MIT Media Lab Rolls Out Folding Car 222
kkleiner writes "You think European cars are small now, wait till the Hiriko takes to the roads in Spain's northern Basque country. The two-seater is about the size of a SmartCar, but when parked, the car can actually fold. After folding, the car takes up about a third of a normal parking space. The Hiriko, Basque for 'urban car,' folds as the rear of the car slides underneath its chassis. Every square foot counts."
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory:
http://pbfcomics.com/156/ [pbfcomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I was expecting more of a Transformer type folding :(
Re: (Score:3)
If you watch the video it says "easier to get in/out of when folded" so I guess it folds with you inside it.
It's perfectly safe (Score:2)
As long as you don't hit the "origami crane mode" button conveniently located on the dash.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Interesting)
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Informative)
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
But they are more likely to suffer injury/fatality in rollover accidents. Funny that. Guess it has something to do with all that mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots that can not drive and try anyway I am ok with if it is they that suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can create the mythical brick in the road capable of killing someone when hit then I see nothing wrong with him bringing up rollover accidents. It's not exactly cherry picking data when you both are just bringing up possible scenarios out of no data in particular. Besides if this brick is lethal because it's thrown by the vehicle in front of you then it's more of a matter of the safety of the windshield than the size of the car. With this in mind, If we consider that an SUV can reach a much higher speed than one of these urban vehicles then the SUV could actually be less safer for its passengers in the flying brick scenario.
I don't think this car is actually "folding" instead it's the equivalent of a full-size smart car than can stand on it front wheels by articulating the rear ones forward. With the rear wheels in the normal driving position, I don't think this vehicle is any more dangerous than the current smart cars.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll probably flip over...so yes, they might be.
Re: (Score:2)
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
Except that they'll all die in the rollover crash from when that bricks blows a tire, upsets their balance or, god forbid, they swerve to avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
My understanding was that the human heart (more accurately the aorta feeding into it) does not take too well to forces/accelerations in the vertical direction - the body is strapped in, but the heart can be pulled away from the aorta, which of course is not how it is designed to operate. I think that this is more common in rollover accidents, since one gets more up/down forces, but I can't find anything specifically about that in a quick search:
Traumatic Aortic Rupture : http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.co [thedoctorw...younow.com]
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the you actually get a little more safety for yourself at the detriment of others on the road near you. The false sense of security that the SUV provides make people drive a little more aggressively than they should. Not to mention the substantially lower amount of visibility these
Re: (Score:2)
"How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
"How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district. When parked, vehicle must be capable of being compacted to no more than 2 meters in length. Commercial delivery vehicles may purchase a permit for a time-restricted exception to the ordnance for active deliveries only - permit fees are based on hours/days of access and size of vehicle. Emergency vehicles are excepted. Disabled driver's vehicles are subject to the same restrictions, or they may use our on-call paratransit system for transportation from park-and-ride lots to the business district. All drivers are encouraged to park outside of the business district and use free public transportation or free citybikes (subsidized through parking fees for all cars). Fossil Fuel powered vehicles must pay a downtown pollution surcharge. Families/groups are not excepted from the ordinance and are encouraged to use public transit facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district.
Have fun getting your little folding coffin squished by this [hummer.com]. Oh, and as far as "private" goes, no worries - it will be registered to ShompolTech, Inc. This will not be the first time Hummer owners pawn the legislation [go.com], either.
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district.
Have fun getting your little folding coffin squished by this [hummer.com].
You realize that the Hummer is out of production? Not even the Chinese wanted to buy the company.
Oh, and as far as "private" goes, no worries - it will be registered to ShompolTech, Inc. This will not be the first time Hummer owners pawn the legislation [go.com], either.
What does that mean "pawn" the legislation? They left it at a second hand shop as collateral on a short-term loan?
In any case there's a big difference between legally using a tax loophole and exploiting a local ordinance prohibiting non delivery vehicles. And it doesn't matter really, if such an ordinance was in place, a business owner could certainly use a commercially registered Hummer to make his delivery, bu
Re: (Score:2)
This is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt. Helllooooo? We already have rules like this. They are very specific and are written by both the Federal Dept of Transportation as well as state dept of transportation. Anyone who owns a truck or car for business can tell you that there is no shortage of requirements from the DOT. I am quite sure car and truck manufacturer's will also agree. The rules are extremely tight and very specific. (see CAFE standards, for example)
Guess what? No matter how much you hate SUV's and loathe their existence.....they meet the rules established by said departments.
