I did receive a personal message. And I think I responded publicly because it’s been mentioned by a few people. The way I’m looking at it, people are still engaging with the user, it doesn’t escalate to fights, and it’s on topic. I ask this sincerely, but how, in practice, is this different from regular users who get told all the time they give wildly off track advice to questions about car problems?
I went and looked because I can run reports for how many users get muted and ignored. I can’t see who did the muting or ignoring, just the users muted or ignored. Four people have muted this person and another user. Which tells me that the majority either don’t care, or get some degree of interest/satisfaction/charge out of interacting.
Of course, this is not correct. The thinner steel pipe will be easier to bend–especially if the force is exerted over a short period of time, as in a collision between heavy objects. The larger size might allow more of the force of impact to be absorbed by deformation, however.
And plus he’s still assuming that “hard to break” is functionally equivalent to “less likely to injure the passenger.” But as we know, the opposite is often true. Any energy that is not absorbed by the deformation of the structure or via some other means (airbags, etc) is energy that ends up impacting the occupants.
This is why when high school physics students do the egg-drop activity, they do not tape the egg to a block of cast iron and drop it, but rather encase the egg in a web of soft, displaceable drinking straws. Cast iron is a lot stronger than a drinking straw, which means the impact energy will go into the egg and break it whereas the drinking straws will absorb most of the energy as they deform, leaving the egg intact.
In a car crash, we are the egg. We want nice, deformable, energy absorbing materials around us, not a solid block of steel.
I wouldn’t assume that. I previously owned a 2005 Town & Country. The first time I did the brake job on that beast I used the original OEM not the updated OEM brakes…I quickly found out why there was an updated OEM. The original OEM brakes were woefully underequipped for the size of the vehicle…
It is correct. Imagine if a 20+ foot long section of that square tube were mounted at one end only and 20 feet were hanging out the side of a wall with a weight hanging from the end. The 8" tube will be able to support nearly twice the weight compared to the 4" tube, even though both contain the same amount of steel. It’s the principal of levers. A wooden 2x4 is much less than half as strong as a 2x8 at supporting a floor. Substituting 10 2x8s with 20 2x4s when building a floor will result in a badly sagging floor.
sorry, that is not correct. the 8-inch tube would have double the amount of steel because it is 4 inches larger. and that is why it can handle more weight.
I swore I wasn’t going to get into this but you’re incorrect. He stipulated that the walls of the 8 inch tube are only half as thick so there’s the same amount of steel. I have no idea if the strength would be the same but at some point if you kept making the tube larger while maintaining the same amount of steel you’d have a tube made of foil.
“at some point if you kept making the tube larger while maintaining the same amount of steel you’d have a tube made of foil.”
Which is why I originally doubted (and still do) the statement that it’s twice as strong just because it’s twice as wide or twice the diameter. But I’m not a structural engineer. I’m more on the demolition side. But I can tell you thinner steel is easier to cut, bend, break, shear than thicker steel. Diameter doesn’t seem to matter much.
Frankly there’s a lot of stuff in this thread that I’m inclined to doubt and most of it is coming from the same person. It’s getting pretty bad when you don’t want to follow your own thread because it’s been hijacked by nonsense.
Ah John, it’s good fun. When you said you’re more on the demolition side, I had a momentary vision of you as Wile E. Coyote holding a crate marked Acme Dynamite Company.
Well do we agree that the Civic isn’t going to hold up in an accident with another car at anything more than residential driving speed? The only situation where there could be an accident where the people in the Civic survive and the people in the other car don’t is if the Civic broad sided the other car. I showed what happens when a Camry, which is an average size car, and a Compact Yaris crash head on. The Civic wouldn’t have a chance protecting the driver in such an accident. I haven’t looked but I’m sure the rating for the Yaris is poor in that accident. Looks like there could be fatal head injuries Yaris, probably having to due to the seat belt spooling out too much (that’s from the load limiter). Don’t take my word for it, even the IIHS mentions it in their small overlap tests.
Unless you have at least a bachelor’s degree in structural engineering or accident investigation credentials, the only thing you’re basing that supposition on is your own thinking.
That’s something that would hold you in good stead in Ancient Greece, where observational/experimentational science was eschewed in favor of just thinking ideas through and coming up with what seems to make the most sense to the thinker. This led to problems, such as the Ancient Greek scientific certainty that the Earth is the center of the universe. Since they didn’t bother to make observations, they had trouble overcoming that false belief.
There are plenty of ways a given subject can “make sense” but also be untrue. If, for example, you decide that magic is real because you did not go to school to learn that it isn’t, then you can construct a chain of reasoning that ends up showing how it makes perfect sense that people get sick because they’ve been cursed by witches.
You’re applying the cursed-by-witches deductive reasoning method to car crashes, in which you make several assumptions that are unfounded, and then draw conclusions that, were those assumptions true, would make sense. The problem with pure deductive reasoning is that it relies on accurate hypotheses in order to generate correct results. If your hypothesis is not based in reality, then your conclusions won’t be either.
Ancient peoples did not have easy access to advanced scientific information which would have told them, among other things, that our planet is not the center of the universe.
You, on the other hand, have ready access to any of that information you desire, so there’s really no excuse for relying on deductive reasoning without learning enough to verify the accuracy of your hypothesis upon which you base your conclusions.
In short, you’re wrong because your premise is wrong, and therefore your conclusions about that premise are wrong.
Speed, weight, directionality, etc… are all factors whether a vehicle is safe in an accident or not…
Would I be correct in saying that if a motorcycle and a full size car collide, the motorcycle is going to loose in a big way and the full size car will mostly “ride it out…”?
I remember such an accident a few years back, when a motorcyclist was racing his motorcycle and hit a full size car broadside in the passenger door. I do not remember if the motorcycle or the car ran the light but really it’s all moot.
The motorcycle was going so fast that it tore through the passenger side door and exited the driver’s side door, killing both the passenger and driver. It goes without saying, the motorcycle driver did not survive either.
Whether you are for or against, pro or con, just plain dead set on not giving an inch, I do not believe anyone of you want to put your assertions to the test.
