Here is the thread with the story and all the pics: http://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=49851


I wonder if Jayru was driving in the neighborhood at the time of the accident

Thats a joke becuase of his post yesterday. http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=008170

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: SilverSoCal_CL-P ]

 

haha jayru comment was funny

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: amirsafdari ]

 

That just sucks! Is that a sticker I see on the pass. window? He was probably
going to get a bite to eat at the
Bucaboo Creek Steak House after a long
fight for the perfect payments on that new
RSX and whammo!! That POS truck trying to make a left running a red light. I guess?

Anyway, no dinner, no new car, that sucks if he is a guy. Hope he still has his girl.

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: xenon7 ]

 

it's funny...u really get to check out how cheap the car is when it's in a crash...just look at all that crumpled plastic...that's a total loss right there...my family used to have an '85 Mercedes turbo diesel station wagon (thing was a boat and had the acceleration of a Hummer, but man was it a great car)...we got rear-ended at 40MPH a couple years back by a mid 90's Jeep Cherokee...the only damage was the trunk door and rear windshield...everything else was perfectly intact...the Jeep was totaled...i guess back then the weight of the car didn't matter much b/c car companies used to use iron, steel, and chrome which made the cars virtually inpenetratable...i always felt safe in that station wagon...even tho our cars have many safety features, i can't help but feel a bit scared.

 

And what lesson do we learn from these pics & that story?!

You shouldn't bother test driving a compact RSX when you can buy a CL-S or TL-s...lol

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but the very reason that you stated the Merc was safer were the reasons why they were death traps sometimes.

It's a simple issue of momentum and time. When two cars crash and neither is "crumpled", the time, t, is very short (relatively - the whole deceleration happens in a fraction of a second). When both or one "crumples", the time of the deceleration is spread out, and thus the absolute deceleration is shorter.

To put it another way, the work, w, done by their car on yours is a product of Force x Distance. Force in this case is created buy force = mass x velocity (a constant regardless of the crumpling). So since force is constant, the only way to decrease work is to increase distance - i.e. the distance a car is "crumpled" to.

Sound confusing? It is. But I loved physics in school. What it gets down to is that cars that crumple are safer because they spread the force over a greater distance and time.

 

Yep, you are correct. I too loved Physics. Rapid Deceleration resulting in Gs is bad for the human body. This is what airbags prevent, as well as crumple zones. What usually kills passengers is the 3rd impact in a crash. 1 - The impact of the vehicle into the object. 2 - The impact of your body into the interior of the vehicle. 3 - The impact of your internal organs into the front of your body / ribs. Since your internal organs are very "wet" they have a high density or mass, and don't tolerate rapid deceleration. (Drop a wet sponge on the pavement, film it at high speed, play it back at normal and you'll see what becomes of your brain on impact.)

 

Oh yeah - also realize that is what crumple zones are designed to ... CRUMPLE! Look at the "passenger cage" - there's no deforming of the area where you'd be sitting. If you see a mangled car with a perfect passenger cage - the safety systems did their job.

Edit - dumb wording.

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: autox-CL-er ]

 

The only negative thing about modern car's safety features is the damage will cost more to fix, unlike that Merc. The price of safety I guess.

 

Bingo! I've been saying that for years. I have to laugh every time someone mentions how safe a car is because it can get nailed at 30mph and only have a small dent. To reiterate what you said in a simplified non-phyisics way: there's a lot of energy associated with a car moving forward and in a crash that energy has to go somehwere. I'd prefer it go into the cars.

 

i disagree...i'd rather it go into the people b/c we'll get money out of it, and the repair work is far less.

 

Please tell me you'e kidding?? You think it's cheaper to fix a car than a person? Did you watch those "Death on the highway" movies in driver's ed?

 

i dunno...there's just something about the crumpling effect that scares me...mercedes and bmw are renouned for their safety cages remaining intact in even the more severe crashes...the older cars did have crumple zones also, u just never heard about them...and they didn't crumple as much b/c of the raw materials used...being hit at 40 was no joyride, but i came out with a soar neck only...plastic vs. metal?? dunno, guys...definitely place my life with the metal...with the plastic, im a bit more hesitant...sorry, it's a thing.

 

that sucks. i'd hate to be him/her. the sticker is still on the window. maybe that's why they couldn't see the other car coming?

 

u better believe it...had a bucket of popcorn and a Dr. Pepper to keep me company seriously, tho...crumple zones are so stupid...cars always had them, so the fact that people somehow feel safer b/c a car company says the car/truck has crumple zones is for the birds...the only difference is now u have a mixture of plastic and metal vs. iron and steel...all will fold and bend and flex and crumple...i just prefer more of the resistance to penetrating forces into the safety cage with the iron/steel than with plastic/metal.

 

Some sucker will buy the car when they fix the car, you know how dealers are.