Ya that was completely wrong....interesting to read so many other people were fed that garbage in school like I was and there are a lot of good sites that show why this is incorrect.
OZ
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
S 70MPH head on 70MPH is equivalent to driving 140MPH into a solid wall.
"
OZ
Not quite buddy, pick up the physics book again. MOMENTUM is what counts here, not just velocity.
Not only that, but a head on crash is safer as two cars absorb and disperse the energy instead of one.
Originally posted by: oOZo
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
Crumple zones - Top of the line cars have built in many different safety mechanisms for head on and side collisions. The car will distribute the impact energy and flex rather than break. The engine will drop to the ground and pass underneath the driver compartment. Various airbags front side etc will deploy. Statistically these improvements make a lot of sense for car companies to adopt so you can have the most possible safety with the gas economy of a small car. Just Don't get into a major accident because that's when you punch the clock and meet GOD. You want some statistics to bat around? Go talk to any police officer or sheriff and see what they drive and what their opinion is after working a major metropolis and seeing the road carnage wrought upon small asian cars. And since I know you won't do it I will tell you...THEY DRIVE TRUCKS and SUV's and vehicles with weight because they are safer vehicles and can't be muscled off the road and won't collaps in an accident. So get the pickle out of your a* and pick up a physics book and the next time you want to discuss the safety of a small asian car vs a large truck or SUV you might have something intelligent to say.
OZ
Actually funny you should say that because I do have a degree in science and I have taken plenty of physics classes and understand things like momentum and data driven choi9ces, something you clearly do not.
Some hillbilly cop that drives SUVs around thinking their safe proves nothing but you are a retard for bringing it up. I posted data, you have posted a few peoples' opinions..whoopeee. Idiot.
Large SUV vs small car, yes the car with the most mass ill inflict more damage (and you do know by driving the heap of iron you are making people less safe around you - hence the increasing size of SUV s you need something continuously bigger to beat the other guy) but that doesn't necessarily translate into safety for the people in the bigger auto. Plus many ( I would say most - but don't want to bother looking it up) threatening accidents involve a stationary object in which case the car with less mass is the better car to be in (if you don't know why I suggest you drag out the physics book).
The FACT of the matter is this - the guy bought the car b/c he thought it was safer. It isn't. The type of truck/suv we are talking about is the most dangerous vehicle on the road - you can't dispute it no matter how many 'ask the cops stories' you bring into play. If you don't like it well, you are wrong. You can drive whatever you wish, just don't go about having some delusional fantasy about the bigger the Truck/SUV the safer you are. There are many small cars that are super safe, many large autos that aren't - and vice versa. It has to do with the engineering of the crumple zones. Something the poster I was responding to didn't quite get.
Reducing the real world experience of our boys in blue to hillbilly slander is just what I expected out of you. You use statistics as leverage to call other people idiots when you are clearly the idiot and retarded vomiting your bias and character defamation in a quite pathetic attempt to be witty? tough as nails? oh thats right a jackhammer of a personality well hammer this into your empty little skull:
He didn't even buy the vehicle that is the basis of your so called data.
The study you sited is for the Chevy Blazer not the S-10 TRUCK.
Accidents involving the Blazer, not the truck, are largely due to the rollover tendency not equaled or even close to being an issue with the 2003 s10.
The report you sited is for vehicles up to 2002 not 2003.
All the data you provide has nothing to do with theh truck he bought and that makes you.....
an idiot.
Not a TVR though is it?Originally posted by: thatguy82
2000 Lotus Esprit
Originally posted by: oOZo
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
Crumple zones - Top of the line cars have built in many different safety mechanisms for head on and side collisions. The car will distribute the impact energy and flex rather than break. The engine will drop to the ground and pass underneath the driver compartment. Various airbags front side etc will deploy. Statistically these improvements make a lot of sense for car companies to adopt so you can have the most possible safety with the gas economy of a small car. Just Don't get into a major accident because that's when you punch the clock and meet GOD. You want some statistics to bat around? Go talk to any police officer or sheriff and see what they drive and what their opinion is after working a major metropolis and seeing the road carnage wrought upon small asian cars. And since I know you won't do it I will tell you...THEY DRIVE TRUCKS and SUV's and vehicles with weight because they are safer vehicles and can't be muscled off the road and won't collaps in an accident. So get the pickle out of your a* and pick up a physics book and the next time you want to discuss the safety of a small asian car vs a large truck or SUV you might have something intelligent to say.
