Poor Yellow Pony (*Car) :-(

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Fingers
Larger trucks are not designed to crumple at all though. No plastic there, all steel.

Yes they are. Ever see the crash tests done on fullsize pickup trucks? They crumple just like a car does. Maybe not as much but they do crumple and absorb energy.

Yes, some full size trucks do(f-150 ect), but for the one in question any crumpling wasn't intentional.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Riiight...tell that crock if sh!t to the anyone of us who could have been sitting in the back seat of that Mustang. :roll:

Cars and trucks are designed to crumple when impacted to protect the passengers in the passenger compartment. The truck absorbed almost none of the impact and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact. This accident clearly shows that a raised truck impacting a normal car is a dangerous situation. You must be blind not to see that.

i'm starting to think you are quite possibly so blind in your hatred for trucks that you aren't even reading, you are just spouting nonsense.

did you even read what i posted? minivan. smaller vehicle. car about the same size as a mustang (4 door, more support?). as much damage, but to the whole back end, not just the top half. either way the back seat passenger would be gone. i'm not blind, and i'm not in a truck hating rage as you are. it's not the lift, it's the fact that a large mass impacted another mass (and smaller mass, you can say the truck has too much mass if you want i guess) at a high rate of speed. it's going to cause carnage no matter what "crumple zones" you have.

Because of the many variables in an accident I don't think you can compare your "accident" to this one. Apples to oranges. It is plain to see what I referred to in my post and I am not in a "truck hating rage" as you put it. You started with the personal attacks.

what variables? in both cases a vehicle rear ended another vehicle that wasn't in motion. the one in my scenario was smaller and was going slower and hit a car that was probably more enforced (being a family sedan and not a sports car). it's apples to apples, period, you just don't want to admit that the fact it was lifted didn't make it more dangerous.

edit: in my attempt to shield myself from stupidity i typo'd, it has been fixed.

 

[rh71]

I find it interesting that people are STILL using the "but you don't need it" argument to be against something.

We don't really need a lot of things we have the luxury of owning here in non third-world countries, do we ?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Proof.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisher
what variables? in both cases a vehicle rear ended another vehicle that wasn't in motion. the one in my scenario was smaller and was going slower and hit a car that was probably more enforced (being a family sedan and not a sports car). it's apples to apples, period, you just don't want to admit that the fact it was lifted made it more dangerous.

My mistake. I guess we are in agreement then. I thought you were arguing that the fact that it was lifted made it more safe.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: CRXican
You still left out the reason you need a truck. I made those comments to hear your reason for having one. By not responding with the reason you need a truck I'm likely to believe I was correct and that you don't need one.

i drive a jeep cherokee with a 2" budget lift and 30" tires, if you're referring to me. i have 2 kids and don't feel like driving a full sized car just so i can squeeze in a double stroller and my gear bag (paintball) that stays in my jeep. as it is i think i'll be trading it in on a minivan this year because i'm almost out of room again.

i just hate to see people hating on trucks because of stupid reasons. people like JulesMaximus blindly start spouting BS without having a clue about damn near anything.

You have no valid argument for raising a truck other than to use it off-road. My argument is for the safety of the rest of us driving normal cars. If you want a lifted truck, fine. But use it only off-road and stop endangering the rest of us. This is not BS and I have heard no valid arguments in your favor to make me side with you.

The only clueless one here is you.

obviously. my bumper sits less than 2" higher than it does stock. i'm not endangering anyone because i know how to drive. i don't get on my phone or do a gangster lean in my ricemobile while driving. stop blaming a vehicle and start spouting off about personal responsibilty. i have to drive down a rutted dirt road to work every weekend and i don't feel like tearing the underside of my car up because you don't want people driving trucks. when you start paying my bills you can have some say in what i drive.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: CRXican
You still left out the reason you need a truck. I made those comments to hear your reason for having one. By not responding with the reason you need a truck I'm likely to believe I was correct and that you don't need one.

i drive a jeep cherokee with a 2" budget lift and 30" tires, if you're referring to me. i have 2 kids and don't feel like driving a full sized car just so i can squeeze in a double stroller and my gear bag (paintball) that stays in my jeep. as it is i think i'll be trading it in on a minivan this year because i'm almost out of room again.

i just hate to see people hating on trucks because of stupid reasons. people like JulesMaximus blindly start spouting BS without having a clue about damn near anything.

