Interesting observation. Did you notice my join date compared to yours? Does post count somehow get you some credibility here? What you are using is spurious reasoning that you somehow classify as common sense. There is a reason why there is no readily available data. Such crashes are (thankfully) infrequent, but nearly always fatal. There is, however, data supporting the equivalent safety (relative to steel)of a well designed aluminum chassis by NHTSA and European/Japanese studies. One nice control study is the Corvette Z06, which has an Al version of the steel chassis in regular Vettes. Since the cars are otherwise very similar, it eliminates most of the confounding factors found in comparing dissimilar models. Crash behavior of both cars is virtually identical. If you somehow think that the laws of physics cannot be extrapolated to higher speeds, and that AL somehow disintegrates at 120 mph, hey, that's your call. Although it is not any more scientific than your conclusions, there are numerous Ford GT owners that have walked away from severe crashes, despite (or because of) their Al backbone chassis. Bottom line is, in a crash over 100+mph, or even over 70 mph for that matter, you're very unlikely to survive regardless of what you are driving. The fact that the chassis "stays together" as you put it is irrelevant, since it is all about driver immobilization. If you want to have any chance of surviving a high speed crash, you need a 5 pt harness, helmet, and a HANS device. That's the only reason you see professional racers survive horrific high speed impacts. That's also why the 200+mph wreck at the recent TX mile in an ALUMINUM chassis Gallardo resulted in minimal injury. I appreciate the repeated carte blanche, but it's not necessary. ;-) 1) How am I "hiding"? lol...I am not an automotive engineer, nor a crash test dummy. ;-) 2) I spent years working in ERs where such brutality was commonplace. It is indeed disturbing, but does NOTHING to prove that Al is less safe than steel, when both chassis are properly designed. It did prove that motorcycles are inherently unsafe in a collision, though.... Anyone who expects to survive a triple digit deceleration is living in a fantasy world. This guy will vehemently disagree with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1NU6xjTSY One last time, it's NOT so much the integrity of the cockpit, but rather the chassis ability to absorb/dissipate energy, along with occupant immobilization, that leads to lives being saved.
Anyone who would choose a 20+ year old chassis design (Diablo) as their crash vessel of choice over a modern sports car with an Al chassis is delusional....sorry..... But if it makes you "feel" safer, hey.....who are we to object? Enjoy your ride!
Go play doctor with yourself. The Gallardo that crashed at high speed was equipped with a substantial roll cage made out of STEEL, similar to the Gallardo race cars. Without that cage, I bet the driver would have perished. You using that example shows how phony you are and you have no credibility trying to use that example to defend all aluminum chassis. Look at the pictures buddy!!!!! Are you BLIND??? You are so defensive about the aluminum chassis thing because your are trying to defend your beloved GT. I personally know people who have survived crashes at over 125 mph. One in a Diablo, and another in a Countach. Valentine survived a crash at high speed in a Countach. There are countless examples, so don't make excuses for the aluminum chassis by saying that everyone dies in high speed crashes anyway, so it doesn't matter if you are in a weak chassis. That is untrue. Those 20 year old chassis are just fine, perhaps better...... imo the dangerous aluminum ones are a result of a desperate attempt by automakers to shave weight off of the bloated modern cars made overweight by legislated crap. Start showing some statistics, or pictures instead of just your words and weak arguments. I am done playing with you, so now you can go play with yourself.
I am not a crash expert..BUT I have been in a few crashes.. I can state for sure, from crashing a 2001 Diablo at approx 115MPH, rolling it 3.5 times on the track a few years back... That I got out without any injury and walked away with not even a sore muscel. I was AMAZED at the impact the car took and protected the passanger cabin.
