BF2S Forums Krauthammer hits a homerun

blisteringsilence wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

Well that's obviously not true. Deceleration from 70 to 0 mph in 1 sec wouldn't do you much damage. If we assume 70mph is 32m/s (which is pretty damn close, can't be bothered to work it out). 32/1 (from (v-u)/t) = 32m/s², 32/9.81 = 3.2G - not a lot. Of course the car would've stopped in a lot less time than one second, as they stated - actual impact time would be a tiny fraction of a second, but it still gives an idea.

PureFodder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

I'm waiting with baited breath.

Well that's obviously not true. Deceleration from 70 to 0 mph in 1 sec wouldn't do you much damage. If we assume 70mph is 32m/s (which is pretty damn close, can't be bothered to work it out). 32/1 (from (v-u)/t) = 32m/s², 32/9.81 = 3.2G - not a lot. Of course the car would've stopped in a lot less time than one second, as they stated - actual impact time would be a tiny fraction of a second, but it still gives an idea.

But the deceleration is caused by forces being applied to your body. The forces are acting over a small area (the surface area of your seatbelt and hopefully airbag) and therefore it isn't the 'G' force that really matters, it's the pressure exerted on your internal organs that matters. Obviously I'm not saying seatbelts are dangerous as they slow the deceleration down and ensure that the forces are not directed at your head.

But the pressure wouldn't be that great either. The force acting on your body, for someone weighing 80kg will be about 2500N. Over an area of 0.08m² that give a pressure of about 30kPa, which is certainly not going to kill you. It's a similar amount of pressure to being hit with a baseball bat across the chest, in fact somewhat less.

You'll feel it. But it won't kill you. That's not even taking into account modern seatbelt technology, which does let you move forwards a bit.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-04 06:35:23)

jonsimon wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Then refrain from citing material whose content you "dimissed".

OK, I can do that. Right after you back up the following statement with some medicine. Or physics. I'm not picky. But I want science, not television.

jonsimon wrote:

The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.

I'm waiting with baited breath.

My reference was the show. Get over yourself. You incorrectly cited something and you don't have the balls to just own up to it.

Actually, I agreed with the conculsion the show made, just not the way in which they came to it. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again.

See, I said

blisteringsilence wrote:

Also, I don't know of you watched it or not, but at the end of the video, the journalists came to the same conclusion I've been touting since I joined this thread: The passengers, restrained, would not have survived the collision. There was MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in both of the cars they wrecked. At the least, the driver would have a crushed (flail) chest, and both legs severed/crushed.

and then Bertster pointed out that my methodology differed from the video here

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not what they said. They said that the amount of deceleration would've killed them. The way to decrease deceleration most effectively is by having crumple zones.

No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your internal organs can't cope with

Add to that the fact that, the more people driving big steel cars, SUVs, trucks etc. the more likely you are to be hit by one. I'd rather be hit by a Smart car - less mass, less momentum. It's all about lightweight cars with strong passenger cocoons - much like in F1 cars, which handle immense collisions and are made of carbon fibre.

And I defended my methodology here

blisteringsilence wrote:

Decleration is not what would have killed the passengers in those autos. Massive intrusion is. Deceleration would not have helped, but would not have been the primary cause. Seatbelt pretensioners (which have been around since the 80's) do more to decrease sudden deceleration than crumple zones. Now, I agree that I would rather be hit by something along the lines of the smart car than a 1974 Lincoln Mark I. That being said, I am not going to change MY choice of vehicle to make OTHERS safer. MY safety is of primary importance. Selfish? Yes, absolutely. Life is about choosing to be selfish in some areas and not in others.

To sum up, I agreed with the clip's conclusions, without agreeing with the way in which they came to those conclusions. There is precedent for this, and I don't see any problems with it.


Jon, I've noticed that there's not a whole lot of room for compromise where you're involved. It's you're right, anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, and fuck 'em.

Might I suggest a more, well, circumspect approach? I know it's unlikely, but there is the possibility that people that disagree with you might have something worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

Some might be put off by comments like

jonsimon wrote:

My reference was the show. Get over yourself. You incorrectly cited something and you don't have the balls to just own up to it.

Wrong, they come to the conclusion that both would have died from DECELERATION. Not intrusion. The primary intrusion was in the legspace. According to the video, the passenger's organs would not have withstood the massive deceleration.

Fine, I'll quote the movie verbatim:....Did you actually LISTEN to the movie? No. The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.

Then refrain from citing material whose content you "dimissed".

I expressly used the word 'didn't'. Meaning, in this case it didn't matter. Learn to read.

Civility and debate are not mutually exculsive. I love forensics. Bertster's and my exchange would be an example of civilized debate. He made a point, I made a point, we learned from one another, but yet neither he nor I had to abandon our original tenets. I don't necessarily agree with him that everyone would be safer is everyone drove smaller cars. I do think that there are some smaller cars that are wonderfully safe. That being said, there are some wonderful things about cages with lots of steel in them: