HMMMMM....Looks Like I Was Correct!!!

My education is as a biologist/ecologist, so some math, a good portion of chemistry, somestatistics, some physics, and for grad school, quite a bit of critical thinking. Not an engineer, but my brother is and is the TOP safety engineer for a national corporation, I have a number of friends that are engineers and other technical folks, and so, as I said, if I don't understand it, I probably know folks who can 'splain it to me. Have quite a bit of respect for engineers in general, although many design engineers clearly have never had to work on or repair the items for which they are responsible. If you are an engineer and maintain that the old all steel vehicles with hard steel interiors and nothing to prevent you from flying into said interiors or through the old style windows when the vehicle came to an abrupt halt upon encountering an immovable object were in fact safer than current models, well, perhaps time to hang up the ole slide rule. I have had enough physics, enough biology, and enough statistics to be pretty certain that I'm safer belted into a modern F150 than bouncing loose in an old F-1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HPL

, some physics

---

You would understand? when I present F=MA :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HPL

Not an engineer, but my brother is and is the TOP safety engineer for a national corporation, I have a number of friends that are engineers and other technical folks, and so, as I said, if I don't understand it, I probably know folks who can 'splain it to me. Have quite a bit of respect for engineers in general, although many design engineers clearly have never had to work on or repair the items for which they are responsible. If you are an engineer and maintain that the old all steel vehicles with hard steel interiors and nothing to prevent you from flying into said interiors or through the old style windows when the vehicle came to an abrupt halt upon encountering an immovable object were in fact safer than current models, well, perhaps time to hang up the ole slide rule. I have had enough physics, enough biology, and enough statistics to be pretty certain that I'm safer belted into a modern F150 than bouncing loose in an old F-1.

---

One of my son's is the top safety guy for his refinery - has no degree :). But you are now laying conditions, anyone driving Out of Control around immovable objects deserves what happens. But in a headon I'll take my old Pontiac, the chevy in the rollover or a Packard any time over that thing F calls a truck. Having owned 17 brand new F's over the years I am well aware of the safery & durability that is inherent in a F. Built Ford Tough is a slogan, not a fact :rolleyes:.

WEll, my brother has a degree and isn't the "local safety guy", he's the head safety engineer for the continental US at least and maybe for the whole of North America travels to sites all over NA and even some international stuff (Germany for sure).
I believe F stands for force and that it equals Mass times Acceleration, a pretty simple concept in physics. I believe that we were talking about the safety of old vehicles manufactured before some govt mandates and newer models manufactured with high tech materials. True, in a collision between a packard and a smart car, If I were wearing a seatbelt, I might prefer to be in the Packard, but would want some input from my engineering friends before making that decision. In a collision between a 1963 VW beetle and 2011 Altima, give me the Altima everytime. If not belted in, and no airbags or other features to ameliorate the effects caused by the impact of my body with the inside of the vehicle, I would prefer to be in the vehicle that will experience the slowest rate of deceleration, so the vehicle with the greatest mass.

I'm not laying conditions. You said that old vehicles are safer than modern vehicles built from high tech materials and incorporating advanced safety features. I said, not true. Hit a Packard head on with another Packard and you are probably less likely to survive than if you hit 2012 Volvo head on with another 2012 Volvo.

Interesting debate, but I have to agree with HPL. New vehicles are much safer. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also agrees. Older cars didn't have decent seat belts, if they had any at all. They didn't have air bags, crumple zones, or other energy absorbing features present in modern cars. Older cars may have been made of thicker metal, but in most cases their structure provides less protection than modern models.

Attached is a link to a video showing what happened when the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 1959 Bel Air head on into a 2009 Malibu (well, frontal offset test). The Bel Air didn't fair too well, and either did the crash dummy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

I have to say that I certainly didn't intend for my comment concerning the ridiculousness of the reactions to the Sandy Hook shooting to end up this far afield. Marvin and UB both goaded me a bit and I unfortunately rose to the bait. Should have ignored the distraction, but just couldn't help myself. Marvin sees ulterior motives behind every post, and UB is, well, UB. Neither understood my point. I'm not surprised. I wasn't suggesting that we need additional government regulations restricting what kids eat, what adults smoke, or whether adults wear seatbelts. The Point was that childhood obesity, tobacco use, and failure to wear seatbelts all pose greater risk to children and actually to people in general than do so called assault weapons. A huge amount of money and time will be squandered on what is, in fact, a non-threat, and yet the real dangers get very little attention.

I saw no TV news and had no computer access from Saturday until last night. Do we have any definitive word on what weapon(s) were actually used yet? The long gun taken from the trunk didn't look like an AR to me either. Looked to me like maybe it had a recoil pad and could perhaps have been a shotgun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

Interesting debate, but I have to agree with HPL. New vehicles are much safer. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also agrees. Older cars didn't have decent seat belts, if they had any at all. They didn't have air bags, crumple zones, or other energy absorbing features present in modern cars. Older cars may have been made of thicker metal, but in most cases their structure provides less protection than modern models.

