Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahzari
I admit that I do not know enough about crash physics and realize now that a head on collision was not the best choice, however, I never said infinite stiffness because that wouldn't absorb or deflect any of the force. The car still has crumple zones and that is where the impact is absorbed, the chassis stays rigid which is exactly what you want.
|
No, that's not what you want in a passenger car. What you need for passenger safety is for the front and rear of the car to be relatively "weak", in order to provide controlled crush zones. You fortify the cabin in order to prevent deformation as much as possible and thus provide maximum safety to the occupants, but unless you provide crush zones, they're gonna die anyway from a huge G spike.
In an F1 car, priorities are different. The reason the entire chassis is very rigid is that you are trying to deform the hell out of it with four plus Gs in the turns, and you need max stability in order for the suspension to be stable and work properly under those conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahzari
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahzari
If the actual chassis of this car was any less stiff it would have not been able to keep up to the force of the a) nearly head on impact, b) roll, or c) skid
|
Agreed, but the chassis isn't stiff from front to back in order to provide crashworthiness, as already explained. You're not providing crush zones because they interfere with max performance, and the driver is paid to take the risk. Instead, you provide runoff areas and tire walls in order to minimize injury. Of course, that's not possible on the street.
Voila. Crush zones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahzari
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahzari
What about here?
|
Same deal.
And by the way - none of this directly relates to torsional rigidity as an important part of occupant safety, because it is of little consequence in that regard. More torsional rigidity is a good thing, but it's not a safety issue.