×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, David Gibbs wrote:
If i had a choice, i would prefer heaving a head on crash with a
current car - not a with a 20 year old car - even if it is in pristine
condition and works just as well. Why? Because technology advanced in
those 20 years.
Hmmm ... let's see, the bumper on the Chevy Impala my dad had in 1975
was made out of metal ... the bumper on my Ford Escape Hybrid is made
out of plastic. Which car do you think will fare better in a head on
crash? The car would fare better and so would the occupants.
Taking this somewhat off topic, I'm not sure how well this car analogy is
working out.
In the old days, cars were designed with a sort of cage mentality: create
a strong, rigid cage around the occupants. This meant the the cars
survived crashes reasonably well. The trouble is that the occupants kept
dying because the full force of the impact was transmitted to the
occupants as a result of the rigidity of the cage. Indeed, often early
race cars would crash and the cars would be perfectly intact but the
driver would be a bloody corpse.
Modern (and much better) design is to sacrifice the car in order to save
the occupants. The car is designed to crumple and bend in order to
lengthen the duration of the impact. By lengthening the time of impact
energy is absorbed and far less force is imposed on the occupants. This
results in far higher occupant survival rates. Sure, your car may be a
total loss but you just walked away from it. This is perfectly
demonstrated by modern Formula 1 cars or by the Ferrari Enzo. Last year
in the Canadian Grand Prix Robert Kubica had a head on collision with a
cement barrier at about 170 miles per hour. The car broke apart and the
carbon fibre nose cone crumpled as designed to absorb the impact. The car
was completely destroyed, only the carbon fibre monocoque remained intact.
But Kubica left the accident with no more than a light concussion.
Similarly, several Ferrari Enzos have been in accidents at over 200 MPH
where the car was completely destroyed but the rather foolish driver
walked away.
So if we're talking about the car surviving, I'll take that old 1975
beater (especially if this is a demolition derby!). But if we're talking
about the occupants I'll take a modern car every time - especially if
someone is offering me a Ferrari!
Oh wait, this isn't the racing fanboy list? ;)
James Rich
if you want to understand why that is, there are many good books on
the design of operating systems. please pass them along to redmond
when you're done reading them :)
- Paul Davis on ardour-dev
midrange.com
