In Oz all our cars had safety glass and it was not bad at all. Our early 60s Holdens had wrap around screens and it never worried me. Laminated glass is less optically pure.Though I banged my knee on those openings a few times!

Since I own a 71 full size Ford, a pillared Hardtop which are very similar to a 74. They do have door bars, damn big ones.They have antiburst door catches and the pillared body should be as good if not better than most modern full size cars.
The pillarless body not so good obviuosly.
The reason we got the pillared hardtop here in Oz was evidently for side imact resistance. It is quite an unusual body style in the US.
Though a decent front ender in the same car is not as good as a modern car though. And the torsional rigidity is somewhat suss too!

I think you need to ask yourself if you're talking about occupant safety or car damage and maybe re-write your post, because you seem to be conflating the two concepts. The video was on the topic of occupant safety.

The video was created to make the video look good; they could have picked a car that did not give the impression this one did but they did not for their self-centered reasons, your bowing to a set-up video not with-standing.
I am not impressed by the video nor will I ever be; you want to be safe, don't crash.

I've never had a problem with any of that, but I can't see why two identical cars should suffer different amounts of damage just because one is travelling faster. The concept of "faster" only makes sense if we reference to something - the ground. If the accident occurred in space (or even 1 cm above the ground) the damage incurred by each car cannot possibly depend on which car is travelling faster.

Yeah - who needs seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, condoms, bullet-proof vests. All ya gotta do is - don't crash, don't fall off, don't have sex and don't jump out in front of bullets.

Bah - we gotta educate our kids better - save a fortune on all this safety shit!

You think so, you are SO wrong.
Five years ago, my '68 Fury III's engine stumbled while turning. A gent in a 2000 Ford SUV had just come off of a exit ramp (where he was supposed to stop but did not) in the two hundred feet from the ramp to my Fury's front fender, he accelerated hard enough to reach a speed that when he hit my front fender, he hit it hard enough that I spun 270 degrees, no ice. he bounced off of my car hit head-on, a full size van, that had stopped in the gas station drive-way, hard enough that the bumpers were locked and the van ended up being totalled. (The latter info came from my insurance company)

I drove into a parking lot and after speaking witht he police, drove the car back home and for several months till I had it fixed.

I am not sure how they wrote up that accident, but I had to pay for my own repair, and the other gent, had to pay for his and the van, plus he got a ticket.

Don't give me any bs about how great new cars are and how bad old ones are. They both have their strong and weak points. I will take a full size car of any vintage over the current fwd crap-wagons without excecption.
I do not really car how much the car protects me, my driving is responsible for that, you snooze you lose. I find current repair costs to be a crock of feces foisted on an ignorant public.
My sigs' Crown Vic had a hole punched into the front bumper fascia by a truck hitch, the cheapest repair cost $700. I can still put a new bumper on a sixties full size for less than $400. New fascia for the Ford was over $1,000 due to the all crap one has to do to reinstall it.
Maybe you are swimming in money but many of us are not.

I drove an MV Agusta and wore a helment maybe half the time.
Bullet proof vests- related in what manner? Do you wear one every day.
Condoms- related in what manner?

I was in an accident that put me in the- waiting to see if he dies room- or as my doctor told my parent, "if he is alive in the moring it is a good sign" The accident was not my fault, I was a passenger, and I was badly hurt because of the poor door latches on old Fords.
When I got out of the hospital, I started to feel sorry for me and my dad said "You have no reason or excuse to blame anyone but yourself. YOU chose to be there, you have reason to blame ANYONE but YOURSELF for being there." End of self-pity.
My father held grudges forever and never really forgave the driver of the car, but he did not let me blame anyone, and he was right.

Of course now we have a society where ANYTHING is ALWAYS someone else's fault, (and lawyers to leech off of that particular self-righteous attitude) so I guess I am old school.

As the new mantra says- THE SKY IS FALING, THE SKY IS FALLING....

I'm with you man. (You want to be safe - don't crash.)

Did you wear the helmet on the days you didn't want to be safe?
Or did you not wear it on the days you planned not to crash?

Bullet-proof vests are for candy-asses who don't realise they could stay safe by just avoiding flying bullets.

Same with condoms - these kids would be safe if they'd just abstain.

Your dad sounds like an idiot who raised a son in his image.

Think about it, if you had no one to blame but yourself, why did your dad hold a grudge against the driver? And if you had no one to blame but yourself, what's with "I was badly hurt because of the poor door latches on old Ford"? In fact isn't that tacit admission that crash standards were lax at the time?

