Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
They have crash tested the X-Prize version of the VLC, and it does great. I think that Oliver Kuttner mentions the specifics in the video above.
|
He mentions it.
But I'd rather see it.
40% offset crashes go well , fine but what with other crash types ?
Like head on.
Rear ending.
Pole test - euroncap and real life would have it go smack between the wheel pods ... ouch.
Quote:
|
Also the shape is structurally robust. The wheels and their support structures are able to absorb and dissipate energy.
|
If the VLC is hit on the wheels ... i.e not too high.
Especially in the US, a lot of vehicles will hit over the wheels, or hit the wheels so high they won't nearly absorb as much energy .
Once over the wheels, there's little to stop them ...
The tube frame will surely be robust enough for the vehicle itself.
I have my doubts about its integrity when something else plows into it though ...
It may look like a roll cage, but a roll cage still has a crumple zone around it - the original car.
The holes in the cage are too large compared to the tubes.
That doesn't just mean the tubes will give way more easily, you'll also get intrusion between the tubes.
Quote:
|
More weight means more energy to absorb. In a majority of all types of crashes, higher weight is a disadvantage
|
More weight is more energy.
But more weight is good when you plow into something lighter.
Basic Newtonian physics.
What I find really strange about Kuttner's talk, is that he praises the advantages of his design elements like the suspension - but then doesn't use these advantages in the VLC ...
Like the extra space the quite ingenious suspension allows.