[LINK] Electric vehicles and generation

Karl Auer kauer at biplane.com.au
Sun Jul 23 17:23:44 AEST 2006

On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 15:33 +1000, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> That is counter intuitive, so it's probably true. But I don't understand 
> how an aluminum can that can be crushed flat against your forehead but a 
> tin can can't would be safer than the tin can version?  Maybe the synthetic 
> acrylic materials, oil based are they?, are more crush resistant. ???  They 
> would certainly be lighter.

The main function of a crumple zone is to dissipate energy as it
crumples. Your aluminium vs. tin can is a great example - would you
prefer to be hit by a hammer with an aluminium can tied to the front, or
one with a tin can tied to the front? The answer is that it depends on
the size of the hammer.

This is why SUVs and bull bars are a bad idea - they depend for their
illusory "safety" on *other people's* crumple zones. They "win" by
transferring more of their energy to the other vehicle. If they hit a
non-crumpling object, their extra rigidity translates to harder
deceleration effects on the passengers....

Regards, K.

Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)

More information about the Link mailing list