Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k
You have a point - to a degree. Yes, you want the body to absorb and crumple and attenuate the energy, but there is a sweet spot before you hit the point of not only diminishing, but detrimental returns. You could build an entire car out of dried pasta noodles which would disintegrate entirely on impact, but would not actually provide any protection to the occupant precisely because they don't offer enough resistance to crushing or distortion.
Likewise, we don't want cars that are so "crumply" that they are totaled when we get into what should be a minor fender-bender.
In my case, the car did exactly what it was supposed to do: parts crumpled, absorbed the impact, and attenuated the energy (I had to replace my rear bumper, trunk lid, and left rear quarter panel, which includes the b-pillar and window arch all the way to the A-pillar; and one unibody frame panel had to be replaced as well). I was not injured, and in fact was only barely sore the next day from a fairly violent rear impact (violent enough to total an SUV). But I was able to drive home without significant structural or functional failure, which I feel is the sign of exceptional design engineering.
On the other hand, possibly due to the location of the impact or due to a different engineering philosophy, the Highlander's front end was destroyed. Multiple types of fluids were leaking from the severely compromised engine compartment (which in itself could be hazardous if one of those fluids was gasoline - there are tens of thousands of car fires every year in the US, many of which turn what should be non-fatal crashes into fatal ones).
I would prefer a vehicle that protects me in a crash and remains a viable long-term vehicle over one that fully sacrifices itself unnecessarily and has to be replaced (in cases other than severe, potentially injurious crashes).
Anyway, that's my $.02
|
Well, I think we're saying the same thing. But to say a car's crash safety is based off of how intact the vehicle is after a particular crash is too simplified. As an extreme example, when cars were built literally like tanks with a ton of steel, people were still getting severely injured despite the car being basically intact due to the transfer of all the crash energy into the passenger cab.
Crash design is definitely a balancing act between occupancy safety and repairability of the car.
In your example of potential gas fires, many manufacturers have designed systems to help minimize this possibility. My old Ford Focus had such a feature where there was an inertia cut off switch for the fuel pump.