|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
September 3rd 13, 04:11 PM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a separate
thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do so :^) Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. [GG hate mode on] GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the new age of forums and other retarded web apps). [GG hate mode off] > > > ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. > > > > > > > > > You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to > > bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically > > the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being > > crippled. You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? it seems to me that in the day and age of high strength steels it's a matter of engineering the underside of the car in such a way that engine sheers the bolt mounts and rides under the body (under the hopefully integral steel skid plates) forward possibly popping the front up in case you crash the thing into something (or you get rear ended with the force significant enough to pop the engine off its mounts) Did anyone ever trashed a car with a rear axle weight bias (911 will do ;-) and have a video of engine impacting the manequins (or avoiding doing so)? 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
September 3rd 13, 07:24 PM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
|
|
#3
September 3rd 13, 08:21 PM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
|
|
#4
September 4th 13, 01:00 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
In article >,
dsi1 > wrote: > On 9/3/2013 5:11 AM, wrote: > > I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a separate > > thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do so :^) > > > > Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. > > [GG hate mode on] > > GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment > > (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the > > new age of forums and other retarded web apps). > > [GG hate mode off] > > > >> > >>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to > >> > >> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically > >> > >> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being > >> > >> crippled. > > > > You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least > > behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk > > of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? > > I was not talking about the configuration of the layout or the position > of the motor. The positioning of the drivers legs in the front of > vehicle is the problem. And you imagine that it is impossible to provide adequate structure to provide protection? > > > > > it seems to me that in the day and age of high strength steels > > it's a matter of engineering the underside of the car in such a way > > that engine sheers the bolt mounts and rides under the body (under > > the hopefully integral steel skid plates) forward > > possibly popping the front up in case you crash the thing into something > > (or you get rear ended with the force significant enough to pop > > the engine off its mounts) > > If you check out the design of the old Toyota Vans you'll see that such > a crash strategy is not an option. > > > > > Did anyone ever trashed a car with a rear axle weight bias (911 will do ;-) > > and have a video of engine impacting the manequins (or avoiding doing so)? > > -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
#6
September 4th 13, 02:00 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
On 09/03/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel blathered ridiculously:
> On 9/3/2013 8:00 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >> In article >, >> dsi1 > wrote: >> >>> On 9/3/2013 5:11 AM, wrote: >>>> I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a >>>> separate >>>> thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do >>>> so :^) >>>> >>>> Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. >>>> [GG hate mode on] >>>> GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment >>>> (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the >>>> new age of forums and other retarded web apps). >>>> [GG hate mode off] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>>>> >>>>> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically >>>>> >>>>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>>>> >>>>> crippled. >>>> >>>> You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least >>>> behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk >>>> of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? >>> >>> I was not talking about the configuration of the layout or the position >>> of the motor. The positioning of the drivers legs in the front of >>> vehicle is the problem. >> >> And you imagine that it is impossible to provide adequate structure to >> provide protection? > > Somewhat, yes. At a certain speed there will not be enough structure in > front of the driver to crush to prevent his brains from being scrambled, > even if he never directly impacts whatever he just ran into. you're simply not from this planet are you. vis, engines do not compress. thus, 12" in front of the engine + 4" behind it = only 16" of crush space. now, go out and find any rear engine vehicle and tell us how much crush space it has in comparison. idiot. -- fact check required
|
|
#7
September 4th 13, 02:00 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
