|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2015 15:35:46 GMT
Same sort of thing but with "commentary", and worth a watch. actually, many of our "universal box" type trailers run with the axles that far forward. I recall I explained that the bogie is on a rail system so the driver can adjust it to the shortest wheelbase that allows him to carry the load. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 30, 2015 13:47:11 GMT
Off the top of my head I think that MB haven't technically done a crash test at over 100mph. They did propel a metal plate into a car at supersonic speed (or close to that), but the car was stationary.
The fastest crash test I know of, or at least can find footage of, was an F4 Phantom fighter being propelled into a concrete wall at some 500 mph. You can find this on YouTube.
This was, as I recall, a test to see what would happen if someone flew an aircraft into a nuclear facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 30, 2015 13:57:57 GMT
Off the top of my head I think that MB haven't technically done a crash test at over 100mph. They did propel a metal plate into a car at supersonic speed (or close to that), but the car was stationary. The fastest crash test I know of, or at least can find footage of, was an F4 Phantom fighter being propelled into a concrete wall at some 500 mph. You can find this on YouTube. This was, as I recall, a test to see what would happen if someone flew an aircraft into a nuclear facility. I think I recall that - they did it to test the wall, not the jet. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 1, 2015 5:14:43 GMT
Off the top of my head I think that MB haven't technically done a crash test at over 100mph. They did propel a metal plate into a car at supersonic speed (or close to that), but the car was stationary. The fastest crash test I know of, or at least can find footage of, was an F4 Phantom fighter being propelled into a concrete wall at some 500 mph. You can find this on YouTube. This was, as I recall, a test to see what would happen if someone flew an aircraft into a nuclear facility. Does it matter which way round you do it?.. Car to wall or wall to car.... I suspect that we all know that answer. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2015 14:10:23 GMT
Off the top of my head I think that MB haven't technically done a crash test at over 100mph. They did propel a metal plate into a car at supersonic speed (or close to that), but the car was stationary. The fastest crash test I know of, or at least can find footage of, was an F4 Phantom fighter being propelled into a concrete wall at some 500 mph. You can find this on YouTube. This was, as I recall, a test to see what would happen if someone flew an aircraft into a nuclear facility. Does it matter which way round you do it?.. Car to wall or wall to car.... I suspect that we all know that answer. you mean "you did it wrong because you didn't get the results I wanted"? |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 15, 2015 20:13:15 GMT
Big OLD cars, Size matters, Might is right, and therefore are better than new small cars...Worth noting, that the Volvo used, and older one, pre-dates Airbags here, they have significantly upped their game, newer versions are soo much better..... How much better?... I dont know, because the comparison has not been done... yet. Didn't notice this the first time I saw your post, but that first line you wrote... Is that a statement you believe to be fact, or a statement of myth? I ask because the test clearly shows that no, big old cars are not better than new small cars. If you believe they are, I urge you to watch that video again. It's clear that the Volvo lost. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 17, 2015 7:58:34 GMT
Big OLD cars, Size matters, Might is right, and therefore are better than new small cars...Worth noting, that the Volvo used, and older one, pre-dates Airbags here, they have significantly upped their game, newer versions are soo much better..... How much better?... I dont know, because the comparison has not been done... yet. Didn't notice this the first time I saw your post, but that first line you wrote... Is that a statement you believe to be fact, or a statement of myth? I ask because the test clearly shows that no, big old cars are not better than new small cars. If you believe they are, I urge you to watch that video again. It's clear that the Volvo lost. I though I got it with the bit "they have significantly upped their game, newer versions are soo much better....." that Volvo's have improved a lot since that test. I saw the Volvo lost, significantly. Thats why Volvo upped their game. It was a common (miss)belief that Bigger was better, and that was a genuine myth, until we all got to see NCap euro testing results that scared the pants of many of us?.... I Do NOT believe that might is right or bigger is better, not all the time, not enough to bet my life with. Unless its an older Bus, in which half the weight used to be armour plating to protect the passengers... (Again myth?...) I have seen video "somewhere" after the incident explaining what had happened where an older 7.5ton headbuts a small van, the driver of the 7.5 was ejected through the window over onto the top of the small van... which was a good thing, because the damage the van did to the front of the bigger wagon didnt leave much space inside the wagon, so going trough the windscreen probably saved a LOT of crush injury. He didnt walk away, it caused several broken bones. The van driver had airbags, so some slight chest crushing. Bigger is not better in any way, I hate the phrase, but I go for the lug-nuts rule on "Right of way", if you have to decide, if its bigger than you, dont fight it. Again, "Its my right of way" is a pizza poor excuse for an epitaph. I enjoy catching up on crash testing now and again. Its enough to worry me, and invaluable when considering if I should consider myself reasonably safe in any vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 17, 2015 10:16:46 GMT
Thanks for clearing that up. For a second there, I actually thought you believed "bigger is better", but couldn't quite make that fit with what you would normally say on the subject. That's why I asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 17, 2015 15:26:15 GMT
It was an American meme that SUVs had less damage in crashes so they must be safer - when really the paradigm was that SUVs did more damage in crashes, which they caused more frequently. the passenger cars had greater survivability, and less crashes per mile traveled, but people wanted an excuse to buy urban assault vehicles.