OZ
Actually funny you should say that because I do have a degree in science and I have taken plenty of physics classes and understand things like momentum and data driven choi9ces, something you clearly do not.
Some hillbilly cop that drives SUVs around thinking their safe proves nothing but you are a retard for bringing it up. I posted data, you have posted a few peoples' opinions..whoopeee. Idiot.
Large SUV vs small car, yes the car with the most mass ill inflict more damage (and you do know by driving the heap of iron you are making people less safe around you - hence the increasing size of SUV s you need something continuously bigger to beat the other guy) but that doesn't necessarily translate into safety for the people in the bigger auto. Plus many ( I would say most - but don't want to bother looking it up) threatening accidents involve a stationary object in which case the car with less mass is the better car to be in (if you don't know why I suggest you drag out the physics book).
The FACT of the matter is this - the guy bought the car b/c he thought it was safer. It isn't. The type of truck/suv we are talking about is the most dangerous vehicle on the road - you can't dispute it no matter how many 'ask the cops stories' you bring into play. If you don't like it well, you are wrong. You can drive whatever you wish, just don't go about having some delusional fantasy about the bigger the Truck/SUV the safer you are. There are many small cars that are super safe, many large autos that aren't - and vice versa. It has to do with the engineering of the crumple zones. Something the poster I was responding to didn't quite get.
Reducing the real world experience of our boys in blue to hillbilly slander is just what I expected out of you. You use statistics as leverage to call other people idiots when you are clearly the idiot and retarded vomiting your bias and character defamation in a quite pathetic attempt to be witty? tough as nails? oh thats right a jackhammer of a personality well hammer this into your empty little skull:
He didn't even buy the vehicle that is the basis of your so called data.
The study you sited is for the Chevy Blazer not the S-10 TRUCK.
Accidents involving the Blazer, not the truck, are largely due to the rollover tendency not equaled or even close to being an issue with the 2003 s10.
The report you sited is for vehicles up to 2002 not 2003.
All the data you provide has nothing to do with theh truck he bought and that makes you.....
an idiot.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: pmoa
06 BMW 335i
Sweet! Pics? How do you like?
Originally posted by: oOZo
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
S 70MPH head on 70MPH is equivalent to driving 140MPH into a solid wall.
"
OZ
Not quite buddy, pick up the physics book again. MOMENTUM is what counts here, not just velocity.
Not only that, but a head on crash is safer as two cars absorb and disperse the energy instead of one.
Ya that was completely wrong....interesting to read so many other people were fed that garbage in school like I was and there are a lot of good sites that show why this is incorrect.
OZ
Originally posted by: ncage
2003 F-150 Lariet 4x4 FlaireSide 5.4L. I had a 2002 BWM 330ci (my dream car) until everything started falling apart. Very very fun car to drive...very very unreliable. I remember washing the car in the car wash and the bmw emblem on the font hood just washes of. I was like WHAT THE HELL. I remember taking it into the dealership and the manager guy says "doesn't suprise me". I kept thinking after this thing does go out of warranty thing what the repair bill is going to be. ANd i love to fish so i had this wild idea i wanted a truck. So i got a truck and a boat right before gas prices soared through the roof. Wow My luck. Only thing i miss with the BMW is the dealership....they were awesome....but of course they have to be to carter to the type of clientel. Truck has been very reliable other than a squeak in the seat that keeps reappearing. Yes it gets bad gas mileage but i can't complain i guess if i would have got a dodge it would have been worse. On my last long trip i wanted to see how good of gas mileage i could get and babied it for 1.5 hours north and and back. I was about to get 17.8mg. Not to bad for a big truck with a 5.4L. In retrospect i think my next vehicle will either be a lexus or a decked out camry.
