I did 2 years in auto collision repair and had a coworker try to tell me that a car I'd supposed to be super sturdy and not crumple at all then I told him that good cars are ment to crumple in certain areas to absorb the forces of the crash and he said that was wrong he also tried telling me if you're about to hit a 1200 pound moose you should speed up to make it go over the roof when in reality it would crush your roof and kill you.
we are all just happy you help make it safer for anyone that need to breach a prison wall, so they can use an electric explosive and the vehicle impacting the wall to focus the shock wave into the wall they are safely trying to breach, all the timing is automatic upon impact just brick on the accelerator and have the vehicle over 40 so it good that most cars are automatic now so its even easier to breach a high security wall, cheers
all cars have a "crumple zone" if your car dosen't that isn't a car thats a bike at that point as a crumple zone is that part the front part of a car that crumples up
Has anybody ever been injured or died inside a car after a crash while the car is perfectly fine or minimal damage? Until I find that proof, crumple zone appears to me as an excuse to go cheap on cars.
An older car may not crumple in the engine bay or trunk, but where it crumples instead is the cabin. The engine bay would not crumple, and therefore the energy is transferred directly to the cabin which collapses under the immense stress, crushing and often killing the occupants in crashes that would be walked away from in modern cars. Compare the strength of the safety cage in a modern car to that of any old car and the difference is night and day.
A great example of the vast improvements in the safety cages of modern cars is shown in small overlap crash tests. Even cars from the 90's and early 2000's would perform horrendously, whereas even the cheapest of modern day cars can complete the test with minimal to no safety cage deformation.
I was driving an 88 buick. There weren't crumple zones in the back. I was stopped and a car hit me from behind going 40 miles per hour. I received a TBI and nearly failed out of grad school because of it. If my car had crumpled and absorbed the impact I would have walked away just fine but instead my body absorbed the impact and my brain hit my skull going 40 miles per hour. ETA: my buick was drivable but due to damage to the fuel tank we chose to let the insurance total it.
I debated this and the cult members threw stones at me. This is the crumple zone ->Coal waste could provide a strong, lightweight material for car manufacturers.
Something tells me you didn't understand the physics brought up in the video. The cabin is the part you DON'T wanna crush. Everything else goes. Also, the formula 1 cars are at risk of entirely different kinds of crashes anyway. In a formula 1, you're more likely to get into crashes where the vehicle flips or spins wildly, which means the g-forces imparted on the driver can't be stopped by crumbling, meaning you have to put extra effort into defending the head from impacting the ground, the neck breaking, and the driver losing consciousness. So yeah, it doesn't disprove anything. It just proves that entirely different physics interactions require entirely different safety mechanisms. And anybody could have told you that.
Also, most crashes by f1 cars that would require crumple zones otherwise are against the soft barriers of the track, (their tires also act as crumple zones anyways too, lol)
I did 2 years in auto collision repair and had a coworker try to tell me that a car I'd supposed to be super sturdy and not crumple at all then I told him that good cars are ment to crumple in certain areas to absorb the forces of the crash and he said that was wrong he also tried telling me if you're about to hit a 1200 pound moose you should speed up to make it go over the roof when in reality it would crush your roof and kill you.
Well why would you crash to a moose? A deer is acceptable unless if you don’t want damage or dents on your car. Go tell that to him
Your coworker is a dumbass.
we are all just happy you help make it safer for anyone that need to breach a prison wall, so they can use an electric explosive and the vehicle impacting the wall to focus the shock wave into the wall they are safely trying to breach, all the timing is automatic upon impact just brick on the accelerator and have the vehicle over 40 so it good that most cars are automatic now so its even easier to breach a high security wall, cheers
Nobody ever shows a head on collision.
Yes, it does happen most of the times
Good
Where is a list of what cars are crumple zone and what cars are not?
It's all BS for selling cheaper cars. you haven't heard about toyota cheating on crash test. People will believe anything.
all cars have a "crumple zone" if your car dosen't that isn't a car thats a bike at that point as a crumple zone is that part the front part of a car that crumples up
What about going 180 mph?
sapa suruh
In km please
You shouldn't have a license if u drive with 180mph on a normal road.
@@novaprime5976 180*1.6
@@novaprime5976 Around 320kmph
lol
lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
Anjayyy koiso
Gege dek
Has anybody ever been injured or died inside a car after a crash while the car is perfectly fine or minimal damage? Until I find that proof, crumple zone appears to me as an excuse to go cheap on cars.
An older car may not crumple in the engine bay or trunk, but where it crumples instead is the cabin. The engine bay would not crumple, and therefore the energy is transferred directly to the cabin which collapses under the immense stress, crushing and often killing the occupants in crashes that would be walked away from in modern cars. Compare the strength of the safety cage in a modern car to that of any old car and the difference is night and day.
A great example of the vast improvements in the safety cages of modern cars is shown in small overlap crash tests. Even cars from the 90's and early 2000's would perform horrendously, whereas even the cheapest of modern day cars can complete the test with minimal to no safety cage deformation.
I was driving an 88 buick. There weren't crumple zones in the back. I was stopped and a car hit me from behind going 40 miles per hour. I received a TBI and nearly failed out of grad school because of it. If my car had crumpled and absorbed the impact I would have walked away just fine but instead my body absorbed the impact and my brain hit my skull going 40 miles per hour.
ETA: my buick was drivable but due to damage to the fuel tank we chose to let the insurance total it.
I've had three thar didn't seem bad and my whole lives ruined from the last one
I debated this and the cult members threw stones at me. This is the crumple zone ->Coal waste could provide a strong, lightweight material for car manufacturers.
Why F1 cars not designed to crumple? Driver surrounded by rigid cage debunks crumple theory lol. 😅
Truth is, it's just cheaper.. Period
Something tells me you didn't understand the physics brought up in the video. The cabin is the part you DON'T wanna crush. Everything else goes. Also, the formula 1 cars are at risk of entirely different kinds of crashes anyway. In a formula 1, you're more likely to get into crashes where the vehicle flips or spins wildly, which means the g-forces imparted on the driver can't be stopped by crumbling, meaning you have to put extra effort into defending the head from impacting the ground, the neck breaking, and the driver losing consciousness. So yeah, it doesn't disprove anything. It just proves that entirely different physics interactions require entirely different safety mechanisms. And anybody could have told you that.
Also, most crashes by f1 cars that would require crumple zones otherwise are against the soft barriers of the track, (their tires also act as crumple zones anyways too, lol)
You're not very bright
What years of huffing lead gasoline does to the mind
@@Skyisgoingbacktoplutoyeah the barriers act as crumple zones