Aubrey McClendon will not be down for corn flakes.!

RidgeHunter said:

Yeah I get that. I'd still be afraid of fawking up the impact though. Not centering it or getting the angle wrong, hesitating, etc.

Click to expand...

Indeed... nothing like ending up a broke-ass quadriplegic stuck in the prison system for the rest of your likely-to-be-drastically-shortened miserable life. Terrifying.

RidgeHunter said:

Yeah I get that. I'd still be afraid of fawking up the impact though. Not centering it or getting the angle wrong, hesitating, etc.

Click to expand...

From looking at the pics, he didn't center it. It looks most of the impact was on the front driver side half of the SUV. Delivering most of the force only to his side. Whether on purpose or not still to be determined I guess.

tRidiot said:

Mine's not.



Actually, the difference is quite significant. The kinetic energy imparted in a crash is only linearly dependent on the mass of an object, but is equally dependent on the square of the velocity of said object. So going faster makes a much bigger impact on the kinetic energy.

Thus, extrapolating from his 5500 pound 2013 Tahoe (if I remember right) at various speeds, we get these values (in newton-meters, or joules):

50 mph - 623,205J (459,652 ft-lb)
85 mph - 1,801,063J (1,328,396 ft-lb)
100 mph - 2,492,821J (1,838,610 ft-lb)
115 mph - 3,296,756J (2,431,562 ft-lb)


As a comparison, your standard 230-grain .45 ACP round fired from a government model 1911 has just under 477J of energy, or almost 325 ft-lb.

Click to expand...

It ain't about the mass of the vehicle, it's about the mass of the body within and the rate of deceleration. A sudden stop against a bridge abutment has no mercy on either the vehicle or the occupant(s).

Woody

woodcdi said:

It ain't about the mass of the vehicle, it's about the mass of the body within and the rate of deceleration. A sudden stop against a bridge abutment has no mercy on either the vehicle or the occupant(s).

Woody

Click to expand...

This is true... but the same rules apply where speed increases force exponentially. I just used the numbers plugged in with vehicle weight to illustrate the magnitude. All that force was applied to the concrete, not to the occupant. The occupant applied his own force to the interior of the vehicle. You make a good point.

This thread and all the "will not be down for breakfast" threads make me wish I'd never joined OKshooters.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Burk Cornelius said:

This thread and all the "will not be down for breakfast" threads make me wish I'd never joined OKshooters.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Oh well...

tRidiot said:

This is true... but the same rules apply where speed increases force exponentially. I just used the numbers plugged in with vehicle weight to illustrate the magnitude. All that force was applied to the concrete, not to the occupant. The occupant applied his own force to the interior of the vehicle. You make a good point.

Click to expand...

The principle is well illustrated with your example. I have a tough time trying not visualizing a body being sifted through the front half of a vehicle.

Woody

Burk Cornelius said:

This thread and all the "will not be down for breakfast" threads make me wish I'd never joined OKshooters.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well see ya...

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

Burk Cornelius said:

This thread and all the "will not be down for breakfast" threads make me wish I'd never joined OKshooters.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That is why I pretty much stick to the classifieds now. Some people are just a waste of oxygen.

tRidiot said:

Actually, the difference is quite significant. The kinetic energy imparted in a crash is only linearly dependent on the mass of an object, but is equally dependent on the square of the velocity of said object. So going faster makes a much bigger impact on the kinetic energy.

Thus, extrapolating from his 5500 pound 2013 Tahoe (if I remember right) at various speeds, we get these values (in newton-meters, or joules):

50 mph - 623,205J (459,652 ft-lb)
85 mph - 1,801,063J (1,328,396 ft-lb)
100 mph - 2,492,821J (1,838,610 ft-lb)
115 mph - 3,296,756J (2,431,562 ft-lb)

Click to expand...

That is correct, but my comment was more intended for the survivability of the collision comparing those speeds. The kinetic energy of the vehicle was not more important than the kinetic energy of the person though.

Another thing seat belts do beside keeping you from eating a steering wheel or flying out is they allow you to decelerate with the vehicle. Vehicles are designed to absorb the energy caused by the collision. The kinetic energy drops drastically the longer it takes the vehicle to stop, stopping distance includes the distance the vehicle collapses. Stretch seat belts, and air bags help deceleration a lot too.

Since you put up a few examples of kinetic energy for the vehicle, lets look at the energy of the person (unrestrained). We will use a 180 pound person for example.

50 mph - 20,395J (15,043 ft-lb)
85 mph - 58,943J (43,474 ft-lb)
100 mph - 81,583J (60,172 ft-lb)
115 mph - 107,893J (79,578 ft-lb)