Ncage
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: oOZo
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
S 70MPH head on 70MPH is equivalent to driving 140MPH into a solid wall.
"
OZ
Not quite buddy, pick up the physics book again. MOMENTUM is what counts here, not just velocity.
Not only that, but a head on crash is safer as two cars absorb and disperse the energy instead of one.
Ya that was completely wrong....interesting to read so many other people were fed that garbage in school like I was and there are a lot of good sites that show why this is incorrect.
OZ
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying two cars head on at 70 mph and both equally distributing the collision energy is no safer than a single car going 140 mph into a indestructable wall and taking all the energy itself?
I'd rather hit another car head on at 70 mph than crash into a concrete post at 140 mph.
Originally posted by: oOZo
Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Originally posted by: oOZo
Crumple zones - Top of the line cars have built in many different safety mechanisms for head on and side collisions. The car will distribute the impact energy and flex rather than break. The engine will drop to the ground and pass underneath the driver compartment. Various airbags front side etc will deploy. Statistically these improvements make a lot of sense for car companies to adopt so you can have the most possible safety with the gas economy of a small car. Just Don't get into a major accident because that's when you punch the clock and meet GOD. You want some statistics to bat around? Go talk to any police officer or sheriff and see what they drive and what their opinion is after working a major metropolis and seeing the road carnage wrought upon small asian cars. And since I know you won't do it I will tell you...THEY DRIVE TRUCKS and SUV's and vehicles with weight because they are safer vehicles and can't be muscled off the road and won't collaps in an accident. So get the pickle out of your a* and pick up a physics book and the next time you want to discuss the safety of a small asian car vs a large truck or SUV you might have something intelligent to say.
OZ
Actually funny you should say that because I do have a degree in science and I have taken plenty of physics classes and understand things like momentum and data driven choi9ces, something you clearly do not.
Some hillbilly cop that drives SUVs around thinking their safe proves nothing but you are a retard for bringing it up. I posted data, you have posted a few peoples' opinions..whoopeee. Idiot.
Large SUV vs small car, yes the car with the most mass ill inflict more damage (and you do know by driving the heap of iron you are making people less safe around you - hence the increasing size of SUV s you need something continuously bigger to beat the other guy) but that doesn't necessarily translate into safety for the people in the bigger auto. Plus many ( I would say most - but don't want to bother looking it up) threatening accidents involve a stationary object in which case the car with less mass is the better car to be in (if you don't know why I suggest you drag out the physics book).
The FACT of the matter is this - the guy bought the car b/c he thought it was safer. It isn't. The type of truck/suv we are talking about is the most dangerous vehicle on the road - you can't dispute it no matter how many 'ask the cops stories' you bring into play. If you don't like it well, you are wrong. You can drive whatever you wish, just don't go about having some delusional fantasy about the bigger the Truck/SUV the safer you are. There are many small cars that are super safe, many large autos that aren't - and vice versa. It has to do with the engineering of the crumple zones. Something the poster I was responding to didn't quite get.
Reducing the real world experience of our boys in blue to hillbilly slander is just what I expected out of you. You use statistics as leverage to call other people idiots when you are clearly the idiot and retarded vomiting your bias and character defamation in a quite pathetic attempt to be witty? tough as nails? oh thats right a jackhammer of a personality well hammer this into your empty little skull:
He didn't even buy the vehicle that is the basis of your so called data.
The study you sited is for the Chevy Blazer not the S-10 TRUCK.
Accidents involving the Blazer, not the truck, are largely due to the rollover tendency not equaled or even close to being an issue with the 2003 s10.
The report you sited is for vehicles up to 2002 not 2003.
All the data you provide has nothing to do with theh truck he bought and that makes you.....
an idiot.