That would work...my point here, and Sal gets it, is not to jump someone's *** without all the details. If it comes up later than he had a .013 BAC and was doing 80+ when he lost control, then I'll be right there with you to slam the MF.

This gets me bent, sorry. "I don't know the person in question, so I will shoot first and ask questions later." Does that make it OK as long as you don't know the person? I mention Tundra and Sonic because really, no one seemed to even float the question of how a Mustang driven by someone who drives those conditions all the time could get into a single vehicle accident that reduces the whole thing to charred debris. I wondered to myself, but didn't post anything because its a) insensitive to friends of theirs that may be reading and b) I don't know all the facts nor drive those conditions/that area.

I don't know your family, but I doubt they would want you to spend the rest of your life in prison if they were hurt or injured.

All I am saying is, theories are just theories, until they are proven. Just check yourself a little though before posting, you may be talking about someone you DO know and not even know it.

 

If you were walking at 2mph and walked into a stationary
wall......wouldn't it hurt more if the wall were moving toward
you at 2mph also.

The 60 vs 60 is 60 is hard for me to reason out?????

anyway that is not the point.

bless the families involved and I feel bad for the at fault person,
b/c like was said earlier we have all been lucky in the past
screwin off on the street.

 

Think of it this way… Assuming two vehicles have equal mass and each is traveling 60 MPH in a head on collision each vehicle goes from 60 MPH to zero.

An equivalent impact of 120 MPH would require that a vehicle go from 60 MPH in a forward direction to instantly going 60 MPH in a backwards direction.

 

Oh well, ***** happens.........

 

98 Cobra:

I was saying only what I was saying, if you follow me. You have taken the analysis FAR afield from the original statement (and scientific fact).

As for your question, hitting a stationary vehicle (of equal mass and design) head-on would be much more forgiving than hitting the proverbial brick wall, as both vehicles would absorb half of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle. By my calculation, it would be more-or-less like hitting a brick wall at 42 MPH. Again, despite layman perception, it would be of no particular advantage to be in the moving or stationary vehicle for this particular crash. The damge to both would be more-or-less the same. If you don't believe me, find another Lightning (parked), blast it head-on at 60 MPH, then compare. Both will be more-or-less identically trashed.

Cobrakid:

Again, you are taking the analysis far afield from my original (and correct) statement. Walking into an unyielding wall that is also moving toward you is, of course, WAAAY worse than walking into a stationary wall. However, two persons of equal mass walking into each other will yield the same, more-or-less, headache as walking into a stationary wall.

Gang - it's a fact. Two vehicles of equal mass and design, both rolling at 60 MPH, hitting each other head-on, will deliver the same sort of impact to each other as one of the vehicles hitting the proverbial brick wall at 60 MPH.

The 60 MPH vehicles have a "closing speed" of 120 MPH, but they converge on the eventual impact point (half-way between them) at a mere 60 MPH. Combined, they only have kineting energy to dissipate equal to two-times-60-MPH-energy. A single vehicle at 120 MPH has TWICE the kinetic energy of TWO vehicles at 60 MPH. Energy is proportional to the square of speed.

I know it "seems" like the answer should be 120 MPH into the brick wall, but the basic laws of nature don't give a shizznit about "seems". Good old "seems" is almost totally worthless when it comes to statics, dynamics, fluid flow, heat transfer, and the like.

 

A single vehicle accident?? You call Sonics Cobra meeting up with a motorhome head on a single vehicle accident?

I would say (without knowing all the facts, and I now wish I would have just kept my feelings to myself) that they were both similar accidents. We have all done it, having fun driving your vehicle hard and all of us that are still here and that haven't had to live through the tragedy of taking a life by a mistake on our part are very lucky.
Like I said I have done a ton of stupid and careless things on the road not thinking of the innocent that are traveling on the roadways.
You can't compare this accident to Tundra and Sonics, the out comes were just the opposite. One of them in Sonics Cobra made a mistake and it cost them their lives, that I am very sympathetic for and thought about for a long time and still do.
This time the driver of the Lightning made a mistake and it took the life of the innocent person in the oncoming lane. If you can't see the difference in that than I feel for you.
I hope I am totally wrong and maybe like you said he had a heart attack or a seizure or something. I will take it all back and gladly omit that I was wrong and hung him out to dry unjustly.
I know I said I was going to try not to post to this thread again but with your comment about Tundra and Sonic, I just think you need to go back and read what really happened to them.
RIP Tundra and Sonic.