This entire discussion is one big mental masturbation exercise. Waaaahhhhh! I hate SUV's!!!! They guzzle gas and usually have grizzly men driving them!!!! Where is my prius? (formerly a Mazda Miata, circa 1994)
I think you're confusing DOT car safety rules with city planning rules to alleviate congestion and parking problems in downtown business districts. There's nothing to prevent cities from enacting ordinances limiting which vehicles can drive there. A city is free to ban all cars and only allow golf carts downtown.
Many large cities are starting to implement (or at least consider) congestion pricing to limit traffic downtown (or are closing downtown business districts to cars entirely). If these small commuter
Re: (Score:2)
SUVs are falling out of favor, and falling in sales. What will the leftists do when SUVs are rare? What will they target next? I'm guessing anything with an internal combustion engine, no matter how efficient.
Sure, why not. That's a slippery slope with a quite acceptable end. Although that's more of a green issue than a left issue.
Or maybe cars without government-installed tracking devices or kill-switches.
That's definitely not a left/right issue. That's a libertarian/authoritarian issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who is going to enforce that exactly and why would anybody sign under that?
Re: (Score:2)
How about the same people that are going to enforce not considering ultra-compact cars for highways.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
2. If it meets FMVSS then it's the SUV driver's fault for not being able to see it and the SUV manufacturer's fault for making such a huge vehicle to begin with. The SUVs are the unsafe cars here, but they're acceptable to the population because the risk is to others, not the SUV driver.
This is a prisoner's dilemma problem -- You want a safer car for your personal safety so you buy bigger, but in doing so threaten everyone else. This makes all cars large, fat, heavy, costly and full of energy in the inevitable impact. If, however, everyone accepted that it's in the best interest of the population to optimize for average safety, cars should be much smaller since they would then have lower energy in an impact (helping in accidents where property or pedestrians are hit in addition to other cars) and be more maneuverable in order to avoid impacts.
Also, due to the relative rarity of tractor trailers and the fact that professional drivers have faaaaaaaaar better safety records than non-professionals those tractor trailers don't impose much of a risk even in a small car.
Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people
And I haven't even touched on the environmental and financial benefits of smaller cars.
Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot. The vast majority do not. The vast majority could make do with better packing strategies including such things as roof racks/roof bins.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people /avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
I think most of those probably would have been saved in a NEWER car, perhaps. Today's small cars are significantly safer than even those built in the early 90's.
This reminds me of that famous "Not so Smart now!" picture of a Smart car smashed between two big rigs. Not only was the picture NOT of a Smart, but there is probably NO car short of a bread truck that would have survived such a collision..
Bigger != Better (Score:2)
While you can't argue with the laws of physics with respect to mass, engineers can (and have) done an amazing amount of work to ensure the energy is absorbed slowly and evenly.
Re: (Score:2)
All things being equal, a more massive car will be safer than a less massive car in an accident because there will be less injury due to the vehicle being knocked around.
All things being equal, a car with more crumple zone will be safer than smaller car in an accident because there's more room for the energy to dissipate.
So yes, newer small car is better than older big car. But newest, biggest car is best car. (For self-preservation in
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they've mostly been buying SUVs for the last 10 to 15 years. Despite the fact that mini-vans are safer, roomier, and get better gas mileage. They were perceived as "uncool" compared to SUVs when those started getting popular.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in northern Canada. Most people I know, including those who live down gravel roads, love minivans. They're good on ice, stable, and relatively cheap. If you need to go offroad on the farm you get a pickup. Never an SUV.
I heard the same thing from the owners of a remote lodge on the Alaska highway who used a minivan for supply runs.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you want stability on ice, you don't buy something with a high center of gravity. 4-wheel drive or no, I have seen more SUV's in ditches this winter than any other type of car. And no, I haven't seen any pickup trucks in the ditch, though that could be because unless it's a *really* deep ditch (which doesn't happen when they're full of snow), the pickup truck could get itself out.
Of course, for snow/ice performance, no amount of traction control/skid control/4wheel drive/etc. can compare with get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, from what I understand, the vast majority of SUVs are driven by small females. Especially the really big ones.
