ACAR wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:26 pm, " Frank" <norep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:m-qdnQUQP8STH27anZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Zeppo wrote:
>>>>>>> When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...
>>>>>> And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving
>>>>>> a dent. Even a casual brush these days can cause thousands in
>>>>>> damage.
>>
>>>>>> BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot
>>>>>> easier than I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today.
>>>>>> Part of it is age, part of it is lack of practice. Most places I
>>>>>> go these days have parking slots or valets.
>>
>>>>> Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel,
>>>>> perhaps about 3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph
>>>>> bumper crash on new cars, maybe over $10,000 in damages.
>>>> I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back
>>>> of the car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It
>>>> left a 2" dent in the center of my bumper that was not even worth
>>>> fixing.
>>
>>>> If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled
>>>> and I'd have been hurting.
>>
>>>> Jon
>>
>>> i wouldn't bet on that.
>>
>>> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
>>
>>> what's im****tant is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
>>> detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only
>>> good at making hamburgers.
>>
>> This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a
>> 1,000 ton boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either cra****ng into
>> a 1,000 ton boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash
>> between a Cooper
>> and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
> you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
> a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
> would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cu****on. The Mini would
> decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
> high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
> head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
> live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
> two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.
>
> Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
> crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
> easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
> other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
> into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
> not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
> passed for brakes in those old cars.
Why on earth would you want to do something foolish like decelerate or
stop?
;-)
|
