Ukrainian Armoured vehicle Flattens car. The facts.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I watched some videos and I have no idea what side is responsible for this. But as a official race instructor and motor vehicle master, I know a few things about cars and physics.

The driver got out alive but was completely obtuse to the things happening on the road around before. Additional these armored vehicles are not easy to drive. It could have been a complete accident, this is a chain driven vehicle, that means steering can happen on a dime, literally. If you change speed of one of the chains too fast that thing will turn and slide. Especially on tarmac where the traction giving part (tracks) are not "at home".

It's a bit like a race car with locked differential or none at all, but 90°offset. What the tires / chains can not make up in traction will be turned into friction, reversing one side of power train isn't even needed. And where the friction is higher, grip is higher.

I agree it has the optics of the armored vehicle trying last chance to run over the vehicle though.

Yank that lever and the differential speed between the chain tracks get's too high, you end up in this drift. Also I heard from others offline complaining that the vehicle rested for a while "to make sure to crush". I can only say that if you crash like this you check out the situation before, because you might kill the other one by reversing things. Similar to why you don't take off helmets from motor cycle drivers after an accident, even if they can speak to you.

From the footage alone it is not completely visible because I am not used to the suspension behavior, but very used to analyze such footage from race cars. I don't necessary see intent here.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

Yup, the car is the subject.

The bigger picture is the run up to the car flattening. As far as I'm aware nobody else has put the video of the Car being run over into context.

The claims here and elsewhere are is it was just a mindless act of violence.

I have proven without a shadow of a doubt a close-quarters firefight between Russian and Ukrainians was going on not 75 yards behind the car flattening incident.

In front of the car, not behind it.

Truck from one direction with tracked vehicle behind it. Car form the other direction.

Just an auto accident.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Soloprotocol

No. I do not. That driver needs a ticket for driving too fast for conditions and distracted driving.

Uninvolved civilian vehicles need to be expected in urban warfare. By your logic, he should have flattened every building within sight as they could have enemy snipers in them.

The truck that was the center of firefight had come from the same direction as the tracked vehicle. The car was coming from the other way. How could it have been involved in supporting the truck chase and fire fight?

The other videos show the curve in this part of the road that also contributed to the loss of control of the tracked vehicle. Form the angle your video presents, the road looks straight, it is not.

Again, accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.

Road looks dry to me. Hardly even a puddle anywhere. What next, Black ice?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Soloprotocol

No. I do not. That driver needs a ticket for driving too fast for conditions and distracted driving.

Uninvolved civilian vehicles need to be expected in urban warfare. By your logic, he should have flattened every building within sight as they could have enemy snipers in them.

The truck that was the center of firefight had come from the same direction as the tracked vehicle. The car was coming from the other way. How could it have been involved in supporting the truck chase and fire fight?

The other videos show the curve in this part of the road that also contributed to the loss of control of the tracked vehicle. Form the angle your video presents, the road looks straight, it is not.

Again, accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.

Road looks dry to me. Hardly even a puddle anywhere. What next, Black ice?

Ok, the Russian truck brought its own mud to leave tracks in. Before they started shooting, everyone got out and put the mud where the wheels would go and the driver pulled forward. They then decided that was the place to stop and shoot it out. They got back into the truck and started shooting.

Does that make you happy as it makes your speculation work.

Why do we need a motivation for an auto accident other than conditions and distracted driving.

Your argument for intentionally driving onto the car is the same as the Titanic hit the iceberg to be famous. One plus one equils three with your logic.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Soloprotocol

No. I do not. That driver needs a ticket for driving too fast for conditions and distracted driving.

Uninvolved civilian vehicles need to be expected in urban warfare. By your logic, he should have flattened every building within sight as they could have enemy snipers in them.

The truck that was the center of firefight had come from the same direction as the tracked vehicle. The car was coming from the other way. How could it have been involved in supporting the truck chase and fire fight?

The other videos show the curve in this part of the road that also contributed to the loss of control of the tracked vehicle. Form the angle your video presents, the road looks straight, it is not.

Again, accident caused by road conditions and distracted driver.

Road looks dry to me. Hardly even a puddle anywhere. What next, Black ice?

