>    "Large vehicles are generally designed to be
>     stiffer and have less crumple zone protection."
>
> I would think that this would not be the case,
> rather, I would think that adequate 'crumple'
> would be engineered in and would further more be
> proportional 'crumple' per the vehicles weight
> *yet* providng for the same amount of personnel
> safety........

> (Discussion above was assumed above to involve only
>  passenger vehicles

It may be wrong, but I'm basing what I said on what I have read and heard,
including safety discussions related specifically to the topic in hand. Our
AA has on a number of occasions made the statement that 4WD vehicles are
less safe than cars for their own occupants in accidents for this reason.

I suspect that the use of wimpy (and therefore effective) crumple zones on
4WD vehicles that are DESIGNED to take continual mid amplitude pounding may
lead to unacceptable structural deformation when subjected to real offroad
use. The fact that most don't get such use means that such a consideration
often isn't necessary BUT they would have to design to the potential use
that they claim the vehicle can be put to.

One also may have to think about square / cube law where a larger vehicle
has its mass increase more rapidly than its linear dimension or area. This
is perhaps not the normal cubed or 3/2 power laws as a vehicle more
approximates a series of slabs with a hollowish interior but it is probably
a factor.



        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads