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
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network