Now if you take that thinking to it's logical extreme, you have to conclude that everything that ever happens to you is your fault because you chose to be there! I guess it's convenient to believe that because it saves you from ever having to use any judgement of your own. Your pa handed down his tough man rules and because you don't want to be a wussy you have to accept them as is.


I agree people need to take far more responsibility for themselves these days than they seem willing to do. It's almost as if they view the requirement to be responsible for their own actions as an infringement on their freedom. Of course that's crazy, but the other extreme, your perspective, is just as nuts. Responsibility is divided amongst everyone involved in a measure that is proportonal to their ability to prevent the incident in the first place. So yes you might have chosen a different person or time to ride in that car, you have some responsibility for your choice. That doesn't in any way whatsoever absolve your driver, or the other driver, or the guy who designed the road, or the guy who built it, or the guy who designed the door latch, from potentially being largely responsible for what happened to you depending on the exact circumstances of your crash. We can't learn from our mistakes if we don't accurately identify their cause.

In a funny way, this comes around full circle to touch upon the matter of expensive car repairs these days. That is in fact simply a result of our overly litigious society that blames the other guy for everything, which has caused the cost of injury or death from a car accident to skyrocket out of control. It is simply cheaper to write off a car for a fender bender than to spend hundreds of thousands fighting over a lost foot. So as much as you may be dismayed at the current state of society the fact remains that late model cars offer an enourmous improvement in occupant safety over old cars and even if it's for the wrong reasons, it is a good thing.

And compared to a Volvo at that. Big difference maybe is designer crumple.

A sixty mph head-on is a sixty mph collision whether one car is stationary and the other is travelling at sixty mph, or they are both doing thirty - surely? Drive a car into a concrete block, ala typical test scenario, check the damage. Is that damage less if the car is stationary and the block is moving? I just can't see this, but, as usual, I am open to persuasion...

Watch them happen Tony, I cant explain it but have seen it enough times, and have experienced it too unfortunatly

I hear what your dad was saying, but the automakers still had a responsibility to build cars with adequate door latches. For years they knew they had a problem and they didn't fix it because they were not held responsible, nor did they take on that responsibility themselves. Yes, the driver is the key element in road safety. However, safety does not begin and end with the driver. The automakers have a responsibility as well.

Depending of course on how secure the seat and driver is retained, this may be a possible solution
for avoiding crash injury caused by others in moderate speed fender benders.

I would probably want to install a roll cage as well..........you know, just in case!.




John

I don't know if this will persuade you but a single car travelling at 60mph has twice the kinetic energy of 2 of the same cars travelling at 30. So I would expect more damage and more violent post impact motion from the single moving vehicle collision. To ensure the same energy in the collision the single car needs to be doing 42 (ish) mph.

Ditto the concrete block example a 20 ton block at 30mph would wipe the smile off any 1 ton car since it would have to dissapate 20 times as much energy as the other way round.

Gotcha. Thanks. Sometimes logic is not enough on it's own, you need knowledge, too!

I haven't seen any collisions other than in videos. However I can offer a theory. I think what happens depends on where the energy for the collision comes from.

With two identical vehicles travelling at the same speed each will contribute the same energy and absorb their contribution in the same way and the damage would be the same on both.

With two identical vehicles one stationary and the other moving the moving vehicle contributes all the energy. My theory is that because the energy exchange is not instantaneous more energy is absorbed by the moving vehicle than the stationary. The structure would rather absorb the energy than pass it on. In this case the moving car will get more damage.

Of course if the vehicles are not identical the results will be dependant on the relative masses and the stiffness and "crushiness" of their structures. I don't know how similar modern cars are in these respects but I suspect they are getting closer together.

Thanks, I do hope you are right about the knowledge thing, it's a long time, make that very long, since I used any of that stuff.

No that would be logical only to a moron and your father obviously raised you as one. As far as being an asshole, you have shown you are one.

You and other self-righteous twits can go along thinking how great you are and how deserving of vengence and scorn the rest are, but my father let it be known, I could do what ever I choose, but it was my choice and to not come home crying when life I chose slapped me in the face.

How much of your life is spent trying to find some one else to blame for your asinine decisions?
I have better things to do with my time.

Fact. A single vehicle at 60 striking an identical stationary vehicle will produce the same damage as the same collision where the vehicles approach head-on at 30 mph each. Yes there is more kinetic energy (1/2 mv sqd) before the first crash (double since 1 x 60 sqd = 3600 and 2 x 30 sqd = 1800). However the second crash dissipates all the energy as vehicle damage whereas the first crash dissipates half as damage and half remains as kinetic energy as the 2 vehicles continue down the road at 30 mph - locked together.

