"bikesandcars" (bikesandcars)
01/03/2014 at 15:31 • Filed to: None
0
10|
"bikesandcars" (bikesandcars)
01/03/2014 at 15:31 • Filed to: None | 0
| 10 |
Well that settles that.
Pulled from the coroner's report as reported by the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> bikesandcars
01/03/2014 at 15:37 |
|
I find it a trifle odd the coroner suddenly became the ultimate authority. Not saying it isn't true, but injuries are typically dependent on the magnitude of an impulse force and not its duration - the connection between impulse magnitude and absolute velocity can be highly variable.
|
bikesandcars
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 15:39 |
|
True. I guess I was assuming the coroner has access to evidence collected at the crime scene but I have no clue.
If not I'm guessing that just means their injuries were consistent with 100 mph impacts?
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> bikesandcars
01/03/2014 at 15:58 |
|
Correct, I 'm thinking. Severe joint dislocation, deep tissue trauma, injuries more severe than typically seen in an accident short of, say, opposing-lane US hwy car/car impact or the like. 100mph impacts aren't amazingly common, but "injury based on impact above and beyond typical 50-70mph impact" is a less clear and more wordy way to say "I bet these guys were doing about a hundred".
Of course, all this may be wrong, and they may have a physicist on staff who built a full simulation, but "extreme high speed injury, just give it a number" seems more likely to me. I'm not sure his accuracy is that far off, but I highly doubt his precision - particularly in light of the fact that a light car with a very rigid structure could easily triple or quadruple impact forces experienced by the occupant as compared to an SUV at a given speed - simply because the car can be stopped by an outside object that much faster/harder but the occupant can't...
|
bikesandcars
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 16:02 |
|
Isn't that the entire point of having break-away parts on such cars? So that in high speed crashes the extreme forces are transferred to parts of the car that rip off but the cockpit is left intact and occupants aren't necessarily subjected to those same forces?
|
bikesandcars
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 16:02 |
|
I'm assuming that car has those types of chassis systems in place...
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> bikesandcars
01/03/2014 at 16:12 |
|
In theory, well, sort of, also in theory the point of airbags in a lighter vehicle and of crumple zones: to have an effect that more mass would otherwise provide to an extent. A part purely ripping away can leave less energy for the car to absorb (conservation of momentum: mv = m1v1+m2v2+...), but doesn't change the fact that the car came to a stop extremely fast.
Lots of mass has two main benefits: absorption of impact, and taking a longer time to slow down. If an airbag can slow you over a longer period of time in a car stopping very fast, it helps somewhat, but isn't a pure solution. It's also one reason I don't really want to drive a Smart: the airbags can be incredibly well engineered, and the frame able to withstand enormous impact, but at the end of the day, the deceleration it experiences as a consequence is *enormous*.
Keep in mind I have no truck with Walker conspiracies and am not even a fan of the F&F movies as such, I'm just not ready to accept the LA County coroner's office as the final arbiter of all physics.
|
bikesandcars
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 16:18 |
|
Makes sense. Kinda makes me glad my Golf R is a heavy bucket...
KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 17:01 |
|
If the LA County Coroner is the arbiter of the laws of physics, then I guess we'd better start replaying LA Noire.
Damn Carruthers...
Also, considering it is very possible to have a high speed impact with very little or no injury, the direction of the acceleration is more important than either the straight sum of velocity magnitudes. Example: Sliding into a guard rail at 70, but with a much lower perpendicular component to the motion than the parallel component. It's possible to get a range of speed based on observed force to the body, but the confidence interval is much larger than I would like to see on an estimate.
TL;DR - Walker was moving faster than 0 MPH, and less than c, thus proving he was in motion before being accelerated to rest.
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs
01/03/2014 at 17:09 |
|
I could buy Mal Carruthers as arbiter of the laws of physics. Whoever this modern guy is, I'm thinking... no.
And yes, what we've just gotten is the accident guesstimate "bigger/smaller than a breadbox" version of Walker's speed, and the LA Times unsurprisingly finds this very compelling in its precision, because fuck STEM in journo-school mirite?
Phrased differently, I find it a semi-reasonable guess with limited accuracy, but better accuracy than the LAT.
|
KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/03/2014 at 17:13 |
|
You are assuming the LAT (Or any newspaper for that matter) had accuracy to begin with.
That's a dangerous assumption.