spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spit safety question...

To: Patrick Barber <sailnbail@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Spit safety question...
From: "Will O'Brien" <hobrien@webos1.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 22:12:26 -0500
I just gotta say this...

He who thinks crumple zones are rip offs should study physics a little bit.
Particularly inertia.

Patrick Barber wrote:

> GatesDavid@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > A "modern" car is actually designed to be destroyed in an accident.  The 
>front
> > and rear of the car are intended to smash in and act as a giant shock 
>absorber
> > thus sacrificing the car and saving the people.  This is called the crumple
> > zone for obvious reasons.  Older cars were built with the idea that the more
> > rigid the car is, the safer it would be.  Hey, if the car survived, so would
> > the people.  In fact what happens is the car comes to a very sudden stop (no
> > shock absorption) and the passengers fly forward.  The car may survive with
> > minimal damage but the passengers could suffer far worse injuries than the
> > newer car that is now totaled.
> >
> > David Gates
> > '73 Spitfire 1500 (rigid, but love it anyway)
> > Hawaii
> >
> > In a message dated 98-07-31 21:10:07 EDT, you write:
> >
> > > This whole safety issue hit home yesterday when I was driving home.  As
> > >  I started around a bend in the road, I noticed all sorts of flares
> > >  burning on both sides of the road.  As I rounded the bend, I saw the
> > >  rear of a chrome bumper MGB on one side and the front of some
> > >  nondescript modern car on the other.  The modern car's bumper and grill
> > >  were well caved-in.  As I passed the MGB, I noticed that very little
> > >  damage had occurred to it even though the accident was obviously a
> > >  head-on.
> > >
> > >  So, I must conclude that although safety standards have been updated in
> > >  recent years, the cars are not necessarily any stronger because of it.
> I am glad to see that this thread has been started.  Last Wednesday
> 7/29, I totaled out my 74 Spit in an crash at a local intersection (only
> 5 days since I was at VTR in Hudson).  Both vehicles involved in the
> crash were in pretty bad shape.  The Frame and Bonnet  on the Spit were
> completely destroyed.  I believe that if the accident involved a heaver,
> stiffer framed vehicle (such as my 98 F150) the Other vehicle would most
> certainly have sustained much greater damage.  As it turns out, nobody
> was injured in the slightest way. I will greatly sacrifice any
> automobile for the safety and security of me or my passengers.
>
> BTW, I have seen crash videos from the 60's and 70's.  I truly believe
> that car and trucks are much safer due to crumple zones and energy
> absorbing designs.  Just watch a CART Indy car hit the wall at over 200
> MPH and tell me that if the car had remained in 1 piece that the driver
> would have as well...
> --
> Patrick Barber
> 74 Spitfire 1500 (FM14774U)
>  "Go Red Wings" ... 1998 Stanley Cup Champions!!!




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>