www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-30167098
Looks like the remains of an Impreza (with rocket launcher exhaust).
Presumably must have hit a tree, while being driven beyond the laws of physics.
Very lucky.
|
|
Wonder if it was a cut and shut, the break looks very clean.
|
>> Wonder if it was a cut and shut, the break looks very clean.
Yeah All around the firewall, has to be looking at that.
|
I don't think it was cut'n shut.
There's nothing in front of the bulkhead in a modern car only two legs that the engine mounts on to. Then a cross member at the front that all the plastic bumpers, wings and lights attach to.
|
>> I don't think it was cut'n shut.
>> There's nothing in front of the bulkhead in a modern car only two legs that
>> the engine mounts on to. Then a cross member at the front that all the
>> plastic bumpers, wings and lights attach to.
To have any kind of crash worthiness, a car has too transfer and dissipate energy and maintain structural integrity through the rest of the body shell.
You don't do that "with only two legs"
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 15:13
|
It reminded me of pics 5 and 7 on this page: tinyurl.com/no29o8c
|
|
Page 1 of 1115 on the topic of "Accidents in India"......
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 15:29
|
SQ
>> To have any kind of crash worthiness, a car has too transfer and dissipate energy
>> and maintain structural integrity through the rest of the body shell.
>>
>> You don't do that "with only two legs"
>>
Take a look under your bonnet, forget the engine, gearbox, suspension and radiator(s). There's not a lot of room for much else.
You have the legs and wings down the sides, a big lump of metal in the middle which is the engine and gearbox, suspension at the sides and steering components across the car.
A cross member bolted between the two legs at the front which support the rad(s), slam panel and lighting units. Doesn't leave any space for much else.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Nov 14 at 01:31
|
>> Take a look under your bonnet, forget the engine, gearbox, suspension and radiator(s). There's not
>> a lot of room for much else.
>>
>> You have the legs and wings down the sides, a big lump of metal in
>> the middle which is the engine and gearbox, suspension at the sides and steering components
>> across the car.
>>
>> A cross member bolted between the two legs at the front which support the rad(s),
>> slam panel and lighting units. Doesn't leave any space for much else.
You have missed loads of stuff, Those "legs" extend all the way under the passenger shell, under the wings are two load transferring supports that support and transfer loads into the upper part of the A frame hoop.
I suggest you look at a bare body shell.
|
>> I suggest you look at a bare body shell.
>>
I work in a car factory, have worked at three different global manufacturers for the last 15 years, and walk past the bare shells on their way to the paint shop every day.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 16:36
|
|
Then study them a little closer next time.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 16:54
|
|
Yeah right! I look for the legs going through the chassis body where the seats are or under the shell where the floor is.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 16:59
|
|
I don't think it's unusual for a car to look like that if belted side on ahead of the safety cell. I've certainly seen a new Panda with the front removed like that and almost no other damage visible.
|
Recently there was a video posted on here of a Renault Clio I think it was being hit by a biker. The bike made an impression on the front on the car from less than 90 degree angle.
The engine bay is a crush zone designed to absorb front end impact. It's designed so the engine is pushed down and under the passenger shell to preserve the passenger zone.
I had an accident in the late 80's where someone in an MG Metro ran into the back of my car which had a towbar. The engine block went back through the bulkhead trapping the passenger by the feet with the hot exhaust. Things have thankfully moved on.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 17:09
|
|
Oh and the"ignore the engine" bit. I wouldn't if i were you, when in situ it becomes an integral part of directing the forces through the entire shell.
|
No s*** Sherlock !
I'm still looking for these legs that extend back beyond the engine bay.
|
|
I have seen the e**** legs, but that is NOT all there is connecting the front to the middle!
|
|
As I said, the wings look at the wings, they go all the way up to the waistline.
|
The legs go down into the floor pan, everything behind the front wheel arch has been in the basic shell since the mid-90's.
The front wing is bolted on. It has to be to keep repair costs down.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 17:17
|
>> The front wing is bolted on.
And what do bolts do? they fix things together.
Thats what bolts do.
|
They also shear, that's what bolts do.
