6 ms·
I'd rather be in a small car and hit a tree/electrical pole than in a massive vehicle.
by resource_waste 2y ago
I'd rather be in a small car and hit a tree/electrical pole than in a massive vehicle.
- K0balt 2y agoInteresting to hear the rationale in this choice ?
- echoangle 2y agoSince the heavier vehicle has higher momentum, it would decelerate slower when hitting a semi-static-object, which decreases the forces on your body. The smaller vehicle would stop much quicker and you would jerk forward. So a heavier vehicle at the same speed would probably be better, all else being equal. And that's neglecting the additional material a larger vehicle typically has that deforms over longer distance than with a shorter car.
- resource_waste 2y ago>it would decelerate slower when hitting a semi-static-object You just changed the problem.
- echoangle 2y agoDid I? Trees and electrical poles aren’t completely rigid, right?
- resource_waste 2y agoYeah, the point was deliberately to show that a small car performs better in such situations. If you had to change the problem, it shows you were avoiding the uncomfortable truth.
- echoangle 2y agoBut a small car doesn’t perform better, why would it? Surely a large car is better when driving into an electrical pole than a small car. What advantage does the small car have? Also, just to clarify, how did I change the problem? The problem with car crashes is rapid deceleration which injures you, and lighter cars are worse in that aspect compared to heavier cars.
- resource_waste 2y agoLess momentum
- echoangle 2y agoAnd can you explain why less momentum is better for the passengers? The thing that injures you in an accident is acceleration (or more accurately deceleration), so you actually want more momentum. Imagine sitting in a large truck vs a kei car and driving into a brick wall. One has the chance to deform the wall which decreases the speed comparatively slowly. The other one abruptly stops when hitting the wall. Unless the collision target doesn't deform at all, the higher momentum is better. And if the target is completely solid, a larger typically has a larger crumple zone which is better, too. I cant come up with any reason to prefer the smaller car/momentum, except in very constructed scenarios (driving over a cliff with a weak fence for example).
- itishappy 2y agoMomentum is resistance to acceleration. Momentum protects the driver.
- 2y ago
- itishappy 2y agoNot really, the car itself is a semi-static object, even if you're driving a block of raw steel.
- resource_waste 2y agoI did automotive safety and I can assure you, these act as static for all intensive purposes. Being a skeptical Socrates doesnt change that the momentum is significantly higher, and you arent moving that pole any significant distance. I'm not sure why there is such a strong denial of reality here. Is it ego?
- floxy 2y agohttps://www.dictionary.com/e/for-all-intents-and-purposes-vs-for-all-intensive-purposes/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/for-all-intents-and-purposes-vs...
- itishappy 2y agoCrumple zones have been a thing for almost a century. Momentum doesn't matter. It matters in a vehicle on vehicle collision, but since the pole is essentially infinite I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Acceleration is what impacts the human body, and it's determined by speed and distance. For the same speed, a larger car will have a longer distance to stop, therefore lower acceleration, and less force on the body.
- echoangle 2y agoEven if you assume that the pole doesn't move at all, having less momentum doesn't help you. A smaller car isn't better, in the best case it is equal. But a larger car probably also has a larger crumple zone so it is still better. You still haven't given a single reason why a smaller car would have an advantage.
- HPsquared 2y agoI'd rather be in a tank and flatten the tree / pole.
- throwaway519 2y agoI`d rather there were more trees and fast, affordable public transport options.