See, that's a common thing, and people go a-wielding their statistics, but think of it this way: The more frontal resistance their is in a crash, the more likely the stress is transferred to the passenger compartment, causing a collapse.

Also, instead of the sophisticated, smooth crumpling front end absobirng all that inertia, your internal organs essentially have to swallow up 4200 pounds of Jag. The force is transferred to you when the car holds together well, unless you're crashing into a car that can be pushed out of the way by your weight advantage. A Smart? They don't have crumple zones really, because they just launch backwards.

And whoever totalled the Vanden Plas shouldn't be congratulated. What they have accomplished is, they've made the world, overall, a worse place. If only very slightly.

 

Listen, Accidents happen when you least expect them to. Whoever goes in search of an accident should have their head seen to because they're a few pennies short of a pound. The dangers are all over the roads, diesel spills, hidden dips, pot holes, drunk drivers etc, Do you really think the owner of that VDP is pleased with what happened to his car? Do you know the details surrounding what happened? I for one don't think he would have been.

But he has a point, it did it's job, protected him from the accident and he walked away unharmed. As much as we, as Jaguar Enthusiasts, love these cars it is important to remember that they are ultimately here to protect the owner.

yeldogt: I'm pleased you survived what was probably a nasty accident to have an X308 totalled.

 

Just don't crash so you don't have to worry about it and then all is good. Wouldn't want to go up against my SUV in my R, nor would I want to be in any of the new cheap tin cans and see a 300 come my way.
This is coming from someone who was sitting at a red light in a volvo S60R when a lady in a Honda Accord was on the phone and looking over her shoulder to pass...instead hitting my dead stop at 45 MPH. Breakaway driver seat helped and I walked away with no issues other than a stiff back for a few weeks. Still miss the totaled R, only had 14K miles on her - first and only lease I had, so it worked out.

I rambled...sorry.

 

Since a driver of a car is not a stressed member of the chassis, the driver's organs do not "have to swallow up 4200 pounds of Jag". Crashing into a hypothetical wall with a rigid front end will cause injury due to the sudden deceleration, not due to the weight of the car. The chassis experiences the greater forces as a result of greater weight for they are stressed members.

 

I was just speaking figuratively... The principle being that since you're wearing a seatbelt, you will experience a greater portion of the 4200 pound car's inertia than if some of the energy were shaved off by a controlled reduction in acceleration produced by a crumpled zone.

 

I hate to sound like a nitpicking jerk, but a driver of a car is not rigidly attached to a car even with a seat belt or a stressed member of the chassis (like the front frame rails). The driver will experience the reduction of his own momentum, not directly that of the 4200lb Jag. The story would be different if the accident was so severe that the driver somehow actually decelerated faster than the entire car and the driver exerted a rearward force on the car. This would be possible if the accident was so severe that the chassis collapses on itself and on the driver. The driver would then become a stressed member and subject to the vehicle's mass. That would be an extreme accident of great speed and fatal in any car of reasonable rigidity (like the x308), light or heavy, due to the deceleration.

Drive safely everyone.....

 

By this logic, someone hitting the proverbial "brick wall" at 70mph will experience the same effects, (all variables eliminated, inc. airbags/ dash materials) whether they're driving a Lister Storm LMP, or a Series III XJ12 weighing twice as much. I was talking about crumple zones, mostly. Allow me to explain.

The stressed members at the frame, providing they are of the same design/ same stressed members, (like the aformentioned cars are, they have the same engine and share essential chassis members (The LMP has noticeable upgrades over the Storm, but, basic similarities persist)) will experience the effects of the different weight, well, differently. The heavier XJ12 will decelerate at a greater rate upon impact, because the crush area will collapse quicker under the added weight, whereas the Lister's front end will crumple at a slower rate, lessning the rate of passenger acceleration. In essence, the added weight on these parts compromised them, and so the front of the heavier car will put up less resistance, ergo making the deceleration from impact faster.

Hehe last time I posted, I simply failed to explain any of this, and I basically said "Two ***** roll down a hill. The heavier one got to the bottom first because of inertia." Which is about as scientifically accurate as global warming theorists are.

-Frasier HAS left the building.

And yes, heavier cars fare well in car-on-car crashes, because 'might is right' when two objects collide. The Smart? It is just flung backwards in an impact with a heavier car, for example.

Sorry for the contrived science.

 

Yes, this logic is part of "the laws of physics". If you have found ways to defy the laws of physics, I'm all ears. You could make billions if you have such an invention! The impact on the driver would be the same. If all variables are excluded except vehicle weight, you can be in a cruise ship or just a chair on wheels with a seat belt, the impact would be the same. Using your false logic of increased vehicle weight increasing driver injury, then riding on a cruise ship would kill thousands all the time from just hitting a wave! Clearly you have never taken a physics class at all before. Or if you have, you failed it b/c there is no way you can believe your logic and even take the first quiz of even a high school physics class and not fail it. This is such a basic fundamental part of physics.

I know what figurative means, but not what "figuraitve" means. I'm assuming you meant figurative, but you are need a different word b/c you aren't using it in the proper context. You should have said 'fabricated'.

Also, SeanB was praising yeldogt's interesting story of the Volvo and happy for him not getting hurt when he got in an accident with his Vanden Plas. No one was celebrating a car crash.

In conclusion, the heavier car in a multiple vehicle accident has a possible advantage over the lighter one. The IIHS even says this.

Your in over your head here (esp. with regards to physics), it's good you realized this and got out of this discussion.

 

Sorry to make that sound like I would've preffered yedogt had been hurt or smething; that isn't the case... I was just saying that it sucks to see a Vanden Plas taken off our roads, they're beautiful cars.

Having survived a very dangerous accident in my car, I'm very happy to report it is unharmed, and still on the roads now. Obvoiusly some aren't so lucky. Having personally done nearly $8,000 damage to my car, I'm actually very lucky the insurance company didn't have rumblings about totalling the car. (only very few X308s are worth more than $16,000, and mine isn;t quite one of them)

I obviously just turned up the wick on my "being a twit"-o-metre for this thread... hate to go back and read a couple of those posts.

My saving factor from this car was the weight distribution/centre of gravity. Thiscar has an exceptionally low centre of ggravity for a large car. The accident I was in would've "tripped" any other car, because at quite a high speed I broadsided a curb after hitting a car. Thankfully, I did end up in the median without a rollover. So, really, that is thanks to God and Jaguar engineers.

yeldogt: Sorry for a poor example, and perhaps the ever-useful Autotrader can get you into another Jag pronto.