Clan x86
Member Forums => Joe's Bunker of Pie => Topic started by: Joe on November 05, 2007, 01:11:06 pm
-
1. Don't drive within an hour of quitting your job. You'll crash.
2. Seat belts don't help much (see 4).
3. Jeep Cherokee's may look like battle tanks, but they really aren't.
4. I, however, am.
Pictures to follow.
-
Haha, owned via physics. Take that!
-
That sucks, man. Any significant injuries? How'd your car hold up?
-
pics or it didn't happen
-
If that Jeep isn't still in driving condition I hope you were going at least 65mph and hit a brick wall...otherwise LIES! (j/k, hope you're not dead or something)
-
If that Jeep isn't still in driving condition I hope you were going at least 65mph and hit a brick wall...otherwise LIES! (j/k, hope you're not dead or something)
Cherokees crumble when they hit things (or are hit by things). At least that is what I have seen from the few people who I know who have crashed one.
-
Cherokees crumble when they hit things (or are hit by things).
Did you mean crumple? Or are they that bad?
-
Hope all is well Joe. so how did you crash? was it a head to head thing or did you hit a parked car. or were you in the parking lot of your work and you were doing burnouts when all of a sudden you lost control and slammed into the building?
-
Cars are SUPPOSED to crumple when they hit things, that's what the CRUMPLE ZONE is named after. It's so that as much energy as possible is used up bending the metal rather than bending your face.
-
Damn. We need pics. Of the jeep. And you. :)
-
pics or it didn't happen
Second.
Hope you're okay!
-
Cars are SUPPOSED to crumple when they hit things, that's what the CRUMPLE ZONE is named after. It's so that as much energy as possible is used up bending the metal rather than bending your face.
Yes, they're totally supposed to "crumple". But probably not "crumble".
-
If that Jeep isn't still in driving condition I hope you were going at least 65mph and hit a brick wall...otherwise LIES! (j/k, hope you're not dead or something)
Rofl.
You guys are mean.
-
Haha, owned via physics. Take that!
No. Owned by stupidity. Physics just watched.
That sucks, man. Any significant injuries? How'd your car hold up?
I was shaken. Absolutely nothing more.
The Jeep had a worse fate:
Driver's side mirror: Shattered, hanging on by a spring and a few wires.
Driver's side headlight: Shattered, light bulb gone.
Driver's side parking light: Where'd it go? Couldn't tell ya.
Driver's side bumper (corner), moved back a good 6 inches.
Lower radiator hose: Damaged / popped / slid off (I think it leaked before?).
Grille: Snapped in a few places. Nothing major.
License plate: Bent up slightly. Lost a ny-tie holding it on, easily replaced.
Very front of hood (the part that stays down when you pop the hood), snapped fiberglass.
The first three were replaced at a salvage junk yard for $40 (combined). The bumper, we'll fix sooner or later by tying a chain between it and a tree and backing up (dad's idea!). The license plate, grille, and fiberglass, I don't care about. The radiator hose, I see a farm and fleet run in it's future. Either way, I'm back on the street with this monster.
pics or it didn't happen
I told my dad about it immediately when I got home and most of the cool things hanging off it were gone. Now it just looks like a slightly beat up car missing a few lights.
If that Jeep isn't still in driving condition I hope you were going at least 65mph and hit a brick wall...otherwise LIES! (j/k, hope you're not dead or something)
I was going 60. Close enough? (See two down.) Obviously I'm not dead because I posted this. ^_^
Cherokees crumble when they hit things (or are hit by things). At least that is what I have seen from the few people who I know who have crashed one.
Either the trees crumpled first, or my Jeep isn't crumpletastic. And due to the steel frame, I'm guessing the latter.
Hope all is well Joe. so how did you crash? was it a head to head thing or did you hit a parked car. or were you in the parking lot of your work and you were doing burnouts when all of a sudden you lost control and slammed into the building?
Lost control doing 60 down a snowmobile trail, veered to the left (drivers side, as you can tell by the damage list), and took about 20 trees down with me (small ones, mind you.. 3-4 inches diameter).
-
Wow =( That must have been scary =( So fortunate you're okay!
Aside: seat belts help enormously... I hope you were joking...
-
I know seat belts help, but let me put some numbers behind what I said:
[tex]\Delta[/tex] speed: -60mph
Acceleration: between -30 and -60 miles per hour per second
Broken bones: Zero
-
I know seat belts help, but let me put some numbers behind what I said:
[tex]\Delta[/tex] speed: -60mph
Acceleration: between -30 and -60 miles per hour per second
Broken bones: Zero
Pictures?................................................
-
[tex]\Delta[/tex] speed: -60mph
Impossible! :)
Speed is the magnitude of velocity, which clearly means that it is always [tex]\geq 0[/tex].
In case you're curious, it'd make more sense to say both [tex]\Delta v = -60[/tex] and [tex]1 \leq \Delta t \leq 2[/tex], which implies that the acceleration, [tex]-60 \leq a \leq -30[/tex] where [tex]a[/tex] is measured in mph/s (lol).
-
I know seat belts help, but let me put some numbers behind what I said:
[tex]\Delta[/tex] speed: -60mph
Acceleration: between -30 and -60 miles per hour per second
Broken bones: Zero
As you said, you mowed down a bunch of trees. Thus your momentum changed slowly. Thus the force exerted on your car by the tree wasn't too bad. (Force is the derivative of momentum wrt time.)
This, however, is because you were lucky. If you hit a more resilient tree, it would be a completely different story. Your momentum would have gone from huge to zip in a split second, and bam, the tree would have hit your car hard.
Another way to think about this is if you were less lucky and hit a tougher tree, then your car would stop in a split second and your head would go flying into the wheel/surrounding instruments at 60mph.