Bill

 

When we covered air bag systems in Ford school (crash sensor info specifically), we were taught that two vehicles colliding head on, had the impact force of the added mph of each vehicle. I'm not saying you're wrong, cause it sure sounds like you know your chit, I'm just saying that's what Ford teaches.

I did a little test tonight, with interesting results. I took two hammers of equal size, and attached them to a 2x4 pivoting on the handles. I then placed a chunk of clay, rolled into a ball, at the point where they met. I then raised each hammer to an equal point and let them go, striking the clay at the same time. The measured thickness of the compressed ball was just over 1/4" thick. I then removed one hammer, and placed another 2x4 behind the clay ball at the contact point. I then raised one hammer up to the same point and let it go. This time only one hammer hitting the clay ball only compressed it to just under 1/2". So maybe the written theory doesn't always apply in reality?

 

That is EXACTLY what a 60/60 head-on is equivalent to!

 

Sal try attaching a clay ball to each of the hammers, then let them drop and measure each ball. Then do the same thing with one hammer and the 2x4, That would be a more accurate test and I think they will all three end up the same size proving Silver-Y2K-SVT theory to stand up to the written paper as well as the field test. Just my thoughts.

Bill

 

Hmm, ok that makes sense. I think it would have to just be one ball on one hammer though. I'll try that.

 

hes right that hitting the same mass going 60 towards you at 60 mph is the same as hitting a solid wall. However, hitting at stationary vehicle and hitting a vehicle coming towards you at 60 mph is not the same. But hitting a stationary object even at slow speeds is devastating. hit a wall at 40 mph head on and you'll fell lucky to be alive. 60 is something else.

 

Sal:

Ford apparently doesn't worry too much about collegiate-level dynamics when it teaches its mechanics about airbags. Too bad they passed along a long-standing wives' tale (kind of like filling the ice cube tray with hot water), but that seems to be the case.

As for your hammer experiment, this is IN NO WAY a proper experiment for testing the physical fact (note that I didn't use the word "theory") that I have now described three times. It just doesn't model the physical situation.

With the two hammers whacking a clay ball you are putting "two hammers" of kinetic energy into deforming a wad of clay. With the one-hammer-and-a-two-by-four situation, you are putting one hammer of kinetic energy into defoerming a wad of clay (half the energy). WRONG experiment, right result.

The proper experiment (although you do not have the degree of experimental control in your garage to pull it off satisfactorily), would be to whack two clay ***** of EXACT same mass into each other EXACTLY head-on, then repeat with a single clay ball into the wall at EXACT the same velocity.

Fractaldragon:

Chief, you are totally screwed up as far as understanding this basic physical fact. Totally screwed up. Totally. I know it "seems" like it should be, but it isn't. Trust me.

Totally screwed up.

 

I was thinking one on each of the hammers (or two cars) with the hammers being the driving force. That way they would absorb each others energy like the cars would. Then use one clay ball on one of the hammers into the 2x4 that would be the same as one car hitting a brick wall.
Your first and second way would be two driving forces hitting or (smashing if you will) one car or clay ball. Not the same or accurate test in my mind. But hey, my mind is far from perfect, I think I proved this over and over in this thread.

Bill

 

Hey, I tried. You can at least give me an "A" for effort.

 

Sal:

The right experiment is the one I just described. Leave the hammers out.

Grinomyte:

If the stationary vehicle "gives" (read - is pushed by the impact), you are right. Some of the kinetic energy will be spent accelerating the stationary vehicle and not deforming your ride. However, it doesn't matter what vehicle you are in (the stationary vs the moving) as far as damage goes.

Nice thread hijack, huh?