Attached is a link to a video showing what happened when the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 1959 Bel Air head on into a 2009 Malibu (well, frontal offset test). The Bel Air didn't fair too well, and either did the crash dummy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

---

Loved the Maliboo - one of my engineers had one that the passenger side door fell off of @ 60K - beyond warranty so he just wired it on & kept driving the car :). I don't doubt that you believe what you are posting, but tests can be designed to emphasize obvious flaws while also emphasizing the good points of the vehicle being touted.

Early in my career after college graduation I worked in a Molybdenum mine. A significant amount of Molybdenum went into car bumpers at that time. Made them malleable & needless to say provided a significant 1st line of defense when playing Bumper car :). Moly because of it's molecular structure also is used in lubricants.

While I am not an expert on shaping load failure paths, I do know it is possible though expensive to do so. Composites will provide a significant weight reduction but again are expensive. Cars today are built like pop cans, one only need to get into a slight fender bender to see the damage wrought & the after market expense thereof.

You guys can believe what you want to - I spent the last 25 years of my career designing & repairing airplanes - if it made any difference I could probably scare up a very capable Stress guy that would blow holes in your theory - He could give you the numbers, my forte was the practical side - I can still look at a piece of metal that has not been uniformly Heat treated & predict the failure point from my mining days -

Beyond that - unless something worthy comes up I think I will retire for the night :cool:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

You would understand? when I present F=MA :).


:rolleyes:

---

I can't speak for HPL, but even in Physics for Poets 212, Force = Mass X Accelertion was explained in a way that even an engineer could grasp.
Do you really need to be a chicken to know what an egg is? JD

Sleep tight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Loved the Maliboo - one of my engineers had one that the passenger side door fell off of @ 60K - beyond warranty so he just wired it on & kept driving the car :). I don't doubt that you believe what you are posting, but tests can be designed to emphasize obvious flaws while also emphasizing the good points of the vehicle being touted.

Early in my career after college graduation I worked in a Molybdenum mine. A significant amount of Molybdenum went into car bumpers at that time. Made them malleable & needless to say provided a significant 1st line of defense when playing Bumper car :). Moly because of it's molecular structure also is used in lubricants.

While I am not an expert on shaping load failure paths, I do know it is possible though expensive to do so. Composites will provide a significant weight reduction but again are expensive. Cars today are built like pop cans, one only need to get into a slight fender bender to see the damage wrought & the after market expense thereof.

You guys can believe what you want to - I spent the last 25 years of my career designing & repairing airplanes - if it made any difference I could probably scare up a very capable Stress guy that would blow holes in your theory - He could give you the numbers, my forte was the practical side - I can still look at a piece of metal that has not been uniformly Heat treated & predict the failure point from my mining days -

Beyond that - unless something worthy comes up I think I will retire for the night :cool:.

---

So, you think the crash test was rigged? The energy resulting from a crash has to go somewhere. Either the car can absorb it, or the occupants in the car can absorb it. That's why modern cars have crumple zones. It's the same reason Formula 1 cars are designed to tear apart in a collision. The trans, engine, wheels, etc. all tale a considerable amount of the energy with them when they come off. Older cars don’t have crumple zones and have rigid steering wheel columns that can crush a driver’s chest during an accident. I would much rather take my chances in a modern car than in an old one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

So, you think the crash test was rigged?

---

I'm not saying that at all :). What I am saying is one should look at things which will benefit the party making the statement? You do remember the more recent crash of the market where the ratings companies all gave high marks to financial garbage? Why did they do that, because it went to their bottom line, a temporary situation at best, but if they are gone, do they care?

While I was still gainfully employed there were programs available & in use that allowed the access of data in crash tests without destroying anything. Foreign impact strikes are a big deal in the airline industry, as we saw with the goose ingestion by the engines in NY. I am sure they have improved on those programs over the years as the airline industry is meritocracy driven :cool:.

Are new cars more comfortable, generally so, are they more safe, I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

I'm not saying that at all :). What I am saying is one should look at things which will benefit the party making the statement? You do remember the more recent crash of the market where the ratings companies all gave high marks to financial garbage? Why did they do that, because it went to their bottom line, a temporary situation at best, but if they are gone, do they care?

While I was still gainfully employed there were programs available & in use that allowed the access of data in crash tests without destroying anything. Foreign impact strikes are a big deal in the airline industry, as we saw with the goose ingestion by the engines in NY. I am sure they have improved on those programs over the years as the airline industry is meritocracy driven :cool:.

Are new cars more comfortable, generally so, are they more safe, I don't think so.

---

I must say this is the first evidence of the legalizaton of MJ in the PNW.