I am a pretty big guy who does not fit into compact cars, and one time I was out car shopping, frustrated with not finding anything I could safely drive without having my legs cut off at the knee, I thought I would try to see if an SUV would fit.
I tried a few that had even less leg room than the cars I had been looking at, then I tried the really big one(like 7' tall I think) and I could
Re: (Score:2)
The real one it's the size of a Smart that is more than capable of performing in cities. It's actually better than all those SUVs
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)
Since when do Basques need highways? You would reach the end of the highway before accelerating to cruise speed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a scale model for display.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to bicycles?
Re: (Score:2)
Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)
It's a half scale prototype...
Check it out and let the half-scale Hiriko prototype fold its way to your city-dwelling heart.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are in and it turns out SUVs are NOT safer.
Sure, they're safer in a head-on collision but that's one of the least frequent types of accident. In most other types of accident the SUVs tend to flip over and kill everybody inside. Ref: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf [lbl.gov]
Ironically, the feeling of 'safety' also causes more SUV accidents because the drivers take more risks.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Insightful)
size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid. The mass of the vehicle gives safety, and their are studies to show that reducing weight simply to improve mileage actually increases death rates.
I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Interesting)
They are also poorly informed. SUVs -- and larger cars in general -- are only "better" in terms of safety when you consider injuries/deaths to occupants per accident.
Once you consider the increased frequency of accidents of larger vehicles, the safety advantage for occupants of the large car disappears.
It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This is a short sighted view, where the only concern is personal. The odds of a crash are damn near 100% it seems... new drivers wreck cars, and kids are stupid . So the mitigation is to survive this eventuality. The car contributing to the accident is just one more factor, and the parents are protecting not by parenting, but by armor. I dont think that avoiding wrecks has anything to do with the choice... having the most momentum is the deciding factor.
Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to have the liability insurance rates take vehicle weight into account. Take the weight of a "normal" car (about 3,000lb in the US), and multiply the premiums by (insured vehicle weight / 3000). Insuring a Mini? You get a discount because you won't be causing as much damage. Insuring a hummer? Enjoy your 2-3x insurance premiums (since you're carrying 2-3x the kinetic energy/damage potential).
That would definitely provide a disincentive to give young drivers (with already-high insurance) a huge vehic
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they don't already do this? Full coverage insurance for my pickup truck (11 yrs old) is more than a new Honda Civic in the same family. Not 2-3x more, but more.
Because of the greater potential to cause damage to the other vehicle in a crash.
Re: (Score:2)
A tank. It's good to buy your kids a tank - it's not extremely fast and it's very heavy and the other car is always the crumple zone.
Re: (Score:2)
From my post: "The issue is likelihood of collision."
From your post: "I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision."
I state again: It's not the size of the car of the collision, it's that a collision occurred at all. Collision prevention, NOT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE VEHICLE, should be the goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jetsons (Score:2)
Re:Jetsons (Score:5, Funny)
with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
Not evolution. Intelligent design should work, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
I'm more interested in a Kit. Something which is a basic frame (meeting the usual saftety requirements) where I can ad-on features, change the way it rides, etc, from a box of parts I keep in storage.
Probably has something to me growing up with Heath-Kits...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my brain started playing the theme song about halfway thru the summary.
What is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this car a part of the Volkswagen Center for Drivers Who Can't Park Good and Wanna Learn to Drive in the City Too?
Meh (Score:4, Funny)
Not really folding: more like vertical parking car (Score:3)
still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)
Re: (Score:2)
still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)
Perhaps something useful for large campuses; industrial, educational or cult.
Old News? (Score:2)
Not to shoot down the article, because this really is a fantastic idea for efficient travel and parking in congested downtown locations, but haven't folding cars been used in urban Japan for the better part of a decade?
For the article impaired... (Score:5, Insightful)
MIT is showcasing this vehicle, because some of their forecasts are showing that larger vehicles in urban environments are going to be on the decline. This vehicle is intended for use inside urban environments as a shared vehicle (like ZipCars), as most urban vehicles are only used ~10% of the time. It also is electric powered, and will have a variety of electronic safety features. It is NOT intended for highway use amongst homicidal SUV drivers, so those people can continue to "drive" with a clear conscience, yakking on their phones and running over cyclists, etc. without having to worry about something larger leaving a serious dent in their day.