On 09/03/2013 12:21 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 10:11 AM, wrote: >> I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a >> separate >> thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do >> so :^) >> >> Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. >> [GG hate mode on] >> GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment >> (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the >> new age of forums and other retarded web apps). >> [GG hate mode off] >> >>> >>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>> >>> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically >>> >>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>> >>> crippled. >> >> You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least >> behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk >> of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? >> >> it seems to me that in the day and age of high strength steels >> it's a matter of engineering the underside of the car in such a way >> that engine sheers the bolt mounts and rides under the body (under >> the hopefully integral steel skid plates) forward >> possibly popping the front up in case you crash the thing into something >> (or you get rear ended with the force significant enough to pop >> the engine off its mounts) >> >> Did anyone ever trashed a car with a rear axle weight bias (911 will >> do ;-) >> and have a video of engine impacting the manequins (or avoiding doing >> so)? >> > > I suppose, but we rear engine drivers think about that gas tank above > our ankles more than the hunk of aluminum behind us. Neither have been > any trouble in any of the crashes I've survived in a long series of > Corvairs (I drive much less aggressively than when I was young so I > don't expect more drama from here on out to test your theory) > yeah, but there's a cut-off on that "more age = safer driving" theory. when you get past a certain point, your judgment/perceptions go. badly. and then you start killing people. i nearly got side-swiped off a cliff by some old guy [ironically, he looked remarkably like jobst, german accent too] who carved me up in their suburban [which would have been really ironic if it was he]. when i caught him up and started screaming at him, he couldn't understand why. "but i've been driving 60 years" he tried to say. finally the logic of "random strangers don't scream at you but people you've nearly killed do" seemed to get through. fact is, he just completely misjudged both speed and distance and that was a function of old age. sure, staying behind the wheel is pride and independence and all that, but when you get old, you need to realize, you've gotten old! and stop driving. -- fact check required
|
|
#8
September 4th 13, 02:06 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
On 9/3/2013 9:00 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel blathered ridiculously: >> On 9/3/2013 8:00 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article >, >>> dsi1 > wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/3/2013 5:11 AM, wrote: >>>>> I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a >>>>> separate >>>>> thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do >>>>> so :^) >>>>> >>>>> Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. >>>>> [GG hate mode on] >>>>> GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment >>>>> (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the >>>>> new age of forums and other retarded web apps). >>>>> [GG hate mode off] >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>>>>> >>>>>> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically >>>>>> >>>>>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>>>>> >>>>>> crippled. >>>>> >>>>> You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least >>>>> behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk >>>>> of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? >>>> >>>> I was not talking about the configuration of the layout or the position >>>> of the motor. The positioning of the drivers legs in the front of >>>> vehicle is the problem. >>> >>> And you imagine that it is impossible to provide adequate structure to >>> provide protection? >> >> Somewhat, yes. At a certain speed there will not be enough structure in >> front of the driver to crush to prevent his brains from being scrambled, >> even if he never directly impacts whatever he just ran into. > > you're simply not from this planet are you. vis, engines do not > compress. thus, 12" in front of the engine + 4" behind it = only 16" of > crush space. now, go out and find any rear engine vehicle and tell us > how much crush space it has in comparison. idiot. > > You speak as if a drivetrain couldn't slip between driver and passenger. Traditional front engine/RWD vehicle could do that easily, especially with an inline four or six cylinder engine. Not saying that that will happen in all cases, but it is possible, and one would assume that engineers have attempted to make that happen. Whereas if you are 12" from the leading edge of the vehicle you know that that is all the crush space you have. nate
|
|
#9
September 4th 13, 02:23 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
On 09/03/2013 06:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 9/3/2013 9:00 PM, jim beam wrote: >> On 09/03/2013 05:08 PM, Nate Nagel blathered ridiculously: >>> On 9/3/2013 8:00 PM, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> In article >, >>>> dsi1 > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/3/2013 5:11 AM, wrote: >>>>>> I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a >>>>>> separate >>>>>> thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do >>>>>> so :^) >>>>>> >>>>>> Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. >>>>>> [GG hate mode on] >>>>>> GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment >>>>>> (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the >>>>>> new age of forums and other retarded web apps). >>>>>> [GG hate mode off] >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of >>>>>>> practically >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>>>>>> >>>>>>> crippled. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least >>>>>> behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk >>>>>> of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? >>>>> >>>>> I was not talking about the configuration of the layout or the >>>>> position >>>>> of the motor. The positioning of the drivers legs in the front of >>>>> vehicle is the problem. >>>> >>>> And you imagine that it is impossible to provide adequate structure to >>>> provide protection? >>> >>> Somewhat, yes. At a certain speed there will not be enough structure in >>> front of the driver to crush to prevent his brains from being scrambled, >>> even if he never directly impacts whatever he just ran into. >> >> you're simply not from this planet are you. vis, engines do not >> compress. thus, 12" in front of the engine + 4" behind it = only 16" of >> crush space. now, go out and find any rear engine vehicle and tell us >> how much crush space it has in comparison. idiot. >> >> > > You speak as if a drivetrain couldn't slip between driver and passenger. you speak as if you're clutching at straws. like a drowning retard. fact: a significant proportion of modern cars, perhaps the dominant portion, are fwd. fact: if you're relying on "slippage" to save your pelvis fracture, you're out of your tiny little mind. fact: it's deceleration rate that injures. if your drivetrain doesn't accommodate slippage, and most are extremely limited, then you're down to only 12" of crush space, not 16". retard. > Traditional front engine/RWD vehicle could do that easily, especially > with an inline four or six cylinder engine. Not saying that that will > happen in all cases, but it is possible, and one would assume that > engineers have attempted to make that happen. Whereas if you are 12" > from the leading edge of the vehicle you know that that is all the crush > space you have. see above retard. now, stop avoiding the question - go find a single rear engine car with less than 16" of crush space out front. -- fact check required
|
|
#10
September 4th 13, 03:30 AM
posted to rec.autos.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mid & rear engine placement safety implications
On 09/03/2013 06:00 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 09/03/2013 12:21 PM, AMuzi wrote: >> On 9/3/2013 10:11 AM, wrote: >>> I guess this is a first time ever I have splintered anything into a >>> separate >>> thread, cause this is so OT of the original OT I feel entitled to do >>> so :^) >>> >>> Do be sure to crosspost to alt.autos.porsche when replying please. >>> [GG hate mode on] >>> GG is significantly more retarded in its new installment >>> (to disallow crossposting, I guess it does not map into the >>> new age of forums and other retarded web apps). >>> [GG hate mode off] >>> >>>> >>>>> ...the one with the driver who stays out of accidents. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You can only minimize the risk of a accident but it's impossible to >>>> >>>> bring it down to zero risk. Hanging your feet in front of practically >>>> >>>> the entire mass of a vehicle greatly enhances your chances of being >>>> >>>> crippled. >>> >>> You mean the issue is the heft of the engine sitting at least >>> behind the front row of the occupants putting them at risk >>> of being rear ended by the engine in case of the accident? >>> >>> it seems to me that in the day and age of high strength steels >>> it's a matter of engineering the underside of the car in such a way >>> that engine sheers the bolt mounts and rides under the body (under >>> the hopefully integral steel skid plates) forward >>> possibly popping the front up in case you crash the thing into something >>> (or you get rear ended with the force significant enough to pop >>> the engine off its mounts) >>> >>> Did anyone ever trashed a car with a rear axle weight bias (911 will >>> do ;-) >>> and have a video of engine impacting the manequins (or avoiding doing >>> so)? >>> >> >> I suppose, but we rear engine drivers think about that gas tank above >> our ankles more than the hunk of aluminum behind us. Neither have been >> any trouble in any of the crashes I've survived in a long series of >> Corvairs (I drive much less aggressively than when I was young so I >> don't expect more drama from here on out to test your theory) >> > > yeah, but there's a cut-off on that "more age = safer driving" theory. > when you get past a certain point, your judgment/perceptions go. badly. > and then you start killing people. important context addition: "on my bike, " > i nearly got side-swiped off a > cliff by some old guy [ironically, he looked remarkably like jobst, > german accent too] who carved me up in their suburban [which would have > been really ironic if it was he]. when i caught him up and started > screaming at him, he couldn't understand why. "but i've been driving 60 > years" he tried to say. finally the logic of "random strangers don't > scream at you but people you've nearly killed do" seemed to get through. > fact is, he just completely misjudged both speed and distance and that > was a function of old age. sure, staying behind the wheel is pride and > independence and all that, but when you get old, you need to realize, > you've gotten old! and stop driving. > > -- fact check required
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Why does govt care about airline safety but not highway safety?? | Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year | Driving | 12 | December 1st 10 02:52 AM |
| Big 3 Bust Implications | Vic Smith | Honda | 13 | December 13th 08 10:56 PM |
| engine stand placement | peter | Mazda | 1 | April 24th 07 01:41 AM |
| 98 CR-V Rear door lock problem/safety hazard | [email protected] | Honda | 3 | July 11th 06 03:54 PM |
| Safety Device, Warning Triangles, Highway Safety, Accidents | tmosomega | 4x4 | 1 | December 29th 05 10:39 PM |
Linear Mode
