Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14-02-2011, 02:36 PM   #1
NC_Lane
NC Fairlane Ghia
 
NC_Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 535
Default Vehicle mass: What effet does it have in an accident?

Hey all,

Been seeing all these articles on how a lot of the new small safe cars are better to be in a crash than in say a 4wd and I have question...

so we say for example that a there is a collision between a small say 1Ton car and a 3Ton 4wd at say 100kmph does it mean that the force encountered is the same for both vehicles?

From what I can gather, wouldn't there be say 3 times more force applied to the car than the 4wd? I would expect the 3Ton 4wd to slow down to a stop in this collision and the car to end up going backwords..

Does this sound right/can someone clarify?

Cheers,

__________________
Curent Rides:
-NC Fairlane Ghia 3.9L
-XC RallyPack Ute 5.8L
-AU Falcon Wagon 4.0L Still Stock
-80 Series LandCruiser 4.5 LPG
NC_Lane is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 02:44 PM   #2
Revolver
Big Member
Donating Member1
 
Revolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SE Qld
Posts: 5,874
Default

All I can comment on is the speed at which they hit.

If they are both doing 100, then the speed of impact (Head on) is 200kmph.

There maybe some form of calculations to clarify the force of the impact wieght wise. But yes logically speaking, the odds would be in the superior mass.

Thats why you never pick o a bloke 3 times the size of you.

Never **** with a superior mass.......
__________________
The Scarlet Fairlane: 94 5.Slow Litre NC II Fairlane 488800kms & Climbing
Rollin' on genuine ELGT wheels.
K&N Filter
/////Alpine Sound.
EBGT Momo Woodgrain Steering Wheel
The Scarlet Fairlane Build Thread

Project "White Knight"
93 ED XR6
ROH Alloys
Momo wheel
Cruise
Sunroof
Premo Sound
Manual
HO Goodies
PWK Build Thread

1990 Yamaha FZR 250: 59000ks & climbing. New fairing, old tank, my angry mosquito in a coffee tin! 14.977 1/4mile.
Revolver is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:07 PM   #3
sgt_doofey
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
sgt_doofey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barossa Valley, South Australia
Posts: 3,381
Default

It's simple Physics, but unfortunately, it's been quite a number of years since I did it at high school. The 3T 4wd will exert more force on the lighter 1T car due to it's mass.
Force = mass x acceleration
__________________
Cheers,
Sam.
sgt_doofey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:07 PM   #4
NC_Lane
NC Fairlane Ghia
 
NC_Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 535
Default

So does that mean that in theory (as long as your NOT smashing into concrete barriers) a 3Ton 4wd is safer than a 5star hatch?
__________________
Curent Rides:
-NC Fairlane Ghia 3.9L
-XC RallyPack Ute 5.8L
-AU Falcon Wagon 4.0L Still Stock
-80 Series LandCruiser 4.5 LPG

Last edited by NC_Lane; 14-02-2011 at 03:23 PM.
NC_Lane is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:16 PM   #5
13101093
Regular Member
 
13101093's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Default

what needs to be considered here is decelaration, thats what causes injuries in a car accident, if you had a 3 ton fourby that was solid as, you hit a concrete wall, your going to bounce around inside, or hit your seatbelt pretty hard, and the car will probably bounce off the wall. if you hit it in a 1 ton small car with proper crush zones etc, the car will crumple around you and all the energy is taken up by the car and not by you.
13101093 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:24 PM   #6
NC_Lane
NC Fairlane Ghia
 
NC_Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13101093
what needs to be considered here is decelaration, thats what causes injuries in a car accident, if you had a 3 ton fourby that was solid as, you hit a concrete wall, your going to bounce around inside, or hit your seatbelt pretty hard, and the car will probably bounce off the wall. if you hit it in a 1 ton small car with proper crush zones etc, the car will crumple around you and all the energy is taken up by the car and not by you.
Woops missed the NOT in my above post. Fixed now
__________________
Curent Rides:
-NC Fairlane Ghia 3.9L
-XC RallyPack Ute 5.8L
-AU Falcon Wagon 4.0L Still Stock
-80 Series LandCruiser 4.5 LPG
NC_Lane is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:27 PM   #7
EgoFG
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,848
Default

