4 ms·

It would be interesting to see a video of two 1959 cars crashing compared to a video of two 2009 cars crashing. It's nice to have a tank, but if everyone has ta

It would be interesting to see a video of two 1959 cars crashing compared to a video of two 2009 cars crashing. It's nice to have a tank, but if everyone has tanks, maybe I'm not better off.

radu_floricica 17y ago
Still doesn't change the fact that the newer cars absorb the impact before the cockpit. That, and airbags/seatbelts, make the biggest difference. Two newer cars would most likely be unusable after a crash but keep the passengers alive, while two older cars would crash "uniformly".
jimbokun 17y ago
You're still better off in a tank if you hit a telephone pole or a tree, for instance.
- eru 17y ago
  But tank chains are no good for the pavement.
  - shpxnvz 17y ago
    Sure they are, that's why they have rubber pads on the treads.
- idm 17y ago
  Do you mean a tank, literally, as in an M1 Abrams? ...otherwise, did you see the video? Crumple zones, passenger cabin intact, airbags, seat belt, etc?
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    Huh? I took conanite to mean newer cars are "tanks," only in the sense they survive crashes better than old cars. He was saying that it might not be a relative advantage if the other car hitting you is equally impervious. Irresistible force, etc. etc. My only point was that you are much better off in a modern car striking a telephone pole than you would be in a 1959 car, even if it is true that you are somehow worse off when two modern cars strike each other (although I doubt that also). Nothing about literal tanks intended whatsoever. Your comment seems to take the exact opposite meaning from what I intended to say, so I must have expressed myself poorly.
    - idm 17y ago
      I see what you mean now, but there are several threads in this discussion that use "tank" to refer to old cars (i.e. made-out-of-steel rust buckets.)
kudzoo 17y ago
Here is a compilation of crash tests from sixties. The cars fail catastrophically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw
- elblanco 17y ago
  Some of these are unbelievably bad. I can't even imagine a reasoning why these cars shipped.
  - weaksauce 17y ago
    Probably for the same reason that seatbelts had delayed adoption by motor companies. Money. Also, I don't think that they knew how to make cars that had different crumple zones.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Yes, money. :( I guess perhaps I'm mystified why they did the tests in the first place if they weren't going to do anything about them.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    For the same reason people are surprised by these videos (I thought they were built like tanks!), presumably people thought "I want to make it safe, I'll build it like a tank". Maybe there was a general feeling of "if building it like a tank doesn't work, maybe cars just can't be made safe in the event of a crash?" We are talking a car from 1959 in the original link - before computer modelling, before low tolerance robotic manufacturing and assembly, before fast response electronics for airbags and seatbelt pretensioners, before the data from crash tests could be collected in an automated fashion. We're talking before stereo sound here. The past is a foreign country, we can't judge it by our standards applied to hindsight. (Apologies if 1959 is within your memory - for me it may as well be the dark ages ;) Also, cars were meant to carry you from A to B. They shipped because they could do that and make a profit. Survival in the event of an accident is sort of a side benefit.

It would be interesting to see a video of two 1959 cars crashing compared to a video of two 2009 cars crashing. It's nice to have a tank, but if everyone has tanks, maybe I'm not better off.

radu_floricica 17y ago

Still doesn't change the fact that the newer cars absorb the impact before the cockpit. That, and airbags/seatbelts, make the biggest difference. Two newer cars would most likely be unusable after a crash but keep the passengers alive, while two older cars would crash "uniformly".

jimbokun 17y ago

You're still better off in a tank if you hit a telephone pole or a tree, for instance.

eru 17y ago
But tank chains are no good for the pavement.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  Sure they are, that's why they have rubber pads on the treads.
idm 17y ago
Do you mean a tank, literally, as in an M1 Abrams? ...otherwise, did you see the video? Crumple zones, passenger cabin intact, airbags, seat belt, etc?
- jimbokun 17y ago
  Huh? I took conanite to mean newer cars are "tanks," only in the sense they survive crashes better than old cars. He was saying that it might not be a relative advantage if the other car hitting you is equally impervious. Irresistible force, etc. etc. My only point was that you are much better off in a modern car striking a telephone pole than you would be in a 1959 car, even if it is true that you are somehow worse off when two modern cars strike each other (although I doubt that also). Nothing about literal tanks intended whatsoever. Your comment seems to take the exact opposite meaning from what I intended to say, so I must have expressed myself poorly.
  - idm 17y ago
    I see what you mean now, but there are several threads in this discussion that use "tank" to refer to old cars (i.e. made-out-of-steel rust buckets.)

kudzoo 17y ago

Here is a compilation of crash tests from sixties. The cars fail catastrophically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw

elblanco 17y ago
Some of these are unbelievably bad. I can't even imagine a reasoning why these cars shipped.
- weaksauce 17y ago
  Probably for the same reason that seatbelts had delayed adoption by motor companies. Money. Also, I don't think that they knew how to make cars that had different crumple zones.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    Yes, money. :( I guess perhaps I'm mystified why they did the tests in the first place if they weren't going to do anything about them.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  For the same reason people are surprised by these videos (I thought they were built like tanks!), presumably people thought "I want to make it safe, I'll build it like a tank". Maybe there was a general feeling of "if building it like a tank doesn't work, maybe cars just can't be made safe in the event of a crash?" We are talking a car from 1959 in the original link - before computer modelling, before low tolerance robotic manufacturing and assembly, before fast response electronics for airbags and seatbelt pretensioners, before the data from crash tests could be collected in an automated fashion. We're talking before stereo sound here. The past is a foreign country, we can't judge it by our standards applied to hindsight. (Apologies if 1959 is within your memory - for me it may as well be the dark ages ;) Also, cars were meant to carry you from A to B. They shipped because they could do that and make a profit. Survival in the event of an accident is sort of a side benefit.