|
I think those who are critical of these tests are missing the point.
Yes, a lot of older cars are stiffer, overall, and that is made clear in the presentation.
But that type of stiffness doesn't allow for strategic crumpling. One could argue that modern cars have far more stiffer passenger compartments than cars of old, but also have softer extremeties.
Modern cars are ENGINEERED to crumple. It's not because they're pieces of digestive tract excrement, it's because a sacrificial-structure modern car does the most for preventing serious injury to and/or saving the lives of its passengers. Which is more precious, the passengers or the vehicle?
Did you not see how the driver dummy in the old Caddy got crushed between the steering wheel and seat, with his head having bashed the windshield? The driver of a newer Caddy, with a properly worn seat belt and front airbag, would experience greatly diminished potential for injury.
Yes, I love our old cars. In fact, I drove my '55 Plymouth to work today just for the fun of it. But physics is physics. The old cars are not as safe as are the cars built these days. It's unreasonable to assume that the higher mass of an older car may have better crashworthiness than a newer, lower-mass car. The key is how the crash energy is dissipated within that mass.
It is not a cover-up/kill-old-cars conspiracy, it's just progress. Progress fueled by well-intentioned body and chassis engineers, and progress also thanks to gov't safety standards (not that I advocate a nanny gov't, but the fact is that the standards had a large part in making the cars as safe as they are today).
Jason Mt. Vernon, WA (formerly Warner Robins, GA) "Save the Manuals!!!" 8-) ************************************************************* To unsubscribe or set your subscription options,
please go to |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network