You have no valid argument for raising a truck other than to use it off-road. My argument is for the safety of the rest of us driving normal cars. If you want a lifted truck, fine. But use it only off-road and stop endangering the rest of us. This is not BS and I have heard no valid arguments in your favor to make me side with you.

The only clueless one here is you.

obviously. my bumper sits less than 2" higher than it does stock. i'm not endangering anyone because i know how to drive. i don't get on my phone or do a gangster lean in my ricemobile while driving. stop blaming a vehicle and start spouting off about personal responsibilty. i have to drive down a rutted dirt road to work every weekend and i don't feel like tearing the underside of my car up because you don't want people driving trucks. when you start paying my bills you can have some say in what i drive.

I don't mind people driving trucks. I mind people driving trucks like the one in that photo.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Proof.

i don't see anything about lifted trucks...

i do see that the toyota is a safer vehicle tho. ever seen a stock toyota 4x4? pretty high off the ground.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: DP

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: Baked
GT = Grande Trashed. Maybe they should just ban giant SUVs. Those Excursions are huge even stock.

Yep. And ban transports while they're at it. Those are even larger and they are typically driven by guys with no sleep and deadlines to meet.

What happened to holding the individual accountable and not the vehicle/gun/big mac.

Because a non-lifted vehicle would have met the Mustang's bumper/crumple zone (they way they were designed to) and may not have completely crushed the back seat area. What if that person had a child sitting back there? :|

I'm not talking about lifted vehicles. I responded to Baked on topic of SUVs, Excusions and large vehicles in general.

So, you're in favor of banning lifted vehicles then?

If the engineers and safety experts who regulate the automotive industry think its that much of a hazard--sure.

Evidently we can't suggest that drivers are held responsible for blowing into a stopped vehicle at 50mph, so lets just ban their vehicles instead.

Tell that to the next person who dies in an accident as a result of being hit by a lifted truck. Tell that to their families. I'm sure it will be comforting to them.

If I could prove that your lifted vehicle was the reason someone died in a crash do you think juries would award a huge settlement? Do you think insurance companies would insure such a vehicle if they knew it was lifted? I've talked to car dealers and many of them remove these lift kits when people trade in lifted vehicles due to liability concerns. Why do you suppose that is?

I think it is only a matter of time before these are banned. Unfortunately, it will probably take some deaths for action to be taken.

jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: Baked
GT = Grande Trashed. Maybe they should just ban giant SUVs. Those Excursions are huge even stock.

Yep. And ban transports while they're at it. Those are even larger and they are typically driven by guys with no sleep and deadlines to meet.

What happened to holding the individual accountable and not the vehicle/gun/big mac.

Because a non-lifted vehicle would have met the Mustang's bumper/crumple zone (they way they were designed to) and may not have completely crushed the back seat area. What if that person had a child sitting back there? :|

I'm not talking about lifted vehicles. I responded to Baked on topic of SUVs, Excusions and large vehicles in general.

So, you're in favor of banning lifted vehicles then?

If the engineers and safety experts who regulate the automotive industry think its that much of a hazard--sure.

Evidently we can't suggest that drivers are held responsible for blowing into a stopped vehicle at 50mph, so lets just ban their vehicles instead.

Tell that to the next person who dies in an accident as a result of being hit by a lifted truck. Tell that to their families. I'm sure it will be comforting to them.

If I could prove that your lifted vehicle was the reason someone died in a crash do you think juries would award a huge settlement? Do you think insurance companies would insure such a vehicle if they knew it was lifted? I've talked to car dealers and many of them remove these lift kits when people trade in lifted vehicles due to liability concerns. Why do you suppose that is?

I think it is only a matter of time before these are banned. Unfortunately, it will probably take some deaths for action to be taken.

jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

a bad driver is a bad driver period. stop blaming the gun/truck/whatever and start blaming the idiot behind the wheel. a guy in a civic can kill people on motorcycles but you won't see a single person screaming "ban civics!" because they'll blame the driver and not the vehicle.

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: Baked
GT = Grande Trashed. Maybe they should just ban giant SUVs. Those Excursions are huge even stock.

Yep. And ban transports while they're at it. Those are even larger and they are typically driven by guys with no sleep and deadlines to meet.

What happened to holding the individual accountable and not the vehicle/gun/big mac.

