one thing to keep in mind. a 30-year-old would be more incline to worry about safety while driving than an 18-year-old would be. 18- year- olds tend to be fearless. just my thoughts.
2 Likes
… which is what leads many of them to engage in risky behaviors behind the wheel. I know that was the case when I was a teenager, and I suspect that many other forum members could say the same.
4 Likes
We’ve explained this to you ad nauseum and at this point I’m forced to suspect you’re trolling. Strength has nothing to do with it. The frame/unibody’s ability to redirect and absorb forces before they go into the driver is what’s important. If you make a frame out of infinite-strength unobtanium, that just means all of the energy in a crash goes into the occupants.
The reason classic cars from the 50’s are unsafe isn’t because they’re light. They’re not. It’s because they’re not engineered to keep collision forces from going straight into the occupants. Sure, the bumper doesn’t deform much when you hit a tree, but your chest does when the steering column spears it.
1 Like
Has anyone ( the 90’s were not that great / Snowman ) ever had so many members get annoyed by their constant posting of wrong ideas ?
I know they are vehicle related but seriously shouldn’t someone in charge here shut this person down.
I don’t think he was saying otherwise, exactly. At least not in the post discussing body on frame vs unibody vehicles.
I do think the conversation gets confusing when we use terms like “strength” regarding crash safety. In a crash, I suppose you technically want low strength initially, then higher strength around the passenger compartment.
Gets a little confusing for me, at least. I’m still not sure a unibody is universally safer than a body on frame, given the same size vehicle. Kind of hard to compare, as most modern body on frame vehicles are of the larger variety (trucks). Older body on frame cars weren’t designed with today’s safety standards.
A frame is technically “stronger” than the unibody “frame”. You can see that when you jack a unibody up in the wrong place and bend/dent it. Whether the cab portion of a modern on frame vehicle is safer or as safe or as “strong” as a unibody cab…I don’t really know.
I do know if you put a unibody into a car flattener, you can crush it flatter than a fritter if you want lol. The body on frame vehicles crush down to the frame and stop. Can’t flatten the frame. So…it’s “stronger”. Strength is sort of a funny term when discussing a crash. Unless you mean strength of the passenger compartment alone.
1 Like
I went from suspecting to believing several days ago, and as a result his posts no longer appear on my screen.
1 Like
… and that rigidity can work to the detriment of the vehicle’s occupants.
Modern unit bodies are designed to “crush” at a controlled rate in order to absorb impact forces. That, combined with a very rigid passenger compartment is what makes modern vehicles far safer than the ones of yesteryear.
I didn’t disagree. I think I stated something similar.
I have seen hardheaded people before but this guy beats them all.
2 Likes
That’s what I’m hoping for, anyway.
I never understand what all of this means. “redirect energy”? What does that mean? Some fancy way of saying that there is a safety cage that keeps the passenger compartment from collapsing? Absorb forces? A fancy way of saying something is stronger? All energy is absorbed at the end of a high speed accident no matter what vehicle, except for the energy in the rebound. It’s physics. A car made out of infinite strength material would have an extremely short crash pulse. The same amount of energy would be used, just over a shorter amount of time. Assuming the crash isn’t elastic and doesn’t rebound back in the opposite direction, because then it would technically absorb no energy.
“absorbing energy” is really only relevant in low speed crashes where the frame tends to be elastic, rather than absorbing energy. It does contribute to whiplash if the car is elastic (bouncy) and doesn’t absorb energy.
A frame can do most everything a unibody can do, it just takes more weight.
I know you’re mad at me posting the Yaris versus Camry crash. It’s a modern vehicle and should do fine, but a picture speaks a thousand words and shows otherwise. Your complete disregard for safety and your attempts to keep people from knowing the truth about highway speed accidents just encourages me more.
Yeah, and with a frame you tend to get high strength initially, then the frame buckles and you get low strength! Crumple zones can be added to a frame too though. If you look at a crash from a 70s body on frame car often the front will smash in a bit more than a foot until it hits the engine, then the whole front section stays solid and frame under the passenger compartment buckles and the whole front passenger compartment collapses.
A frame will be heavier than a similar vehicle with similar crash test scores that is a unibody. Heavier vehicles are safer when crashing in to a lighter one. This gives the body on frame the reputation of being safer. If your body on frame vehicle is 4000 pounds and the other one is a 3400 unibody you will have the advantage in an accident. The 4000 pound vehicle will have to be made a bit stronger in the front end than the 3400 to be able to have the same crash rating, since in the crash test it hits a solid barrier and not another vehicle. Double the weight of the vehicle and it now has to be made twice as strong to keep the passenger compartment from getting smashed in.
I’ve been seeing the posts. I see that @TheWonderful90s has been criticized as being a troll or wrong about everything. I haven’t shut down the account because, as you noted, it’s on topic, but more importantly, people are interacting with him and talking about whatever it is he’s talking about. It isn’t my place to ban anybody for being wrong. I am in no position of knowledge to even figure that out. When people aren’t fighting and tearing each other apart over it, I’ve let it go because those who don’t mute this person seem to enjoy the debate.
3 Likes
Thanks for being professional about it. There around 6 users that consider themselves to be the community and the majority consensus. They account for much of the content on most threads, and nearly all of the content on threads where there is a disagreement involving me.
I’ve seen situations where a small group of less than 10 people forces their way upon a whole organization. This group may gang up on one person that they view as threatening and try to force that person out. The person in charge of the organization will go along with it and get rid of the person because it’s easier to go along with what five people want versus one. The small group will repeat this process again if another person who is threatening comes along. Then the small group gets their way, things get a bit worse for everyone else or the organization as a whole, and many average people who were casually involved in the organization, but not interacting with the leadership, get tired of how things are and they leave. Then the whole organization may fail or substantially shrink in size, all because a small group of people forced what they wanted on the whole organization even though they were wrong (or selfish).
1 Like
I agree with you 100%. Those of us who are tired of him can simply use the ignore button as I’ve done.
6 Likes
Okay
Fair enough
Thanks for the clarification 
As one of the younger people on here, when I was 30, I was driving a car with heated seats, airbags, moonroof, Bose stereo with bluetooth and 6 disc CD changer, backup camera, AWD that was brand new. Now that I’m 41, I’m driving a brand new EV without a moonroof, AWD or CD player but it still has bluetooth and USB hookups, heated seats, backup AND front facing camera and heated steering wheel(something I didn’t think I’d care for and seemed a silly gimmick when I heard of BMW first having them).
But none of those things make the car more roadworthy or safe to drive, which is what the OP was originally asking.
I suppose you could make an argument for a backup camera being a safety item, but I’ll never agree with that.
Backup camera is a safety item . Our neighborhood has a lot of short people ( I think they are actually kids ) . Those things can cover a lot of ground in a short time . Put them on scooters and little pedal cars and they can be behind you and below your vision in seconds .
4 Likes
I totally agree
As you know, I’m a public sector mechanic and work on a lot of vehicles that have extremely poor vision towards the back . . . or pretty much none at all, in some cases
The backup cameras are a safety item, imo
4 Likes