Here's An interesting Video of a Focus Crashing at 120 mph Yes 120 into a barrier

Bigus

Makes for interesting viewing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052533/Worlds-fastest-crash-test-Car-smashes-wall-120mph-speed-family-runarounds-hit.html

robbie_998

fecking women mannequin drivers ! :pac:

Atomic Pineapple

120 mph into a solid object that wont move = disintegration. Every driver should already be aware of that!

Cill Dara Abu

At least the lovely alloys at the rear are still good

Guy:Incognito

Probably be a write off. Couple of offside doors and a smoothen of the A pillar will have it lookign cosmetically fine.

Stinicker

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Probably be a write off. Couple of offside doors and a smoothen of the A pillar will have it lookign cosmetically fine.

Nothing a bit of paint and t-cut won't fix... for the concrete pillar that is. :pac:

fabsoul

lol

robbie_998 wrote: »

fecking women mannequin drivers ! :pac:

Wetbench4

Maybe its from watching to many movies, but i was expecting a fireball.

V Eight

"obliterated on impact - to the horror of the visibly shocked host."

Wasn't this obviously going to happen?- The only thing I learned from the video is, safer to be driving a concrete block rather than a Focus;

amacachi

They should really have SAFER barriers along every road.

robbie_998

amacachi wrote: »

They should really have SAFER barriers along every road.

please tell us... what would you like ??


memory foam ?

dr.fuzzenstein

Presenter really being very melodramatic about the whole thing.
Car into concrete at 120 mph? The outcome should not have been a surprise.
But alright, point taken, I won't drive into solid concrete blocks at 120 mph anymore.

polod

Flip'n ell !!!

whippet

keep an eye out for it on Donedeal in the next few weeks ....

_Conrad_

draffodx wrote: »

120 mph into a solid object that wont move = disintegration. Every driver should already be aware of that!

And If you're doing 120mph on any public road you're asking for it. Pretty obvious to me anyway that hitting concrete at that speed in ANY car means total destruction or car and driver and probably several people/cars around you

stevenmu

robbie_998 wrote: »

please tell us... what would you like ??


memory foam ?

But what happens if your car is a different shape to the last car that hit it ?



:pac:

Anan1

Wetbench4 wrote: »

Maybe its from watching to many movies, but i was expecting a fireball.

Me too, particularly while watching the fuel spraying out of a ruptured tank.

Wetbench4

Although hitting a huge brick might seem unrealistic, a big tree would have a similar effect(maybe messier). There's a lot more of a chance of losing control and hitting a tree on irish roads, and there is almost zero energy absorption like the huge block. We need ejector seats!!:)

Testament1

Anan1 wrote: »

Me too, particularly while watching the fuel spraying out of a ruptured tank.

It'd still need a spark to ignite it, the fuel wasnt going to just spontaneously combust.

Atomic Pineapple

Wetbench4 wrote: »

Although hitting a huge brick might seem unrealistic, a big tree would have a similar effect(maybe messier). There's a lot more of a chance of losing control and hitting a tree on irish roads, and there is almost zero energy absorption like the huge block. We need ejector seats!!:)

Yes but your not going to be going 120 mph now are you!

Voodoomelon

Video shows what happens when a car hits a solid concrete block at 120mph. Has nothing to do with road safety.

Its like saying this is what'll happen if you drink 2 litres of vodka in 60 seconds. Who does it?

hidinginthebush

It's been a while since I've done the auld physics, but could we expect similar results with 2 cars head on at 60mph each?

28064212

hidinginthebush wrote: »

It's been a while since I've done the auld physics, but could we expect similar results with 2 cars head on at 60mph each?

No, two cars have double the crumple zones. Cars are made to spread out impact energy, walls are not

Atomic Pineapple

hidinginthebush wrote: »

It's been a while since I've done the auld physics, but could we expect similar results with 2 cars head on at 60mph each?

