Submitted 4 weeks ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Yes, the 70’s car would “win out”. Its driver, on the other hand would fare much worse than you.
Ideally, people wouldn’t treat possibly fatal transit collisions as a sports game. And also ideally, most people would see the uselessness of looking at which car is less damaged. Realistically, I know neither of those are universal, but I do hope they are common.
Yup. Any impacted component that survives means that the force was transferred to the driver instead.
Modern cars look worse after a collision for a reason: If it collapses/crumples, it means that it absorbed some of the forces applied to it.
The amount of energy absorbed by the cars is the same for both drivers. (What makes that car existence a risk to both parties.)
The problem of the old car is that it transmits the extra force to the people inside in some of the worst possible ways.
Their car would beat your car. For the people inside the vehicles, the story is quite different.
Have I got a video for you!
I love how much this one video has done to explain new car safety.
It’s honestly worth keeping the principle behind crumple zones in mind with everything:
If energy can go somewhere else, then less of it will be transferred to what matters.
For cars, the energy going into bending and breaking the materials of the crumple zone then doesn’t get transferred to the interior compartment.
For Xbox controllers, they’re designed so that when they drop, the batteries shoot out and go flying, which means less energy goes into the controller shell and internals.
And with a lot of laptops these days, you’re seeing the actual toughest, most survivable ones not be built out of heavy rigid metal and glass like Apple does, but out of light flexible aluminum composites. A) they weigh less so there’s less potential energy involved in a fall, and B) some of the energy gets transferred into bending the shell which will then snap back to form.
Featured comment on the first video pretty directly answers the question from @OP @Patnou@lemmy.world :
As a Firefighter I was called to an accident which turned out to be a head on collision between 60’s model Chrysler and a 2000 model Subaru. The Chrysler looked to have held up pretty good but the driver was taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. The Subaru was totalled back to the windscreen yet the mother and daughter in the car walked away without a scratch.
Another thing to point out is the newer car is “only” a 2009 model. We’ve had another 17 years since then to make them even safer still.
It’d be interesting to see how much cars have improved since then.
It’s interesting considering how the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety really highlights what is more important for them to reduce in a collision. Modern cars might sustain much more damage and be more likely to get written off as a total loss, but that will probably cost them $30-40k at the high end in most wrecks. But if a person gets seriously injured the insurance company could very quickly be on the hook for the full $100-300k in medical bills most people get coverage for.
The car would win but the occupants would suffer more. Your new car is designed to crumple around you to help save you.
It’s not certain that the car will win: youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck
Although I wonder about that since I also saw the results of classic crash tests (in a museum and web site) with 60s Mercedes and Peugeot where the cars were more stiff than nowadays.
Maybe that Cadillac is a special case or these cars have their weak points where they break apart in non classical test settings.
When I was a kid our car had only lap belts, and even those were optional. In the early ‘70s they had the attitude of building street tanks and that mass = safety. Doesn’t matter that the humans inside got tossed around like a hackey sack or to get an aortic dissection when hitting the steering wheel. It wasn’t until the last year of the ‘60’s that a collapsible steering column started being more common. By the late ‘70s they were starting to engineer for actual safety of the occupant. It wasn’t great at all by today’s standards, things like airbags didn’t really show up until the ‘80s, much less all the side curtain ones that are more common today.
Anyway, a modern vehicle is way better safety-wise, the debate would have to be about the speed of collision and the mass of the old car. Even though modern cars are safer, g-forces can be severe and no telling how the old car would crumple.
The car would win. The driver would lose.
The car might sustain less damage, however, the occupant will receive more damage. People buy newer, safer cars, presumably because they like being alive and would prefer to keep doing that.
Modern cars are designed to break before their drivers do, because you can’t replace you, but you can buy a new car.
The thing you got to understand is that the energy of the crash has to go somewhere. The same energy will apply to both cars, the modern car will absorb a lot of it by deforming, the old car won’t absorb any in that way because it’s a hard piece of metal. And you have to wonder, what is more important to you, the car chassis or the people inside? You might as well ask “why do we put packing peanuts if nails are a lot tougher” or “why do we ship eggs in weird cardboard boxes if a metal square would be more resilient”
The cylinder must remain unharmed
I saw a post where a Cybertruck got T-boned by like a Nissan or something. The Tesla didn’t look damaged badly at all and the other car was modern art. Tesla people were bragging about it until someone pointed out that the Nissan driver walked away while the driver of the Tesla broke both legs.
Yeah, but also not a fair comparison. Whatever the safety status that Cybertruck might be, getting t-boned is always a challenge. No car has a crumple zone
I know it’s a much older car for the example but same idea:
My late grandfather liked to restore Model T and Model A cars. One day he got T-Boned in an intersection by my house at 70 km/hr driving a Model A and Grandma was with him.