If you wanted strength you would use an alternative method.
|
>> They also shear, that's what bolts do.
>> If you wanted strength you would use an alternative method.
Yes you would - Glue.
The bolts are not the strength, its the pressure of the bolts holding the surfaces together that provide the strength. And the bolts sheer rather than the much thinner and flexible steel? Yes right of course they do.
And those legs? they are box sections, you know the same thing that IKB built a railway bridge from? Didn't see that falling apart either
(well it did actually but only after it caught fire and weakened the steel)
Still clearly as you work in a car factory you are an expert in structural design, and fronts of cars are designed to fall off.
VW must love you.
|
>> Still clearly as you work in a car factory you are an expert in structural
>> design, and fronts of cars are designed to fall off.
>>
>> VW must love you.
>>
Think I'll leave it there...
|
>
>>
>> And those legs? they are box sections, you know the same thing that IKB built
>> a railway bridge from? Didn't see that falling apart either
>>
>> (well it did actually but only after it caught fire and weakened the steel)
Interesting...which bridge was that ?
|
SQ for the umpteenth time
>> Interesting...which bridge was that ?
Soory my mistake, it was Stephenson. The Britannia Bridge.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Nov 14 at 01:31
|
>> Soory my mistake, it was Stephenson. The Britannia Bridge.
>>
....and it was cast iron.
|
>>behind the front wheel arch has
>> been in the basic shell since the mid-90's.
So the design structure of shells hasn't change din 20 years? riiiiiiiggghhhhht.
|
|
Not from what I saw in my 155mph FIAT Coupe in 1998 and what I see today in the above body shell I linked to which is not a VW.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 18:39
|
>> Not from what I saw in my 155mph FIAT Coupe in 1998 and what I
>> see today in the above body shell I linked to which is a not a
>> VW.
of course not, exactly the same aint they, same materials
Jeez. have you looked at how thin modern window openings are? Have you seen how much thinner A posts are? The C pillars? The thickness and shapes of the hoops?
Do actually look at them at all?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 18:42
|
>> Jeez. have you looked at how thin modern window openings are? Have you seen how
>> much thinner A posts are? The C pillars? The thickness and shapes of the hoops?
>>
>> Do actually look at them at all?
>>
Erm... we are currently looking for a new car for my wife. Everything, and I mean everything from various manufacturers is contrary to what you have written above.
Looking through the windscreen is like peering through a letter box on a modern, new design car. What cars have thinner A pillars because we would really like to test drive one?
They all have airbags in there.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 18:48
|
>> Looking through the windscreen is like peering through a letter box on a modern, new design car. What cars have thinner A pillars because we would really like to test drive one?
Zero's probably thinking nostalgically of a nice old VW Karmann-Ghia. They had lovely thin pillars all round.
|
>
>> Looking through the windscreen is like peering through a letter box on a modern, new
>> design car. What cars have thinner A pillars because we would really like to test
>> drive one?
EXACTLY
They are not at all like the old ones are they. The A posts are much much thicker
At last, I'll send your the bill for your lightbulb moment. Took a while.
|
>> I'll send your the bill for your lightbulb moment. Took a while.
Actually Zero you caused the confusion by writing 'have you seen how much thinner A pillars are?'. Obviously a typo of course, forgetful moment. Comes to us all in the end.
(I won't send an invoice, but any contribution will be more than welcome. Shall we say 120gns?)
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 19:03
|
What light bulb moment? The frame's the same it's the trim that's changed.
Is black, white today or is it still black in Surrey ?
|
>> What light bulb moment? The frame's the same it's the trim that's changed.
I really think you think so. Ok I'll give up at that point.
|
>> That'll be white then.
If you say so.
|
|
I'm glad they weren't injured, but please to see another one of these ugly fart-machine chav chariots off the road.
|
|
Shhh! You'll be accused of being some kind of expert.
|
Considering the intact nature of the rest of the body and lack of windscreen/front door damage I'd bet on massive shear force eg. sideways into a tree.
Whether that could cause such a 'clean' cut at normal speeds (say up to 100mph since it's a turbo'd Impreza) I have no idea.
