Dan G wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:01 am, Tom Gardner wrote:
Well, if you think through what happens in a collision between
vehicles with different mass, and use conservation of momentum, then
the lighter vehicle will experience a greater delta-v than a heavier
vehicle. And consequently the lighter vehicle will also experience a
larger acceleration than the heavier vehicle. That's rather important
to the occupants, since it is principally the acceleration that
determines how much brain damage they sustain.

That's not correct either. The human body can survive an instant peak
G of about 150 (the known record is 180, David Purely in a F1 car in
1977, who did 108-0 mph in 26").

It is always possible to find an exceptional case to prove or disprove
any contention.

Exceptional cases are not a good basis on which to make designs (or
legislation for that matter). It is better to concentrate on the
common circumstances first.

What kills you in crash is the
collapse of your "survival space", i.e. broken bones, crushing
injuries, smashing your head on the wheel etc.

If that is the case then crumple zones are a waste of time and all
that is necessary is ensure that the cabin is so strong it won't
deform. And since motor cyclists aren't in any confined survival
space, their accidents are clearly more survivable.

As the link to the Mini vs. F150 test shows, design is paramount, and
that's something most large US SUVs are all too lacking.

Materials are part of design. And I've no intention of defending any
SUV's design.