Not quite the same, the concrete block on the video is rock solid and wont dissipate any of the energy of the force (or will but very little) so the car has to disintegrate to dissipate the energy, in a head on crash at 60 MPH each car absorbs the energy so in (my) theory (I'm no physics teacher) the severity of the impact should be much less.

hidinginthebush

Cheers lads, take THAT Newton!

Absurdum

Testament1 wrote: »

It'd still need a spark to ignite it, the fuel wasnt going to just spontaneously combust.

a hot exhaust would probably do it if it had been driving normally

Anan1

Testament1 wrote: »

It'd still need a spark to ignite it, the fuel wasnt going to just spontaneously combust.

That's what hot cats are for.;)

Statistician

draffodx wrote: »

Not quite the same, the concrete block on the video is rock solid and wont dissipate any of the energy of the force (or will but very little) so the car has to disintegrate to dissipate the energy, in a head on crash at 60 MPH each car absorbs the energy so in (my) theory (I'm no physics teacher) the severity of the impact should be much less.

If the two cars are exactly the same, with the same mass and a 'perfect' head-on collision, why would it be any different? The concrete block was not moving in the video.
Both cars are decelerating to zero very quickly. The mass is the same, so surely the force should also be the same?

The concrete block is still 'dissipating' energy, or rather converting it to heat, sound and probably a bit of movement.

(Two crumple zones will help reduce force, but surely negligible at this velocity?)

Atomic Pineapple

Statistician wrote: »

If the two cars are exactly the same, with the same mass and a 'perfect' head-on collision, why would it be any different? The concrete block was not moving in the video.
Both cars are decelerating to zero very quickly. The mass is the same, so surely the force should also be the same?

The concrete block is still 'dissipating' energy, or rather converting it to heat, sound and probably a bit of movement.

(Two crumple zones will help reduce force, but surely negligible at this velocity?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjBh73NvNQM

Jimmy Bottlehead

****ing scary.

Testament1

Anan1 wrote: »

That's what hot cats are for.;)

Wont be much heat out of the cat or exhaust if the car is being pulled on a winch.

In all seriousness though it is a good video even if it is blindingly obvious what the outcome would be. It at least does do a good job of conveying just how fragile cars can be which is something we would all do well to keep in our minds.

dr.fuzzenstein

OK, 120 mph is for wimps.
Here's a 700 mph crash:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

N ow that's vaporised!

savagecabbages

What kinda freaks me out is tat the NCAP tests are performed at as little as 18mph...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7BtLqlzths

corglass

hidinginthebush wrote: »

It's been a while since I've done the auld physics, but could we expect similar results with 2 cars head on at 60mph each?

no, nothing similar.

Two cars crashing head on at 60mph is roughly similar to one car hitting a solid object at 60mph.

Fifth gear have it all wrong.

Mythbusters make my point using a video:

MadsL

Can we see a smart take on the wall now...

Crumplezones; pah!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

robbie_998

MadsL wrote: »

Can we see a smart take on the wall now...

Crumplezones; pah!!

you are the crumple zone


god i hate small cars :pac:

SouperComputer

robbie_998 wrote: »

please tell us... what would you like ??

memory foam ?

I think he meant SAFER in caps as an acronym, rather than for emphasis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrier


They really needed to do the same test at 60 as well. Even at 60 you would be dead, or possibly prefer to be. That and it would need to be an insanely unlikely sequence of events to hit a solid wall, square-on and unimpeded @120MPH

dar83

MadsL wrote: »

Can we see a smart take on the wall now...

Crumplezones; pah!!

Pity that without those crumple zones the impact on the occupants of such a car is increased enormously as the energy doesn't get dissipated at all.

robbie_998

SouperComputer wrote: »

I think he meant SAFER in caps as an acronym, rather than for emphasis...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFER_barrier


They really needed to do the same test at 60 as well. Even at 60 you would be dead, or possibly prefer to be. That and it would need to be an insanely unlikely sequence of events to hit a solid wall, square-on and unimpeded @120MPH

dont crash then :pac:

MadsL

robbie_998 wrote: »

god i hate small cars :pac:

That's the thinking behind driving an SUV thinking they are 'safer'.

af_thefragile

_Conrad_ wrote: »

And If you're doing 120mph on any public road you're asking for it. Pretty obvious to me anyway that hitting concrete at that speed in ANY car means total destruction or car and driver and probably several people/cars around you

But you only need to be going at 60mph and collide with another driver doing 60mph for an impact of a similar scale...

