!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
The car from the 70's survives accidents better because more of it is rigid, but this makes it more dangerous as more of the force of the accident is transferred to the driver.
Modern crumple zones are placed intentionally so that while the car will crumple, the driver will not.
If I have to pick only one, I'm going to go with modern crumple zones
But man, I do wish we had some kind of magical smart metal that could be as rigid as an old car for low speed collisions, but still crumple for more serious impacts.
Because when you drive an old shitbox like I do, pretty much any damage is enough to total it, and having to get a new car really sucks when the accident was minor enough that no one was going to get hurt anyway.
Reverse Newtonian metal sheet. I think that's doable in my lifetime.
Yes, the 70's car would "win out". Its driver, on the other hand would fare much worse than you.
Ideally, people wouldn't treat possibly fatal transit collisions as a sports game. And also ideally, most people would see the uselessness of looking at which car is less damaged. Realistically, I know neither of those are universal, but I do hope they are common.
Yup. Any impacted component that survives means that the force was transferred to the driver instead.
Modern cars look worse after a collision for a reason: If it collapses/crumples, it means that it absorbed some of the forces applied to it rather than transferring it on.
The amount of energy absorbed by the cars is the same for both drivers. (What makes that car existence a risk to both parties.)
The problem of the old car is that it transmits the extra force to the people inside in some of the worst possible ways.
Have I got a video for you!
Edit: with narration https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U
I love how much this one video has done to explain new car safety.
It's honestly worth keeping the principle behind crumple zones in mind with everything:
If energy can go somewhere else, then less of it will be transferred to what matters.
For cars, the energy going into bending and breaking the materials of the crumple zone then doesn't get transferred to the interior compartment.
For Xbox controllers, they're designed so that when they drop, the batteries shoot out and go flying, which means less energy goes into the controller shell and internals.
And with a lot of laptops these days, you're seeing the actual toughest, most survivable ones not be built out of heavy rigid metal and glass like Apple does, but out of light flexible aluminum composites. A) they weigh less so there's less potential energy involved in a fall, and B) some of the energy gets transferred into bending the shell which will then snap back to form.
Goddamn it's not even close. '59 car dummy got skewered. '09 car dummy landed on a soft fluffy mattress in comparison.
Featured comment on the first video pretty directly answers the question from @OP @Patnou@lemmy.world :
As a Firefighter I was called to an accident which turned out to be a head on collision between 60's model Chrysler and a 2000 model Subaru. The Chrysler looked to have held up pretty good but the driver was taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. The Subaru was totalled back to the windscreen yet the mother and daughter in the car walked away without a scratch.
It’s interesting considering how the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety really highlights what is more important for them to reduce in a collision. Modern cars might sustain much more damage and be more likely to get written off as a total loss, but that will probably cost them $30-40k at the high end in most wrecks. But if a person gets seriously injured the insurance company could very quickly be on the hook for the full $100-300k in medical bills most people get coverage for.
Another thing to point out is the newer car is "only" a 2009 model. We've had another 17 years since then to make them even safer still.
It'd be interesting to see how much cars have improved since then.
The 70s car might beat the modern car. For the people inside the vehicles, the story is quite different.
Which do you want as a crumple zone: the car or you?
In this economy? Idk man
In the US medical costs would bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.
Even having insurance is no guarantee.
The car would win but the occupants would suffer more. Your new car is designed to crumple around you to help save you.
It’s not certain that the car will win: https://youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck
Although I wonder about that since I also saw the results of classic crash tests (in a museum and web site) with 60s Mercedes and Peugeot where the cars were more stiff than nowadays.
Maybe that Cadillac is a special case or these cars have their weak points where they break apart in non classical test settings.
The car might sustain less damage, however, the occupant will receive more damage. People buy newer, safer cars, presumably because they like being alive and would prefer to keep doing that.
Modern cars are designed to break before their drivers do, because you can't replace you, but you can buy a new car.
The car would win. The driver would lose.
The thing you got to understand is that the energy of the crash has to go somewhere. The same energy will apply to both cars, the modern car will absorb a lot of it by deforming, the old car won't absorb any in that way because it's a hard piece of metal. And you have to wonder, what is more important to you, the car chassis or the people inside? You might as well ask "why do we put packing peanuts if nails are a lot tougher" or "why do we ship eggs in weird cardboard boxes if a metal square would be more resilient"
I saw a post where a Cybertruck got T-boned by like a Nissan or something. The Tesla didn't look damaged badly at all and the other car was modern art. Tesla people were bragging about it until someone pointed out that the Nissan driver walked away while the driver of the Tesla broke both legs.
I know this is anecdote, but the point is that vehicle damage doesn't prove people injuries.
Nope. Its much safer to crash in a today car. 70's would break as well and break you more. Both would be totaled anyway in such a case.
Today's cars are designed to crumple and protect you, older cars transmit more damage to your body.
