Good thing it wasn't a Smart Car

[BobR]

We had a collision between a Land Cruiser and an armored truck here this morning. They say it was a near head on collision, but looks more fender to fender to me.

The only injury was in the armored truck.

I am impressed at the way the Land Cruiser came through vs the armored truck.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31529437/ns/local_news-spokane_wa/

I would have expected a much more damaged SUV, but even the doors still open on the passenger side.

Would the armored truck driver even felt the Smart Car? 


bob

[roo_ster]

Bet is was a head-on deal, but the SUV got spun-round.

[MillCreek]

On a past episode of "Modern Marvels" about bulletproof items, they showed an armored car being built.  I was interested to learn that the armor is aluminum, not steel.  

[MechAg94]

Looks like the design of the SUV is to allow the whole front end to collapse and absorb the impact.  Looks like it worked. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Looks like they hit perpendicular to each other, not head on.  Either way, it's good to have several tons of steel on your side when you collide with heavy industrial vehicles.

[Regolith]

On a past episode of "Modern Marvels" about bulletproof items, they showed an armored car being built.  I was interested to learn that the armor is aluminum, not steel.  

Not surprising.  They use aluminum for the old M113 APC's as well.  It's much lighter, which makes it easier on the suspension and engine.

[Daniel964]

The smart car may have got away without any damage. It probably would have went under the truck and not even touched the botom.

[mgdavis]

The Smart car is designed to take advantage of the other vehicle's crumple zone, which never seemed terribly intelligent to me. There are way to many vehicles out there that don't have much in the way of crumple zone. Not only are there commercial vehicles like these, but how many '80s era pick-up trucks are out there with big steel bumpers attached to a beefy steel chassis?

[lupinus]

The Smart car is designed to take advantage of the other vehicle's crumple zone

What about smart car on smart car? 

[LadySmith]

What about smart car on smart car? 

You'll wind up with either one compact car or a bunch of little Minis. 

[Gewehr98]

Wouldn't have mattered whether it was a SmartForTwo or a Pontiac Vibe that got clobbered by that armored car.

Physics is a mean mistress.

You want to play chicken with an armored car, you'd better be driving a Deuce and a Half.

[Antibubba]

Bet is was a head-on deal, but the SUV got spun-round.

Based on where the damage is on each vehicle, that's highly unlikely.

I wonder which one ran the red?

[209]

Having been the driver in two (count 'em- two) Hyundais that got totaled, I have to say I'm impressed with the crumble zone engineering (and probably darn lucky it was designed into my car  )  Both accidents involved a vehicle rear-ending my stopped car and pushing me into the stopped vehicle in front on me.  One of the offending vehicles was going about 65 and the other probably 40- 50.  The first one was my Hyundai Accent.  Between the front and rear end damage, that car was probably 4 to 5 feet shorter.  It still drove though. 

I saw a video made by that British guy who does the weird tests on things (forget his name) and they ran a Smart car into a concrete abutment.  I wasn't impressed.   After sitting in one, I couldn't help but wonder what happens to a person's legs.  Not much distance between the driver's feet and the front of the car.  Especially when the vehicle that may be hitting you is a 5000 lb full sized SUV! 

[BobR]

I wonder which one ran the red?

The armored car.

bob

[HankB]

I saw the insurance institute's video of a Smart car in a collision test - it spun well over 360 degrees after it went airborne. 

I think they first started touting "crumple zones" when they switched from frames to unibodies . . . in a crash, the latter tend to fold up like an empty pop can. There's not much the engineers can do about it, and unibodies are cheaper, so the ad men began touting it as a feature.

Some years back, I lost a cousin and her husband because their entire Saturn crumpled. The BGs in the van that rear ended them - a fan with a frame - walked away from the crash. 

[ilbob]

I think they first started touting "crumple zones" when they switched from frames to unibodies . . . in a crash, the latter tend to fold up like an empty pop can. There's not much the engineers can do about it, and unibodies are cheaper, so the ad men began touting it as a feature.

That may well be true, but its also an important safety feature. basically what is supposed to happen is a "cage" around the passengers is supposed to be the last thing to give up its structural integrity. The system works a whole lot better than most people realize. But it is not perfect nor can it protect the occupants 100% of the time. The physics of crashes sometimes gets you, and there are practical limits on what you can do.

The level of protection is also highly dependant on the type of crash. Even vehicles with a lot of metal often do poorly in certain types of crashes.

Despite the anecdotes floating around, you are far safer inside most modern vehicles in most crashes than in vehicles made 30 or 40 years ago.

[AJ Dual]

What about smart car on smart car? 

I thought that's what the Large Hadron Collider was testing?

No, wait, that's protons and stuff. Easy to mistake them with Smart's and Cooper Mini's though.

[MechAg94]

The Smart car is designed to take advantage of the other vehicle's crumple zone, which never seemed terribly intelligent to me. There are way to many vehicles out there that don't have much in the way of crumple zone. Not only are there commercial vehicles like these, but how many '80s era pick-up trucks are out there with big steel bumpers attached to a beefy steel chassis?

I also never forget all the trucks in my home town with big steel bumpers custom made on the front of their trucks that act as deer guards.  Small cars crashing into them barely scratch the paint.