My original question - please prove or explain why, one of the vehicles (the one travelling faster) should sustain more damage than the other. If this is true it can only be due to some interraction with the ground, as the same collision in space (identical vehicles struck with identical orientation) will always produce identical damage to each vehicle.

Bloody Hell. Now what am I supposed to think? It's like trying to decide between two beautiful women, each vying for my hand! I shall sit back and see what happens...

OK. Thanks for pointing out the error. As you say if this took place in space there would be some residual motion and hence kinetic energy.

I still think that in the asymmetric case the energy transfer would not be instantaneous and so the damage would not be the same. That's my explanation. But I'm afraid I can't prove it. I'll go away and see if I can. Unless you re-educate me first.

Alloyd - what can I say? Your answer seemed succinct and convincing, I was swayed... Now it appears that you may have been wrong. I don't think exactly similar damage is the point, is it? That would require mirror-image vehicles - but something approaching it, as in the view of an insurance company asessor.

What happens with a Newton's Cradle? Swing an end ball at velocity 2x at the other balls, then both end balls at velocity x, is the resulting bounce the same? I wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring me...

Indeed I seem to be wrong at least on the first instance. I'm still pondering the equal damage thing. I have been thinking about newton's cradle myself, but with inelastic members. That's the cradle not me. I'll get back to you when I think I understand - or if my grey matter admits defeat.

The Newton's cradle has no implications for car crashes as the balls are essentially incompressible solids. Cars most definitely are not.

Energy is transfered from one body to the other in a theoretical world or where incompressible solids. steel bearing with low forces or billiard balls. If you were to shoot a billiard ball from a cannon what would happen? Would the target explode? Both?

I realise that - I was just trying to find another way of unravelling the condrum - is the energy the same in the impact, regardless of whether one ball is moving, one stationary, or both moving? I see the rebound as being the damage. I'm not a mathematician or an engineer, I just question everything, rarely, you will be pleased to hear, aloud or on the forum.

Alloyd's answer seemed convincing, but gg's response has me wavering.

George nails it.

BAH! Knowledge? Lack of knowledge never stopped anyone on these forums from offering their opinion!

If the target was a billiard ball, the moving ball would shatter. The stationary ball would trickle into the top right hand pocket. The referee would award your opponent nine points and the frame for busting a ball. Speed kills. This is my opinion.

There you go. Make your statement with sufficient authority and everyone assumes you have the knowledge. I'm convinced for one.

I think Newton sussed this one out around 400 years ago.

He WAS well ahead of his time after all.

The force that car A exerts on car B is the same (or as I believe the expression was, equal and opposite) to the force that car B exerts on car A.

That always holds true. It doesn't matter if car A is at 60 mph, and weighs 3000 lb, or is at 0 mph and weighs 300 lb. Likewise car B.

It doesn't even matter if the cars have different crumple zones or structures.

However it is not the force that kills the belted occupants, it is more related to the acceleration pulse. And that is largely controlled by the force, the mass of the vehicle, and the crumple zone behaviour (it is much more complicated than that, decelerating the engine is a big issue as well).

I think crash regulations will specify a peak acceleration for a maximum duration for various body parts. It is a long time since I had cause to look at any of this stuff.

I will throw in something else to suggest this is somewhat staged.
The seat comes forward with the driver on the 59.Would not happen, even with rear seat passengers hitting the seat.[Of which there were none] Those seats were bolted in to those cars really well, 8 5/16 bolts and big strong runners.They sagged and gave you a backache, had no support and as a rear seat passenger I do not wish to head but one but they do not fly forward in that sort of accident.But ofcourse the unsecured driver does!!
While undoubtedly the modern car is safer and stronger that video is staged to make the 59 look worse. Interestingly I had a look at a Aussie 60 [basically the same car]which was dealer fitted with Nasco lap sash belts from new so the technology to minimise that violence to the driver was advailable then.They were a dealer option here from about 57.
Modern technology is far from infallible, ask people who have had injurys from airbags going off in fender benders. I have heard of kids being killed. The same for seatbelt tensioners too. great in theory, usually a plus in a major accident but oh so fallible.
And never do heavy work on an airbag vehicle with the battery connected, start beating something hard and the bag pops!! Happens when you stand a 4x4 on its nose in a creek crossing too.

That the seats come loose in a crash isn't that strange, even a few poorly designed modern cars have had similar problems. It also doesn't matter how strong bolts you have holding the seats if the whole floor structure collapse.

There is no need to stage a crash test like this, against the much stronger new car the old car is simply crushed.

The airbag control unit also got a mechanical safety breaker, so unless the unit is subjected to a minimum deceleration the airbags can't be fired.