M5V8 337 Report post Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4795277/Sp...double-fatality around 200k's combined speed impact. Both BMW occupants have survived. looks like a e36 coupe? I say that based on the bonnet vents.... Edited March 21, 2011 by M5V8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bimmer boy 21 Report post Posted March 21, 2011 Looks messy... I always find it funny how when in the news when there is a BMW or similar involved it is always mentioned but if it were a Toyota or Mazda they never really mention the car.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apex 693 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 They always mention the make of car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrphTa 5 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Sad.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Yeah E36. Considering the driver survived its remarkable. They get a 2-3 star crash rating at 64km/h. However, I would assume the other car involved was an unsafe Japanese car, so it would have acted like an extra crumple zone for the BMW. If the BMW hit a safer car, say a 5 star car then it would been the other way around, the the BMW driver would have had no chance. Time to upgrade to an E39 I think...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M5V8 337 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Time to upgrade to an E39 I think......amen to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misgvous_1 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 They always mention the make of car. I have only had a quick read but I couldn't find the make of the southbound car. I could be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 amen to that. Precisely, from what I have seen the E39s are the safest & fastest car for the dollar. (540i) However whats rather annoying is that I have spent all this time converting my E36 to run a V8. Part way through the conversion and now I don't want to own the car! I just know I can't enjoy a car knowing it's safety is bellow par and performance somewhat high. Not a good mix, may as well get a WRX if I wanted that! Sigh. Ah well, I am sure someone would like to buy it when its 100% complete and road certified. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bimmer boy 21 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I have only had a quick read but I couldn't find the make of the southbound car. I could be wrong. My thoughts exactly, guess your not right Apex... Could you be so kind and let us know what the other car is? Since they always mention the make of car and all... Edited March 22, 2011 by RJS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apex 693 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Yep. BMW’s are special I apologise, it’s not always, sometimes it seems they don’t have details from the Police but a reporter will mention what make the car was when they have been told. Most of the time they are only told, Van.4x4, Car etc.. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3979843/Gi...rbury-car-crash Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 You should keep the safety rating of the E36 in context Yes it is not as protective as an E39 but it does not score highly because it was designed just before major changes to the scoring system and methodology, which include points for labelling and features that are now standard. The photo is clear proof that it actually can provide a high level of protection in certain circumstances. The comment fro E36 V8 about hitting a higher safety rated car and being worse off is wrong- If the other car has a higher safety rating then the car is likely to be designed to absorb teh impact without deforming teh passenger cell. In this case BOTH vehicles benefit and the occupants of the E39 would be able to step out whereas the E36 doors might be jammed. On the other hand if the E36 or any other car hit a Toyoat ute with bull bars then all would be worse off as there is a severe reduction in ability to absorb energy Yeah, youre more so right I believe. I'm merely voicing 3rd or 4th hand opinions from someone that may have already had it wrong in the first place. Clearly I am no safety expert. But regardless, by todays standards an E36 is out of date, then again it appears to be reasonable for its design time of the late 80s early 90s, especially compared to all other cars of its class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twisted 45 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) E36 looks in pretty good shape for a 200k impact. This is what a 1989 corolla looks like after a 120k impact. Right headlight to right headlight. Took three hours to cut me out. Legnum in the background was the other vehicle in the equation: Edited March 22, 2011 by -Alias- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Thats what makes me laugh when people say 'get a cheap daily driver, like a corolla' Errrrrrr in my mind thats stupid logic, buying the least safe car possible that you would be driving most of the time. Should be the other way around! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M5V8 337 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 E36 looks in pretty good shape for a 200k impact. This is what a 1989 corolla looks like after a 120k impact. Right headlight to right headlight. Took three hours to cut me out. Legnum in the background was the other vehicle in the equation: that will buff out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_Matt_ 42 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Thats what makes me laugh when people say 'get a cheap daily driver, like a corolla' Errrrrrr in my mind thats stupid logic, buying the least safe car possible that you would be driving most of the time. Should be the other way around! I Don't think it comes into most peoples mind. The only time I ever think about safely is when I'm going on an open road drive. I feel safe in my E28, nice wide tires and plenty of engine bay before me..I hope it's safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrphTa 5 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 I just love side intrusion bars.. T bone at 60k FTW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtech1e30 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 I don't see why is important the crash had a combined speed of 200km/h. IMO just media hamming it up. For the occupants of each car it is like hitting a brick wall, the speed of the other car does not matter so much. E.g. two cars hitting head on each traveling at 100km/h have two bonnet lengths of car before occupants are impacted. 1 car traveling at 100km/h hits a stationary object head on, has 1 car lengths bonnet to crumple before occupants are impacted. Results in same impact to occupants, provided all crashes are head on (and so fair in a test). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westy 614 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) And the brick wall theory only works if both vehicles are identical and travelling at exactly the same speed and the impact angle is identical on both vehicles, vehicles are loaded identical etc. In all other instances it does NOT apply, which is about 99.99999999999999999999995% of the time He at least has the basic concept right, as opposed to those who think that you experience the combined speed in an accident, I mean crash. Edited March 22, 2011 by Westy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CamB 48 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 I remember reading the E36 does poorly for driver foot protection. FWIW, seeing that a car is completely munted in a frontal collision doesn't necessarily indicate its more or less safe - crumple zones are exactly that, and a crumpled car may simply have done its job. Lets also not forget that accidents have causes, in this one some one crossed the centerline (as they do in 85% of NZ accidents) supposedly because they lost control. Safety starts with the condition of the car and the attitude of the driver - safety features are only the net to potentially reduce the consequences when it turns to crap. I totally agree with this Ron - the driver (and concentration level) and quality/condition of the car and road are why accidents occur. How safe the car is simply decides how badly the participants are injured. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M3_Power 636 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 I don't see why is important the crash had a combined speed of 200km/h. IMO just media hamming it up. Sensationalism. They do it to make it sound like the occupants crashed at 200km/h when in fact the force experienced would have been half that. Newton's 3rd law wins (every action has an equal and opposite reaction - both car travelling at 100km/h head on = combined speed of 200km/h, but a crash force of only 100km/h) RIP to those killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
|ncary 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 I just love side intrusion bars.. T bone at 60k FTW E30's don't have - what are mechanically defined as - side intrusion bars. Just boss as sills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) An episode of Mythbusters covers exactly what has been talked about here. Unfortunately I can't find it on the internet. . Edited March 22, 2011 by E36V8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_ethrty-Andy_ 2136 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 E30's don't have - what are mechanically defined as - side intrusion bars. Just boss as sills. Correct. I've cut up an e30 and those sills are actually hollow and not much thicker than the gaurds. Scary really Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M3_Power 636 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Think you will find this is the correct rule E=1/2 CV Squared (cant do powers with the limited functions) C= Mass and V= Velocity Twice the velocity 4 times the energy I think if you did the maths you'll realise that we are talking about the same thing. Here's the mythbuster episode: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael. 2313 Report post Posted March 22, 2011 Thanks Tom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