Mass is interesting.
Larger mass means more energy that needs to be absorbed (or deflected)
If you have a significantly larger mass and greater rigidity then you can make all of the energy get transferred to the other vehicle (I used to polish the datsuns off my Chrysler by Chrysler) - this is why we win when we hit an insect.
But if we have more mass, and greater rigidity then it is worse if we crash into an immovable object (tree).

So it is a balance - resist crumple to avoid small amounts of damage, but crumple all except the passenger cell in a larger accident.

It could be that a lighter car needs better crumple control as it will be more objects will be, from its perspective, immovable.

So it really depends on what you plan on running into.

I think a large mass car with a High Ancap rating, and avoid crashing into anything larger than you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Beast II
If they are both doing 100, then the speed of impact (Head on) is 200kmph.
This is correct, but the accident is no worse than two cars crashing into two walls at 100 kmph. There was a mythbusters ep on this.
EgoFG is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:28 PM   #8
Geez Louise
Awesome
 
Geez Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In my own little world..Everyone here knows me :)
Posts: 9,401
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: All the behind the scenes things that help the community. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13101093
what needs to be considered here is decelaration, thats what causes injuries in a car accident, if you had a 3 ton fourby that was solid as, you hit a concrete wall, your going to bounce around inside, or hit your seatbelt pretty hard, and the car will probably bounce off the wall. if you hit it in a 1 ton small car with proper crush zones etc, the car will crumple around you and all the energy is taken up by the car and not by you.
I was just thinking that myself. Different cars have different crumple zones, therefore changing the results.
__________________
Geez Louise is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:30 PM   #9
flappist
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Beast II
All I can comment on is the speed at which they hit.

If they are both doing 100, then the speed of impact (Head on) is 200kmph.

There maybe some form of calculations to clarify the force of the impact wieght wise. But yes logically speaking, the odds would be in the superior mass.

Thats why you never pick o a bloke 3 times the size of you.

Never **** with a superior mass.......
Unfortunately your comment in completely wrong

If they are both doing 100km/h the the impact is 100km/h NOT 200km/h.

The impact speed for each object is the difference between what each object is doing before the crash and what they are doing immediately after the crash.

The 200km/h is a common misunderstanding.....
flappist is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:40 PM   #10
mikestp
EF Ghia
 
mikestp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gidgegannup WA
Posts: 154
Default

The safety of a single vehicle hitting an immovable object will depend almost entirely on the design of the vehicle, A heavier vehicle will have no real advantage because the deceleration is the same (Vehicle speed - 0) The design of crumple zones is very important for this to make the deceleration occur over the largest distance possible (without deformation to cabin area).

However in a 2 car collision the inertia of the vehicle is as important as the vehicles design. If a 1 ton car has a head on with 2.5 ton 4wd the deceleration for the 2 vehicles is not the same, The 4wd will most likely drag the car backwards.
So acceleration force on the occupants of the 4wd will be lower (cruising speed - zero over a decent distance) compared to the car (cruising speed to backwards in the blink of an eye)

Conclusion:
Id take the landcruiser over the 5 star ANCAP roller-skate anyday
mikestp is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:42 PM   #11
bigsta
Making superman jealous
 
bigsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bondi
Posts: 1,323
Tech Writer: Recognition for the technical writers of AFF - Issue reason: Writing tech articles 
Default

Its simple physics really.

First when hitting a immovable object in a bigger car there is more crumple zones and more metal to adsorb the impact as well as room for engine bits and steering racks to go before the force and said steering racks make their way to you.

When a 3t car hits a 1 ton car this is where the physics are really on your side in the big car as your momentum and force is repeatedly adsorbed by the smaller mass vehicle so in a sense you are pushing into them and using their crumple zones where as the small vehicle is experiencing more of a impact with a concrete wall as they are not only adsorbing the impact from their kinetic energy but the big cars as well. This is why its quite common to see in a impact between a 4WD or a truck and a smaller car the 4wd has almost no damage but people are being cut out of the excel.

