!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
The car from the 70's survives accidents better because more of it is rigid, but this makes it more dangerous as more of the force of the accident is transferred to the driver.
Modern crumple zones are placed intentionally so that while the car will crumple, the driver will not.
If I have to pick only one, I'm going to go with modern crumple zones
But man, I do wish we had some kind of magical smart metal that could be as rigid as an old car for low speed collisions, but still crumple for more serious impacts.
Because when you drive an old shitbox like I do, pretty much any damage is enough to total it, and having to get a new car really sucks when the accident was minor enough that no one was going to get hurt anyway.
Reverse Newtonian metal sheet. I think that's doable in my lifetime.
The 70s car might beat the modern car. For the people inside the vehicles, the story is quite different.
Which do you want as a crumple zone: the car or you?
In this economy? Idk man
Damn...
If you're in an old car with no crumple zones, my intuition says it's better to hit a modern car because then you also benefit from the other car's crumple zones. Colliding with another rigid car would basically be like hitting a brick wall. I think the effect on the driver ends up the same in both cases.
If it's two old cars with rigid bodies colliding, it's exactly like hitting a brick wall. Even if the car itself is unharmed, the driver isn't. It's how quickly you stop that makes the impact dangerous, and in a car like that you stop almost instantly.
On the other hand, when two modern cars collide, there's 2x the crumple zones, so the impact is the lowest there.
The thing you got to understand is that the energy of the crash has to go somewhere. The same energy will apply to both cars, the modern car will absorb a lot of it by deforming, the old car won't absorb any in that way because it's a hard piece of metal. And you have to wonder, what is more important to you, the car chassis or the people inside? You might as well ask "why do we put packing peanuts if nails are a lot tougher" or "why do we ship eggs in weird cardboard boxes if a metal square would be more resilient"
Yes, the 70's car would "win out". Its driver, on the other hand would fare much worse than you.
Ideally, people wouldn't treat possibly fatal transit collisions as a sports game. And also ideally, most people would see the uselessness of looking at which car is less damaged. Realistically, I know neither of those are universal, but I do hope they are common.
Yup. Any impacted component that survives means that the force was transferred to the driver instead.
Modern cars look worse after a collision for a reason: If it collapses/crumples, it means that it absorbed some of the forces applied to it rather than transferring it on.
The amount of energy absorbed by the cars is the same for both drivers. (What makes that car existence a risk to both parties.)
The problem of the old car is that it transmits the extra force to the people inside in some of the worst possible ways.
The car would win. The driver would lose.
Have I got a video for you!
Goddamn it's not even close. '59 car dummy got skewered. '09 car dummy landed on a soft fluffy mattress in comparison.
Featured comment on the first video pretty directly answers the question from @OP @Patnou@lemmy.world :
As a Firefighter I was called to an accident which turned out to be a head on collision between 60's model Chrysler and a 2000 model Subaru. The Chrysler looked to have held up pretty good but the driver was taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. The Subaru was totalled back to the windscreen yet the mother and daughter in the car walked away without a scratch.
Another thing to point out is the newer car is "only" a 2009 model. We've had another 17 years since then to make them even safer still.
It'd be interesting to see how much cars have improved since then.
It’s interesting considering how the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety really highlights what is more important for them to reduce in a collision. Modern cars might sustain much more damage and be more likely to get written off as a total loss, but that will probably cost them $30-40k at the high end in most wrecks. But if a person gets seriously injured the insurance company could very quickly be on the hook for the full $100-300k in medical bills most people get coverage for.
The car might sustain less damage, however, the occupant will receive more damage. People buy newer, safer cars, presumably because they like being alive and would prefer to keep doing that.
Modern cars are designed to break before their drivers do, because you can't replace you, but you can buy a new car.
Here is a fictional scenario, you hit a tree at 30 miles and hour your 2026 Volvo is totaled.
Your dad hits a tree at 30 miles an hour in his 1970 chevy, you replace the windshield and hose it out and you can drive that chevy.
Yeah, but the people in the Volvo get to walk away.
Walking away is a lot harder than being hosed away
Dad would be proud to see his beloved Chevy live on.
"fictional". Op is ded
Your car would receive a lot more damage, but the driver in the older car would be much more hurt than you.
Also, modern vehicles are far more reliable and efficient
I know it's a much older car for the example but same idea:
My late grandfather liked to restore Model T and Model A cars. One day he got T-Boned in an intersection by my house at 70 km/hr driving a Model A and Grandma was with him.
The 2005 era van that hit him was a wreck with the front smashed in. The driver was uninjured.
The Model A had a slightly bent fender front-right side and a minor paint scuff. My Grandparents went into the back of an Ambulance.
They survived but had raccoon eyes and were more bruises than healthy flesh for awhile.
How did he get T-boned by your house???
Sorry, I'm a dad, I can't stop it.
Listen Dadeo, that was traumatizing in a way I'm not going to explain for comedic effect. There's only one thing I can do now...
Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.
All good reasons to avoid the 70's car.
In the 70s car, the steering column would impale your chest.
A LOT of people died in car accidents, with the cause of their deaths investigated, to make cars safer.
Also, today's cars are primarily metal, too (but cleverly designed to crumple and absorb the shock from the impact instead of transferring it to the squishy human inside).
