[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Audi 100 Gives up the Ghost for Owner

>to crush in an accident to absorb energy. For example, look at the
>bottom of a modern engine hood and you'll see that there is a weaker
>area across it about half way back. This is so the hood will fold,
>rather than push back through the windshield and decapitate the driver.

My old Daihatsu had thick hooks at the rear of the hood, which rested
in holes which they would grip if pushed back more than 1/2 inch.
Better than relying on the hinges, I guess.

>    The older US built cars typically had frame rails running the length
>of the car. These were very strong and did an excellent job of
>transmitting the maximum amount of g force to the passengers in a wreck
>since the frame did not crush. This is a bad thing. 

But what about too-weak crumple zones that allow objects to "push through"?
BTW, MB reportedly went back to less-crumply zones 15-odd years ago after
they first discovered that crashes tended to be offset rather than head-on,
resulting in crumple zones being ripped through at the edge.

An aquaintance was severely T-boned in his private police-issue Caprice a
few years back, so severely that the B-pillar separated from the floor - but
the frame rail kept the floor largely in shape, saving his life.
Which reminds me - even if the B-pillar holds up, aren't those big-deal 'new'
side-impact beams dependent on the door locks  to do any good?
(Or is their function just to keep the door from caving in light wrecks
where the pillar and locks would hold up but the door itself would cave in?)

ObAudi: saw for the 1st time since Christmas in Germany a new MB S-class - 
ever so silly-looking; the A8's simple, pleasant design should be a plus 
when being compared to the MB.