advertisement


It’s not just 911s and Minis that are big now.

The E-type was always big for a British sports car, look at it compared to the F-type!

It's a good job they've started building wider portcullis's on castles now and all the roads in the UK are much wider than they used to be.

133586d1469624613-hard-believe-f-type-vs-e-type.jpg
Guessing I’m in the minority for preferring the one on the left, I’ll get my coat...
 
The front grills on BMWs are definitely growing...

8_x7_grille_joke.jpg
Good grief those are hideous, I’m sure there are one or two oceanic Disney character that look like that. Or that awful B-movie Venom, or the chap outside Mordor whose head Aragorn removes to end ‘negotiations’.
 
I don't think it works like that though (and, in passing, a 1000kg car doesn't weigh 25% less than a 1250kg car, but 20% less). The pedestrian doesn't become attached to the car, they are, typically, thrown some distance. So it's energy transfer from an impulse, not combined energy of an agglomerated mass. Forgive my rusty physics but the impulse is force over time. Assuming the time is the same, the force is proportional to the kinetic energy, which is directly proportional to the mass. In your example, the impulse experienced by the pedestrian would be 1.25 times as great.

Yes it does work like that, but of course there's lots of other stuff going on too. We must have conservation of momentum, you can't dodge that. If you think through all the aspects which are directly changed by the mass of the car, the only aspect that is modified is the cars initial momentum, and so that is the aspect that I addressed. The point you were initially raising was a basic 'if the car weighs 25% more, it'll make a significant difference', and the answer is actually, no, it won't, because of the relative masses of the two object colliding.

And yes, the 20% vs 25% I did know that, I wasn't sure about your knowledge and was trying to keep the numbers simple (and weight vs mass I dodged too).

Check out the slow motion test dummy vs car in this clip (about 3:30 in):


and you'll see that the car and person stay in contact for much longer than you probably think (people are squishy so the impact isn't maybe as bouncy as you'd expect, again not the technical terms but we're massively into over simplification territory so i don't feel I need to go there), and it's pretty clear that the speed they are travelling ends up basically matched, so as I stated above, the mass of the car makes little difference percentage wise due to the relative masses and conservation of momentum.

Obviously you want the impact to be as long as possible to reduce the force required to accelerate your body up to speed, and that's where modern fancy deforming bodywork and pedestrian protection stuff fits in, but that's unaffected by the mass of the car which was your original point. The take home point is that if modern cars weigh more to protect the occupants, it has surprisingly little effect on the dangers to pedestrians, but there are other changes which can be made to the car design which will have massive benefits. Oh, and don't get run down by a straight fronted object with a non-deformable area for impact with your head (like the windscreen of a bus), as that will be bad.
 
Indeed, it's a virtuous circle which I'm well familiar with (I drive an Audi A2). My point is that the NCAP 'star' rating for safety sent all manufacturers chasing after 5 star ratings, because a 'mere' 4-star car was inevitably one that would kill or maim your kids, obvs. This adds weight, and girth and is largely responsible for where we are today. The toys add more, of course, but in percentage terms, not so much, so are easier for manufacturers to incorporate while telling themselves their extra weight doesn't matter all that much.

Hello from another A2 driver! Alison is doing well at nearly 245,000 miles! :D
 
Agree ref new cars size and safety compared to older cars.

My BMW and Nissan. The Nissan is about the same size as the exec, but lots of safety stuff including pyrotechnics for the bonnet, for pedestrian safety.

93Ktjwh.jpg
 
I bet most of those complaining about modern car sizes and having wet dreams over classic cars don't drive any for any distance.
Having lived with 70s/80s classics for a good while (in the past 10-15 years) and moving to more modern cars, you certainly would not want to be driving anything older than say 20-25 years regularly, for any amount of miles.
Modern niceties such as AC that actually works, sound deadening, reliable electrics, reliable cooling, headlights that actually illuminate etc.
Safety and comfort/space is the reason for new cars getting bigger. Everyone loves the cheeky Mini but you certainly would not want to go on the motorway in one!

And the BMW linked above, I'm sure they are onto a winner and will sell a boat load.

I have an E90 330i and would love an E30 or even a E39 540i but in real terms, actually using one every day is not practical!
I really, really, really, want another Gen-5 Celica, ideally an ST185 GT-Four but again, I know buying an almost 30-year old Rally Special would ruin me!
 
I bet most of those complaining about modern car sizes and having wet dreams over classic cars don't drive any for any distance.
Absolutely. Classic cars are lovely to look at and to take the the pub on a sunny evening. Nothing better. But day to day? No thanks. I have done my time with old cars, when you spend more weekends mending them than using them it's time to have a look at yourself.
The same goes for motorbikes, not that I ride them. However I know a few friends who have spent a fair sum of money on a 60s Brit bike only to discover that it doesn't go, stop or handle and a Japanese 250 is a better machine in every aspect other than appearance. Nice to own, but they are at their best parked in the sunshine. This is of course what killed the Brit bike industry, a Honda CB250 was faster, cheaper and better to drive than a 500 Brit. In addition, it didn't leave oil on the drive.
 
Oh, and don't get run down by a straight fronted object with a non-deformable area for impact with your head (like the windscreen of a bus), as that will be bad

Who'd have thought being hit by a bus would have been bad? Every day is a school day on here.
 
Who'd have thought being hit by a bus would have been bad? Every day is a school day on here.
I can report that hitting a Toyota Starlet is rather unpleasant and results in considerable injuries, and that's even when you have the good luck to hit it at an angle and fly mostly over the top of it.
 
1966_Fiat_Nuova_500F_and_2008_Fiat_500.jpg


We don't have the Panda in the USA, but we do have a 500L which appears to be the same thing but dolled up to look like a 500.

Panda is the same width as the 2007-era 500 at the right in your picture, slightly longer (4") with two more doors and a boxier design to fit more stuff. 500L is a much bigger car.

Not all of the weight and size-growth is due to safety: customer demands for quieter cars mean thicker doors (=wider car) and more sound deadening materals in the cabin (= more weight). People are also taller these days, compared to the 1950s (by about 10 cm, 4" on average). Some things that make a car lighter also make it noisier: for instance, reducing the un-sprung mass in the suspension is generally a good thing, but it also increases the amount of road vibration that gets to the main chassis (because there's less mass in the suspension to absorb that energy). Engineering is hard. Mechanical engineering is very hard, especially at the price constraints of everyday cars, and the cheapest thing to add to a car is.. weight. Colin Chapman's comment about "adding Lightness" was not a joke: it takes a lot of time to design weight out of a car.

Despite the differences in size, at least the 500 has stayed in the same category as the 1957 car: both are A-Segment vehicles, or "city cars". The original BMC Mini was in this class too, but when Rover re-developed it in the 1990s (the project started before BMW's acquisition of Rover), they went up one size to the "supermini" class, or B-Segment. This is ironic, as the UK industry first adopted the term "supermini" in reference the original BMC model. Since then, BMW have made the latest one the size of a VW Golf, so that it's now pretty much in the C-segment, two size categories bigger than the original. Plus all the additional size growth that every other car has had.

The latest 500 Electric model is still in the A-segment, although it's about 6 cm (2.5") bigger all around.
 


advertisement


Back
Top