There is nothing quite as permanent as a good temporary repair.
whats that post made of?!
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
Holy smokes. That’s great!
The post doesn’t even wiggle.
this can’t be real.
Last edited by bluedog225; 03-22-2023 at 08:12 PM.
That car doesn't look capable of doing 260 MPH I call fugazzi on this
This post is temporary and my disappear at the discretion of the managment
jeepers cripes!
When I see 80 I think of two colliding head on at 40 mph each.
Kevin
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
There are two kinds of boaters: those who have run aground, and those who lie about it.
Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.
Those last few were so extreme they almost looked like an animation.
"Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono
"Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
We used to, before the woke mob got back into power in the Northern Territory, have some "no limit" roads... and there was quite an industry for testing new vehicles there.
Fastest I've driven is 160 mph... and that destroyed a tyre (it developed a longitudinal bulge on one side). However, same trip, I was at 140 mph and a car going the other way pulled out to overtake. That caused significant eye bulging.A head-on with combined speed in excess of 200 mph would have been "interesting".
Bit hard to see... the left side of the picture. Resulted in me needing about an 1/8 turn of lock on the steering wheel to maintain a straight line. It was a good test of a tyre plug too. I'd had a flat in that tyre the day before, which we plugged - cheap outside-in type plug. It took the 160 mph fine.
![]()
Inaugural recipient: the AGFIA
(Alf Garnett Fake Ignore Award)
Judging by the wear indicator, you got your money's worth out of that tire. A "before" picture might have been interesting. Did 160 MPH have any significant effect on the tread, or were the tires already pretty much done?
They were only fitted for that particular run - given to me by a mate - we were doing some particularly interesting roads and they were the stickiest road tyres I've ever used. Tread wear rating of 50. Neither of us had checked the speed rating (we weren't planning on a high speed run... just the twisties). They were, ahem, H - rated. Good for 210 kmh, not 260. I'm rather more diligent about ratings / tyre age etc these days.
Speaking of getting my money's worth... how about this one
A bit of an experiment - on my bike... I'd never have let that one go out, but it was fitted to some motard wheels I bought. Turned out to be damned good tyres and a lot of fun. I reckon I've had just as much fun on 250 and 300 motards in Northern Thailand as I've had on the Ducati or the 500s. That tyre was at the wear indicator and I put, from memory, about 750, maybe 800 km on it after that. If you told me 5 years ago that I'd be singing the praises of an IRC tyre... I'd have laughed. Incidentally, most of our tyres on the bikes get worn out on the right hand side... not the centre. That's a function of road camber and taking right hand corners harder than left hand (we ride on the left)
edited to add.... we occasionally see guys who want an off-road bike and say they want new tyres. It's a bit of an indicator that we are dealing with less experienced riders. Unless its deep mud, a new tyre over one with 60% tread isn't going to make the difference. Tyre pressure makes far more difference. My Ops Manager will often go out with guys like that on whatever he can find with the most worn tyres.... then ride rings around them (quietly.... he just gets out there and goes).
Last edited by Lugs; 03-23-2023 at 12:19 AM.
Inaugural recipient: the AGFIA
(Alf Garnett Fake Ignore Award)
Not the same: consider the difference in impact area. More relevant would be the IIHS offset/overlap impact tests vs the NHTSA's full frontal impact tests where they crash the vehicle into a wall.
https://youtu.be/Us0TrI6Hu3s
Test bed. Propelled by a sled that accelerates it to the target speed. Think launching it by a slingshot into the pole.
You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. — P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)
When I was much younger and not wiser I drove home from a bicycle trip in the French Alps. A 750 mile drive.
I owned a Jaguar which was capable of doing 160mph+ and I used it that way ( night drive).
When I looked at my car the next day I noticed that my rear tires were worn unevenly down to the steel/canvas, when I drove to the tyre shop one of the tires flattened. It scared the hell out of me, eventually I sold the Jag.
By the way the tires were rated for speeds above 240km/h but maybe you shouldn't do that for hours at a time.![]()
Last edited by dutchpp; 03-23-2023 at 05:05 AM.
