News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

IIHS says small cars are more dangerous

Started by DGuller, April 14, 2009, 10:12:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Iormlund

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
As I said, the big shock to me is how dangerously misleading the official safety ratings are.  Yes, they do make a disclaimer that frontal impact results can be compared only against like cars.  However, would you really know from that disclaimer that a car with perfect safety ratings can still be up to three times as likely to kill you compared to a heavier car?

Crashes often involve things like trees, trucks or pillars which are not going to give way, no matter how big your car is. In that sense the standard test is much more accurate.
Mind you, the article is unclear on a very significant point, I suspect these car to car tests were carried out at a combined velocity of 80 mph. That is a lot, and it is no wonder lighter cars suffer heavily, since they experience much more decel than in standard tests against a barrier, thus the comments from the manufacturers.

KRonn

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
As I said, the big shock to me is how dangerously misleading the official safety ratings are.  Yes, they do make a disclaimer that frontal impact results can be compared only against like cars.  However, would you really know from that disclaimer that a car with perfect safety ratings can still be up to three times as likely to kill you compared to a heavier car?
That is scary and the comparisons here were just between the very small cars and mid size cars, not vs large cars or large SUVs. Plus the single car accidents hitting trees, poles or what ever which can be bad; I kind of think those kinds of accidents aren't counted in the safety stats? Not sure though. Cars are a lot safer though over all.

DGuller

#18
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 14, 2009, 12:33:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
Yes?
So why is the result only valid against a car of similar size?
The physics of a car hitting an immovable object at 40 mph is equivalent to the physics of the car hitting another car of the same size head-on when both are going 40 mph in opposite directions.

DGuller

Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 01:13:41 PM
Mind you, the article is unclear on a very significant point, I suspect these car to car tests were carried out at a combined velocity of 80 mph. That is a lot, and it is no wonder lighter cars suffer heavily, since they experience much more decel than in standard tests against a barrier, thus the comments from the manufacturers.
If two cars of the same weight crash at 80 mph combined velocity, then the result is the same as crashing one car at 40 mph into immovable barrier.  They shouldn't experience more deceleration in one test compared to another. 

The small cars will suffer more damage in car-to-car tests if crashed against bigger cars, but that was the whole point.  In the real world, if you're in a small car, you're likely to crash into a bigger car when you have a head-on, not into a car of the same size.

Iormlund

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 01:13:41 PM
Mind you, the article is unclear on a very significant point, I suspect these car to car tests were carried out at a combined velocity of 80 mph. That is a lot, and it is no wonder lighter cars suffer heavily, since they experience much more decel than in standard tests against a barrier, thus the comments from the manufacturers.
If two cars of the same weight crash at 80 mph combined velocity, then the result is the same as crashing one car at 40 mph into immovable barrier.  They shouldn't experience more deceleration in one test compared to another. 

That's impossible. You can't bypass the laws of physics.

Quote
The small cars will suffer more damage in car-to-car tests if crashed against bigger cars, but that was the whole point.  In the real world, if you're in a small car, you're likely to crash into a bigger car when you have a head-on, not into a car of the same size.

I guess that depends largely on your city. On mine it is rare to drive on a fast, two-way street that has no physical separation in the middle. Crashing onto a tree or a lamppost is much more likely than into oncoming traffic.

The Brain

Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 02:53:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 01:13:41 PM
Mind you, the article is unclear on a very significant point, I suspect these car to car tests were carried out at a combined velocity of 80 mph. That is a lot, and it is no wonder lighter cars suffer heavily, since they experience much more decel than in standard tests against a barrier, thus the comments from the manufacturers.
If two cars of the same weight crash at 80 mph combined velocity, then the result is the same as crashing one car at 40 mph into immovable barrier.  They shouldn't experience more deceleration in one test compared to another. 

That's impossible. You can't bypass the laws of physics.


Elaborate.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

DGuller

Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 02:53:57 PM
That's impossible. You can't bypass the laws of physics.
I'm not trying to.  In what way do you think I'm bypassing the laws of physics?

derspiess

A friend of my wife's bought a smart car.  Definitely one of the most inappropriately named vehicles ever.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

ulmont

Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 02:53:57 PM
That's impossible. You can't bypass the laws of physics.

Quote from: About.ComForce - Colliding With a Wall
Consider case A, in which car A collides with static unbreakable wall. The situation begins with car A traveling at a velocity v and it ends with a velocity of 0. The force of this situation is defined by Newton's second law of motion. Force equals mass times acceleration. In this case, the acceleration is (v - 0)/t, where t is whatever time it takes car A to come to a stop.
The car exerts this force in the direction of the wall, but the wall (which is static and unbreakable) exerts an equal force back on the car, per Newton's third law of motion. It is this equal force which causes cars to accordion up during collisions.

It is important to note that this is an idealized model. In case A, the car slams into the wall and comes to an immediate stop, which is a perfectly inelastic collision. Since the wall doesn't break or move at all, the full force of the car into the wall has to go somewhere. Either the wall is so massive that it accelerates/moves an imperceptible amount or it doesn't move at all, in which case the force of the collision actually acts on the entire planet - which is, obviously, so massive that the effects are negligible.

Force - Colliding With a Car
In case B, where car A collides with car B, we have some different force considerations. Assuming that car A and car B are complete mirrors of each other (again, this is a highly idealized situation), they would collide with each other going at precisely the same speed (but opposite directions). From conservation of momentum, we know that they must both come to rest. The mass is the same. Therefore, the force experienced by car A and car B are identical and are identical to that acting on the car in case A.
http://physics.about.com/od/energyworkpower/f/energyforcediff.htm

Iormlund

The cars are not mirrors of each other. So if one weights much less than the other conservation of momentum dictates it'll experience much more deceleration during a crash. There's no way around it.

Iormlund

Also, there is certain drawback from massive cars: the amount of energy they need to absorb in a crash against something like a tree or a bus is accordingly greater.

Neil

Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 03:54:12 PM
Also, there is certain drawback from massive cars: the amount of energy they need to absorb in a crash against something like a tree or a bus is accordingly greater.
True, but they are generally much better built than smaller cars.  Steel has a much better strength/weight ratio than unibody plastic.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Razgovory

#28
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 03:50:33 PM
The cars are not mirrors of each other. So if one weights much less than the other conservation of momentum dictates it'll experience much more deceleration during a crash. There's no way around it.

What if one weighs more but the other has more mass?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

DGuller

#29
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2009, 03:50:33 PM
The cars are not mirrors of each other. So if one weights much less than the other conservation of momentum dictates it'll experience much more deceleration during a crash. There's no way around it.
I was talking about cases where they were mirrors of each other.  Re-read the post you quoted when you said it was impossible.