Really? That's the best you can do? Getting frustrated, are we? No doubt. Do you think he would have survived in a Diablo sans cage? LOL, yes, the GT is the be-all-end all in sports cars, and everything else is crap. Ford is a deity in the car universe. Now do you feel better? Sheesh. Right....therefore steel chassis are superior. Sleep well tonight, buddy. Do you know what a "p-value" is? Maybe you have more trouble with reading comprehension than I initially anticipated. Please re-read my previous post....if there were good statistics out there on triple digit crashes, I'm sure you in your infinite wisdom would have found them on the INTERNET. What exactly do you want me to prove? The burden of proof is on you, with your ridiculous assertions that aluminum chassis can't be made to be as safe as steel, and further, that the strength of the material is the only issue at play. You've yet to reply to my points about energy dissipation and use of proper restraints....which is why a few are lucky enough to survive such horrific crashes. MOST DON'T. Do you not have replies for any of my other points above? "Go play with yourself?" Really? are you like 14 years old or something? If you are, then please.....when you don't have a clue about something, you really ought to consider bowing out gracefully rather than dragging this into the gutter. If you want a car that will allow you some semblance of a chance to walk away from a high speed crash, I strongly recommend a cage, 5 pt harness, helmet, fire suit, and a HANS device. Regardless of whether you have a steel chassis, Al, CF, or unobtanium.
1) drowning=water inhalation, not ingestion. Big difference. (if you don't believe me, Google it....) 2) You're right, hours of scanning the internet>>>medical school. WTF was I thinking? Your Al chassis bashing reminds me of a classic Simpsons episode: Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie. Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers. Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. Homer: I see. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
No way did they walk out without a sore muscle. Everything changed for the driver the next day. This whole argument about aluminum vs. steel and Fords vs. Lambos is truly loony. Finite Element Analysis proves that bellyaching about commonplace materials for automotive applications are irrelevant, the construction of said material will level the playing field. Do it right and aluminum is just as strong as steel. Otherwise we'd have a lot of dead Audi and Jaguar owners, relative to BMW and Mercedes owners. Learn more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method#Application
The same crash standards must be met by steel intensive and aluminum intensive vehicles. Based on this U.S. Steel Product Technologies undertook a study to compare the crush performance of front aluminum extruded rail to an advanced high strength steel alternative, based on the identical design space and test conditions. Both rail designs tested utilize a hexagon profile at 3.5 in diameter. However the aluminum extrusion possesses a six-sided web structure in the interior, while the TRIP 780 1.3 mm steel version was a hydro formed design produced from a round tube into a hexagon profile. Weight wise, there is a 10% differential. Both numerical and experimental studies were carried out at U.S. Steel to compare the performance between the 1.3 mm TRIP 780 hexagon profile aluminum extrusion profile. As shown in the figures bellow, the TRIP 780 hexagon profile proved almost identical performance to that of the 6XXX-T5 aluminum extrusion in terms of crash energy performance. Again, both parts are nearly identical in weight. This example exhibits the potential for the new steel grades being developed at United States Steel for similar weight savings at a much lower cost than aluminum use. Image Unavailable, Please Login
"recieved this e-mail from a friend to post here!" I've seen all types crash, including a Gallardo, and I've been in some and it was all high speed at the "Ring". So, I think it might be applicable.... look for msg... I think I need to weigh in on this from a realistic perspective in addition to Sam's engineering analysis. I'm a Nurburgring instructor. I live there (yes, in Nurburg itself), I am at the track nearly every day, and eat and breath it all. I have seen everything crash, and when I say everything, I mean nearly everything, and usually at high speed. It doesn't matter what its made out of, as standards are standards. I've seen aluminum bodied Audi R8's stack into the armco at 120mph at Flugplatz. Gallardos on their side at Aremburg. I've seen Mustangs, Challengers, even a Ford GT smashed beyond oblivion right in front of Renault Clios, Ford Focus RS', and your typical caged Volkswagen Golf that the locals drive. They have all held up for the most part. There have been a few horrific crashes the ended in fatalities, but they were isolated incidents, and it didn't matter what they were driving, it would most likely have ended the same. Arguing over what construction is better is just pathetic. Standards, are standards, are standards, including those ridiculous Morgans made out of wood. Capt Solo! "Yes, he really is Capt Solo"
I tried a logical argument; however bringing over the 'guns' so to speak may speak greater volumes I'm curious... just how old is this fellow?
Bingo. I tried arguing a similar point several pages back but gave up as I wasn't getting anywhere, lol.