Anyway for crashes, one can't forget Latvala's huge crash in portugal which best showed how roll cages do their job!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrRNxB3i9rg

Ardennes1944

A mk1 focus crashed into my gfs last Ibiza, it didn't hold out well at all which I was extremely surprised by.

Halfshaft

Here's Petter Solberg's crash from Germany 2004, another example of the importance of a propper weld in roll cage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV9_mZboEC0

shedweller

Halfshaft wrote: »

Here's Petter Solberg's crash from Germany 2004, another example of the importance of a propper weld in roll cage.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV9_mZboEC0

Hinkelstein 1 Subaru 0

Wolverine_1999

Good thing the Germans are legally only allowed to drive at this speed then

muckwarrior

af_thefragile wrote: »

But you only need to be going at 60mph and collide with another driver doing 60mph for an impact of a similar scale...

Wrong!

To every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. If you're going 60mph and you hit a similar car driving at 60mph in the opposite direction, then the result is the same as hitting an immovable object at 60mph.

BrianD3

af_thefragile wrote: »

But you only need to be going at 60mph and collide with another driver doing 60mph for an impact of a similar scale...

Nope, it's like two cars both colliding when both of them are doing 120 mph in opposite directions. Or a car doing 240 mph hitting a stationary car that is free to move when hit.

The chances of this sort of collision happening are very very small. Most drivers woud not drive at this speed and if they did (eg in Germany) they'd be highly unlikely to hit an immovable object head on at 120 mph or another car head on with both doing 120.

Anyway for crashes, one can't forget Latvala's huge crash in portugal which best showed how roll cages do their job!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrRNxB3i9rg

Spectacular crash indeed but compared to a high speed head on crash, a rollover is often not particularly taxing on a car's structure. One of the big dangers in a rollover is the driver's limbs/head/torso ging through the side window and the car crushing it as it rolls. The restraints, seats and window nets used in rally and race cars largely prevent this.

Head on crashes with solid objects or other vehicles are not that common in rallying and very uncommon in racing. One of the worst I've seen was in the German touring car championship involving Armin Hahne and Klaus Ludwig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqLDqq1HkE4

The remains of one of the cars. Not sure if the cars were LHD or RHD, this could make the difference between life and death in this sort of crash.

Testament1

BrianD3 wrote: »

Spectacular crash indeed but compared to a high speed head on crash, a rollover is often not particularly taxing on a car's structure. One of the big dangers in a rollover is the driver's limbs/head/torso ging through the side window and the car crushing it as it rolls. The restraints, seats and window nets used in rally and race cars largely prevent this.

Head on crashes with solid objects or other vehicles are not that common in rallying and very uncommon in racing.

I've never actually seen window nets used in the top flight WRC cars. Hell they even had electric windows until recently enough, but these have since been replaced with perspex.

The WRC has a huge amount of big crashes throughout its history, due often to the very demanding nature of the stages and the high cornering speeds involved. One serious incident that springs to mind is Tommi Makkinens crash in Corsica where he clipped a wall and ended up hitting a cliff face head on bringing his car from ~100km/h to 0 in seconds. The force of the crash destroyed the onboard camera and his co-driver ended up with serious back injuries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXj-T8AOYuk

Halfshaft

There has been plenty of head on crashes in the WRC. Delacour had a massive head on shunt in Austraila in another Mitsubushi in 2002.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxeqZF36CYc

Halfshaft

There has been plenty of head on crashes in the WRC. Delacour had a massive head on shunt in Austraila in another Mitsubushi in 2002.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxeqZF36CYc

MidnightQueen

Horrific stuff. :eek: