![]() 02/25/2015 at 12:45 • Filed to: crash test, old crash test, rolling tin cans, car safety, or lack thereof | ![]() | ![]() |
Like hitting an empty soda can with a hammer.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 12:47 |
|
And this is clearly where the belief that bigger cars are safer came from.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 12:49 |
|
I think it was F=MA actually.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 12:55 |
|
My dream of owning a Geo Storm has been crushed.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 12:59 |
|
Nice pun!
![]() 02/25/2015 at 13:00 |
|
10/10 Would crash again.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 13:02 |
|
Yep. In car vs. car collisions you're safer in the heavier car, barring any differences in safety equipment. But in car vs. stationary immovable object collisions, the size of the car wouldn't be as much of a factor as far as I know. It would come down to structural integrity and safety equipment.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 13:07 |
|
Shows how pitifully marginal a front airbag is when the impact is not straight-on.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 13:15 |
|
Damn, well there goes my dream of one day owning a Pinto or a Vega, said no one ever.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 13:32 |
|
I'm kinda impressed on how well the Gremlin held up. The pinto was damn near vaporized, but someone in the gremlin might have lived.
![]() 02/25/2015 at 14:02 |
|
well, at least it'll be a quick death....