Results 21 to 22 of 22
-
2nd August 2009, 12:36 #21
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Location
- On the Welsh Riviera
- Posts
- 38,844
- Like
- 2
- Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by jonkkaRule 1 of the forum, always accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias.I would say that though.
-
2nd August 2009, 13:23 #22
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- Prague / Eastern Bohemia
- Posts
- 22,505
- Like
- 7,830
- Liked 11,151 Times in 4,427 Posts
Originally Posted by jonkka
Simply You have car 1 with 1000 kg and car 2 with 1230 kg. Both are going 100 km/h and crashing straight into a wall or a big tree the way they can rebound only in opposite direction of original movement (no spinning around, rolling etc.). Both have same rollcage in this example because there is no rulle which says the heavier car must have stiffer rollcage existing.
Car 1 has kinetic energy 386 MJ.
Car 2 has kinetic energy 475 MJ.
The difference says how much more the second car will suffer from the crash.
For side tree impact there is also reasonable importance of car lenght. While in frontal crash more lenght is usualy better (more possible deformation), in side impact into the tree it may be often opposite. The longer the car, the bigger moment of innertia of the body which bents the car over the tree.Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump
About car sharing.. as Mikkelsen's drives were confirmed, can we assume the others..? Monte - Mikkelsen Sweden - Lappi Kenya - Lappi Croatia - Mikkelsen Portugal - Sordo Sardegna - Sordo?...
Hyundai WRT