I know it's a much older car for the example but same idea:
My late grandfather liked to restore Model T and Model A cars. One day he got T-Boned in an intersection by my house at 70 km/hr driving a Model A and Grandma was with him.
The 2005 era van that hit him was a wreck with the front smashed in. The driver was uninjured.
The Model A had a slightly bent fender front-right side and a minor paint scuff. My Grandparents went into the back of an Ambulance.
They survived but had raccoon eyes and were more bruises than healthy flesh for awhile.
How did he get T-boned by your house???
Sorry, I'm a dad, I can't stop it.
In the 70s car, the steering column would impale your chest.
A LOT of people died in car accidents, with the cause of their deaths investigated, to make cars safer.
Also, today's cars are primarily metal, too (but cleverly designed to crumple and absorb the shock from the impact instead of transferring it to the squishy human inside).
Everyone is concentrating on the crumple zones and safety at the crash. Remember that modern cars have features that make it easier to avoid the crash in the first place. Antilock brakes. Traction control. Lane assist/warning. Better headlamps, adaptive headlamps. Better suspension and handling. All things to avoid crashes.
All good reasons to avoid the 70's car.
If I got in a collision with a car from the 70s with a car today
Everyone is concentrating on that because that's what the actual question is about. OP didn't ask to avoid the collision.
If you're in an old car with no crumple zones, my intuition says it's better to hit a modern car because then you also benefit from the other car's crumple zones. Colliding with another rigid car would basically be like hitting a brick wall. I think the effect on the driver ends up the same in both cases.
If it's two old cars with rigid bodies colliding, it's exactly like hitting a brick wall. Even if the car itself is unharmed, the driver isn't. It's how quickly you stop that makes the impact dangerous, and in a car like that you stop almost instantly.
On the other hand, when two modern cars collide, there's 2x the crumple zones, so the impact is the lowest there.
Your car would receive a lot more damage, but the driver in the older car would be much more hurt than you.
Also, modern vehicles are far more reliable and efficient
Here is a fictional scenario, you hit a tree at 30 miles and hour your 2026 Volvo is totaled.
Your dad hits a tree at 30 miles an hour in his 1970 chevy, you replace the windshield and hose it out and you can drive that chevy.
Yeah, but the people in the Volvo get to walk away.
Walking away is a lot harder than being hosed away
Dad would be proud to see his beloved Chevy live on.
Back in the day, everyone knew someone who'd been killed in a car accident. Everyone.
I direct you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck
Tldw: cars today are designed to keep the driver safer in a crash, and by having crumple zones and such, the driver is protected more from the forces that are at play.
Edit: aw drat people beat me to the explanation as well as the video! Well shucks at least I had fun commenting lol
It wouldn't win out. They typically didn't have any crumple zones to dissipate the forces of the impact so the full forces in the accident got transferred to the passenger cell and therefore the passengers. Also no seatbelt pre-tensioners to stop you flying forward before the seatbelt locks would engage and no airbags to protect you. Steering columns were also not collapsible so the driver's chest being impacted by the steering wheel was a common thing in a head on.
My 2006 Honda Accord coupe weighs almost a thousand pounds more than a 1965 Ford Mustang.
In fact, a 1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria only weighs about 400 pounds more than my Honda.
People WILDLY underestimate how heavy modern cars are, and how much better they are for safety of the occupants.
If two 70s cars collided, all the energy is transferred to your body since the solid construction of the car wouldn't dissipate much of it.
Crumple zones are your friend
In the 70s the cars won but not the people. Modern vehicles let the people survive instead of themselves.
The 70's car might survive but you won't.
Why arent people buying more cars from the 70s?
Parts and servicing is a big problem now. A lot of shops wont touch anything they cant plug a diagnostic computer into.
Some parts are made of unobtanium and require complex workarounds or paying through the nose for parts.
It's not the speed that kills you. It's the rapid deceleration.
If you weren't fucking murdered from the whiplash of not having any crumple zones absorbing the impact. Then you would surely die of your insurance going absolutely through the roof for driving a fucking car from the '70s and getting into an accident
thank you for the question . it was interesting reading through the responses.
"70s car wins ...but you still lose" lol
Your question is too broad. Which vehicle against which vehicle? The thing is today's average driver drives an SUV or truck which is a literal tank in comparison, whereas in the 70s most people drove cars. The bumpers wouldn't even line up (btw this is a modern issue between "cars" and "SUVs/Trucks") leading to the bigger vehicle overtopping the smaller vehicle. Modern vehicles are also on average heavier and have better safety features. The only thing I will say is an advantage of an older vehicle is in lower speed crashes it has a better chance of being repaired then a modern vehicle that crumples, but at 70mph even solid steel will get wrecked (as will the passengers).
Also bold of you to assume a lot of these vehicles from the 70s can easily reach 70mph without shaking apart.
>