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.
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. :)
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
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. :)
no subject
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.
no subject