There is a few variables that can change things such as speed angle of impact etc the worse possible accidents are those that stop you dead on such as a head on or a t bone.
__________________
If life deals you lemons dont complain just get on with it and make lemonade

2006 SY Territory Ghia AWD in ego with roof mount DVD, tints, 7 seats, iPod input

2005 Crewman Cross 8 with 350 cubic inches, AWD, black on black rims on black leather, tints and polished racks
NEW TOY Bayliner 185, inboard 3L 4 cylinder pushing us along at 50MPH whenever i get a chance

I love Aussie cars and are gonna really miss them soon.......
bigsta is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:44 PM   #12
MexicanBatman
Banned
 
MexicanBatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bat Cave
Posts: 1,237
Default

Look up the YouTube videos the Europeans love crashing small cars into large ones, there's heaps of videos, you can see how the smaller lighter car absorbs the larger cars impact hooray for the crash test dummy in the s class doh for the dude in the smart car
MexicanBatman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:46 PM   #13
Raptor
^^^^^^^^
Donating Member2
 
Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: online - duh
Posts: 9,642
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: For quietly going about moderating in a fair and even manner. 
Default

It all depends on the "accident" (which is a bad term anyway)

Remember the lighter car will be easier to stop, slow down or have change direction than the larger car so maybe it'll avoid the accident all together. This is something that's often overlooked by the big 4wd fans with their long-travel suspension, high c-of-g and ballon tyres, all of which work against avoiding the accident in the first place. This is always the best option

However, if a collision is going to happen and it's with another car your better off being in the heavier one. If it's with something that won't move (solid wall, large tree) the less energy that needs to be absorbed by the crumple zone the better.
Thus lighter (but larger) car is better than heavier (but small) car.

Airbags are the last line of defense to cushion the body parts against hitting something hard.
__________________
.
'93 XG Falcon Ute( sold ) : '94 ED Falcon Classic ( sold ) : '04 Territory SX TS ( sold ) : '04 Falcon RTV BAII ute (still in the family)
Raptor is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:47 PM   #14
tik-4d
Starter Motor
 
tik-4d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 19
Default

if both vehicles are travelling at 100 kph and collide head on, the total force will be equal to a crash at 200 kph, however because the two vehicles each weigh differently, the force of the impact is spread accordingly.

using momentum (mass)x(final velocity) and (mass)x(initial velocity) you can calculate the change momentum of each vehicle and thus finding the final veloctiy after the crash.

on a head on collison (mass)x(final velocity) and (mass)x(initial velocity) of one vehicle must eqaul the same of the other vehicle, then we can find the unknown variables in the eqaution.

from my calculations, just after the impact the 3ton 4wd is still travelling at 20.85 m/s while the 1ton hatchback is travelling at 13.9 m/s in the opposite direction. during the impact, the 4wd will exert a net result of twice the momentum of the hatchback.

i could be wrong though i'm pretty sure i'm right, don't hold me to it.

Last edited by tik-4d; 14-02-2011 at 03:54 PM. Reason: clarification
tik-4d is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:55 PM   #15
Yellow_Festiva
Where to next??
 
Yellow_Festiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Lane
So does that mean that in theory (as long as your NOT smashing into concrete barriers) a 3Ton 4wd is safer than a 5star hatch?
You are mixing 2 variables there, weight and safety.

What is the age / construction / condition of the 4wd? The 4x4 my fare better in an accident, but the occupant may smash their head on the wheel rather than the airbag of the smaller hatch.

How safe a car is depends on sooooooo many factors.
Yellow_Festiva is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:56 PM   #16
NC_Lane
NC Fairlane Ghia
 
NC_Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 535
Default

O k so my guess was correct.. thanks guys..
off topic but whats the general statistics when it comes to crashes these days? do crash more often into other cars or barriers ?
__________________
Curent Rides:
-NC Fairlane Ghia 3.9L
-XC RallyPack Ute 5.8L
-AU Falcon Wagon 4.0L Still Stock
-80 Series LandCruiser 4.5 LPG
NC_Lane is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 03:57 PM   #17
Yellow_Festiva
Where to next??
 
Yellow_Festiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Unfortunately your comment in completely wrong

If they are both doing 100km/h the the impact is 100km/h NOT 200km/h.

The impact speed for each object is the difference between what each object is doing before the crash and what they are doing immediately after the crash.

The 200km/h is a common misunderstanding.....
This was my understanding of the matter. Both vehicles, if square and head on will essentially be hitting a brick wall (so to speak).

Could be wrong of course... not the first time lol
Yellow_Festiva is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:02 PM   #18
flappist
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tik-4d
if both vehicles are travelling at 100 kph and collide head on, the total force will be equal to a crash at 200 kph, however because the two vehicles each weigh differently, the force of the impact is spread accordingly.

using momentum (mass)x(final velocity) and (mass)x(initial velocity) you can calculate the change momentum of each vehicle and thus finding the final veloctiy after the crash.

on a head on collison (mass)x(final velocity) and (mass)x(initial velocity) of one vehicle must eqaul the same of the other vehicle, then we can find the unknown variables in the eqaution.

from my calculations, just after the impact the 3ton 4wd is still travelling at 20.85 m/s while the 1ton hatchback is travelling at 13.9 m/s in the opposite direction. during the impact, the 4wd will exert a net result of twice the momentum of the hatchback.

i could be wrong though i'm pretty sure i'm right, don't hold me to it.
This has been done to death several times.

The 200km combined crash speed IS COMPLETELY MISLEADING and is commonly used by "road safety freaks" to beat up an emotional reaction.

There is almost no difference between a vehicle hitting a brick wall at 100km/h and hitting an oncoming vehicle of similar mass at 100km/h.

If the oncoming vehicle has a greater mass them the first vehicle will be accellerated backwards.

For it to be a 200km/h crash the first vehicle would have to be accellerated to 100km/h in the opposite direction........
flappist is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:05 PM   #19
prydey
Rob
 
prydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,777
Default

this is a touchy subject for many people, but i think its worth considering. the ancap ratings get marketed reasonably hard by most manufacturers but personally i think they can only be compared accross a similar category of vehicle.

just because your buzz box is 5 star, doesn't make it safer than a 4 star 4wd.

sometimes i think its an argument that will never end. some say 5star is 5 star which is safer than 4star, regardless.


most of these questions get raised on youtube but most of the time, they compare old cars with new cars. there aren't many tests that compare new large cars with new small cars. mass is still king.

a ba/bf falcon will probably still be safer than a hyundai i30. ones 5 star, ones 4 star.
prydey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:07 PM   #20
tik-4d
Starter Motor
 
tik-4d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 19
Default

i clearly state the total force of the impact, as in the total force of the system is equal to a crash at 200 kph as both cars have a crash, both doing 100 kph.
tik-4d is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:11 PM   #21
EgoFG
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
There is almost no difference between a vehicle hitting a brick wall at 100km/h and hitting an oncoming vehicle of similar mass at 100km/h.
In fact, if your choice is between a tree/wall, and oncoming car YOU would be almost safer to take the oncoming car - but it may actually have people in it.

Interestingly from a legal perspective, if the oncoming car is in the wrong, and you have a choice to run into it or a wall - your insurance will have to pay if you choose to run into the wall (assuming that the other car avoids the collision).
EgoFG is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:13 PM   #22
tweeked
N/A all the way
 
tweeked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,459
Default

You are better off being in the 4WD if you do not mind living on seeing the faces of the dead people in the other car each night when you close your eyes.

Both in similar (within 2-300kg) 5 star cars, everyone can possibly go home to their families.
__________________
BA GT
5.88 litres of Modular Boss Powered Muscle
300++ RWKW N/A on 98 octane on any dyno, happy or sad, on any day, with any operator you choose - 12.39@115.5 full weight

tweeked is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:14 PM   #23
flappist
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tik-4d
i clearly state the total force of the impact, as in the total force of the system is equal to a crash at 200 kph as both cars have a crash, both doing 100 kph.
Your statement is very misleading but I suspect you already knew that.....

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11282496
flappist is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:14 PM   #24
mik
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
mik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melb north
Posts: 12,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Lane
Hey all,

Been seeing all these articles on how a lot of the new small safe cars are better to be in a crash than in say a 4wd and I have question...

so we say for example that a there is a collision between a small say 1Ton car and a 3Ton 4wd at say 100kmph does it mean that the force encountered is the same for both vehicles?

From what I can gather, wouldn't there be say 3 times more force applied to the car than the 4wd? I would expect the 3Ton 4wd to slow down to a stop in this collision and the car to end up going backwords..

Does this sound right/can someone clarify?

Cheers,
i can tell you from experience you hit something small with something big it takes longer to slow down in the big vehicle, the small one stops real quick.
i would`nt want to hit a 4wd head on with my micro car.
mik is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:30 PM   #25
Olbucko
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Olbucko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Tablelands. NSW
Posts: 894
Default

watch you tube clip of small cars crashing head on at the same speed into large cars.
It's no contest. You are always better off in the large car in a head on if they both have the same safety rating.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7wG4uy-Phs

Last edited by Olbucko; 14-02-2011 at 04:41 PM. Reason: additional text
Olbucko is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 04:58 PM   #26
AussieAV
Regular Member
 
AussieAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
Default

To best answer the question, seeing is believing. Here is the video of Mythbusters testing this exact scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4
__________________
Reality is an illusion
caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Some people drive to go places others go places to drive.......
AussieAV is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 05:03 PM   #27
jpd80
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
jpd80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,411
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Thoughtful contributions to our community 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
This has been done to death several times.

The 200km combined crash speed IS COMPLETELY MISLEADING and is commonly used by "road safety freaks" to beat up an emotional reaction.

There is almost no difference between a vehicle hitting a brick wall at 100km/h and hitting an oncoming vehicle of similar mass at 100km/h.

If the oncoming vehicle has a greater mass them the first vehicle will be accellerated backwards.

For it to be a 200km/h crash the first vehicle would have to be accellerated to 100km/h in the opposite direction........
I finally got this concept a while ago, the laws of conservation of momentum can only
be bent in the universe of politics and road safety when calling for more speed cameras....

I am surprised that this sleight of hand hasn't been openly busted by scientists,
maybe the do-gooder road campaigners are worried that their other silver bullet,
50 kph vs 60 kph braking distances will come under even more scrutiny and dispelled...
jpd80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 05:15 PM   #28
geckoGT
Ich bin ein auslander
 
geckoGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always level headed and i notice him being the voice of reason when a thread may be getting heated 
Default

Do a search for old v's new car safety. you will find a thread from 12 months ago that ended up huge with a lot of good information and a lot of research involved. I for one would prefer not to go over it again.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
geckoGT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 05:59 PM   #29
sudszy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgt_doofey
It's simple Physics, but unfortunately, it's been quite a number of years since I did it at high school. The 3T 4wd will exert more force on the lighter 1T car due to it's mass.
Force = mass x acceleration
You've forgotten newton's 3rd law, the forces on each will be of exactly the same magnitude but in opposite directions.

Since the force on each is the same, then the object with the higher mass will suffer less acceleration, newton's 2nd law.
Basically in any two or more vehicle collision, higher mass vehicle suffers the less change in speed and is more survivable for the occupants.
sudszy is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-02-2011, 06:04 PM   #30
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default

Quote:
just because your buzz box is 5 star, doesn't make it safer than a 4 star 4wd.
Show me a 4star rated FWD?.... Dont know if things have changed, but FWDs are considered under commercial vehicles and are not given a crash rating.
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL