anyone know if the crashworthyness of the GMT900's will be better than the current GM SUV's and Trucks?

related to a post and repy from info I found on this louge post..
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...96#post3329396

 

They will no doubt be top in class till Dodge comes out with their next fullsize, followed by Ford, followed by GM...and so on.

Will a stiffer frame, more air bags, and stability control standard the next fullsize trucks and SUVs should be fine in an accident.

 

well, I hope.. After reading up on some 40 mph crashe (single car crash)tests, the Suburban and Silverado's didn't do as well as I thought they would.. And since we have an Avalanche, its something that sits in the back of my mind.. Though I dont think I'm going to lose _too_ much sleep over it.

Be a good excuse to trade it in to get a new GMT900 based Av. although depreciation would probably hit hard.

 

Eh, what was impossibly awesome crash worthiness 10 years ago is considered flat-out unacceptable today. I mean, that's a great thing, really. It forces manufacturers to make progress. But the Silverado is now a 7 year old design... with minimal if any changes made for crash safety in most cases. So I don't fault them for being behind the curve. As was said... typically the newest truck on the market is the best overall.

 

The majority of automotive crashes happen at less than 30 MPH. Think about it, what is the first thing that people do when an accident is imminent? They slam on their brakes. Even if you are travelling at 70 on the freeway, you can scrub off a lot of speed in a short amount of time.

Randy

 

I can tell you this much. The side impact strength of the existing line is top notch. I was t-boned in my 02 Tahoe by a Toyota pickup that was doing in excess of 35 mph. It hit from the left passenger door back. Major sheet metal damage but no damage to the frame. I was able to drive it away while the other vehicle was totalled. If it had been any other vehicle I probably would have received serious injuries.

I drive to work in one of the busiest commutes in the SF bay area and feel that I have one of the safest vehicles on the road.

 

This is another misnomer. Crashworthiness does not equate to vehicle damage. Crashworthiness relates to the safety of the passengers. If you had a vehicle that was constructed like a tank with 1" thick armor all of the way around, the vehicle would sustain very little damage. However, the occupants would likely be seriously injured because all of the engergy of the impact would be transferred to them. In order to prevent injury, the vehicle must absorb and deflect the energy.

I hate it when they publish repair figures for 5mph crashes. People seem to think that damage sustained equates to safety.

Randy

 

I don't totally agree with that statement. In a crash even though the doors/sheetmetal/whatever crinkle in that will absorb some of the crash. But probably no more then 15% of the total force of impact. Which at 35mph is not even going to be noticable to a human being. The key factors are Seat Belts/Air Bags as they have always been. I agree it does help, but not to a degree where it would make a major difference.

 

5 mph crash tests are more like what kind of repair costs can you expect if you back into a pole when you park.. There were some SUV/wagon's that had the whole back glass shatter at a 5 mph hit.. That would suck!

 

I'm curious, are you a mechanical engineer? Or is 15% a complete WAG from a laymen?

Considering crumple zones have been around in every vehicle for a long time now, i think you are completely off base. Take a look at how deformed a modern vehicle gets in crash testing compared to something from 10-20-30 years ago. A lot more than 15% of the energy of the impact is causing that damage.

Of course since i'm not an ME either, you can take that FWIW. i just doubt manufacturers are designing cars that fold up like an accordian in a crash if it didn't truly make a difference in crash testing.

 

Crumple zones are more then just sheet metal crinkling. They absorb and redirect the crash energy away from the occupants. You are over simplifying. The majority of the safety engineering today goes into crumple zone research. None of the other safety technology has had nearly the amount of time spent on it.

 

I think you need to learn some physics. It's pretty easy to figure out the force of the impact. Take the time from the beginning of the impact (full velocity) to the time of the end of the impact (zero velocity). Divide the units of time into the velocity and you'll get the relative force of impact.

In other words if you are doing 25mph and hit a steel retainer wall (we'll assume it doesn't budge even an inch) in an old car that only crumples for 5 hundredths (half of one tenth) of a second before coming to a complete stop, it's literally the equivalent force of impact as if you hit that same steel retainer wall and the car crumpled for 2 tenths of a second (four times as long) at 100 mph!

Now this isn't taking into account if the car collapses around you and crushes you or something - we're just talking about the force of impact itself. That's why cars are supposed to crumple, but specifically not in the cabin area itself... only the areas around it.

That's also kind of the theory behind airbags... it slows down the relative force of impact by extending the time it takes for your body to full reach the limits of your seatbelt.

It's the same reason why you'd likely rather jump from a 5 story building onto a giant air balloon rather than onto the concrete.

 

Acceleration inputs to the body are what matters. Acceleration has the time association you're looking for, (m/s^2).

F=M*A

Written out differently by units:

n=(kg(m/s^2)

Where:
n=newtons
kg=kilograms
m=meters
s=second

 

Right... I'm 3 credit hours short of a minor in physics. I know. There's just no reason to get too in-depth in this situation - just confuses the issue.

 

You may be considerably underestimating your audience here, Sparky.

Some here have made their livings in the area of safety.

And since you're only 3 credits from your minor, I'll kindly expect you to use the correct terminology.