5 ms·

True. Here's what happens to a Ford Focus that crashes into a concrete wall at ~100mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o https://www.youtube.com/watc

True. Here's what happens to a Ford Focus that crashes into a concrete wall at ~100mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o

JeffL 13y ago
That's not really comparable, though, because this video is going straight into a super reinforced wall. The Tesla accident was hitting the roundabout, going on into another wall, then going on into a tree, so each of those is much less of an impact than smack into a reinforced wall.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Ah yes, because a Tesla would leave you unscratched if you collided with the same immovable wall?
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  Reminded me of a joke I heard a while ago: "Just released car has amazing safety features that prevent any damage to the vehicle. Amazing advance of technology was made available by near instantaneous braking. Even going 100 mph a car can come to a complete stop instantaneously. After that wipers are deployed automatically to wipe off remains of a driver from windshield." Any significant change of momentum will harm humans no matter how tough the car is. Newer cars are actually less rigid to provide a cushion to human drivers in case of such collision. Edit: I meant less rigid in right places. If you observe crash test you could see how neatly car folded around drivers cage. Thanks drglitch for pointing that out.
  - drglitch 13y ago
    Newer cars are more rigid in just the right places (e.g. driver cage) - they do have larger/softer crumple zones that permit the damage to be absorbed along a longer time period. By prolonging the total crumple/crash time, the peak energy is decreased, thereby avoiding injuries from force overload during deceleration.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Knowing that, one should also be able to conclude this Focus crash test is meaningless. How it performs vs. an immovable wall at 120mph really doesn't tell you much about how it will perform at 65mph vs. a fence, or a tree, or a guard rail. If it didn't crumple at 120mph, then you'd have cause to worry though.
  - ImprovedSilence 13y ago
    Reminds me of the saying: "people like to say that speed kills, but really it's a very sudden lack of speed that kills." I think that might be a Clarksonism...
    - bashinator 13y ago
      Also, "No-one ever died from falling. They die from stopping falling."
      - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
        Also, 'nobody ever died on a motorcycle'.
      - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        Not true: plenty of people have died of a heart attack on the way down before they ever hit the ground.
- Retric 13y ago
  I don't know about Tesla but 120MPH head on collisions like that are in fact survivable without serious injury given the correct car design. People can safely decelerate at 45g's which takes 10.4 feet from 120MPH. Of course in most cases your going to slow down a little before impact and or not hit an immovable wall so cars are generally optimized for lower impact velocity's. The closest real world example is probably Nascar. Granted, there track design make head on collisions rather difficult but as cars regularly hit 190MPH you do occasionally get near head on collisions at around 120MPH which are often survivable. Best example I could find was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QVlj7F8OJCY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QVlj7... PS: The much more common 60MPH drivers side impact is also survivable which I still find shocking.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yes, cars can be designed to protect you from a 120mph crash into a brick wall. But that comes at the expense of their ability to protect you from a 65mph crash into a lamp post or other car. I don't know about you, but I drive near cars & lamp posts much more often than I drive on an Autobahn full of brick walls.

True. Here's what happens to a Ford Focus that crashes into a concrete wall at ~100mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o

JeffL 13y ago

That's not really comparable, though, because this video is going straight into a super reinforced wall. The Tesla accident was hitting the roundabout, going on into another wall, then going on into a tree, so each of those is much less of an impact than smack into a reinforced wall.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Ah yes, because a Tesla would leave you unscratched if you collided with the same immovable wall?

TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Reminded me of a joke I heard a while ago: "Just released car has amazing safety features that prevent any damage to the vehicle. Amazing advance of technology was made available by near instantaneous braking. Even going 100 mph a car can come to a complete stop instantaneously. After that wipers are deployed automatically to wipe off remains of a driver from windshield." Any significant change of momentum will harm humans no matter how tough the car is. Newer cars are actually less rigid to provide a cushion to human drivers in case of such collision. Edit: I meant less rigid in right places. If you observe crash test you could see how neatly car folded around drivers cage. Thanks drglitch for pointing that out.
- drglitch 13y ago
  Newer cars are more rigid in just the right places (e.g. driver cage) - they do have larger/softer crumple zones that permit the damage to be absorbed along a longer time period. By prolonging the total crumple/crash time, the peak energy is decreased, thereby avoiding injuries from force overload during deceleration.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Knowing that, one should also be able to conclude this Focus crash test is meaningless. How it performs vs. an immovable wall at 120mph really doesn't tell you much about how it will perform at 65mph vs. a fence, or a tree, or a guard rail. If it didn't crumple at 120mph, then you'd have cause to worry though.
- ImprovedSilence 13y ago
  Reminds me of the saying: "people like to say that speed kills, but really it's a very sudden lack of speed that kills." I think that might be a Clarksonism...
  - bashinator 13y ago
    Also, "No-one ever died from falling. They die from stopping falling."
    - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
      Also, 'nobody ever died on a motorcycle'.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Not true: plenty of people have died of a heart attack on the way down before they ever hit the ground.
Retric 13y ago
I don't know about Tesla but 120MPH head on collisions like that are in fact survivable without serious injury given the correct car design. People can safely decelerate at 45g's which takes 10.4 feet from 120MPH. Of course in most cases your going to slow down a little before impact and or not hit an immovable wall so cars are generally optimized for lower impact velocity's. The closest real world example is probably Nascar. Granted, there track design make head on collisions rather difficult but as cars regularly hit 190MPH you do occasionally get near head on collisions at around 120MPH which are often survivable. Best example I could find was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QVlj7F8OJCY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QVlj7... PS: The much more common 60MPH drivers side impact is also survivable which I still find shocking.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Yes, cars can be designed to protect you from a 120mph crash into a brick wall. But that comes at the expense of their ability to protect you from a 65mph crash into a lamp post or other car. I don't know about you, but I drive near cars & lamp posts much more often than I drive on an Autobahn full of brick walls.