Car (Automobile) Conspiracy????

Hi everyone,

I was just pondering the horrific carnage that is often witnessed at traffic accidents, and I was wondering why!!!!!

Why is that that modern cars crumple or dint at the first exposure to minor shock (e.g. bumping into a post or wall)?

Do we not have materials these days which are extremely light and extremely strong? Can we make cars out of materials which do not dent or crumple in a crash?

Why is it that modern cars are made out of thin aluminium which seems to bend and dent at the slightest exposure to shock?

Can we feasibly make vehicles out of the following:

kevlar?
fiberglass?
armour?


Surely we have the technology these days to make cars (automobiles) out of materials which do not 'give' upon impact?

reply to post by chemistry


The thinking is that the crumpling of the car lessens the forces imposed on the passengers - in effect acting as a cushion - whereas a strong/rigid material would instantly stop but the passengers would not. Its the same concept when trying to catch an egg - you have to slowly reduce momentum in order for it not to break. The problem is that too weak materials lead to a complete crushing effect. Its worse outside of the US where the distance need to reach the crushing effect is less due to the small size of the cars.

henry ford did make a dependable body with hemp and the cushion effect was greater than steel there is a canadian that has the rights to his patents and are making semis based from that

I believe that cars are built like this for two reasons. For one, to absorb impact in crumple zones and minimize injuries and two, the damages incurred in auto wrecks supports a part of the automotive repair business and also insurance business. Cars are strategically engineered so that as many people as possible profit from one car. I believe this is also why modern cars are engineered with poorly manufactured components that last just long enough to get the car through the warranty period.

It's called a crumple zone. Similar to when a cricketer whilst catching the ball will move his hands backwards so the force is lessened.

Crumple zone

As the others have said the cars are made to absorb the energy of the crash so your body doesn't have to.
I used to drive around in a 1969 Triumph Spitfire that had solid steel chassis rails finished of with highly pointed chromed bumpers, I could probably have hit a wall at 50 and barely dented the car, my head and chest on the other hand would have been crushed like a melon under a sledge hammer

reply to post by chemistry


I worked in the automotive industry for 38 years. In answer to your question about making cars from stronger materials, yes, they could, at a higher cost. They could also make engines that had plenty of horsepower and got 60 miles per gallon too, but they will not, because Big Oil pays them too much under the table. And lastly, they could make cars without built in obsolescence, but they will not. I know that build in obsolescence in GM cars, hard to fix, but well worth it.

Kevlar I believe costs more per square metre then carbon fibre. Fibreglass is a current mainstay but is being phased out. Armour is too costly and heavy as it errodes efficiency.

reply to post by autowrench


By 2030 - 2040 there wlll no longer be any petroclchemical powered transportation produced new as the 78 yr dominance of Big Oil over the auto industry is over and done.

The "Wars over Energy" are also over and done.

reply to post by chemistry


For a little perspective on what I believe you are referring to as carnage. If you are writting about what the vehicle looks like then yes newer cars do look a lot worse for wear, and tear after even a moderate speed collision. This is on purpose as explained in previous posts about crumple zones. I saw a wreck between a newer Montero, and a brand new Yukon one time. The two vehicles looked like they had been through a war zone, but all the occupants walked away. My Father years ago saw an old IHC Scout II hit a concrete barricade at about 35mph. The driver was impaled by the steering column, and bled out before help could even be called. The truck sustained only minor damage, and was driven from the scene. So newer cars = higher rate of totalled cars with surviving occupants. Older cars = car can survive a nuclear bomb, but all the occupants are dead. I still like to drive old cars though. Go figure.

I think some older cars used to have pistons or springs on their bumpers which could absorb some minor shock. I remember a car as recent as 1990 having an actual steel bumper inside some plastic piece. It was possible to accidentally ding a pole or a snowbank at slow speed with no worries.

But anything newer than that and the term "bumper" for anything outside of a pickup truck is a complete misnomer. Cars really don't have bumpers anymore. They're pretty much all made of high-density foam that crumples into pieces at anything resembling a 5mph impact. The PVC or thin polycarbonate on the outside of that pretty much shatters easily too, so even the most minor ding has the potential to leave a car looking like hell until you or your insurance manages to fork up the dough.

I guess there's some money to be made in $700 pieces of injected foam plastic, and bumpers that actually functioned as such aren't as profitable. So outside of some niche applications (eg: offroad vehicles) they don't make real bumpers anymore.

Of course some people would argue that it's done some to improve pedestrian collision safety. But then again, the 3000lb car might not break your leg... But a push into the non-giving asphalt from a soft-crumple car still likely to cause some serious injury to a pedestrian. Kind of a pointless "advance" in my book.

Originally posted by pauljs75

Of course some people would argue that it's done some to improve pedestrian collision safety. But then again, the 3000lb car might not break your leg... But a push into the non-giving asphalt from a soft-crumple car still likely to cause some serious injury to a pedestrian. Kind of a pointless "advance" in my book.

It might help with pedestrian collision but the main reason bumpers aren't solid metal is to save the life of the occupants of the car.

Imagine which would hurt more, running head first into a block of foam or running head first into a solid metal wall. The bumper is the bit of impact absorbent foam that your car carries around with it, otherwise we would have to try to convince people to foam coat all of their brick walls

reply to post by davespanners


Awesome idea! I plan to write my representative today, and demand that all permanent structures be immediately foam wrapped at least 4' up. Think of the lives it would save!!!

Also since the foam would only be good to about 35mph for a 4000lb car. We should electronically limit all cars 4000lb, and under to 35mph max speed. 4000lb - 10,000lb to 20mph max, and all vehicles 10,000lb and over can only travel 15mph. I knew I should have gone into politics, I would be so good at it. I would also immediately buy tons of stock in a plastics company that manufactures said foam.

Because making cars out of those materials would make the cars too costly.

aluminum is cheap and light

carbon fiber is expensive and light.

They make cars that are easily damaged and expensive to fix for a reason.

This is how a modern car fares against one that was made in te 50s.