People complaining about the age of the video and car. Well as the average age of a car in the UK is 8.2 years old, there are more cars on the road from 2010, than there are from 2020. In fact, nearly 1 in 5 cars on are road in the UK were registered BEFORE 2007, yet only 1 in 7 of the cars on the road have been registered since 2018.
@@juhojalonen3046Nope a Wall is solid and isnt moving or deforming just the 1 Ford Focus has to do all the work with the forces having to comprehend it all while 2 Cars would both share the force and the crash wouldn't be such severe also its very unlikely to crash into a wall and in most cases you either crash into a Tree,Car,Truck and maybe homes or into a ditch and all of it can work up the force while a rock solid wall can't do anything and just brings the Car to a Stop in an Instant and there isn't extra time
@@NoCoMpany741False. You can see that the focus deformed in this test as well. Two cars at the same weight, same speed, colliding with each other is same as one of that car crashed into a wall. That is because both cars have the same amount of forces acting on them. In a crash between 2 cars those forces cancel each other and the result will be like in the video. Punch a wall. The reason why the wall does not break is because he is acting by same amount of force that you used to hit the wall. If you hit a wall with a force greater than it can withstand, it will break.
@@vali2638 your explanation breaks down when considering symmetry. There is no symmetric version of a ford focus therefore parts of car A would make impact with *different* parts of car B. Having said that, it much better to use a wall (or better a barrier). More standardised to compare. Less complexity to try to understand what is happening.
I’m actually impressed for a 1998 Focus at such speed into a non deformable barrier to have still been so intact. Despite leg injuries from pedals it fended that off quite well
As an aircraft engineer, I can tell you, you’re incorrect. A deformable barrier will increase the time duration of the collision as it will travel further through it than the Focus would from hitting the immovable barrier. Therefore the impulse is greater here.
@@BoeingvsAirbus1578 This has very little in common with aircraft engineering. I can assure you a deformable barrier is harder on the structure than a hard flat surface. Now, haven't you got a TCAS sensor to change or something?
TCAS ‘sensor’ 😂 it’s cute when the layman tries. It’s called applied physics. I think you are confusing the ‘deformable barrier type’ crash as more demanding on crash structures for the following reasons: - when introduced by Euro NCAP in 1997, the test was more demanding as it only provided a 40% frontal overlap instead of full frontal and - the speed was increased from the 30mph flat wall govt. standard, to 40mph. So for that, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt. In this specific scenario, the Focus itself has a higher rate of deceleration than if it impacted a deformable barrier of equivalent, full frontal width. As the wall does not deform, it shortens the distance and thus the time duration of the collision (impulse). The forces on the Focus here and its occupants would be higher than if it hit a deformable barrier/stationary car or other deformable object at full width. As a licensed aircraft engineer, I have studied and understand physics. Please prove me wrong with Physics. Some conservation of momentum calculations might help with your answer, or you could continue with your high horse attitude and list off aircraft components that don’t exist in practice.
@BoeingvsAirbus1578 We must compare like for like. The NCAP test is performed at 40 mph into a deformable barrier with a 40% offset. This is more demanding of the cars structure than a solid barrier. Obviously a full width test into a solid barrier produces more deceleration forces, but less damage to the passenger compartment. So while you're partially correct, in the context of a realistic crash test the deformable barrier is more useful, and will cause more deformation of the passenger compartment. You don't know why that is, otherwise you wouldn't have written that reply. You're a layman too
A stationary car for the impact might have demonstrated a more realistic scenario in an accident as the stationary car would move under impact. A dummy in the front passenger seat might also be a better comparison with the rear passenger. Nonetheless it is still a frightening proposition either way. These are always fascinating videos to watch. Thank you.
That was a totally flawed test. NO passenger will be in the driver's seat and I didn't see a crash dummy in the passenger seat - where a passenger might sit. The driver wouldn't matter in this test since he will be in that seat regardless.
And I like to point out, while newest vehicles are safer than ever... There is still a hairy upper limit, to how fast of an impact, in which a vehicle can save your life. If you have a head-on between two vehicles doing 50 or 55mph odds are, youre still dead, whether its a 2005 Focus or a 2020 Volvo. This is because once you get into the realm of 45, 50, 55mph impacts, what kills you is deceleration, not vehicle crush. And I mean 45-55mph IN DIRECT IMPACT, not at original travelling speed.
This car in question is older and less premium than today's crumple zones... slightly. But I guess it is representative of average to older than average as these are still out there.
People complaining about the age of the video and car. Well as the average age of a car in the UK is 8.2 years old, there are more cars on the road from 2010, than there are from 2020. In fact, nearly 1 in 5 cars on are road in the UK were registered BEFORE 2007, yet only 1 in 7 of the cars on the road have been registered since 2018.
recordings are from 28/10/2010
11 years ago damn that is a long time
Everyone complaining about it being an old episode, of course. Look at the discription
They should be happy it's uploaded and not lost in a room of dust.
Excuse me. Where in the description does it have the date of the episode?
But you should have used a car to ram into instead of a non moveable wall
why?its the same thing
A wall is the same as two identical Focuses crashing head-on both doing same speed.