Of all the cars that would have half-shells available for cutting and shutting, I'd imagine 'prezas must top the list of course...
The 'chunk' that is lying by the road certainly appears to have ripped off at the back of the engine.
In defence of Zero, I would have expected some remnant of the 'two legs' to have remained, albeit mangled, attached to the rest of the shell.
|
>> "If you make two parts you must put them together and you will always have a weak joint."
From that article - I also imagine it's normal where you have joints to stagger them like a brick wall so that bits don't shear off (unless that is an intentional mechanism to reduce energy transfer to the passenger shell... which is possible: I'm not a car safety engineer)
|
I'm losing the thread here :S.
There has traditionally been two methods of construction. A separate ladder type chassis upon which the body is bolted to and can be removed which was the original type of construction and still employed on the likes of some 4X4s and bigger.
Then we have the development of unitary construction where the strength and rigidity of a 'chassis' is built into a monocoque body.
The major part of the front chassis legs stretches from the front and more or less disappears as it comes around the bottom of the bulkhead and meets the floorpan although in a smaller form it runs under the floorpan to support the floor. It then increases in size around the back axle (rwd) and to the rear of the car. The front inner wings are welded along the chassis legs and onto the bulkead. The outer wings are somewhat cosmetic but do provide some rigidity and impact strength.
This design has been consistent but with ongoing development to improve strength and impact absorption. As has been pointed out design has made windows smaller and pillars bigger to enhance strength and build what is in essence a steel cage around the occupants.
|
If this is what the Police base their investigation on there then they really need to go back to school and talk to the manufacturers.
Look again at that Fiesta body shell.
There is no "smaller form" under the shell. The floor pan is the floor pan. There is a cross brace of a different strength which the seats are bolted on to.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 19:40
|
Ooooh Errr!
I don't need to go back to school.
There is indeed a substantial cross brace which the seats are mounted to. Wouldn't want them ripping out of the floor in an impact would you? But it also serves as strength and absorption of side impact forces. Likewise there is similar under the rear seat. The sills and centre tunnel again all add to the strength and the ability to absorb impact energy.
passionford.com/forum/restorations-rebuilds-and-projects/470097-rotisserie-spit-pictures.html
Shows I believe an early Sierra or Mk3 Escort. You can clearly see the underfloor chassis rails are smaller than the engine bay rails.
On vehicles that were turned into soft tops these rails and the sills had to be beefed up to compensate for the rigidity that was lost by removing the roof.
On new cars if you look at an engine bay the chassis legs are say 6/7" deep and that does not follow under the floor. Where the legs meet the bulkhead there are generally holes to allow the leg to crumple at that point rather then within the passenger area.
|
Seriously ?
>>The sills and centre tunnel again all add to the strength and the ability to absorb impact
>> energy.
>>passionford.com/forum/restorations-rebuilds-and-projects/470097-rotisserie-spit-pictures.html
>>Shows I believe an early Sierra or Mk3 Escort. You can clearly see the underfloor chassis >>rails are smaller than the engine bay rails.
In 2014 we are looking at a RWD Ford. Anyone bought a RWD Ford in the last 10 years?
Some smaller cars now have the fuel tank mounted between the front seats to make space in the shell for load. Centre humps in shells are for 4x4's or BMWs / Mercs.
|
Yes agree with all of that. The inner wings tho are there tho to prevent the runners moving upwards under loads and provide stiffness and torsional rigidity as well as transferring some crash forces into the shell cage. Its not true to say however that everything has remained exactly the same, material thickness has changed as has the thickness of the passenger cell components (despite the fact GMAC says they are exactly the same and its only trim that makes them look thicker)
So having said all that and we are in agreement, the original argument was that because of that basic design the fronts of cars are prone to fall off in an accident. We speculated that the front came off cleanly in this accident because it may have been a cut and shut.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Nov 14 at 01:32
|
Wow, we are really grasping at straws now:
"despite the fact GMAC says they are exactly the same and its only trim that makes them look thicker"
and what I said:
"Not from what I saw in my 155mph FIAT Coupe in 1998 and what I see today in the above body shell I linked to which is not a VW."
