I drove my first electric car yesterday

[Leo]

I'm not sure about you but I've read more articles on cars and car safety than average. I am well aware that vehicle size is often not a good comparison for safety, especially since I grew up in the day when cars still had full frames instead of crush zones. The car in question is from the 70's and is about the same size and style as the origin Mini, if you know what that looked like. It's a friggin' death trap, especially at freeway speeds and/or compared to modern vehicles.

I don't know the vehicle to which you are referring, but I take your point. I am referring to the general misconception that the larger a vehicle is - the safer for the occupants. Vehicle safety does not depend upon weight, and the ability to run over a smaller vehicle. A good modern car has crush zones, and is constructed in such a way as to ensure that the engine, drive train, and steering column, does not intrude into the vehicle upon impact. It also ensures that the passenger cell retains its integrity. Which is why the old fashioned rail chassis went the way of the dinosaurs. Massive steel girders may very well crush anything smaller in their path, but the shock they transmit when hitting something solid can often kill the occupants. Crush zones absorb shock, and good design prevents the intrusion of elements which can harm.

Also I am refering to modern cars, not something made before my mum was born. So I maintain my stance that car safety is a matter of design and engineering - not of size.

 

[Leo]

Your analysis of the safest to be in - an F1 racer - is certainly NOT true. First, actual highway cars and trucks - definitely trucks - would drive right over it. And then there is the study that the average lifespan of an F1 driver is 7 races.

Bigger is still safer.

And if a Hellfire missile were to hit one of your 'actual highway cars and trucks' it would obliterate it, the driver, and any passengers. My point was that a small vehicle, appropriately constructed, can often absorb energy (and thus protect the occupants) better than a larger one, not so well designed or constructed. Which challenges the view that a larger vehicle is safer under all circumstances.

Also, one of the most significant aspects is primary safety - the ability to avoid a collision. The handling and roadholding of a smaller, lighter (usually European) motor is a major factor in that avoidance. Try taking evasive action while travelling down a slippery mountain pass in a Porsche Boxster, or a BMW M3, and then do the same in a Cadillac Escalade. I think you might get my point.

As for the F1 car it is certainly built to withstand much more force than any passenger vehicle, so my claim is not inaccurate. And I have no idea what work of fantasy claims that the average life span of an F1 driver is 7 races - but allow me to point out that Michael Schumacher competed in F1 for 21 years, during which time he drove in 306 races. Granted he is an outstanding driver, but even a second echelon driver such as Jenson Button has competed in 280 events, and even a relative newcomer, such as Sebastian Vettel has completed 111 races.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I don't know the vehicle to which you are referring, but I take your point. I am referring to the general misconception that the larger a vehicle is - the safer for the occupants. Vehicle safety does not depend upon weight, and the ability to run over a smaller vehicle. A good modern car has crush zones, and is constructed in such a way as to ensure that the engine, drive train, and steering column, does not intrude into the vehicle upon impact. It also ensures that the passenger cell retains its integrity. Which is why the old fashioned rail chassis went the way of the dinosaurs. Massive steel girders may very well crush anything smaller in their path, but the shock they transmit when hitting something solid can often kill the occupants. Crush zones absorb shock, and good design prevents the intrusion of elements which can harm.

Also I am refering to modern cars, not something made before my mum was born. So I maintain my stance that car safety is a matter of design and engineering - not of size.

I never refuted that stance because I agree. I've watched cars get safer over the past 40 years along with highway construction techniques. They didn't even have Jersey barriers on the highways around here when I started learning to drive, though they did (barely) exist in other parts of the country.

 

[jmotivator]

LOL! You do this at 196 mph in a Cadillac Escalade (if it could go that fast down a mine shaft), and see if you walk way unscathed like Mark Webber did in 2010.



The evidence from many F1 collisions such as that, are somewhat more compelling than any number of hypothetical assertions.

But if you are colliding with an Escalade the F1 would end up underneath the SUV. The F1 driver would have his head taken off.

 

[Leo]

But if you are colliding with an Escalade the F1 would end up underneath the SUV. The F1 driver would have his head taken off.

Be reasonable - the probaility of an F1 car colliding head on with a Cadillac Escalade at high speed is nil, unless the Escalade qualified as falling within the F1 formula (an impossibility). What I am discussing is the principle of vehicle safety, and refuting the assertion that the occupants of a larger, heavier, vehicle are ipso facto safer in a collision.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Be reasonable - the probaility of an F1 car colliding head on with a Cadillac Escalade at high speed is nil, unless the Escalade qualified as falling within the F1 formula (an impossibility). What I am discussing is the principle of vehicle safety, and refuting the assertion that the occupants of a larger, heavier, vehicle are ipso facto safer in a collision.

They are safer when colliding with a lighter vehicle...

 

[jmotivator]

Be reasonable - the probaility of an F1 car colliding head on with a Cadillac Escalade at high speed is nil, unless the Escalade qualified as falling within the F1 formula (an impossibility). What I am discussing is the principle of vehicle safety, and refuting the assertion that the occupants of a larger, heavier, vehicle are ipso facto safer in a collision.

So you are saying that an F1 car is safer in a front on collision because it woin't have a front on crash with the Escalade? Well then by that line of argument the Escalade is WAY safer because the Escalade driver decided to stay home that day. :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

They are safer when colliding with a lighter vehicle...

... if they're of near-equal quality of crash engineering.

 

[Leo]

... if they're of near-equal quality of crash engineering.

Thank you for making my point better than I could. All other things being equal, a heavier vehicle will inflict greater damage than a lighter vehicle.

But all other things are seldom equal, and there are light years of difference in the development of the two examples I quoted. My simple point however, is that vehicular safety is incomparably more dependent upon design and construction, than upon size and weight. I cannot see any effective argument to the contrary.