Because a non-lifted vehicle would have met the Mustang's bumper/crumple zone (they way they were designed to) and may not have completely crushed the back seat area. What if that person had a child sitting back there? :|

I'm not talking about lifted vehicles. I responded to Baked on topic of SUVs, Excusions and large vehicles in general.

So, you're in favor of banning lifted vehicles then?

If the engineers and safety experts who regulate the automotive industry think its that much of a hazard--sure.

Evidently we can't suggest that drivers are held responsible for blowing into a stopped vehicle at 50mph, so lets just ban their vehicles instead.

Tell that to the next person who dies in an accident as a result of being hit by a lifted truck. Tell that to their families. I'm sure it will be comforting to them.

If I could prove that your lifted vehicle was the reason someone died in a crash do you think juries would award a huge settlement? Do you think insurance companies would insure such a vehicle if they knew it was lifted? I've talked to car dealers and many of them remove these lift kits when people trade in lifted vehicles due to liability concerns. Why do you suppose that is?

I think it is only a matter of time before these are banned. Unfortunately, it will probably take some deaths for action to be taken.

jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

Don't forget all the cocaine to keep them up all night.

 

[Insane3D]

Let me summarize the remainder of this thread...

"Large vehicles rule! I should be able to drive anything I want!!"

"Large vehicles are lame, and should be banned! Who needs these things anyhow?!?"

[insert various links to support said argument]

PROFIT!!!!

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Obiviously you are a great physicist and can tell with your trained eyes where and to what extent the energy and momentum were transfered.

If you had any clue, you'd realize that the frame and chassis will absorb and distribute far more energy than the windshield, thereby making the impact to the cabin significantly reduced; but you post on ATOT and you have "seen" a car accident, so you obviously knew that already.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Let me summarize the remainder of this thread...

"Large vehicles rule! I should be able to drive anything I want!!"

"Large vehicles are lame, and should be banned! Who needs these things anyhow?!?"

[insert various links to support said argument]

PROFIT!!!!

Fark.... now what do I do with the rest of my day ?

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Fingers

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: Baked
GT = Grande Trashed. Maybe they should just ban giant SUVs. Those Excursions are huge even stock.

Yep. And ban transports while they're at it. Those are even larger and they are typically driven by guys with no sleep and deadlines to meet.

What happened to holding the individual accountable and not the vehicle/gun/big mac.

Because a non-lifted vehicle would have met the Mustang's bumper/crumple zone (they way they were designed to) and may not have completely crushed the back seat area. What if that person had a child sitting back there? :|

I'm not talking about lifted vehicles. I responded to Baked on topic of SUVs, Excusions and large vehicles in general.

So, you're in favor of banning lifted vehicles then?

If the engineers and safety experts who regulate the automotive industry think its that much of a hazard--sure.

Evidently we can't suggest that drivers are held responsible for blowing into a stopped vehicle at 50mph, so lets just ban their vehicles instead.

Tell that to the next person who dies in an accident as a result of being hit by a lifted truck. Tell that to their families. I'm sure it will be comforting to them.

If I could prove that your lifted vehicle was the reason someone died in a crash do you think juries would award a huge settlement? Do you think insurance companies would insure such a vehicle if they knew it was lifted? I've talked to car dealers and many of them remove these lift kits when people trade in lifted vehicles due to liability concerns. Why do you suppose that is?

I think it is only a matter of time before these are banned. Unfortunately, it will probably take some deaths for action to be taken.

jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

Don't forget all the cocaine to keep them up all night.

naw, nobody admitted that in the driver's ed class i took. altho the truckers there were all pretty much in agreement that the industry sucks because a lot of the indies have to drive crazy hours to keep up. but that was years ago, maybe a federal mandate has fixed things now?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Proof.

i don't see anything about lifted trucks...

i do see that the toyota is a safer vehicle tho. ever seen a stock toyota 4x4? pretty high off the ground.

That is my point. A truck that isn't lifted will crumple when it meets the bumper of a normal car/truck thus absorbing some of the energy in an accident. If you look at the crash photo in this thread the truck has none of this type of damage because it didn't impact the bumper of the Mustang. It impacted significantly higher.

I'd be surprised if a stock Toyota truck had a bumper any higher than a car. Toyota is pretty good about designing safe vehicles.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Obiviously you are a great physicist and can tell with your trained eyes where and to what extent the energy and momentum were transfered.