Volvo's marketing strategy has always revolved around survivability, and they have continually worked to up their game. this contrasts to the "big three" whose marketing strategy revolves around "we've always done it this way"
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 16, 2015 14:11:24 GMT
This is what happens if you can get 120mph out of your small "family" saloon.... Here in Germany, the average family saloon can reach this kind of speed easily. While everybody talks about mpg and fuel costs looking for cars with a low displacement engine, at the same time those have to have more than 100 HP! All "every day" cars I owned had 1.8 liter engines, in fact all of them had the very same block version. The first was an atmospheric Diesel with amazing 49HP (Engine power, transmission looses more than 10%) in a 2 ton shell. My dad kept teasing me since this was even less than his 1964 Hanomag (furniture delivery) truck had. Then I had several identical Passat 35i, all with the 55kW (90HP) gasoline engine. Also 1.8 liters (same block) and 90 HP were "just right". Accelerating nicely and still rather swift with full or more payload. Original top speed was ~180kph and the 35i is just a ton in weight. One of them I modified slightly, it was lighter had much more compression ratio but no charger and was able to run into the RPM limiter at 225kph. When I was about to install a 6th gear, the car body was too worn and I retired the entire car for safety reasons. For atmospheric gas engines, displacement decreased over the last 20 years while 90HP was still the average for an ordinary family car. First they used 1.6L engines for 90HP, then 1.4 liter engines while the 1.6 liter engines were beefed up to 110HP. And recently 1.1 liter turbo charged engines with 160HP came out. A coworker owns one of them. When you look at the tiny car, you expect 20 clowns coming out any second but it has more weight than my rather large "middle class" family saloon. With 4l/100km city driving, it seems a good bargain but to be able to keep up with my car, he needs to turn off the A/C and then this car guzzles 12l/100km while mine is happy with less than 8l/100km. So this green car needs 50% more fuel when you want to get from A to B in a reasonable time. Looking at what is sitting in the lots of car dealers, 140HP seems to be the minimum for average cars nowadays and they all go faster than 120MPH! A lot of top speed is nice on the Autobahn which is designed a lot safer than any race track, but more than 110mph is still a great gable with other people joining public traffic. And then there are all those idiots which drive faster than 60mph on a country road which isn't designed for high speed safety at all!  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 17, 2015 10:28:08 GMT
WhA?....
Ok, where did the rest of it go?
Is that all that was left, or is it a case of the Fire rescue took off the body then?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 17, 2015 14:47:38 GMT
our speed limits are very slowly creeping up. we have some states which now post 80 MPH freeway speed limits. of course, Montana still posts 70 MPH daytime speed limits on all rural roads and people occasionally still go sailing off into the scenery because they think that means they can go 70 on all parts of the road.
but we've also seen the steady weight gain. in 91 or so, my girlfriend got a new Honda Civic which could get 40 MPG at 85 MPH.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 18, 2015 9:05:44 GMT
So the Myth that America has a blanket 55mph limit is now completely false?..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 18, 2015 14:23:01 GMT
So the Myth that America has a blanket 55mph limit is now completely false?.. the blanket "55 saves gas" limit expired some years back. it was also the basis of Montana's legendary "citation for wasting resources, fine: $5.00 payable on the spot" speeding tickets. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 18, 2015 21:45:13 GMT
So the Myth that America has a blanket 55mph limit is now completely false?.. The 55 MPH speed limit was done away with a good 15 - 20 years ago depending upon where you lived. This was because the perceived need for the reduced speed limit was believed to have passed, and so the slower speed limit was now seen as a detriment to traffic flow rather than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 0:50:16 GMT
So the Myth that America has a blanket 55mph limit is now completely false?.. The 55 MPH speed limit was done away with a good 15 - 20 years ago depending upon where you lived. This was because the perceived need for the reduced speed limit was believed to have passed, and so the slower speed limit was now seen as a detriment to traffic flow rather than anything else. the Oregon legislature has finally had adequate proof to decide exceeding 55 MPH will not make your car spontaneously explode, and we now have a chance of seeing higher speed limits on rural roads. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 19, 2015 7:51:06 GMT
The 55 MPH speed limit was done away with a good 15 - 20 years ago depending upon where you lived. This was because the perceived need for the reduced speed limit was believed to have passed, and so the slower speed limit was now seen as a detriment to traffic flow rather than anything else. the Oregon legislature has finally had adequate proof to decide exceeding 55 MPH will not make your car spontaneously explode, and we now have a chance of seeing higher speed limits on rural roads. Meanwhile here in UK, they are "Inventing" lower speed limits and parts of Birmingham and Manchester now have 55mph limits on the motorways "To ease congestion" |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 14:16:11 GMT
the Oregon legislature has finally had adequate proof to decide exceeding 55 MPH will not make your car spontaneously explode, and we now have a chance of seeing higher speed limits on rural roads. Meanwhile here in UK, they are "Inventing" lower speed limits and parts of Birmingham and Manchester now have 55mph limits on the motorways "To ease congestion" well, yes, they are still reducing speed limits in other places. often for reasons totally unrelated to speed. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Aug 20, 2015 12:09:28 GMT
WhA?.... Ok, where did the rest of it go? Is that all that was left, or is it a case of the Fire rescue took off the body then?... Look closely, the rear of the car is also in the picture, this is one car, not two! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 20, 2015 14:01:13 GMT
WhA?.... Ok, where did the rest of it go? Is that all that was left, or is it a case of the Fire rescue took off the body then?... Look closely, the rear of the car is also in the picture, this is one car, not two! first the picture has been in the picture for me. that looks to be what we call an "autoextrication" scenario. as in "the patient has been autoextricated." not to be confused with self-extrication, which is when the patient opens the door and gets out. |
|