Ok, the Russian truck brought its own mud to leave tracks in. Before they started shooting, everyone got out and put the mud where the wheels would go and the driver pulled forward. They then decided that was the place to stop and shoot it out. They got back into the truck and started shooting.

Does that make you happy as it makes your speculation work.

Why do we need a motivation for an auto accident other than conditions and distracted driving.

Your argument for intentionally driving onto the car is the same as the Titanic hit the iceberg to be famous. One plus one equils three with your logic.

Just see what you want to see now?. The truck drives over at least two grass verge. I don't see any mud tracks before that other than in between the grass verges and tire tracks on the grass itself.

Once again. Road condition are dry.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Also I heard from others offline complaining that the vehicle rested for a while "to make sure to crush".

Watch the video again. The driver reverses off the car. No tracks whatsoever to suggest he moved forward and did a U-turn to get back onto the road.

No Accident. Deliberate act.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

So, if the road does not have standing water on it, it is dry?

I give up arguing. Not worth the time and effort to continue.

Regardless of what the tracked vehicle was doing, it looked to me like the driver of the car was practically playing chicken with it. Not very smart. You'd think he'd be paying extra close attention to everything going on in front of his vehicle.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Road looks dry to me. Hardly even a puddle anywhere. What next, Black ice?

A tracked vehicle RELIES on not too much friction to change curves. You have zero understanding about traction and grip levels, I love it how you try to estimate the grip level of that tracked vehicle on tarmac from your computer screen.

You show a lot of ignorance about the details of the mechanics of motion. Yes indeed a tracked vehicle like that with steel tracks for actual combat (not rubber for parades and cruising around in the city).

Without even relying on this detail I can tell you that SOMETHING will give. It's either the tarmac that is ripped out because the grip level is too high or the tracks begin to slide because. Evidently the grip level here is very low as even my daughter could tell you this vehicle is on the verge of drifting. It's clearly visible.

So don't argue about grip levels if video evidence tells us there is lack of grip. And even people like me that learned to feel it while on the road (that we both are not, there, in a tracked vehilce!) do miss-judgements and end up sideways in the track reinforcement rails doing 200+.

So please.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Road looks dry to me. Hardly even a puddle anywhere. What next, Black ice?

A tracked vehicle RELIES on not too much friction to change curves. You have zero understanding about traction and grip levels, I love it how you try to estimate the grip level of that tracked vehicle on tarmac from your computer screen.

You show a lot of ignorance about the details of the mechanics of motion. Yes indeed a tracked vehicle like that with steel tracks for actual combat (not rubber for parades and cruising around in the city).

Without even relying on this detail I can tell you that SOMETHING will give. It's either the tarmac that is ripped out because the grip level is too high or the tracks begin to slide because. Evidently the grip level here is very low as even my daughter could tell you this vehicle is on the verge of drifting. It's clearly visible.

So don't argue about grip levels if video evidence tells us there is lack of grip. And even people like me that learned to feel it while on the road (that we both are not, there, in a tracked vehilce!) do miss-judgements and end up sideways in the track reinforcement rails doing 200+.

So please.

I wasn't talking about the track vehicle. I was talking about the truck that came to a stop. Have a look at the road, pavement, and car park the truck rolled to a stop in...All Bone dry.

ps, I'm not the one who's arguing about wet roads, dry roads, road conditions. I seriously couldn't give a rats arse if the roads were covered in strawberry-flavored KY jelly.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
Regardless of what the tracked vehicle was doing, it looked to me like the driver of the car was practically playing chicken with it. Not very smart. You'd think he'd be paying extra close attention to everything going on in front of his vehicle.

The driver was on the correct side of the road doing what drivers do. Driving with the intention of going somewhere. She probably had no clue as to what was unfolding 500 yards up the road. The older my parents get the worse their ability to drive gets.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Soloprotocol

So, if the road does not have standing water on it, it is dry?

I give up arguing. Not worth the time and effort to continue.

How do you determine how dry a road is?. Lick it?.