The 2005 era van that hit him was a wreck with the front smashed in. The driver was uninjured.
The Model A had a slightly bent fender front-right side and a minor paint scuff. My Grandparents went into the back of an Ambulance.
They survived but had raccoon eyes and were more bruises than healthy flesh for awhile.
Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.
All good reasons to avoid the 70’s car.
If I got in a collision with a car from the 70s with a car today
Everyone is concentrating on that because that’s what the actual question is about. OP didn’t ask to avoid the collision.
“If so why don’t people buy more 70’s cars?”. IMHO, this is actually the whole point of the OP’s question.
Nope. Its much safer to crash in a today car. 70’s would break as well and break you more. Both would be totaled anyway in such a case.
Today’s cars are designed to crumple and protect you, older cars transmit more damage to your body.
Your car would receive a lot more damage, but the driver in the older car would be much more hurt than you.
Also, modern vehicles are far more reliable and efficient
Here is a fictional scenario, you hit a tree at 30 miles and hour your 2026 Volvo is totaled.
Your dad hits a tree at 30 miles an hour in his 1970 chevy, you replace the windshield and hose it out and you can drive that chevy.
Yeah, but the people in the Volvo get to walk away.
I think that’s implied by “hose it out”: Your dad’s gone, all you can do is wash out the blood.
Dad would be proud to see his beloved Chevy live on.
“fictional”. Oof is ded
If you’re in an old car with no crumple zones, my intuition says it’s better to hit a modern car because then you also benefit from the other car’s crumple zones. Colliding with another rigid car would basically be like hitting a brick wall. I think the effect on the driver ends up the same in both cases.
If it’s two old cars with rigid bodies colliding, it’s exactly like hitting a brick wall. Even if the car itself is unharmed, the driver isn’t. It’s how quickly you stop that makes the impact dangerous, and in a car like that you stop almost instantly.
On the other hand, when two modern cars collide, there’s 2x the crumple zones, so the impact is the lowest there.
I direct you to this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
Tldw: cars today are designed to keep the driver safer in a crash, and by having crumple zones and such, the driver is protected more from the forces that are at play.
In the 70s car, the steering column would impale your chest.
A LOT of people died in car accidents, with the cause of their deaths investigated, to make cars safer.
A big difference is 70s car might retain its outer shape. Modern car not only intentionally crumples, but the passenger compartment is much stronger
It wouldn’t win out. They typically didn’t have any crumple zones to dissipate the forces of the impact so the full forces in the accident got transferred to the passenger cell and therefore the passengers. Also no seatbelt pre-tensioners to stop you flying forward before the seatbelt locks would engage and no airbags to protect you. Steering columns were also not collapsible so the driver’s chest being impacted by the steering wheel was a common thing in a head on.
My 2006 Honda Accord weighs almost a thousand pounds more than a 1965 Ford Mustang.
In fact, a 1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria only weighs about 400 pounds more than my Honda.
People WILDLY underestimate how heavy modern cars are, and how much better they are for safety of the occupants.
I think thats partly because of the 80s and 90s when unibody manufacturing became very commonplace but powered everything and tons of tech wasnt commonplace yet.
People just assume cars kept getting lighter.
The crown Vic stat is sure interesting. All that boatiness for only 400 more lbs than an accord is a pretty good deal. Brb, going to buy a 40 year old big body
And half the horsepower and half the fuel mileage. 🤣
The sad thing is how good some of those family cars that were so god damn pedestrian 20 years ago are now.
I drove one of the v6 Camrys with the 8 speed… 300hp and half a second faster over the quarter than the gt86… Sure its not manual.and isnt rwd but for a daily… it fucking slapped. “iT cAnT dRiFt” yeah I’m a 40yo man with two kids seats in the back, I’m not trying to tackle Mt Akina.
A Datsun B210 weighed 750 kg. The dashboard was made from carboard and the thin metal skin was only one layer thick, the inside trim was made from cardboard.
If two 70s cars collided, all the energy is transferred to your body since the solid construction of the car wouldn’t dissipate much of it.
Why arent people buying more cars from the 70s?
Parts and servicing is a big problem now. A lot of shops wont touch anything they cant plug a diagnostic computer into.
Some parts are made of unobtanium and require complex workarounds or paying through the nose for parts.
A lot of 70s cars were pretty damn ugly too
And have poor performance, handling, ride. Most people really wouldn’t want one
In the 70s the cars won but not the people. Modern vehicles let the people survive instead of themselves.