If you had any clue, you'd realize that the frame and chassis will absorb and distribute far more energy than the windshield, thereby making the impact to the cabin significantly reduced; but you post on ATOT and you have "seen" a car accident, so you obviously knew that already.

well no i was in the accident. but thanks for putting in your 2 cents. i'm not blinded by stupidity, i'm simply tired of the whining because you people don't get your way and we aren't all rolling on dubs in 82 caprices.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Let me summarize the remainder of this thread...

"Large vehicles rule! I should be able to drive anything I want!!"

"Large vehicles are lame, and should be banned! Who needs these things anyhow?!?"

[insert various links to support said argument]

PROFIT!!!!

Fark.... now what do I do with the rest of my day ?

Shoot misc stuff through Aquaman's 5 hole?

 

[suse920]

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP
jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

a bad driver is a bad driver period. stop blaming the gun/truck/whatever and start blaming the idiot behind the wheel. a guy in a civic can kill people on motorcycles but you won't see a single person screaming "ban civics!" because they'll blame the driver and not the vehicle.

That's the point. A bad driver in one of these trucks is far more likely to do significant damage than a civic. The point of a driver's license, or at least it used to be before they started just handing them out, is to weed out bad drivers.

I am NOT in favor of banning lifted or large vehicles, I AM in favor of making it mandatory to obtain a separate license (and demonstrate competent ability) to operate them.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Proof.

i don't see anything about lifted trucks...

i do see that the toyota is a safer vehicle tho. ever seen a stock toyota 4x4? pretty high off the ground.

That is my point. A truck that isn't lifted will crumple when it meets the bumper of a normal car/truck thus absorbing some of the energy in an accident. If you look at the crash photo in this thread the truck has none of this type of damage because it didn't impact the bumper of the Mustang. It impacted significantly higher.

I'd be surprised if a stock Toyota truck had a bumper any higher than a car. Toyota is pretty good about designing safe vehicles.

safe or not, i've been next to a few toyota pickups that had higher bumpers than mine.

i looked at the crash photos, and i'm still going to insist that damage would be done regardless of where the truck hit the mustang. when you have something with that much mass (and a huge engine under the hood acting as a wrecking ball) hitting something smaller at that speed you are going to have carnage period. i'm really surprised that's all the damage there is. if that had been a semi and not a pickup truck the person in the mustang probably wouldn't be alive. i've seen accident photos of semis going right over cars before and their bumpers are down near the ground.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Ah yes, because 20 year old vehicle safety standards and the possibility of non-US conforming bumpers REALLY apply to this situation.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP
jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

a bad driver is a bad driver period. stop blaming the gun/truck/whatever and start blaming the idiot behind the wheel. a guy in a civic can kill people on motorcycles but you won't see a single person screaming "ban civics!" because they'll blame the driver and not the vehicle.

That's the point. A bad driver in one of these trucks is far more likely to do significant damage than a civic. The point of a driver's license, or at least it used to be before they started just handing them out, is to weed out bad drivers.

I am NOT in favor of banning lifted or large vehicles, I AM in favor of making it mandatory to obtain a separate license (and demonstrate competent ability) to operate them.

but again, people can pass license tests and still be retarded drivers. tell the person on the motorcycle that the civic that just killed him isn't as dangerous as any other vehicle out there. i completely agree it's a joke to get a driver's license anymore. i've seen kids get theirs and admit they were terrible drivers.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Obiviously you are a great physicist and can tell with your trained eyes where and to what extent the energy and momentum were transfered.

If you had any clue, you'd realize that the frame and chassis will absorb and distribute far more energy than the windshield, thereby making the impact to the cabin significantly reduced; but you post on ATOT and you have "seen" a car accident, so you obviously knew that already.

well no i was in the accident. but thanks for putting in your 2 cents. i'm not blinded by stupidity, i'm simply tired of the whining because you people don't get your way and we aren't all rolling on dubs in 82 caprices.

You were in the accident, OH, that makes you WAY more qualified.

82 caprices? WTF are you talking about?

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Ah yes, because 20 year old vehicle safety standards and the possibility of non-US conforming bumpers REALLY apply to this situation.

it's simply a picture of a non-lifted vehicle hitting a car and doing as much damage as was shown in the pics posted. period. it's what i could find on short notice and i'm not really intested in digging through crash site pics on the internet all afternoon.