In finding a new motor I was quite amazed at the amount of plastic now being used. I'm not just talking about bumpers here. There seem to be some makes using it for body panels. So I wonder about those ncap safety tests. As an experiment try giving a front wing of your motor a hard press, just to see how much it deforms ...
I contrast this with my first beloved car - a 1935 Riley Falcon (cost £7/10/0 plus £20 for a recon cylinder head to get it on the road). I'm convinced that if that had been driven at one of those barriers they now use in tests not only would it not have been significantly damaged, but it might even have demolished the barrier! Some aluminium panels actually, but then, it had a real chassis.
Some years later I encountered a prat driving south on a northbound dual carriageway, after the pubs closed. I was in a Beetle (the real one). I'm also convinced that had I been in certain much vaunted modern cars I would not now be writing this.
Any views?
|
|
They were grand times weren't they. You didn't have to lock your front door, the working classes knew their place and all women were virgins until they were married. Sorry Colin, but there is no evidence that I have seen that proves that old cars were safer than modern ones.Go on, someone, prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
I regret the passing of bumpers. In the old days if you touched bumpers when parking no damage was done. Do the same nowdays and you've got a £250 bill for each car!
|
|
It's all to do with absorbing energy. You can be encased in solid steel which may not show any signs of damage after a crash but the forces on your body will have creamed your brain and internal organs due to the enormous deceleration. Crumple zones & seatbelts etc ensure that in a crash it takes longer for your bodynto decelerate to 0m/s. Since F=ma, if a is less, then for a given mass, m, the force will be less and you will survive. Doesn't explain the extensive use of plastics on tfhe outside, I'm sure that's down to cost but I'd rather be in a modern car than your old riley in a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no doubts about where I would rather be in the event of meeting the theoretical immovable object. Modern every time. Brian has got his mechanics correct. However as the saying goes, there is no substitute for size. Regular readers may remember I (and the driver) walked away from a headon 50mph (impact speed) lamp post about 9 months ago. The lamp post got as far back as beyond the Mcpherson strut, and if I had been in the Fiesta not the Volvo 240 I reckon it would have been erect between my legs..............
|
|
Sorry should give credit to Humpy not Brian. Alz strikes after 10.00.
|
|
|
|
I've got nothing against crumple zones, but does the modern "bumper" HAVE to fall off or have a chunk taken out of it at the slightest knock?
Some cars do not appear to have any form of external bumper at all!
|
On the subject of rigid shells v crumple zones - what about roll cages? A rally or race car can take a real pounding in a crash and the cage will only deform slightly. The use of full harness belts and good supportive seats prevents the occupant(s) from being flung around inside. The crash helmet is more likely to contact the cage than anything else so the cage is padded well - it's rare to see damaged helmets. I think the idea that a rigid shell gives rise to terrible injuries is an incorrect one. The body can withstand massive G-forces - remember the bloke who strapped himself to a rocket sled to test this? A problem with older cars is the abundance of hard and sharp bits inside the car to hit in a crash and the steering column intruding.
After my Mini was written off in a small crash I looked at buying a modified one that had a roll-cage, rally seats and harness (as well as a 1380cc engine and sc-gbox etc). The insurance company would accept all other mods apart from the roll-cage! Apparently something to do with rally-cars usually being written off 'between stages' or on the 'way home from the rally' rather than during the event.... perhaps a bending of the truth?
Piers
|
|
|
|
