, based on momentum, must be 30 miles per hour for Collision 2, and 15 miles per hour for Collision 3.

If the post impact velocity for each vehicle in Collision 2 is 30 miles per hour and the weights are the same, doesn’t this mean that all of the energy went into motion? The speed of each vehicle is 30 miles per hour, and the mass is the same for each vehicle. It would seem that the energy is the same before and after collision and therefore no energy remains that will convert to damage. We all know that a vehicle travelling at 60 miles per hour that strikes a vehicle that is stopped, should result in at least some damage. In fact we might guess that the damage would be extensive.

Is something wrong with the Law of Conservation of Energy, or the Law of Conservation of Momentum? Maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with our math?

The post-impact velocity of each vehicle in Collision 2 is 30 miles per hour. Using the formula for kinetic energy, the energy for each post-impact vehicle is 30.0621 units. The total kinetic energy is 60.1242 units for both vehicles. The total kinetic energy at impact was computed to be 120.2484 for the collision. This is a difference of 60.1242 units, or 30.0621 units of energy that is absorbed in the form of damage by each vehicle (Vehicle 3 and Vehicle 4). This is exactly the same as the damage absorbed by Vehicles 1 and 2 in Collision 1, and by Vehicle 7 in Collision 4.

In Collision 3, the total post-impact energy is 15.031 units. The total kinetic energy at impact was computed to be 75.1552 units. Subtracting 15.031 from 75.1552 leaves 60.1242 units to be absorbed equally by both vehicles (Vehicle 5 and Vehicle 6). Each vehicle must absorb 30.0621 units of energy.

Vehicles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 all absorb the identical amount of energy as damage. If the energy is identical, and the vehicles are identical, and the resistance to damage of each vehicle is identical, the damage must be identical for each vehicle in each of the collisions.

The "trick" is that in the energy computations, the velocity, in feet per second, is squared. It is the squaring of this term that accounts for what appears to be a contradiction.

While the post impact motion of the vehicles may be different, the damage is identical. Understanding how to properly use of the Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Law of the Conservation of Momentum, along with the addition and subtraction of vectors can be the greatest weapons of the reconstructionist. They are some of most basic tools of our profession.

tizo

short-term memory???

Norse396

Because he knows that he will get page after page of arguments, which he lives for... :grenade:

harddrivin1le

Tell them all about how much "gross rear wheel HP" stock 1969 Chevelles made. :thefinger

silverbishop

I am convinced now that you have no understanding in physics. Not only that, but you cannot really decipher a simple passage. So, I put an end of it here. After all: " Never Argue With An Idiot. He'll Drag You Down To His Level And Then Beat You With Experience."

mspence3

Norse, I was wondering when you would come along.

He's BAAACK.

harddrivin1le

I see.... :tflamer: :clown:

harddrivin1le

http://www.fizziker.com/UArk2/collisions.htm

mspence3

Someone once posted a little song to one of his threads that went something like,

Trolling, Trolling, Trolling
Keep them trolls a coming, Rawhide.

It was so cool.
Where is it. I can't find it to repost it.

dcarlinf1

Like I said. Here we go again. This is the kind of bullshit thread that has ruined this place.

Mods please move this to off topic since it's about the RL and not the TL.

mr_superlove

Ah hell, the author of this page is affiliated with the University of Arkansas. Unless he's talking about running a tractor into the back of a cow he doesn't have a clue what he's saying.

1SICKLEX

We went from the RL to TSX vs TL to physics, to how well cars can survive an impact at speed in 1 thread. amazing.

harddrivin1le

And don't forget the occasional inane comments along the away - like yours. :clown: :rocketwho

EggrollXpress61

what happened to it being a hybrid car? Wasnt that planned or said before?

1SICKLEX

:thefinger

Eggroll, I think the hybrid comes in 2006.

Norse396

So, you took a few weeks off and now you're back at your old crap and arguing with everybody. How is that overweight GEO doing? What's it worth now? About $3,500? That pile of crap is losing value about as fast as a Cavalier! Great choice!

Now go about your trivial arguing.... you're soooooooo owned. You'll prove it by carrying on this thread until the mods close it..... too funny.

harddrivin1le

I wasn't aware that GEO produced LS1 powered, rear wheel drive, 6 speed cars equipped with factory installed Konis, TORSEN differential and 12" discs with Bosch ABS.

What model GEO was that?

The 1LE weighs less than 3,400 pounds with a full tank of gas...That's lighter than a TL and lighter than any '69 Chevelle.

I had FAR fewer problems with my "pile of crap" (1999 1LE Z28) during the past 6 YEARS than you've had with your TL during the past 6 MONTHS. :thefinger

Norse396

I waited for 3 pages, it's fun watching him get owned. Next he'll argue HID's again or how the knuten knupper valve in his Geo/Camaro makes 4000 hp by using rice crispies and whole wheat toast. His car runs 9's on corn starch too, the flux capacitor has been redesigned by prof scphincter and his corn holio crew, next mod for his slomaro is a 1" exhaust to improve the torque curve and make his slomaro run 4's.

Be prepared for his copied and pasted explanation on how this will work, after all if it's posted on the web, it must be true! :tflamer:

He is one amazing lunatic!

harddrivin1le

The LS1 makes more power than ANY stock 396 Chevelle and more power than any stock Acura (including the NSX and the new RL)

Call me when Acura builds a ~ 350 HP (SAE NET)/6 speed/TORSEN/Koni performance car and sells it for less than $23K. I'll IMMEDIATELY buy one.

Norse396

Why sure they did, you bought one!
Here is a picture of your slomar/geo:


Give us a description of that awesome geo again?

Hey, here is the back! Thanks for the pics 1le!


Aw come on 1le, you know the Geo Storm and Camaro are twins, admitting it is the first step, the second one is laughing when chevy killed it, they finally knew what they were doing!

And that statement has nothing to do with anything, as per usual. You're very good at that. Hey, a Model T weighs less than all the above, so?

Hmmmm I haven't had the TL for 6 months, but you know what? You're driving a Geo Storm twin and I'm driving a TL. I'll take the TL over that dung heap any day of the week, hey what is that Slomaro worth these days, TL after 5 years, 53%, Camaro after TWO YEARS is what again? Keep it, the engine is the only thing worth a damn, the rest is crap.

Glad to have ya back 1le, we missed your brand of idiocy!

Norse396

Well now, since the Chevelle hasn't been built since 1972 (the good ones anyway) and isn't in the Acura's competition I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Per usual, you'll argue that the ashtray was better as if it would matter.

When acura builds a car to compete with the Camaro then you can compare them, oh wait, THEY KILLED THE SLOMARO! So I guess the point is more moot than ever. Good night 1le, I'm done with this thread.

I learned one lesson, get in, then get out because you'll argue breath mints for days and you just aren't worth that much effort, troll on though, I'm sure there are still takers!

Now, explain to us how the Camaro is directly comparable to the TL and cars built in the 60's. I'm not going to reply but knowing you can't help yourself this should cause you to post another 5 pages.... Don't forget the chemical make up of Root Beer as it relates to Leather interiors!

harddrivin1le

I don't care what my 1LE Z28 is worth because I'm keeping it...

I paid $21,300 and could probably get $12,000 for it 6 years and 73K miles later.