Reply With Quote
Yeah, but that's not a crash.
Delta-v is accepted as a measure of crash severity because of the known duration of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.
Some types of collisions are exceptions, e.g. Dale Earnhardt
This was horrific.
I dont know how the people who have to clean these things up do it.
Good luck to the families living normal lives. 150 mph on a city street is just trying to kill or get killed.
Yeah, but that's not a crash.
Delta-v is accepted as a measure of crash severity because of the known duration of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.
Some types of collisions are exceptions, e.g. Dale Earnhardt
ngl though i was pretty divested from this story till i saw the video of his pos goldigging GF call for help for him, while someone innocent is burning in the background. Damn shame his enablers get off scot free
I work for an insurance company as an auditor, and review hundreds of claims per year, most of them auto, so yeah, I am a ing expert, you dip .
The other vehicles speed is purely an educated guess, absent any kind of blackbox data, but was obviously going the same direction from the pattern and magnitude of the damage on the other vehicle, and the fact that the front wheels on the corvette weren't shoved into the frame.
Yes, striking a barrier is vastly different from striking a vehicle, it was meant to be more illustrative of the difference in overall kinetic energy. I have personally reviewed crashes, police reports, pictures and all, with vehicles traveling in excess of 100mph, and have a fair sense of how fast vehicles are going based mostly on the patterns and scale of damage.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-05-2021 at 06:36 PM.
you are both right. jeez. sorry I said anything.
correct.
also correct. The underride was what I was referring to. not a huge factor in the end, but every foot counts when considering the force.I gave you no incorrect equation.
I suspect longer duration because partial underride.
If I had the EDR data, I could give you the amt of time. About where DV time series hits plateau.
At the end of the day, accident reconstructionists use delta-v, not acceleration.
Well played. Topical, funny, good snark level. 10/10
Seriously. One of your better efforts. Even being the target of the snark, I laughed.
Especially this idiot.
Nice. I did accident reconstruction for 20+ years and have collected EDR data form hundreds of vehicles.
Ok then thats cool stuff I learned.
Most crashes, car to car, have a known duration that is much the same. I would not have thought this knowing how different it is slamming into a concrete barrier and knowing cars have very different "give" in them. Like some WWII army vehicle that was made for bullet penetration, not crashing into another vehicle.
But the graph given does in fact allow one to determine avg. acceleration during that ~120 msec time frame.
So the graph given, where was this from? It goes from 0 to (-)12 mph...
I personally believe this is probably one of the most non intuitive of the so called "basic" laws.
People read the same thing out loud "action-reaction" bs and think they know the profound nature of this idea.
Its really kind of crazy this works. Especially on the quantum level. It makes the whole idea of momentum take off to great significance to the universe.
Its quite wild imo...
Props. I kinda figured something like that based on what you were saying.
So we both know what we are talking about here.
So the forum has actual lawyers, and people who know a lot about car crashes
Pgarden is a physics nerd, Darrin found a thread in which his professional expertise was exactly relevant. It is a black swan event.How did such a benign thread turn into an argument so quickly
Im really a biochemistry/molecular biology at work. But I like the "clean" nature of physics. And I am definitely not equipped mathematically to handle modern physics to my satisfaction and never will be. If nerd implies curiosity then okay. If it implies some excessive abilities... thats not me.
You guys have to deal with a lot of these incidents so the finding that the time that two cars are in contact is very much the same time was a revelation for me. And me alone it seems. I was looking at this as having a lot of variation because I was looking at a "crash" as any collision between two objects. You guys pare it down to todays cars and were taught or learned that through a whole bunch of car crashes the time in contact is very much the same which I found to be pretty damn amazing. So yes, if that stays the same the change in velocity is the real variable. Some objects completely change direction in crashes I imagine if they hit head on going opposite directions so this would create a very large change in velocity. If that had happened in this crash... I guess we would likely have 3 dead people and 1 dead dog. Also the whole idea of the conservation of momentum as a very useful concept universally rests on the very simple case that two objects that collide must exert exactly the same amount of Force on each other for the same amount of Time. The same amount of force is the third law at work and is counter intuitive even though it is taught like everyone should know it. Conservation of momentum and energy are huge ideas in particle physics. So when Darrin threw time aside I was dumbfounded. But you guys are dealing with very specific types of collisions.
And I imagine you guys have found some strange things in which people lived or died due to bizarre cir stances such as things in the car flying around or objects getting airborne, people getting airborne... unforeseen things. I do appreciate you guys entertaining my questions though. And I dont mean to belittle the tragedy of the accident. This need for speed thing needs to be experienced in an amusement park, not city streets.
rambling done.
Damn, RG and pgardn getting sonned ITT.
You hate to see it
Props. I kinda figured something like that based on what you were saying.
So we both know what we are talking about here.
So the forum has actual lawyers, and people who know a lot about car crashes
You're a claims adjuster. You don't know .
You who?
Like you have any clue as to wtf any of it actually means you sorry putrid grandfart.
You want to answer a question on the graph Darrin gave?
I bet you slink away like the fake you always are.
Cmon old scrot, how about it? You won’t be able to look it up so I suggest you opt out like you always do. The chicken know zero.
Cry more
DMC again walks into the middle of a movie, asks wus up?, and promptly gets shown the door.
Next move.
Vacuum expert degrades other peoples work.
You are a piece of work dumb ass. You have no idea what is even going on per usual. (Then attempt to assess the discussion when you dont know )
What's going on:
1. ST Cliff Clavin stepped in over his head when he tried to lecture the forum about physics and got duly set straight.
2. Said Mr Clavin retreated then into his "just a biochemist, but I dabble in physics" routine.
3. RG is a claims adjuster who thinks his job of denying people compensation equates to being a physics and crash expert.
You hate to see it
You really have no idea what was going on.
You still dont.
Read Darrin's graph (yeah you left him out, you want to be his buddy)
And tell us about what we both were trying to express.
You wont because you dont get it.
Sorry you got left out when I immediately showed you the door.
Getting immediately punched in the faces is hard on you.
So if you walked upon an accident with that amount of damage, you could just look at the speed limit sign to estimate their speeds unless some other data was available.
So because you said "why" you equated that to a forum "w"?
Darrin showed you why. Get up off your knees, wipe your eyes and be grateful to the lord that he hath laid upon you this lesson of humility.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
