TexasCHLforum.com

Just wow!

http://fwd.channel5.com/fifth-gear/vide ... d-on-crash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...my stomach got tight just watchin'...bad stuff...

After 25 years as a paramedic, and having worked several high-speed head-on's, I can only say that when they hit solidly head-on, it's even worse. That is the one thing that scares the beejeebers out of me when driving on a freeway at night. And the bad thing is that the drunk coming at you is fixated on your headlights, so if you go left or right, he's coming after you.

We had another one last night in far north Fort Worth by the Texas Motor Speedway. Only this time it was the drunk's passenger, a 28-year old woman, that died on-scene and the driver is in fair condition in the hospital. The four occupants victims in the other car apparently didn''t have life threatening injuries, though all of 'em were admitted to hospital.

Nice demo....

Ok.... Pop quiz time.

Two identical cars hitting squarely head on each going 60mph is the equivalent of:

a. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 120mph
b. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 60mph

...a...

Legit

Didn't Myth-Busters do a show about that, and proved that you don't add, the speeds, it's still like hitting a wall at 60?

My answer is "b".

Now firing up Google to see if I can find that episode.....

Ryan

esxmarkc wrote:Nice demo....

Ok.... Pop quiz time.

Two identical cars hitting squarely head on each going 60mph is the equivalent of:

a. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 120mph
b. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 60mph

Found it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

Ryan

Edit to add entire episode:

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vCuE4KaUU

Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0HRoMIB ... re=related

It's B (assuming theoretical ideal situation)

In a head-on both cars goes from 60 to zero in a fraction of a second (the length of time for the front end of the car to crush). Same for the brick wall car. In order to add the speeds, you'd have to accelerate the car from 60MPH forward, to 60MPH backwards in that same period of time.

They were talking about this on WBAP on Friday...

Ans. B...

K=M x V2 (Kinetic Energy = Mass * Velocity(squared))

The sum of the opposing speeds (velocity) is the big factor that must be accounted for and comprises the majority of the Kinetic Energy that must dissipate upon impact...thus it is not the weight (mass) of the vehicle. Two 8K vehicles can hit at 5mph no biggie now place that impact at 50mph or combined 100mph and bad juju's ... Once again, speed kills!

As we know energy cannot be destroyed only changed and upon impact it must dissipate in a hurry. This change results in heat and the twisting, crushing, breaking of whatever the vehicle is comprised. And hopefully not the mushy meaty bag of bones driving it...

Hence, crumple zones... They are designed to absorb the energy to divert or absorb the energy thus reducing it to a "usually" survivable level for the occupants. IF... BIG...IF you hit in the correct area at the correct angle etc...

Usually...In my professional opinion... it has boiled down to... too much car, not enough driver!

esxmarkc wrote:Nice demo....

Ok.... Pop quiz time.

Two identical cars hitting squarely head on each going 60mph is the equivalent of:

a. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 120mph
b. One car hitting a solid concrete wall at 60mph

B. See below

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4[/youtube]

...that's what I get for not continuin' my eddication!!!

Yup... the answer is "B" when the perfect hypothetical situation is considered. It is a pretty good counter-intuitive brain teaser I used to throw people off track. Then when Mythbusters did it I was surprised that one of them seemed to have it initially backwards until they smashed up a few.

The best one was when they used a rocket sled to smash one into a brick wall at an insane velocity.

Love the Mythbusters stuff - especially the dude trying to hop the paperboy bike over the red wagon. What a classic.