Crumple zones are your friend
If you weren’t fucking murdered from the whiplash of not having any crumple zones absorbing the impact. Then you would surely die of your insurance going absolutely through the roof for driving a fucking car from the '70s and getting into an accident
It’s not the speed that kills you. It’s the rapid deceleration.
The 70’s car might survive but you won’t.
Heh no.
Cars in the 1970s were made from coffee tins and cardboard.
thank you for the question . it was i retesting reading through the responses.
“70s car wins …but you still lose” lol
Your question is too broad. Which vehicle against which vehicle? The thing is today’s average driver drives an SUV or truck which is a literal tank in comparison, whereas in the 70s most people drove cars. The bumpers wouldn’t even line up (btw this is a modern issue between “cars” and “SUVs/Trucks”) leading to the bigger vehicle overtopping the smaller vehicle. Modern vehicles are also on average heavier and have better safety features. The only thing I will say is an advantage of an older vehicle is in lower speed crashes it has a better chance of being repaired then a modern vehicle that crumples, but at 70mph even solid steel will get wrecked (as will the passengers).
Also bold of you to assume a lot of these vehicles from the 70s can easily reach 70mph without shaking apart.
There are several reasons. The largest is not what you likely imagine. The biggest change in internal combustion cars of today versus something from the mid 1990’s or older is actually the engine, and more specifically, the metal casting techniques.
Older stuff used basic green sand castings. These molds tend to align rather poorly. The outer mold is just compacted oil sand. If the part cannot be cast with green sand using a cope and drag, they used inner cores are made of chemically hardened sand. All of this is manually aligned and has poor tolerances. One of the causes of poor tolerances is the tendency for the mold and core to shift. The molten metal is a liquid and the sand parts float on this liquid, like a lot.
Newer techniques use better chemically hardened core like materials, and instead of using green sand with a cope and drag, the entire mold is made of hardened sand that locks with multiple pieces like a puzzle that cannot come apart. This technological shift is the main reason why cars went from lasting 60k to 120k miles to 250k to 500k miles.
Also investment casting is now used on many smaller parts. Basically a wax version of the part is made. This is coated in several layers of a ceramic slurry. Then it is fired in a kiln, burning out the wax and leaving a ceramic negative of the part. The form is placed in sand and then cast. The ceramic is far far more accurate, but is a labor intensive and more involved process.
From my experience in auto body work, owning my own shop, the way cars look is primary down to metal forming machinery and the quality of steel. The thinness of the metal sheet and its strength dictate much, but it is also a compromise in how easily the panel can be assembled on a line. Limits in logistics complexity management are also a critical factor. One of the biggest shifts here in the last twenty years is the use of adhesives and robotics. Adhesives have replaced fasteners and welding in many places on modern vehicles. It is one of the reasons they are so resilient in crashes. This is nothing like the adhesives you find in the US consumer market. These are on the level of fucking dangerous if you stick your fingers together or get them on a hand. They are not taking a thin layer of skin off or letting go like anything you are likely to have used before. These are only available in industry or at an auto paint jobber. The ability to form complex bends and metal drawing operations without cracking the steel sheet are key. Like as a body guy, I am looking at how the panel was initially formed, and then the exact series of forces that went into crumpling and damaging it. My job was to create as close to the same amount of force as possible but in order, and in reverse. Over time, the complexity of forces used to initially form every panel has increased. So when I look at cars, I see this progression of industrial technology and materials.
In other words, six fender washers and three frame bolts cannot complete with fifteen glued panels and complex geometry under the thin surface you see outside. It also makes new cars unrepairable in most circumstances. They are, but not in a traditional sense that passes classical insurance standards… It requires… creativity… like an, artist. (Do not look behind the curtains.)
The actual argument for old cars is ownership.
TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
The car from the 70’s survives accidents better because more of it is rigid, but this makes it more dangerous as more of the force of the accident is transferred to the driver.
Modern crumple zones are placed intentionally so that while the car will crumple, the driver will not.
Fondots@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If I have to pick only one, I’m going to go with modern crumple zones
But man, I do wish we had some kind of magical smart metal that could be as rigid as an old car for low speed collisions, but still crumple for more serious impacts.
Because when you drive an old shitbox like I do, pretty much any damage is enough to total it, and having to get a new car really sucks when the accident was minor enough that no one was going to get hurt anyway.
caurvo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Reverse Newtonian metal sheet. I think that’s doable in my lifetime.
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Get EV. Make it do the skateboard design idea where the chassis/drive train is a skateboard under the cabin/cargo body. Delete the bolts that join the halves, replace with bungee cords. Done.
I had a toy car at some point that had plunger bumpers that reversed motor direction on impact.