Tag Search for "close hit"

2020 Jeep Wrangler Rolls Over In Small Overlap Crash Tests

newtboy

says...

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

wtfcaniuse

said:

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.