No way to survive at that speed unless you have a full roll cage and a racing harness...even than any high speed crash is a roll of the dice with your life.
Ford Focus 120 MPH Crash Test
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Michael_P
I would think hitting a concrete barrier which does not give at 120MPH would be worse than two cars hitiing head on at 60 MPH.
It is worse, because 2 cars hitting each other at 60 MPH is equivalent to 1 car hitting a concrete barrier at 60 MPH, not 120.
I would think hitting a concrete barrier which does not give at 120MPH would be worse than two cars hitiing head on at 60 MPH.
It is worse, because 2 cars hitting each other at 60 MPH is equivalent to 1 car hitting a concrete barrier at 60 MPH, not 120.
I can't think of a similar concrete barrier on the roadways that I could hit "point blank" at 120. Possibly a toll booth, or bridge support structure. But, even then, there are often barriers, crash absorbent materials and designs to prevent excessive risk.
Certainly going 120MPH on a straight road contains very little risk for the right vehicle. Consider that aircraft do this every day.
Certainly going 120MPH on a straight road contains very little risk for the right vehicle. Consider that aircraft do this every day.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
You don't have to be going that fast all by yourself to create that kind of carnage. Two cars going 60 mph in a head-on will do it also.
someone didn't watch their mythbusters (or missed basic physics).
Oh, please educate me then.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
You don't have to be going that fast all by yourself to create that kind of carnage. Two cars going 60 mph in a head-on will do it also.
someone didn't watch their mythbusters (or missed basic physics).
Oh, please educate me then.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
You don't have to be going that fast all by yourself to create that kind of carnage. Two cars going 60 mph in a head-on will do it also.
someone didn't watch their mythbusters (or missed basic physics).
Oh, please educate me then.
Sure. From what I remember the reason why it's not a 120 MPH equivalent is because there is no energy created. When you hit someone head on, the force of you hitting them is transferred to their vehicle, crumpling it. The force from their vehicle is transferred to yours crumpling it. You can't "create" double the force. Both cars would experience the same forces as if they each hit a wall at 60.
Here's a better explanation than mine:
http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010/05/06/mythbusters-energy-explanation/
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
You don't have to be going that fast all by yourself to create that kind of carnage. Two cars going 60 mph in a head-on will do it also.
someone didn't watch their mythbusters (or missed basic physics).
Oh, please educate me then.
Sure. From what I remember the reason why it's not a 120 MPH equivalent is because there is no energy created. When you hit someone head on, the force of you hitting them is transferred to their vehicle, crumpling it. The force from their vehicle is transferred to yours crumpling it. You can't "create" double the force. Both cars would experience the same forces as if they each hit a wall at 60.
Here's a better explanation than mine:
http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2010/05/06/mythbusters-energy-explanation/
Interesting. Thanks.
One also has to note that explanation relies on both colliding objects being of a somewhat similar mass. If you're going 60 mph in a Focus straight west and hit an east bound train that's traveling at 60 mph head on, you're going to have a vastly different result. The momentum of the train will barely be touched, just like in the case of hitting an invulnerable wall (which has no momentum, and continues to have none after the collision). Meanwhile, what used to be you and the Focus will be going 60 mph in a direction opposite to your original direction of travel.
Can't beat physics. No car could survive that, nor could the passengers. Simply too much energy for a human body to absorb in any kind of capsule.
And IIRC the facts would indicate that the speed of two vehicles hitting squarely head on is a cumulative total for an equivalent crash into a stationary object. Obviously some of the energy is absorbed by the cars structure, so two cars means a slight difference in total energy.
And IIRC the facts would indicate that the speed of two vehicles hitting squarely head on is a cumulative total for an equivalent crash into a stationary object. Obviously some of the energy is absorbed by the cars structure, so two cars means a slight difference in total energy.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I've gone 160 MPH before and know its too dangerous.
I think it depends on the setting and an honest evaluation of your level of skill, as well as the equipment. Weather and traffic permitting, 150+ mph on an American interstate is a fairly ho-hum experience.
I've gone 160 MPH before and know its too dangerous.
I think it depends on the setting and an honest evaluation of your level of skill, as well as the equipment. Weather and traffic permitting, 150+ mph on an American interstate is a fairly ho-hum experience.
Originally Posted By: Garak
One also has to note that explanation relies on both colliding objects being of a somewhat similar mass.
And similar velocity.
That's why they compared "kinetic energy" rather than velocity or mass. As I understand it, you can come up with any number of different values for velocity and for mass, but as long as the kinetic energy of the east-bound object is the same as the kinetic energy of the west-bound object, the force on either object should be the same as if it hit an immovable barrier.
One also has to note that explanation relies on both colliding objects being of a somewhat similar mass.
And similar velocity.
That's why they compared "kinetic energy" rather than velocity or mass. As I understand it, you can come up with any number of different values for velocity and for mass, but as long as the kinetic energy of the east-bound object is the same as the kinetic energy of the west-bound object, the force on either object should be the same as if it hit an immovable barrier.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I've gone 160 MPH before and know its too dangerous.
I think it depends on the setting and an honest evaluation of your level of skill, as well as the equipment. Weather and traffic permitting, 150+ mph on an American interstate is a fairly ho-hum experience.
...provided everything goes well. Things go wrong occasionally, and as Dad used to say "timing is everything"!
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I've gone 160 MPH before and know its too dangerous.
I think it depends on the setting and an honest evaluation of your level of skill, as well as the equipment. Weather and traffic permitting, 150+ mph on an American interstate is a fairly ho-hum experience.
...provided everything goes well. Things go wrong occasionally, and as Dad used to say "timing is everything"!
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Does a Ford Focus go 120 mph??
Oh yes, they do.
Does a Ford Focus go 120 mph??
Oh yes, they do.
- Status