If I'm doing a blind test and never noticed it had been raining I generally go with Colour. If it's darker than it should be, it's wet. Grey and dry looking, Dry.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Trucks have ABS or similar. Once the brake system detects loss of traction (= the tires slide) it will release brake pressure until that situations is resolved and then slowly reapply.

This is why today's cars can brake very good without loosing much distance to tire sliding. It's audible if you know what to listen for. I can hear that three curves up the track if the student is doing # in the car or not.

Tracked vehicles can not deploy ABS because they only have two parts that deliver traction and loss of traction is needed if you want the contraption to not only be able to drive straight lines.

That's why in 4x4 (not AWD) trucks and jeeps with front back and middle differential, if you lock all of them you can not steer anymore. Tires and the whole suspension of cars and everything that drives on wheels relies on similar principle. A tire does not want to turn on the non rotational axis. That's why on the front, the wheels do not turn like in a card box wheel but actually move in different radius and change their angle to the street.

This is important because depending on the angle, the profile will touch different. This is why race cars and street cars are different in suspension setup from the beginning it's not just a comfort thing.

And so are trucks and armored track vehicles, you can not compare both. Again we are both not experts on the matter but physics and video evidence does not exclude and accident. Basta.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Trucks have ABS or similar. Once the brake system detects loss of traction (= the tires slide) it will release brake pressure until that situations is resolved and then slowly reapply.

.

Another one who didn't watch the video. The truck can have all the brakes it want's if the guy behind the wheel is dead a fat lot of good abs will do. The truck rolls to a stop...Because?

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Trucks have ABS or similar. Once the brake system detects loss of traction (= the tires slide) it will release brake pressure until that situations is resolved and then slowly reapply.

This is why today's cars can brake very good without loosing much distance to tire sliding. It's audible if you know what to listen for. I can hear that three curves up the track if the student is doing # in the car or not.

Tracked vehicles can not deploy ABS because they only have two parts that deliver traction and loss of traction is needed if you want the contraption to not only be able to drive straight lines.

That's why in 4x4 (not AWD) trucks and jeeps with front back and middle differential, if you lock all of them you can not steer anymore. Tires and the whole suspension of cars and everything that drives on wheels relies on similar principle. A tire does not want to turn on the non rotational axis. That's why on the front, the wheels do not turn like in a card box wheel but actually move in different radius and change their angle to the street.

This is important because depending on the angle, the profile will touch different. This is why race cars and street cars are different in suspension setup from the beginning it's not just a comfort thing.

And so are trucks and armored track vehicles, you can not compare both. Again we are both not experts on the matter but physics and video evidence does not exclude and accident. Basta.

ps. Don't care about any of the above.

pps, I'm done replying to my own thread as It's been infiltrated by morons. Goodbye.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

At least I have the education to participate about vehicle physics earned through years of work and knowledge, two official titles, one of it is an international accepted degree in motor vehicles. I can school apprentices, just saying. Hardly a "moron".

So you can figure how much worth your amateur opinion to me is if you can't argue with facts and physics but rely on your gut.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Another one who didn't watch the video. The truck can have all the brakes it want's if the guy behind the wheel is dead a fat lot of good abs will do. The truck rolls to a stop...Because?

The driver isn't dead. Take your own advice lol. It's cringe, but once you get aware of you fail you will facepalm yourself.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
Regardless of what the tracked vehicle was doing, it looked to me like the driver of the car was practically playing chicken with it. Not very smart. You'd think he'd be paying extra close attention to everything going on in front of his vehicle.

The driver was on the correct side of the road doing what drivers do. Driving with the intention of going somewhere. She probably had no clue as to what was unfolding 500 yards up the road. The older my parents get the worse their ability to drive gets.

The tracked vehicle was directly in front of her on her side of the road before it momentarily went to the other side, and then back to her side of the road again when it ran over her vehicle.


As far as her not knowing what was going on further down the road: Who's fault might that be? Hers.

Is she unaware that she is currently living in a war zone? Being old is not a reasonable excuse for driving in a war zone. In that situation, anyone behind the wheel of a car should be paying extra close attention to everything that is happening in front of them. If someone is unable to do so, then they shouldn't be out cruising around town.

It is just a car commercial for Lada.


Just kidn, happy she survived. Now end this war Putin