Yeah, somehow I think Victor won't be surfacing in this thread again. Hopefully, under all the attitude, he learned something.....
Quack MD got his impressive degree from the U of EA and according to this link, it appears that it is quite a good chassis.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KHJfSmzgRs
Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie. Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers. Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. Homer: I see. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.[/QUOTE] What if every other campfire in that jungle without a stupid rock had tigers lurking around? Then, Homer may be the smart one here. BTW the medical students I knew that had enough time on their hands to memorize Simpson episodes didn't turn out to be the best ones.
That, boys and girls, is the definition of paranoia. Actually, and this may shock you, but I didn't type that from memory, but rather cut and pasted it from the INTERNET. Which, incidentally, is a much more appropriate use of the web than your "research." As far as attacking my credentials, at least you are consistent in your lack of class. Why don't you come down to Houston and talk to my patients who have survived cancer, and ask them why I foolishly based their treatments on Phase III randomized trials instead of my gut feelings mixed with internet pictures?
Paranoia? Maybe? If all the campfires have Tigers except the one with the stupid rock, then maybe Tigers don't like the rock? Who knows. That is not paranoia, that is common sense, and that process of observing things and deducing from observations is how many discoveries are made. In this made up example, with no Tigers around the campfire with a stupid rock, and Tigers around campfires without stupid rocks, a study could ensue. And what if that study showed that Tigers just don't like to be around stupid rocks? That is how things are learned. And in the absence of any HIGH speed crash test standards that I know of, maybe these automakers making aluminum chassis that use the occupants as part of the crash impact energy absorption will rethink things. I know that energy absorption is the key to occupant safety, but the energy absorption must happen outside of the cockpit....like in an F1 can where all things rip, crush, and tear off in a million pieces, except for the carbon fiber tub, which stays solid and protects the occupant. Maybe automaker will start making safer tubs, like Ferrari with its F50 and Enzo, and not beer can chassis that don't protect their occupants. Oh, speaking of Paranoia, I have not attacked your credentials. Using made-up names and fun words in the posting you are referring to is not an attack on you personally. Nowhere will you see your name or a direct reference to you....rather you see humorous made-up people and generalizations.....Paranoia....OK
The Enzo is the perfect example of how a chassis should be built for a car that exceeds 200 mph. According to the link below, this Enzo T-bones a telephone pole at speeds between 100 and 200 MPH, according to the police. Obviously, by looking at the pictures, one can see that much energy was absorbed, and the car is ripped into pieces. But the tub was in one peice, protecting the driver, who just got a bloody lip, and was so unhurt that he was able to run from the cops! http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/
You didn't say "quack doctor" ? Whom else are you speaking of? How old are you? What is your expertise or skill in?
So, you are a self professed chassis engineer because you understand interpreting photos on wreaked exotics, and drink beer from a can?
Seriously.....did you not read any of the other posts on this thread from yesterday? Finite Element Analysis? If that's too abstract for you, what about Capt Mike Solo, who has spent years at the Nurburgring witnessing high speed crashes? I'm sure he can go into much more detail if you desire....just ask. Enough already...I'm tired of beating a dead horse. Have a happy 2011. Or not. "You can do whatever you like"....wise words indeed!
I wrote: "Quack MD got his impressive degree from the U of EA and according to this link, it appears that it is quite a good chassis...." . I wasn't referring to any one real person. Obviously, as EA is a video game company and not a university. I was making a funny statement linked to the entertaining you tube video that followed.
I didn't say that....you did. What is wrong you some people? Any normal person that sees the factual evidence of that accident will say, unless they are retarded, something along the lines of ....that is a great chassis....it really protected its occupant..... It doesn't take an engineer (by the way, which I am, SB and SM, MIT btw) to see the obvious!!!
Hey Isaac, you know the old saying about battles of wits with the unarmed, right? ;-) Not worth it......
Somehow, I don't believe that at all. If you are, well, you speak like no engineer I've met, know, or am very good friends with. My internet detector of BS is off the scale here. What is even funnier is that you are claiming MIT. Too true, I'm done. Victor, the last word is all yours
