06 s2k crash fatality
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,513
Likes: 3
From: Laguna Beach
Anyone who posted in the SoCal rain thread knows that could've been me. :/ I was forced to drive in the rain on super bald tires unfortunately, and I know I'm very lucky nothing happened. Always terrible to hear about this.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 566
Likes: 1
From: Florida
Originally Posted by spook' date='Jan 13 2009, 01:20 PM
Anyone who posted in the SoCal rain thread knows that could've been me. :/ I was forced to drive in the rain on super bald tires unfortunately, and I know I'm very lucky nothing happened. Always terrible to hear about this.
then dont overtake in the rain. simple.
kno the situation and jsut be cautious, maybe this is why nothing happened to u
Registered User
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
From: Liberty Hill, TX (Austin)
I see that the intrusion into the cockpit forced the seatbacks into a forward position. It doesn't look like there was enough intrusion to cause crush injury to though. With the impact to the rear of the skull, you could be looking at a basal skull fracture, damage to the brain stem, broken neck, etc. The rear of the skull is a very vulnerable area. In this case, I'd say that massive deceleration of the brain was probably enough to cause fatal injuries.
Very sad, and even more sad to see people arguing on that news site about it.
Very sad, and even more sad to see people arguing on that news site about it.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by mikegarrison' date='Jan 13 2009, 04:11 PM
No, it's not. Hitting a completely stationary object is much worse than hitting another vehicle. What I hit was a Jersey-type wall, so it has a bit more give than a permanent concrete wall. Plus, I was lucky enouth that it was angled, so I partially glanced off of it. But hitting a stationary object at X mph dead on is like hitting a car dead on at twice that MPH.
http://physics.about.com/od/energyworkpowe...gyforcediff.htm
that'll more or less explain... to quote..
Consider case A, in which car A collides with static unbreakable wall. The situation begins with car A traveling at a velocity v and it ends with a velocity of 0. ... Force equals mass times acceleration. ...
The car exerts this force in the direction of the wall, but the wall (which is static and unbreakable) exerts an equal force back on the car, per Newton's third law of motion. It is this equal force which causes cars to accordion up during collisions.
The car exerts this force in the direction of the wall, but the wall (which is static and unbreakable) exerts an equal force back on the car, per Newton's third law of motion. It is this equal force which causes cars to accordion up during collisions.
Force is calculated the same way in the second example, car vs car.
Now For Energy...
Force is a vector quantity while kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, calculated with the formula K = 0.5mv2. ...
In case A, there is only one car moving, so the energy released during the collision is K. In case B, however, there are two cars moving, so the total energy released during the collision is 2K. So the crash in case B is clearly more energetic than the case A crash
Force is a vector quantity while kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, calculated with the formula K = 0.5mv2. ...
In case A, there is only one car moving, so the energy released during the collision is K. In case B, however, there are two cars moving, so the total energy released during the collision is 2K. So the crash in case B is clearly more energetic than the case A crash
...when viewing the total system, the collision in case B releases twice as much energy as the case A collision. It's louder, hotter, and likely messier. In all likelihood, the cars have fused into each other, pieces flying off in random directions.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,436
Likes: 5
From: San Antonio, TX
Originally Posted by Riceboi' date='Jan 13 2009, 02:21 PM
Is that the excuse you tell your wife? hahaha
By "not skimping" I don't mean go and buy the most expensive tires out there, I mean don't go riding the tires until they're bald. When the tread is getting low they need to be replaced. If your wife forces you "use the most out of the tire as you can" then you got issues with lives riding on the line.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Pt Charlotte South Wst FL
Originally Posted by Riceboi' date='Jan 13 2009, 12:21 PM
Is that the excuse you tell your wife? hahaha
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
shitty deals. :/
I drove on bald tires...cuz I bought it like it, Didnt know there was that much camber until I took the tires off. The wires were already coming out. On the freeway, I could feel the back end during rain, sliding around. I bouight new tires/rims right after that...scariest drive @ 60mph ever.
I drove on bald tires...cuz I bought it like it, Didnt know there was that much camber until I took the tires off. The wires were already coming out. On the freeway, I could feel the back end during rain, sliding around. I bouight new tires/rims right after that...scariest drive @ 60mph ever.
