Crash test at 200km/h

[Crispin]

Ever wondered what you would look like if your Ford Focus his a wall at 200km/h?


[youtube:1xq7x2f3]6dI5ewOmHPQ[/youtube:1xq7x2f3]

You can see the airbags deploying but looks like there was not enough time (Not that it would have made a huge difference)

 

[Lorin]

Horriffic

Slight error in the commentory though, it simulated two cars colliding head on at 60mph not 120mph

 

[Chas]

Horriffic

Slight error in the commentory though, it simulated two cars colliding head on at 60mph not 120mph

That makes it all the more horrific, not that many cars will be travelling at 120mph but a lot will be doing 60mph

 

[Gav Peter]

This is what makes me laugh in this day & age of elf & safety...

I have to write risk assessments & method statements for a man to climb a four-rung stepladder to change a light bulb on site yet he can drive to site on a road barely three foot wider than two cars width at speeds of up to 60mph with the same happening on the other side of that protective white line without even considering the consequences...

I'd love to see the RA & MS for driving on a road - you'd never get it passed by the H&S coordinators I have to deal with...

[In goes Gav's medication & off he goes to his happy place]

 

[Jon Wildsmith]

Very squashy things these cars. When I was still in my teens (yes a long time ago I know ) a car I was driving, making a right turn just over the brow of a hill, was t-boned by a car traveling in the same direction estimated to be doing 50-60mph came over the brow of the hill and instead of aiming for the space I was vacating aimed for the space I was moving into! Of course my car wasn't like a concrete wall and was pushed along a bit losing some of the energy but the drivers side of my car was completely flattened across to the transmission tunnel, like a concertina and the front of the other car wasn't so great but seems mine took most of the force. Luckily for me my seat was tipped over and me with it instead of being crushed so I just banged my head on the passenger door while I had an enforced lie down! Apart from being unconscious for a while I came out of it with no injuries although some might say the bang on the head might explain a lot That's my excuse for always wanting to be in big solid motor and not a tin can because a head on would have been so much worse.

 

[Crispin]

This is what makes me laugh in this day & age of elf & safety...

If cars were invented today, the government would not allow us to drive them and deem them too unsafe.

My biggest fear is a side-on impact as there is nothing to absorb the energy, well, not like the front of the car. Jon, you're luck it tilted up like that.

A bit of a hypothetical question:
A friend and I were discussing who would win in a 60mph head on - me in my LC and him in his brand new smart car.
While the smart car has all the special stuff and fare well against a normal car, surely there comes a point where you would end up behind the point of impact. i.e. I would shunt him backwards purely because I weigh in at over 2 ton and he and his smart crumple zones would run out of places to crumple.
He was pretty adamant he would be ok, constantly citing the crash test between a Disco 1 (or 2?) and the Smart car where the Disco drive would have been worse off due to intrusion.

 

[Crispin]

This is a recon­struc­tion of a crash involv­ing a sta­tion­ary Ford Fal­con XT sedan being struck in the driver’s door by another vehi­cle trav­el­ling at 50 km/h [30 mph].

0 mil­lisec­onds — An exter­nal object touches the driver’s door.

1 ms — The car’s door pres­sure sen­sor detects a pres­sure wave.

2 ms — An accel­er­a­tion sen­sor in the C-pillar behind the rear door also detects a crash event.

2.5 ms - A sen­sor in the car’s cen­tre detects crash vibrations.

5 ms — Car’s crash com­puter checks for insignif­i­cant crash events, such as a shop­ping trol­ley impact or inci­den­tal con­tact. It is still work­ing out the sever­ity of the crash. Door intru­sion struc­ture begins to absorb energy.

6.5 ms — Door pres­sure sen­sor reg­is­ters peak pressures.

7 ms — Crash com­puter con­firms a seri­ous crash and cal­cu­lates its actions.

8 ms — Com­puter sends a “fire” sig­nal to side airbag. Mean­while, B-pillar begins to crum­ple inwards and energy begins to trans­fer into cross-car load path beneath the occupant.

8.5 ms — Side airbag sys­tem fires.

15 ms — Roof begins to absorb part of the impact. Airbag bursts through seat foam and begins to fill.

17 ms — Cross-car load path and struc­ture under rear seat reach max­i­mum load.
Airbag cov­ers occupant’s chest and begins to push the shoul­der away from impact zone.

20 ms — Door and B-pillar begin to push on front seat. Airbag begins to push occupant’s chest away from the impact.

27 ms — Impact veloc­ity has halved from 50 km/h to 23.5 km/h. A “pusher block” in the seat moves occupant’s pelvis away from impact zone. Airbag starts con­trolled deflation.

30 ms — The Fal­con has absorbed all crash energy. Airbag remains in place. For a brief moment, occu­pant expe­ri­ences max­i­mum force equal to 12 times the force of gravity.

45 ms — Occu­pant and airbag move together with deform­ing side structure.

50 ms — Crash com­puter unlocks car’s doors. Pas­sen­ger safety cell begins to rebound, push­ing doors away from occupant.

70 ms — Airbag con­tin­ues to deflate. Occu­pant moves back towards mid­dle of car.
Engi­neers clas­sify crash as “complete”.

150–300 ms — Occu­pant becomes aware of collision.

I wonder who things panned out in the above crash.

edit:
Guess you can work it out, the breakdown is for 30mph crash...

 

[Chris]

Gav, young man, you and I need to talk. Someone's been telling lies or you weren't listening in class.

We have a risk assessment for driving as a matter of act, for people who are AT WORK - and so should any business where people drive as part of their roles. Driving to work is not AT work. You can kill yourself dead with no action at all. You wouldn't have a method statement for driving. Totally inappropriate. And you don't need a risk assessment specifically for the job with the ladder either. Really. It's no wonder our profession has such a crap image. It's Gav's fault!

For advice on what the heck risk assessment is really about and what to do with one as an employer, you can read my book, which will be published in the Spring!

Cheap plug I know. Gav started it. He did Miss, honest.

C

 

[Chris]

Chas, I think the idea was to mimic closing speeds of TWO cars doing 60mph in a head on thus 120 mph. They said this was the worst scenario. Well hate to point out the obvious but cars can legally do 70 mph so the worst would be 140 mph. See, this is why I only watch serious motoring programmes like Top Gear.
Not sure what they expected the result to be but they seemed surprised.

Chris

 

[Chas]

Chas, I think the idea was to mimic closing speeds of TWO cars doing 60mph in a head on thus 120 mph. They said this was the worst scenario. Chris

Yes Chris I did realise that hence my comment of two cars each with a speed of 60mph hitting each other.

 

[Jon Wildsmith]

He was pretty adamant he would be ok, constantly citing the crash test between a Disco 1 (or 2?) and the Smart car where the Disco drive would have been worse off due to intrusion.

His smart car will act like it ran into that concrete wall, your cruiser will act like the wall wasn't quite so solid after all You have mass and material strength on your side which mean the smart car will have to absorb more than it's fair share of the energy IMO. You can't really compare a disco 1/2 and your cruiser for integrity in a crash, that's like comparing his smart car with del boys 3 wheeler

 

[Chas]

[quote="Crispin":1tk7nsc7]He was pretty adamant he would be ok, constantly citing the crash test between a Disco 1 (or 2?) and the Smart car where the Disco drive would have been worse off due to intrusion.

His smart car will act like it ran into that concrete wall, your cruiser will act like the wall wasn't quite so solid after all [/quote:1tk7nsc7]
Concrete walls and Cruisers?, that rings a bell

 

[Philip A]

Horriffic

Slight error in the commentory though, it simulated two cars colliding head on at 60mph not 120mph

Correction: it is a head-on at 120mph/200kmh. If two cars of same weight and travelling at the same velocity hit head-on, it's the same as if each hits a wall. If one was lighter than the other one, it would move backwards, and the heavier one would experience less deceleration.

You better hit a Mini in a 40-tonner than the opposite...

 

[Lorin]

Horriffic

Slight error in the commentory though, it simulated two cars colliding head on at 60mph not 120mph

Correction: it is a head-on at 120mph/200kmh. If two cars of same weight and travelling at the same velocity hit head-on, it's the same as if each hits a wall. If one was lighter than the other one, it would move backwards, and the heavier one would experience less deceleration.

I stand rightly corrected Good example of repeating something I heard without thinking it through Though having now engaged my brain, isn't it two cars of the same mass not weight

 

[Rob]

[quote="Crispin":3kpl9b4u]He was pretty adamant he would be ok, constantly citing the crash test between a Disco 1 (or 2?) and the Smart car where the Disco drive would have been worse off due to intrusion.

His smart car will act like it ran into that concrete wall, your cruiser will act like the wall wasn't quite so solid after all You have mass and material strength on your side which mean the smart car will have to absorb more than it's fair share of the energy IMO. You can't really compare a disco 1/2 and your cruiser for integrity in a crash, that's like comparing his smart car with del boys 3 wheeler [/quote:3kpl9b4u]
60mph head on is quite serious,
[youtube:3kpl9b4u]mOFY2kT5LqA[/youtube:3kpl9b4u]

 

[Crispin]

Not sure what they expected the result to be but they seemed surprised.

Chris

The look of surprise on his face was rather amusing.

Rob's vid is quite savage

 

[Crispin]

[quote="Crispin":3tlygnrj]He was pretty adamant he would be ok, constantly citing the crash test between a Disco 1 (or 2?) and the Smart car where the Disco drive would have been worse off due to intrusion.

His smart car will act like it ran into that concrete wall, your cruiser will act like the wall wasn't quite so solid after all You have mass and material strength on your side which mean the smart car will have to absorb more than it's fair share of the energy IMO. You can't really compare a disco 1/2 and your cruiser for integrity in a crash, that's like comparing his smart car with del boys 3 wheeler [/quote:3tlygnrj]

The Disco was shedding parts before the impact

if one of the chassis rails on a cruiser made good contact with the, for lack of a better word, opponent, if you be a pretty well decided outcome. There is of course the danger of me slowing down too quickly and then tickets anyway.
A glancing blow though and there is not much to the cruiser. I've had the bumper off and been under the wing for the snorkel, the wing is just tinfoil making it look better. A glancing blow could very easily cause some grief in the cabin.
Motto: At point of no return, adjust your aim

 

[Jon Wildsmith]

No car is going to be a safe place to be in a head on at 60mph but I think you're more likely to beat the odds in your cruiser than a smart car.

 

[Jon Wildsmith]

For advice on what the heck risk assessment is really about and what to do with one as an employer, you can read my book, which will be published in the Spring!

Will you be doing signed copies for club members not that I want or need an elf safety book but sounds like some members might

 

[Chris]

Jon, it's a 'not' elf n safety book. I may well get burned at the stake by a mob of angry clipboard carrying Sidney Sad-Sacks all wearing High Viz KKK costumes. That is if the risk assessment allows them to light the fire.

Chris