20 ms·

>Car manufacturers, if so inclined, could optimize their cars for crash test scores instead of actual safety. I think it's fair to say that cars are incredibly

>Car manufacturers, if so inclined, could optimize their cars for crash test scores instead of actual safety. I think it's fair to say that cars are incredibly safe compared to 40 years ago. But crash safety compromises new cars in so many ways, it's a bit of a pity.

throwaway946513 5y ago
Are you referring to the 'crumple-zone' and energy absorbing structures of the vehicles?
- jabroni_salad 5y ago
  I've made my peace with body design but I really don't like the huge pillars they are putting in cars these days. I test drove a Mazda 3 recently and visibility in all directions was really poor compared to my current 09 Fit. The sensor suite is cool but it's not like airplanes where operators can be expected to pick up an instrument rating.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Pillars don't have to obscure visibility. Yes, we have curtain airbags now, but you've got airbags inside the pillars of your Fit. The difference between the pillars on your 09 Fit and the Mazda 3 are mostly design decisions. The Fit interior is just an insanely good design. The angle and positioning of the pillar in relation to the driver are huge factors.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  What's the formula for KE? What's the dominant term in that equation? What's the exponent on that term? Anyone telling you that energy absorbing structures are of significant value except at a very narrow range of speeds and impact type is peddling falsehood. The bulk of the improvement since the 90s (well into the era of crumple zones, remember they are a prerequisite for airbags) has been from better airbags, side curtain airbags, pre-tensioners and better modeling software that allows those things as well as seats and seatbelts to be engineered to levels that were unheard of even a decade ago. Whether you hit hard objects in a crash has a lot less to do with luck these days. Stronger cabins are a plus (especially for non-frontal crashes) too.

throwaway946513 5y ago

Are you referring to the 'crumple-zone' and energy absorbing structures of the vehicles?

jabroni_salad 5y ago
I've made my peace with body design but I really don't like the huge pillars they are putting in cars these days. I test drove a Mazda 3 recently and visibility in all directions was really poor compared to my current 09 Fit. The sensor suite is cool but it's not like airplanes where operators can be expected to pick up an instrument rating.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Pillars don't have to obscure visibility. Yes, we have curtain airbags now, but you've got airbags inside the pillars of your Fit. The difference between the pillars on your 09 Fit and the Mazda 3 are mostly design decisions. The Fit interior is just an insanely good design. The angle and positioning of the pillar in relation to the driver are huge factors.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
What's the formula for KE? What's the dominant term in that equation? What's the exponent on that term? Anyone telling you that energy absorbing structures are of significant value except at a very narrow range of speeds and impact type is peddling falsehood. The bulk of the improvement since the 90s (well into the era of crumple zones, remember they are a prerequisite for airbags) has been from better airbags, side curtain airbags, pre-tensioners and better modeling software that allows those things as well as seats and seatbelts to be engineered to levels that were unheard of even a decade ago. Whether you hit hard objects in a crash has a lot less to do with luck these days. Stronger cabins are a plus (especially for non-frontal crashes) too.