The showcase vehicle is a sized-down prototype. It is not intended to be driven by ants or other arthropods. Actually, it would be the first publicly viewed prototype, but I've seen concept photos of vehicles in Japan with designs like this. This prototype is going into production with models coming out in 2013, so obviously there are businesses and municipalities already putting in orders to fund this.
Which means that folks should be paying attention to the sub-text of the discussion going on in the video- there is an expectation that there will be more people in cities, and fewer resources to go around.
Re: (Score:2)
This vehicle is intended for use inside urban environments as a shared vehicle (like ZipCars), as most urban vehicles are only used ~10% of the time.
True, perhaps, but a rather meaningless statistic, because usage is not distributed evenly throughout the day. Demand for cars is much higher in the morning and afternoon rush hours. In Spain you can add lunchtime to that (siestas). 10% of 24 hours is about 2 and a half hours, and a lot that can be accounted for by the daily commute....
Hemmed in? (Score:2, Interesting)
So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
It's bad enough with cars that don't fold when idiots park so close you can't get back out.
Now maybe if it shortens the car enough that you can "parallel park" head in... Of course then you'd have to expand the car into traffic and sit there while you load up/get in.
Intended use case (Score:3)
If you RTFA, you'll learn that the intended use case is for centrally-stored, per-use rental applications in urban areas where many people occasionally need cars but don't own them (similar to ZipCars) and where space is at a premium.
For this use, folding gets you a big advantage at the central storage location, since you can store them folded in a line and only need access space for an unfolded
Re: (Score:2)
Also, each wheel can steer independently so you get a zero-radius turn. While the car doesn't fold into a perfectly round shape, you should still be able to rotate and drive out then expand.
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Oblig xkcd (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer folding cars the old fashioned way [xkcd.com].
Wow, almost like a "Jetsons" car (Score:2)
1/3 of a parking space (Score:2)
Seriously, though, it sucks that all spaces cost the same where I work, whether it's for a motorcycle or a SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask... (Score:2)
so... (Score:2)
So how long until I see some yutz driving one of these down the street still in the folded position?
So what? (Score:2)
That concept has been around for quite some time. They simply built a model of their own version.
On the gripping hand (Score:2)
much like the folding bike (Score:2)
This will not handle well, period... the physics don't allow it.
But as something to casually get from point A to B, not bad...
Incorrect translation (Score:2)
Great Niche (Score:2)
They're onto something good with this vehicle. In New York, late at night, or even during the day between two points not served well by public transportation, it can be difficult to get around. If it's raining, that's doubly so since you'll never be able to get a cab. But if you had pods of these around the city that could self-drive to their destination, well, then I could see them doing quite well.
Been done, ok but it is smaller. (Score:3)
Gives a new solution to being parked in (Score:2)
Getting parked in was common in Chicago in the '70s, but my solution was push-in bumpers on the old volkswagen. Of course I always had to pull them out after parking. In this case leave the car expanded and just fold to get out. Assuming they keep the nifty remote control feature, or that you're a contortionist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch the video you will hear the fact that the car is half scale.
Re: (Score:2)
My question is this: If it is programmed to not exceed speed limits, what about times that you need to put on a burst of speed? Before everyone jumps in saying you NEVER need to speed, here's a scenario. You're going through a green light. Someone on a cross street decides they are more important than stoplights, and runs through it. Sometimes, you could slam the brakes to av
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
here's a scenario. You're going through a green light. Someone on a cross street decides they are more important than stoplights, and runs through it. Sometimes, you could slam the brakes to avoid them, sometimes you're already in their path and need to speed up to get out of the way. Surprise! Your car won't let you do that! And you're in a tin can of a car, and are smeared across the front of that Hummer H3.
Is this really a common scenario? More than crashes caused by excessive speed?
I've been driving (including cars, motorcycles and bicycles and 2 summers driving a truck) for over 20 years and have never needed to accelerate through an intersection to avoid a side impact. (nor have I ever been in a side impact collision). I'm not even sure that human reaction time and acceleration rates of most cars is even sufficient to recognize the impending side impact and accelerate out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Different scenario.. You are half way past the side of a big rig. Its retreads start flying off do you stay at the same rate of speed - risking trailer sway; slow down - risking trailer sway, possible jac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Math time!
