Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Seaver · 08-21-2004, 10:14 PM

Cynthetiq, if you look closely at that picture that was rigged to look that way, completely different crash tests/speeds or else the people who did the test were neglegent.

They had the barrier set dead center for the mini, perfect for the absorbtion on what it was based on. They did not adjust for the truck, which was well below where it was designed to absorb the impact. This is VERY evident because of the forced projection at a 45 degree angle upwards, this is the most perfect placement on a frontal strike for this truck for maximum damage. Instead of hitting the frame of the truck, or even the crumple zone which is what absorbs almost all of the energy, the protrusion struck the axle which is clear in the picture. The axle isnt designed for absorbtion and it's THIS that caused the interior damage. The reason I suspect this was the intended occurance is the object is not flat, but a protrusion. Where will you ever see an occurance like this while driving? Point two on this: The reason I think it's completely different tests is the protruding object in picture 2 does not match with the damage done to the mini. There is no puncture like crumple (it's flat, not a > shape), this simply does not match with the object shown in picture two.

Now you may say things like this happen, but if you look at the height not very likely. They design the highway barriers to be high enough for semi's, so I promise you they'd be higher than 2.5 feet.

Now if you try to argue off of that picture that the mini is safer let's look at a head-on collision. The truck would use that thing as a ramp, the people in the mini would be killed instantly. How is that safer?

Now I agree that there are a lot of shitty SUV drivers, but from personal experience there's a lot worse car drivers than SUV/trucks. Besides, I tend not to trust anything the NY Times says anymore, we all know how trustworthy their reports have been in the past couple years...

08-21-2004, 10:14 PM	#41 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Cynthetiq, if you look closely at that picture that was rigged to look that way, completely different crash tests/speeds or else the people who did the test were neglegent. They had the barrier set dead center for the mini, perfect for the absorbtion on what it was based on. They did not adjust for the truck, which was well below where it was designed to absorb the impact. This is VERY evident because of the forced projection at a 45 degree angle upwards, this is the most perfect placement on a frontal strike for this truck for maximum damage. Instead of hitting the frame of the truck, or even the crumple zone which is what absorbs almost all of the energy, the protrusion struck the axle which is clear in the picture. The axle isnt designed for absorbtion and it's THIS that caused the interior damage. The reason I suspect this was the intended occurance is the object is not flat, but a protrusion. Where will you ever see an occurance like this while driving? Point two on this: The reason I think it's completely different tests is the protruding object in picture 2 does not match with the damage done to the mini. There is no puncture like crumple (it's flat, not a > shape), this simply does not match with the object shown in picture two. Now you may say things like this happen, but if you look at the height not very likely. They design the highway barriers to be high enough for semi's, so I promise you they'd be higher than 2.5 feet. Now if you try to argue off of that picture that the mini is safer let's look at a head-on collision. The truck would use that thing as a ramp, the people in the mini would be killed instantly. How is that safer? Now I agree that there are a lot of shitty SUV drivers, but from personal experience there's a lot worse car drivers than SUV/trucks. Besides, I tend not to trust anything the NY Times says anymore, we all know how trustworthy their reports have been in the past couple years...