@@juhojalonen3046Nope a Wall is solid and isnt moving or deforming just the 1 Ford Focus has to do all the work with the forces having to comprehend it all while 2 Cars would both share the force and the crash wouldn't be such severe also its very unlikely to crash into a wall and in most cases you either crash into a Tree,Car,Truck and maybe homes or into a ditch and all of it can work up the force while a rock solid wall can't do anything and just brings the Car to a Stop in an Instant and there isn't extra time
@@NoCoMpany741False. You can see that the focus deformed in this test as well. Two cars at the same weight, same speed, colliding with each other is same as one of that car crashed into a wall. That is because both cars have the same amount of forces acting on them. In a crash between 2 cars those forces cancel each other and the result will be like in the video.
Punch a wall. The reason why the wall does not break is because he is acting by same amount of force that you used to hit the wall. If you hit a wall with a force greater than it can withstand, it will break.
@@vali2638 your explanation breaks down when considering symmetry. There is no symmetric version of a ford focus therefore parts of car A would make impact with *different* parts of car B.
Having said that, it much better to use a wall (or better a barrier). More standardised to compare. Less complexity to try to understand what is happening.
I’m actually impressed for a 1998 Focus at such speed into a non deformable barrier to have still been so intact. Despite leg injuries from pedals it fended that off quite well
It's impressive, however you are aware that a deformable barrier is actually harder on the crash structures?
As an aircraft engineer, I can tell you, you’re incorrect. A deformable barrier will increase the time duration of the collision as it will travel further through it than the Focus would from hitting the immovable barrier. Therefore the impulse is greater here.
@@BoeingvsAirbus1578 This has very little in common with aircraft engineering. I can assure you a deformable barrier is harder on the structure than a hard flat surface. Now, haven't you got a TCAS sensor to change or something?
TCAS ‘sensor’ 😂 it’s cute when the layman tries. It’s called applied physics. I think you are confusing the ‘deformable barrier type’ crash as more demanding on crash structures for the following reasons:
- when introduced by Euro NCAP in 1997, the test was more demanding as it only provided a 40% frontal overlap instead of full frontal and
- the speed was increased from the 30mph flat wall govt. standard, to 40mph.
So for that, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt. In this specific scenario, the Focus itself has a higher rate of deceleration than if it impacted a deformable barrier of equivalent, full frontal width. As the wall does not deform, it shortens the distance and thus the time duration of the collision (impulse). The forces on the Focus here and its occupants would be higher than if it hit a deformable barrier/stationary car or other deformable object at full width.
As a licensed aircraft engineer, I have studied and understand physics. Please prove me wrong with Physics. Some conservation of momentum calculations might help with your answer, or you could continue with your high horse attitude and list off aircraft components that don’t exist in practice.
@BoeingvsAirbus1578 We must compare like for like. The NCAP test is performed at 40 mph into a deformable barrier with a 40% offset. This is more demanding of the cars structure than a solid barrier. Obviously a full width test into a solid barrier produces more deceleration forces, but less damage to the passenger compartment. So while you're partially correct, in the context of a realistic crash test the deformable barrier is more useful, and will cause more deformation of the passenger compartment.
You don't know why that is, otherwise you wouldn't have written that reply.
You're a layman too
A stationary car for the impact might have demonstrated a more realistic scenario in an accident as the stationary car would move under impact. A dummy in the front passenger seat might also be a better comparison with the rear passenger. Nonetheless it is still a frightening proposition either way. These are always fascinating videos to watch. Thank you.
This represents a head on crash though with an identical car travelling at the same speed
And viola! Rear airbags introduced recently!
Only Mercedes-Benz s class
Wasn't something like this uploaded in December 2016?
the airbag in the front driver seat, actually fired late. you can see it if you watch the slo mo. Thats why it seems that it had hit the wheel.
The rear seats in the pickup truck I have have seat tensioners
I have has*
That was a totally flawed test. NO passenger will be in the driver's seat and I didn't see a crash dummy in the passenger seat - where a passenger might sit. The driver wouldn't matter in this test since he will be in that seat regardless.
And I like to point out, while newest vehicles are safer than ever... There is still a hairy upper limit, to how fast of an impact, in which a vehicle can save your life. If you have a head-on between two vehicles doing 50 or 55mph odds are, youre still dead, whether its a 2005 Focus or a 2020 Volvo. This is because once you get into the realm of 45, 50, 55mph impacts, what kills you is deceleration, not vehicle crush. And I mean 45-55mph IN DIRECT IMPACT, not at original travelling speed.
Anybody notice that the front passenger airbag broke the windscreen.
I certainly noticed that, and was quite surprised.
when was this video made?
2010 I think.
Did they remove the engine in this car?
no, it would show a false result, they dont remove the engine in crash test
I’m pretty sure they do which does result in a false result but nobody seems to talk about it
I think the dummy in the front had the seat too far forward
*reupload*
nice reupload to milk views
This car in question is older and less premium than today's crumple zones... slightly. But I guess it is representative of average to older than average as these are still out there.
What is evident from the data and video is not what is being said/propagated by the presenter. Welcome to modernity.
gaslighting... keep the populus dumb and used to being manipulated, and straight up normalize being violated with dishonesty.
I am surprised this video has like 25 comments
Lol why did I get this?
Why not put 5 dummies in 1 car? Why waste cars?
Rating: poor?
🖐