5 ms·
I think it is the market, and by market, I mean baby boomer legacy. They were always taught that bigger is better (because crumple zones didn't exist in their p
by smileysteve 4y ago
I think it is the market, and by market, I mean baby boomer legacy. They were always taught that bigger is better (because crumple zones didn't exist in their parents cars), and now they guilt x, millennial, and z.
I feel this pressure from my baby boomer parents and millennial partner - especially in the southeast; they ignore the likelihood of rollovers in SUVs and the proven safety of modern suspensions and airbags in sedans.
- pxmpxm 4y ago>because crumple zones didn't exist But bigger is pretty universally better from energy management perspective, right? Simply having more material/size means lower deceleration rates for whatever you're trying to keep out of the passenger compartment.
- smileysteve 4y agodifference in theoretically versus practically. Bigger vehicles have bigger engines, frame rails, and suspensions. Some of these for cost, some of these for towing performance. An example being a truck, bigger frame rails that will crumple less, leaf spring suspension that will crumple less, and a high rake grill that will capture more force, and a higher mounted engine and higher mounted passenger compartment that makes separation less ideal.