Urine Powered Generator Invented By Four African Girls

[Highspeed]

A Japanese EV is set to become the worlds most aerodynamic production vehicle. It's somewhat odd looking, but to me, it's a likable odd - it reminds me of a Citroen DS..

Take that body shape, use CF bolt on body panels over an aluminum chassis, make it a "big battery" hybrid that uses a Direct injection 2cyl with a 1liter.. Use low RR tires... It wouldn't surprise me to see it get 100mpg on the highway.

Painted silver that would look like it came from a 1930's Amazing Stories cover painting which depicts ' Life in 2012 '

On that basis I actually think it's quite cool. Needs an atomic engine and a robot chauffeur though...

[Greg]

There's more than one way to alter that[referring to velocity change experienced by the occupants]. All other things being equal, in a collision between objects, increasing your mass means you will experience less change in velocity. It's basic physics.

I doubt there's anyone on this board who doesn't understand the concept of inertia. I wasn't arguing that mass didn't do that - I was arguing that there are alternatives - which you seem to accept.

It's not intertia, it has nothing to do with inertia. Remember back to when you had to solve for the velocities of objects after a collision, in first semester physics (mechanics). Momentum really matters a lot, and that is directly proportional to mass.

I'll quote you:

Weight doesn't indicate anything in a collision other than how the resultant vectors will work out.

This was your response to 2 different people saying a lightweight sports car would suffer in a multi-vehicle collision with a heavier vehicle precisely because the other vehicle was heavier.

No alternative mentioned, just either lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. Either one should expect to be corrected.

First you manage not to understand the implications, then you change the subject. OK.

A) This comes off as a combo of "I am a Yankee,", and "I'm spiffy for going to MIT." I promise, you aren't the smartest person on this board - nor am I, for that matter. That I perceive that comment as jackassery, could merely be a cultural clash.

You shouldn't reflexively contradict someone when it reveals you aren't really clear what you're talking about. Don't pick pedantic fights when the facts don't support you, and then get butthurt when it's pointed out you're mistaken.

[Greg]

(Mind you that paradoxically, excessively rigid steel structures can be worse in collisions than steel structures that deform.)

Yes, I read this, but that's not germane. Those pick-ups and old sedans don't fail because they are too rigid, they fail because they have mass, but no strength against and impact. (Put some of the Lincoln Continental convertibles on a lift, open all 4 doors, and the chassis will bend. Those pickups fail terribly on a side impact, because there isn't any structure on the side to resist the impact, if it gets hit above the chassis.)

Drive a '57 Chevy into a tree. They fail because they're too rigid. Seriously.

[Netpackrat]

One thing I would like to mention, since it was asserted in an earlier post that modern pickup trucks are still bad in collisions. They have gotten to be a lot better than they used to be, and have been better for a while now. My stepmother passed out behind the wheel of a '94 Ford F-250, and put it almost directly into the counterweight of a large, rough terrain forklift at a high throttle setting and maybe 30mph (I witnessed the event). The truck was totalled, and one of the forklift's rear fenders was bent pretty badly, and broke one of its attachment points; we're talking some seriously heavy steel (at least 1/4" and maybe 5/16" IIRC) that received a glancing blow because the counterweight bore the brunt of the impact. One of the forklift's rear leaf springs was broken clean in two. She walked away from the accident with minor bruises. There was no airbag installed in the truck, but she was wearing her seat belt. I examined the wreckage pretty closely, and it was clear to me that the structure had been designed to deform in an accident, and that it had performed as designed. I've never been a big fan of Ford products, but I believe that the designers of that one probably saved her from serious injury.

[HTRN]

On that basis I actually think it's quite cool. Needs an atomic engine and a robot chauffeur though...

Silver? I dunno. I think it would look great in burgandy and black though.

As for the atomic engine - well it is an EV - I suppose we could stick a RTG in it

[Netpackrat]

It's actually quite easy to make deformable energy absorbing structures of lightweight aluminum, and carbon fiber, and composite honeycomb etc...

We've been doing it in aircraft for 70 years. In fact, that's where the automotive industry got the idea.

That's true as long as you are incorporating aluminum into the composite structure, but we're still talking about a throwaway structure in the event of an accident. And I don't believe that the public will ever accept that in an automobile; not at what a car built that way is going to cost. You can say that it will be necessary in order to meet the standards that are being called for... I say that when the reality of that sets in, people will demand through their legislators that the standard be altered. And they will get it.

[Aglifter]

I can't find it - it may have died, but there was a website - something like crash test.com - which had both various government and insurer test results, along with the accident history* of various models.

*Probability of an injury in an accident, and the probability of a death in an accident, based on historical data of the model.

Some pick-ups were death traps. Most of the heavier ones had insufficient data for the accident records, but some of the late 90s half-tons were terrible.

I specifically mentioned a side-impact because it wasn't until fairly recently that the heavier pickups weren't crash-tested - and, as such, didn't have side-impact beams, etc.

That resulted in T-Bones being very dangerous, if the impact hit above the chassis, as there was nothing substantial to resist the impact.

If you care: Crashtest data for moderate, mid-size cars, For large pickups

I believe those reflect room - which is very, very critical. I spent plenty of time wedging myself into small cars, but I know that, if I'm wedged against the structure, I'm going to get quite a bit more load, than if I have some room around me.

[Yogimus]

The equation you are looking for is the amount of time it takes the passenger of the vehicle to decelerate from 70 to 0 mph, combined with the amount of deformity that occurs to the compartment. all other points are moot.

[Greg]

All other things being equal, yeah, mass on mass, larger mass suffers less.

Thank you.

But we're not talking about mass on mass with all other things being equal.

You're wrong, we were. The Irishman and I were attempting to explain why something like a Lotus might be dangerous in a collision, despite being a sports car with safety features. It was an aside, and Ag picked a fight by somehow trying to contradict that.

And "All other things being equal, yeah, mass on mass, larger mass suffers less." is what it boiled down to.

[skb12172]

I can't find it - it may have died, but there was a website - something like crash test.com - which had both various government and insurer test results, along with the accident history* of various models.

*Probability of an injury in an accident, and the probability of a death in an accident, based on historical data of the model.

This isn't what you were looking for, but I thought it might be somewhat helpful...

Crash Test Data

See, Chris? I linked my URL address!