That's BeamNG, the closest thing you'll get to a professional automobile simulators for a teenager's financial capabilities.
A car driving 80mph hitting a stationary one has twice the kinetic energy of two cars colliding head on at 40mph. The magic of squares. And math goblins.
WszystekPoTrochu's signature available only for premium forum users.
I don't think you should hit Poles at all.
Same goes for Estonians and Turks.
Last edited by P.I. Stazzer-Newt; 03-23-2023 at 09:26 AM.
I'd much rather lay in my bunk all freakin day lookin at Youtube videos .
Huh. People can work the "woke" meme into car crash discussions. How sad is that?
I'm also shocked (shocked I tell you!) to hear that people here have done stupid chit in cars & on bikes.![]()
"If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green
I figure immovable objects don’t deform and dissipate energy as much as two vehicles can. If you put a thick steel plate on a train going 40 mph and have it meet a car going straight at it at 40 mph I’d think the damage to the car would be like hitting a wall at 80mph. If that’s not the case I’m not sure I want to know.
This post is temporary and my disappear at the discretion of the managment
Also it you pause the OP Video it looks digital but the dead giveaway is there's no such company called Tyrannos
Screenshot 2023-03-23 at 9.55.23 AM.jpg
So I still call fugazzi on the OP
This post is temporary and my disappear at the discretion of the managment
While riding in a friend's car in high school, we hit a tree at probably about 20-30 mph. The front bumper looked like the 80 mph crash. It was a Ford station wagon with signal lights in the ends of the bumper, and they ended up looking at each other.
Hope those were self driving cars; I'd hate to be the test driver.
"Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book
Maybe we will reach six pages...
https://gregladen.com/blog/2017/10/1...on-collisions/1) A car is driven at 50 mph against a solid wall. It gets mushed.
2) A second car is driven at 100 mph against the wall. It gets much more mushed.
Here are the two cars, the red one was driven at 50 mph, the yellow one at 100 mph:
mythbusters_cars.jpg
3) Two cars are then driven at each other at 50 mph, head-on. They are both mushed the same as the red car shown above. Neither car seems to experience a “100 mph” collision.
WszystekPoTrochu's signature available only for premium forum users.
I saw a dead motorcyclist beside the road minutes after he had hit a car pulling out of a side road. (car driver didn't look carefully enough motorcyclist was way too fast on a narrow country road who's fault couldn't say) last year. The small car literally had an imprint of a motorcycle in it's side like a cartoon. His mates, big burly bikers were stood around crying. He wasn't ever woke again.
If one car is in reverse gear going 25MPH and it is hit head on by a car going 75MPH.... Never mind, the possibilities are causing a mild headache already....
If having a headache, simplify
kinetic energy of both vehicles is expressed by E=½*mv²
to find the maximum collision energy of vehicles going towards each other, we'll add their kinetic energies
skip the fraction, make mass of one vehicle a unit value
express speed of each vehicle as a fraction of speed or a supplementary fraction
obtain an easily digestible graph showing all the relations:
desmos-graph.jpg
set mc to 2 for second vehicle to be twice as heavy as the first one,
set v to non-unit value to observe how dramatically speed influences energy
Of course, for reverse 25mph, one car delivers 100% of collision speed (and energy) calculated against 50mph (speed difference) - x equals 0 or 1
WszystekPoTrochu's signature available only for premium forum users.
many years ago when I used to visit scrap yards for spare parts, I came across a Porsche 944 that looked almost perfect from the rear. Even the glass hatch was intact. When I saw it from the other side, the passenger side front had a perfect round indentation that completely took out half the hood, the fender, and the of course the front bumper. It must have hit a bridge abutment at high speed, but it was creepy how little damage the car had compared to how clean the actual damage to the car was.
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"
-Dalai Lama
From the energy available to dissipate, the crash should resemble one at 35 MPH. If the cars are identical, the damage should be as well.ok but, what if one car isn't moving and the other is going fifty. do they both experience the damage of a vehicle traveling into a wall at 50mph? or 25mph? or other.