I was talking about design and you are providing this as fact in build!!!
Design and materials used in build are not the same.
Volvo used aluminium in build in 2004, they use boron steel in 2011, care to drag them into this ?
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 19:59
|
You said its only trim that makes A posts look thicker.
But hey this is GMAC world, I have no life experience there.
|
>>
>> You said its only trim that makes A posts look thicker.
>>
Do you strip down cars when you test drive them?
From the drivers seat that is all you have to go on.
>> But hey this is GMAC world, I have no life experience there.
>>
Get down to your local dealerships and give me a list of cars with better view. I asked for one further up the thread but got nothing.
|
>> Get down to your local dealerships and give me a list of cars with better
>> view. I asked for one further up the thread but got nothing.
Because despite the fact that according to you body shells have not changed in 20 years they do not exist.
According to you its down to "trim" not any change in body shells.
Fine if thats what you think.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 20:25
|
|
Still waiting for the list.
|
>> Still waiting for the list.
>>
>Because despite the fact that according to you body shells have not changed in 20 years they do not exist.
Sorry clearly a communication problem, what does "they do not exist" mean in GMAC world?
|
|
Why is it when I search this thread "they do not exist" are your words not mine?
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 20:50
|
Are you mad?
You asked for a list of cars with better visibility
I said they do not exist.
So I enquired if that had a different meaning in your world.
|
Right, so where does that leave us today?
You are arguing my point and trying to twist my account to your account?
|
|
Hehe I would if you'd just leave me the f'k alone.
|
"So having said all that and we are in agreement, the original argument was that because of that basic design the fronts of cars are prone to fall off in an accident. We speculated that the front came off cleanly in this accident because it may have been a cut and shut."
I see that as a possibility and I also see that a right angle side impact on the heaviest part of the car at the right speed could provide a sheer force enough to rip the inner wings and chassis away from the passenger cell.
When cars were far less corrosion resistant than they are now this was not an uncommon sight.
Fullchat. (Graduate of the University of life and Experience). :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 20:18
|
>> When cars were far less corrosion resistant than they are now this was not an
>> uncommon sight.
>>
Isn't that like comparing apples to oranges. How do you know what changes from year to year ?
Do you, as an active officer, know what year galvaneel was introduced on each model?
We have the ridiculous situation in Italy now where three Volvo owners can get two different legal results depending on year of manufacture for the tyres fitted to the car.
A 2011 D3 S60 with 163PS cannot drive between May and October with H rated winter tyres
but a 2013 car with Polestar 163PS is allowed to drive on the same tyres because it is electronically limited to 127mph as is the standard 136PS D3.
A diversion, but you can see legalise is a nightmare with cars.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 20:36
|
Hold hard. Remind me of the point/s that is/are being debated here.
All I said was that years ago when cars were more susceptible to corrosion under the right circumstance the fronts of cars easily tore away. Presumably with the introduction of galvanisation during the build process then cars retain their integrity longer.
Passenger preservation has become the major part of vehicle design and testing.
Have a look here:
tinyurl.com/nufgpts
What I see are two legs sticking out of the front as they have always done but what I also see is greater box work going backwards to and across the bulkhead, through to the A pillars, and the addition of subframes. All adding to increased strength but also to impact absorption ability.
Going back to early Fords if you took off a wings and unpicked the inner wings from the chassis leg and bulkhead you were left with two bits of box section sticking out the front. See half way down:
www.andysautobody.co.uk/mk1-escort-mexico/#.VHJQ3Yes5gA
In order to add some strength to the rigours of rallying gussetts were fitted between the chassis legs an bulkhead to stop them folding up.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 21:39
|
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Hannover-Messe_2012_by-RaBoe_233.jpg
MQB platform from VAG.
When I had a Passat from 2000-2003 it had a front impact with the other car coming across the front of mine at some speed on a roundabout. A company car but the engine and other bits had to be removed to straighten parts of the chassis. I imagine it was the 'legs' that had been bent.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 23 Nov 14 at 22:22
|
Subaru - Car smash - split in two - R.P.