(I'm going to make big generalizations, assumptions, and approximations here. Bear with me.)
Let's say that your stopping distance at 40 mph is 75 ft, and your reaction time is 1.5 sec, or about 90 ft. So, if anything happens within 165 ft, you won't be able to come to a complete stop.
However, let's say your car can go 0-60 in 6 seconds. That's an average acceleration of around 10mph/s, or about 15 ft/s^2. Instead of trying to brake, let's say you hit the accelerator. By the time you react, yo
Re: (Score:2)
You know how I can tell you didn't watch the video...?
Re: (Score:2)
So not road legal in the UK until we they change the law [legislation.gov.uk] that prohibits "quitting" a vehicle with the engine running and, by extension, starting a cars engine by remote.
Leaving motor vehicles unattended
107.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall leave, or cause or permit to be left, on a road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is required to be equipped is effectively set.
(2) The requirement specified in paragraph (1) as to the stopping of the engine shall not apply in respect of a vehicle—
(a) being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes; or
(b) in such a position and condition as not to be likely to endanger any person or property and engaged in an operation which requires its engine to be used to—
(i) drive machinery forming part of, or mounted on, the vehicle and used for purposes other than driving the vehicle; or
(ii) maintain the electrical power of the batteries of the vehicle at a level required for driving that machinery or apparatus.
(3) In this regulation “parking brake” means a brake fitted to a vehicle in accordance with requirement 16 or 18 in Schedule 3.
Don't even get them started (no pun intended) on a car that drives itself even over small distances with no-one inside, much less at the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart car is a two-seater only. How could there be three occupants in a Smart car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dangerous of course (Score:5, Insightful)
My brother in law was taking his State Trooper exam and one of the areas of the test was accident reconstruction. He told me one of the accidents he received was one where an 18 wheeler hit a SmartCar from behind at 45 mph, which pushed it forward to stationary UPS-style truck. When all was said and done, there were only 11 inches left of the SmartCar. All 3 occupants in the SmartCar died. While I am all for smaller cars and better city parking, I will never purchase one of these types of cars as long as huge SUVs, Delivery Trucks, and 18 Wheelers are still on the roads I travel on. So .. never :P
Is there any reason to believe that any car would have let the occupants survive being smashed between a 20 ton 18 wheeler and a 5 ton stationary UPS truck (both of which have hard frames that don't crumple upon impact)? That's a lot of force for a car to absorb. Maybe we should all be driving military tanks to protect us from the rare small-car smooshed-between-two-trucks accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any reason to believe that any car would have let the occupants survive being smashed between a 20 ton 18 wheeler and a 5 ton stationary UPS truck (both of which have hard frames that don't crumple upon impact)? That's a lot of force for a car to absorb. Maybe we should all be driving military tanks to protect us from the rare small-car smooshed-between-two-trucks accidents.
While I'm not advocating large cars for general usage -- they're a terrible idea -- I can say that having been in this particular crash, in a Subaru wagon, I appreciated having the car crush over a meter shorter than it was, while still maintaining enough space for me to survive. Here's a picture [ideatank.com] of what was left: the car was shortened by about the same distance as the total length of a SmartCar after the semi truck rear-ended me at 75 mph when I was sitting at a stop.
But how often does that happen? (Once
Re: (Score:2)
Any car can be crushed to inches if hit at speed between two trucks.
I recall accident report like that from a few years ago - they didn't even realised there was a car full of (ex)people there until they pulled the trucks apart. It was Ford Galaxy I think. 7 seater. Is that too small too ?
Re: (Score:2)
More likely this one: http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/archive/2005/02/09/Ammanford+Archive/4258471.Bus_tragedy_parents___life_sentence_/ [southwalesguardian.co.uk]
Not quite how I recalled, coach and a truck, and the crushed car was noticed quickly. Although various reports have the truck driver initially believing he'd been hit directly by the coach, not realising there was a car crushed in between. A Galaxy is around 16ft long, normally.
Amazingly, two people in the car survived. I suspect they and the front of the car were
Re: (Score:2)
The wheels are turning opposite to each other, hence toe-in and toe-out
Incase you need some education, here [wikipedia.org]