Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 9:59 AM
Wed Nov 11
30 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/08/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
There are many places in the CO high country which almost beg to have vehicles rolled down them, sideways. Station a lifting 'copter nearby, and roll away.
You'd get the forces of more than one roll, the vehicle's shape affecting it, and the randomness of rocks/boulders.
Plus, it'd be entertaining to watch. Not even a 30 minute drive from Denver.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
After tearing the roof off the trailer, Pujo! was dragged by his ass up out of the culvert and drove home (minus a few windows).
Here's a link to our blog entry with more wreck shots.
[teamlemon.blogspot.com]
08/20/09
08/20/09
IIHS - The Consumer Reports of the Auto Industry
* unless they're evaluating being crushed between a cargo ship and a big rock.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
For the love of God, can't they perform tests with even some semblance of reality?
08/20/09
The US automakers have proven they know sh*t about physics and auto safety with their constant fight against rollover roof standards.
08/20/09
Problem is, the A-pillar disappears on a certain vehicle like crushing a tin can under your foot during a proposed dynamic 'trip' rollover test...though it passes this static test.
Physics is theory put to application, reality is reality.
Which would you trust?
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
I am thinking six times its weight...sure, sure its not at an angle, but them volvo engineers were ahead of the curve...
08/20/09
08/20/09
While it is commendable to increase the safety of a vehicle, increased structure along with all the other safety gizmos adds weight to a vehicle. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. In a rollover accident, what is the shock force on the roof? I'm guessing it isn't much more than 4x assuming the vehicle doesn't go airborne, which is probably pretty rare.
So, withstanding 5.4x is overkill and adds unnecessary weight. However, groups like the IIHS and NHTSA publish these results with dramatic pictures and most people think, "Well, I'm not going to buy a Honda Fit because it can only withstand 3x. It's dangerous." The carmakers then have to design their cars to misplaced public perception and not real engineering principles.
08/20/09
and uh, more reinforcement up top = higher center of gravity = higher chance of roll over. leads to more reinforcement... leads to higher chance of rollover... lol
08/20/09
08/20/09
I reply, "As far as the safety regs go, you're driving a commercial truck. So your big SUV is held to a much less stringent set of requirements that normal cars." They often get a glazed look on their faces (not surprising since I'm speaking counter to their marketing driven understanding of vehicle engineering). I helpfully add, "See, when the government set these safety standards up, people didn't normally use big trucks as passenger vehicles. They set the safety standards low since the big trucks didn't pose much of a risk to human life. The car companies, witnessing the growing perception of 'size = safety' jumped on the bandwagon and started pumping out big trucks as quick as they could."
While yes, I would rather get rear ended by a Smart while riding in an Excursion; I would much rather spin off into a ditch, rear end a semi, need to stop quickly, slide into a tree, etc, in a Smart.
Pity the driving public isn't smart enough to realize the dangers posed by wrecking big vehicles. It's not always like the scary crash test videos they play on the Today show.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Let assume that you are in that little smart car going 65 mph, you hit some huge pothole on the crest of an uphill portion of the freeway that rips of a wheel and causes the car to roll over, and, as a result of being at the crest of the hill, catch a little air in the process.
Before the car so much as gets airborne, it is carrying with it the inertia from traveling at 65 mph. Just because you get airborne does not mean that that inertia suddenly disappears. It's still there, and when you are airborne, that inertia is increased as a result of accelerating through the air down to your next meeting with the freeway.
Suffice to say, that is a lot of inertia that the car is carrying when it first hits the ground again, and the force that the car hits the ground with combined with the instantaneous deceleration that occurs when hitting the ground, and the effect is similar to having an object several times the weight of the car set down on the roof, which in most cases crushes the car.
Now, I am no engineer or physicist, so I imagine that there are much better (and much more proper) ways of saying that, but that's the general idea.
08/20/09
*crickets*
...still waiting...
*crickets*
...still waiting...
*crickets*
...yeah, that's what I thought. We've all flipped GM off for making that stinking turd of rental car fleets.
08/20/09
*I am ashamed to admit I rented one in 2006. Biggest death trap ever.
EDIT: Thankfully, it wasn't my money, it was yours (taxpayer money).
08/20/09
They'd have to carry me kicking and screaming to get me into one. That wouldn't be a pretty sight.
08/20/09