A big difference is 70s car might retain its outer shape. Modern car not only intentionally crumples, but the passenger compartment is much stronger to keep all those sharp metal bits away from the soft squishy people
I saw a post where a Cybertruck got T-boned by like a Nissan or something. The Tesla didn't look damaged badly at all and the other car was modern art. Tesla people were bragging about it until someone pointed out that the Nissan driver walked away while the driver of the Tesla broke both legs.
I know this is anecdote, but the point is that vehicle damage doesn't prove people injuries.
Yeah, but also not a fair comparison. Whatever the safety status that Cybertruck might be, getting t-boned is always a challenge. No car has a crumple zone on the drivers side door
Nope. Its much safer to crash in a today car. 70's would break as well and break you more. Both would be totaled anyway in such a case.
Today's cars are designed to crumple and protect you, older cars transmit more damage to your body.
I direct you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
Tldw: cars today are designed to keep the driver safer in a crash, and by having crumple zones and such, the driver is protected more from the forces that are at play.
Edit: aw drat people beat me to the explanation as well as the video! Well shucks at least I had fun commenting lol
It wouldn't win out. They typically didn't have any crumple zones to dissipate the forces of the impact so the full forces in the accident got transferred to the passenger cell and therefore the passengers. Also no seatbelt pre-tensioners to stop you flying forward before the seatbelt locks would engage and no airbags to protect you. Steering columns were also not collapsible so the driver's chest being impacted by the steering wheel was a common thing in a head on.
It's not the speed that kills you. It's the rapid deceleration.
Back in the day, everyone knew someone who'd been killed in a car accident. Everyone.
If two 70s cars collided, all the energy is transferred to your body since the solid construction of the car wouldn't dissipate much of it.
My 2006 Honda Accord coupe weighs almost a thousand pounds more than a 1965 Ford Mustang.
In fact, a 1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria only weighs about 400 pounds more than my Honda.
People WILDLY underestimate how heavy modern cars are, and how much better they are for safety of the occupants.
thank you for the question . it was interesting reading through the responses.
"70s car wins ...but you still lose" lol
Why arent people buying more cars from the 70s?
Parts and servicing is a big problem now. A lot of shops wont touch anything they cant plug a diagnostic computer into.
Some parts are made of unobtanium and require complex workarounds or paying through the nose for parts.
Crumple zones are your friend
In the 70s the cars won but not the people. Modern vehicles let the people survive instead of themselves.
The 70's car might survive but you won't.
There are several reasons. The largest is not what you likely imagine. The biggest change in internal combustion cars of today versus something from the mid 1990's or older is actually the engine, and more specifically, the metal casting techniques.
Older stuff used basic green sand castings. These molds tend to align rather poorly. The outer mold is just compacted oil sand. If the part cannot be cast with green sand using a cope and drag, they used inner cores that are made of chemically hardened sand. All of this is manually aligned and has poor tolerances. One of the causes of poor tolerances is the tendency for the mold and core to shift. The molten metal is a liquid and the sand parts float on this liquid, like a whole lot of floatiness.
Newer techniques use better chemically hardened core like materials, and instead of using green sand with a cope and drag, the entire mold is made of hardened sand that locks with multiple pieces like a puzzle that cannot come apart. This technological shift is the main reason why cars went from lasting 60k to 120k miles to 250k to 500k miles.
Also investment casting is now used on many smaller parts. Basically a wax version of the part is made. This is coated in several layers of a ceramic slurry. Then it is fired in a kiln, burning out the wax and leaving a ceramic negative of the part. The form is placed in sand and then cast. The ceramic is far far more accurate, but is a labor intensive and more involved process.
From my experience in auto body work, owning my own shop, the way cars look is primary down to metal forming machinery and the quality of steel. The thinness of the metal sheet and its strength dictate much, but it is also a compromise in how easily the panel can be assembled on a line. Limits in logistics complexity management are also a critical factor. One of the biggest shifts here in the last twenty years is the use of adhesives and robotics. Adhesives have replaced fasteners and welding in many places on modern vehicles. It is one of the reasons they are so resilient in crashes. This is nothing like the adhesives you find in the US consumer market. These are on the level of fucking dangerous if you stick your fingers together or get them on a hand. They are not taking a thin layer of skin off or letting go like anything you are likely to have used before. These are only available in industry or at an auto paint jobber. The ability to form complex bends and metal drawing operations without cracking the steel sheet are key. Like as a body guy, I am looking at how the panel was initially formed, and then the exact series of forces that went into crumpling and damaging it. My job was to create as close to the same amount of force as possible but in order, and in reverse. Over time, the complexity of forces used to initially form every panel has increased. So when I look at cars, I see this progression of industrial technology and materials.
In other words, six fender washers and three frame bolts cannot compete with fifteen glued panels and complex geometry under the thin surface you see outside. It also makes new cars unrepairable in most circumstances. They are, but not in a traditional sense that passes classical insurance standards. It requires... creativity... like an, artist. (Do not look behind the curtains.)
The actual argument for old cars is ownership.
AT what speed? At 5mph - walking speeds I'll take the 1970s car with the 5mph bumper anyday. However at more realistic speeds the 1970s car will still need expensive repairs - it will be a lot cheaper repairs than a modern car, but it still will need significant work. Meanwhile the modern car means I'm much less likely to need major repairs which often cannot be done at any price.
I'm fairly confident you could drive most modern econoboxes into things at 5mph and come away with just abrasions on the bumpers.
Bumpers are for bumpin' and we should have never let them paint them body coloured.
>