So do you agree that you just got lucky? Or are you still skeptical?
-
[tex]\Delta[/tex] speed: -60mph
Impossible! :)
Speed is the magnitude of velocity, which clearly means that it is always [tex]\geq 0[/tex].
[tex]\Delta[/tex]speed=speed2-speed1=0-60=-60
Speed might always be positive, but that doesn't mean the change in speed is. :P
-
[tex]\Delta[/tex]speed=speed2-speed1=0-60=-60
Speed might always be positive, but that doesn't mean the change in speed is. :P
lol, yeah. I guess I saw speed with a negative and was too hasty to jump into a reply. At least most of what I said (everything except the "impossible," I suppose :P) was correct, though. :)
-
I hit a tree at <5mph (I know this because the airbags are set to go off at 5mph and they didn't go off), and the car was totaled. Took the car in for a fix to the recalled power steering system, and the next day the car hurled its self in to a tree. Power steering fluid reservoir was empty. I called the dealership, and they accused me of drifting, which really pissed me off. I took a picture of the car and wrote down everything I could remember about all of the events relevant to the crash - conversations with the guys at the dealership etc. I have a pretty good case against them, and I'm going to the insurance board next Wednesday to make it.
Acceleration: between -30 and -60 miles per hour per second
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
-
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
You probably shouldn't equate velocity and acceleration like that, it looks wrong. And also, that's not technically "gravity", it's "acceleration due to gravity"
Also, if I'm understanding right, you're suggesting that the crumple zone of the car is 2m big? That seems a little much to me.
-
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
You probably shouldn't equate velocity and acceleration like that, it looks wrong. And also, that's not technically "gravity", it's "acceleration due to gravity"
Also, if I'm understanding right, you're suggesting that the crumple zone of the car is 2m big? That seems a little much to me.
I didn't mention velocity at all. I was insinuating that, according to the data he provided, he experienced less than 3Gs, which is nothing.
Are you high?
-
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
You probably shouldn't equate velocity and acceleration like that, it looks wrong. And also, that's not technically "gravity", it's "acceleration due to gravity"
Also, if I'm understanding right, you're suggesting that the crumple zone of the car is 2m big? That seems a little much to me.
He's equating acceleration to acceleration (m/h/s and m/s/s are both units of acceleration). That's correct, but I'd say it's also nitpicking. :)
-
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
You probably shouldn't equate velocity and acceleration like that, it looks wrong. And also, that's not technically "gravity", it's "acceleration due to gravity"
Also, if I'm understanding right, you're suggesting that the crumple zone of the car is 2m big? That seems a little much to me.
He's equating acceleration to acceleration (m/h/s and m/s/s are both units of acceleration). That's correct, but I'd say it's also nitpicking. :)
Ah, I thought he was saying that 60 m/s had an acceleration of 30m/s/s.
But in that case, how can -60m/h/s = -27m/s/s? That makes even less sense, unless "m" is being used for two different units. No wonder I'm getting confused..
-
-60m/h/s = -27m/s/s
gravity (at sea level) = -9.8m/s/s
If it really took an entire second for you to slow to a stop, what you experienced was hardly a life threatening situation.
You probably shouldn't equate velocity and acceleration like that, it looks wrong. And also, that's not technically "gravity", it's "acceleration due to gravity"
Also, if I'm understanding right, you're suggesting that the crumple zone of the car is 2m big? That seems a little much to me.
He's equating acceleration to acceleration (m/h/s and m/s/s are both units of acceleration). That's correct, but I'd say it's also nitpicking. :)
Ah, I thought he was saying that 60 m/s had an acceleration of 30m/s/s.
But in that case, how can -60m/h/s = -27m/s/s? That makes even less sense, unless "m" is being used for two different units. No wonder I'm getting confused..
Sorry, I didn't really read that before I posed; it should have read -60mph/s = -27m/s/s, sixty miles per hour per second equals twenty seven meters per second squared.
Proof (http://www.google.com/search?q=-60mph%2Fs+in+m%2Fs%2Fs).
-
Ah, I thought he was saying that 60 m/s had an acceleration of 30m/s/s.
But in that case, how can -60m/h/s = -27m/s/s? That makes even less sense, unless "m" is being used for two different units. No wonder I'm getting confused..
Yeah, it made me cringe a bit too, but I knew what he meant. :)
-
So, are we getting pictures?
-
Like I told rabbit, my dad fixed most of the damage before the sun came back up.
-
Like I told rabbit, my dad fixed most of the damage before the sun came back up.
... :(. I want my money back.
-
It didn't happen.
-
It didn't happen.
x8
-
It didn't happen.
Oh, yes, it so totally did happen. I recieved a text in school saying exactly this: "I just destroyed the jeep." I proceeded to call Joe during lunch, and he told me how he destroyed the jeep. He's a smart one sometimes. Especially when he listens to his brother. He's got to learn not to do that.
-
"Destroyed jeep" & "dad fixed it before I could take pics" doesn't go together
-
Would you like me to take a picture of my phone, displaying the sent text message? I won't for two reasons.
1. Lazy
2. I believe it's been bumped off my outbox.
But really, I only said "destroyed" for dramatic effect. Not to mention that I texted her just after nailing the trees and before surveying the damage.
As far as listening to my brother, he's the one who told me I should drive down the trail.
-
As far as listening to my brother, he's the one who told me I should drive down the trail.
Yes, but see, you did listen to your brother. You should know better not to listen to him. Because, as you say, he is a tard. It also isn't fun recieving text messages saying "I just destroyed the jeep" in the middle of study hall. I tend to yell "what the hell?" and tubby yells at me.