Re: Bleh
Firstly with g/G, I read g as a unit of mass but whatever floats your boat. I was originally going to convert to N but that makes the sheer forces more difficult for someone who hasn't studied physics to comprehend. I don't think that central to my point. There are some pretty unrealistic assumptions in my 25x acceleration due to earth's gravity at some specific location and altitude.
Firstly, I was very generous with the amount of distance the car has to crumple. Having no engine up front certainly improves that, but you don't get 25G resistance equally across the whole collision. So if the first part of the crumple is say 4 or 5G, the remaining parts must increase well above my quoted figure.
Secondly, there is a velocity squared relationship here, so 33ms-1 is 4 times the energy to dissipate as 16.5ms-1 all else equal (not double as many people assume).
Thirdly, I'm not aware of any crumple zones that are able to be dynamically strengthen or weaken their rigidity based on collision speed. I am only guessing here that they pick a set of materials that get progressively more rigid the closer to the T cell you get. I guess it may be possible to use explosive charges to selectively weaken panels during an accident but I'm not aware of any production car that attempts anything like that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
