Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 12:05:58 GMT From: "The Adlers" <mapsonkeybardnopsamom.ca> Subject: Re: CHRASH TESTS,CRUMPLE ZONES, WEIGHT
Kent, Final piece that everyone overlooks is the size, shape and sitting position of the occupants in the vehicle. This makes a huge difference in actual results as well. Crash tests are based off of 95% population height.... but noone has been able to tell me how big the crash test dummies are, and when was the last time they did a census on population height. From the US government's crash test web site, a person driving a Volvo 850/S70 is likely to have leg damage in a 35 mph head-on collision. Oddly enough, even with the Windstar's 5 star rating, the front occupant(s) outer leg is likely to be very damaged. You mentioned the wheels coming into the passenger area. It appears as though this maybe occurring. The Honda Oddysey spreads a front end collision across the front end of the vehicle and you have a much better chance. Looking at the US Government's crash test results, it appears as though cars have crumple zones, but not all of the crumple zone designs work effectively with the engine/tranny to smooth the impact evenly across the front end. I checked out a Toyota Tercel. The driver comes out OK, but the poor passenger takes the brunt of it. In some cars, the reverse happens. Take a look at the front wheel vs rear wheel drive cars. You'll find the results interesting. http://www.nospam/ Regards, Rob kentbassbutler <stephanlucanopsamail.com> wrote in article <7e55md$k39$1nopsam3.Belgium.EU.net>... > There seems to be a confusion on the effect of weight, height or size in an > accident or in crash tests. >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
