Date: 2009-09-21 12:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladylyonesse.livejournal.com
I have to admit, I'm pleasantly shocked/surprised -- I thought this might be a sarcastic look at a solid steel vehicle vs. a fiberglass bodied car = steel winning out. I am very glad and thankful to be proved so wrong in my thinking. Very cool video.

Date: 2009-09-21 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
the difference is in the crumple zones, the *spring*-steel and aluminum in the engine area (along with a few gaps) specifically designed to absorb the impact.

with a classic car's solid-body, the heavy steel isn't going to bend, so it goes straight back into the car's canopy.

the clearest rule about science is this: "common sense" is meaningless. there is nothing intuitive about the rules of conservation of momentum. if there was, we'd be teaching real physics in 2nd grade instead of 12th. :)

Date: 2009-09-21 02:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eiredrake.livejournal.com
I was first struck by how much like a square dance or something it looked.

But it's interesting to hear for years "They don't make cars like this anymore... this baby can survive a tank round" and to just see the new Malibu go through it like tissue.

Now I think I need to write to Mythbusters and see about getting them to disprove the myth that old cars were safer in collisions.

Date: 2009-09-21 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
Dude, the only square dance this could possibly resemble is this one. :)

Profile

acroyear: (Default)
Joe's Ancient Jottings

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
56789 1011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 28th, 2026 03:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios