World's fastest ever crash test: Family car vapourised as it smashes into wall at 120

[Serpo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dI5ewOmHPQ&feature=player_embedded (a speed most runabouts can hit)

By Gareth Finighan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Gareth+Finighan)

Last updated at 5:27 PM on 24th October 2011




(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052533/Worlds-fastest-crash-test-Car-smashes-wall-120mph-speed-family-runarounds-hit.html#comments)


This is the terrifying moment a Ford Focus smashes into a solid concrete wall at 120mph in the world's fastest ever crash test.
Industry experts EuroNCAP normally crash vehicles at speeds of 40mph when giving production cars a safety rating.
But Five's motoring show Fifth Gear wanted to see what would happen in a head-on collision at three times this speed - a figure most family cars are capable of.
Scroll down for video



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052533-0E7EA9FD00000578-190_964x541.jpg Too late to pull out now: Travelling at 120mph, the Ford Focus is just inches away from impact

The complex operation saw engineers setting up a winch which catapulted the Ford towards the wall using 16-times the pulling power of a Bugatti Veyron.
As the contraption was activated, the Ford Focus hurtled towards its final destination with Fifth Gear presenter Jonny Smith looking on edge.


More...



'Like something out of a Hollywood film': The high speed police chase which ended with car ploughing into family's front room (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052194/Like-Hollywood-film-The-high-speed-police-chase-ended-suspect-ploughing-car-familys-room.html)


It then smashed into the concrete wall and was obliterated on impact - to the horror of the visibly shocked host.
Within just 60 milliseconds, the car went from 120mph to 0mph, with the mannequins subjected to forces of up to 400g.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052533-0E7EA9ED00000578-476_964x538.jpg Hitting the wall: In the blink of an eye, the front half of the hatchback is completely crushed



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052533-0E7EAA0500000578-962_964x533.jpg Going, going...: The driver compartment is next to buckle under the pressure. Thankfully only a cheap crash test dummy was behind the wheel

Because of the expected destruction, organisers refused to use expensive crash test dummies and instead opted for cheaper mannequins for the experiment.
Had anyone actually been inside the vehicle at the moment of impact, it would have resulted in a certain fatality.
Fifth Gear described the test as 'shocking and sobering' with Smith adding it was 'mighty haunting'.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052533-0E7EAB8100000578-385_964x534.jpg Gone: The car seems to have almost completely disintegrated as the back end hurtles towards the wall

Ellie Pearson from road safety charity Brake praised the programme for carrying out the test, which demonstrated the potential risk of high-speed driving.
She said: 'Modern cars are capable of reaching immense speeds and it is important that people realise how dangerous high speed driving is.
'This footage demonstrates the utter destruction of a high speed impact and hopefully anyone who sees it will think twice about their speed the next time they drive.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/23/article-2052533-0E7EAB9D00000578-307_964x541.jpg Scrap metal: the car is unrecognisable after its high-speed collision




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052533/Worlds-fastest-crash-test-Car-smashes-wall-120mph-speed-family-runarounds-hit.html#ixzz1bjRyMdE9

[Joe King]

It should have been 240mph

At the beginning of the video he says "two cars colliding head on whilst both traveling at 120mph"
To simulate that, you'd need to propel the car at 240mph into the wall. What they did was to simulate two cars doing 60mph hitting head-on.

[Neuro]

It should have been 240mph

At the beginning of the video he says "two cars colliding head on whilst both traveling at 120mph"
To simulate that, you'd need to propel the car at 240mph into the wall. What they did was to simulate two cars doing 60mph hitting head-on.
Not true a solid wall not moving has the same physical impact on the car as a frontal collission with a car moving the same speed, they stop at the point of impact...

[ximmy]

It should have been 240mph

At the beginning of the video he says "two cars colliding head on whilst both traveling at 120mph"
To simulate that, you'd need to propel the car at 240mph into the wall. What they did was to simulate two cars doing 60mph hitting head-on.


Not true a solid wall not moving has the same physical impact on the car as a frontal collission with a car moving the same speed, they stop at the point of impact...

Wouldn't forward inertia create greater resistance?

wtf did I say?

[Joe King]

Not true a solid wall not moving has the same physical impact on the car as a frontal collission with a car moving the same speed, they stop at the point of impact...Only if their mass is exactly the same. I'll concede on the 240mph part, you're correct there, but what if the car hits a 20,000lb truck head-on? The car will receive a much larger amount of force than will the truck, right?

[Joe King]

Wouldn't forward inertia create greater resistance?

wtf did I say?
No, he's actually correct on the speed part, but only if both cars are of relatively equal mass.

[Neuro]

Only if their mass is exactly the same. I'll concede on the 240mph part, you're correct there, but what if the car hits a 20,000lb truck head-on? The car will receive a much larger amount of force than will the truck, right?

Oh definetely, if booth travelled at say 60 mph, for the car the impact would be like hitting a wall at 100-110 mph, for the truck the impact would be like hitting a wall at 10-20 mph...

[Joe King]

Oh definetely, if booth travelled at say 60 mph, for the car the impact would be like hitting a wall at 100-110 mph, for the truck the impact would be like hitting a wall at 10-20 mph...
I'm sure there's a formula that could be used to calculate the energy delivered to the other vehicle relative to each vehicles weight.

But really, their test is truly only applicable if the cars are identical. Or nearly so. Which probably doesn't happen in real life so often.

[Serpo]

Still the point is ,whatever they make cars out of now days dosnt seem to hold up too well in a crash.

[Joe King]

Still the point is ,whatever they make cars out of now days dosnt seem to hold up too well in a crash.

If so, why does the death rate due to traffic accidents continuely go down? If cars hold up less well than they did in the past, wouldn't the rate of deaths be increasing? If the car doesn't hold up as well, it should result in more deaths, right?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/UsFatalAutoAccidentRates.png

[JohnQPublic]

The key is the cars are the same weight. The wall stops the car. Two cars at the same speed and weight will (in a perfect world with perfect lined up impact, etc.) both stop instantly in their tracks, and that is what the wall simulates. The speed of both cars in this simulation is defined by the speed of the car that stops. The wall provide s the equal and opposite (reaction) force.

[solid]

I'm sure there's a formula that could be used to calculate the energy delivered to the other vehicle relative to each vehicles weight.

I'm curious about this as well. I do know, that force is exponential. At least with wind speed, so 20 mph winds have 4 times the force of 10 mph winds. I'd imagine the same with vehicles...a vehicle going 40 mph creates 4 times the force of a vehicle going 20. I'd like to know about the weight of the vehicle as well.

Time to rethink getting one of the those gas sipping fiat cars, I suppose.

[Olmstein]

You want some high speed crashes?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ato6zuUkhfQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

[JDRock]

^^ I SUPPOSE AFTER THE JET HIT THE WALL IT BURST INTO FLAMES AND CAUSED THE CONCRETE WALL TO COLLAPSE? well, thats ALOT more jet fuel for the size of the slab that the wtc...jus sayin

[Joe King]

^^ I SUPPOSE AFTER THE JET HIT THE WALL IT BURST INTO FLAMES AND CAUSED THE CONCRETE WALL TO COLLAPSE? well, thats ALOT more jet fuel for the size of the slab that the wtc...jus sayinWtc walls are were far weaker than the concrete slab used in nuculear reactor designs.....jus sayin'

[Horn]

Still the point is ,whatever they make cars out of now days dosnt seem to hold up too well in a crash.

Depends if you hit a steel wall, or another lightweight vehicle designed with crumple bumpers.

[Glass]

Interesting. I'm not surprised. I'm wondering why other people might be surprised though.

I'm also wondering why the car has 2 different types of wheel rim. Just curious.

Th 5th Gear guys did another one a while back where they ran a current model hatch head on in to an old Volvo to compare the differences of the safety design. The new designs seemed to come out way in front. The older car ended up with the engine moving well into the passenger cabin, trapping the driver by the legs. The other cars engine had not done so and the driver probably would have walked away.

I was surprised by this one because I would have bet on the Volvo. It's that big heavy lots of metal kind of design that a lot of older Aussie and American cars are built like. I really thought it would have survived better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecdOBCFjI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecdOBCFjI

I guess this means, if you are going to be in a head on, hit a volvo. I was in an accident with one once. I got a very light rear shunt in crawling traffic. Probably less than 20Kms/hr. The damage to my car was a bent bumper bar. The front end of the volvo gave way and eveything just dumped on the road. It was like the car was designed to fall to pieces in an accident. Was pretty funny. I don't think the kids Dad was going to be happy though.

[Cebu_4_2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

[JDRock]

Wtc walls are were far weaker than the concrete slab used in nuculear reactor designs.....jus sayin'

and WAAAY more jet fuel in proportion to the wtc....but i suppose it doesnt matter, shill on........

[LuckyStrike]

Top Gear > Fifth Gear

[Olmstein]

^^ I SUPPOSE AFTER THE JET HIT THE WALL IT BURST INTO FLAMES AND CAUSED THE CONCRETE WALL TO COLLAPSE? well, thats ALOT more jet fuel for the size of the slab that the wtc...jus sayin

No, but it may explain the lack of recognizable debris from the plane that hit the pentagon.

[midnight rambler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

I read one account where the Belair had some cuts and other mods made to it so that it would 'show' better.

[ximmy]

I read one account where the Belair had some cuts and other mods made to it so that it would 'show' better.

I think it was here... GSUS a long time ago... they took out the motor so it would crumple nicely...

[Joe King]

No, but it may explain the lack of recognizable debris from the plane that hit the pentagon.If that were the case, it wouldn't have penetrated as far as it did.
ie the energy has to go somewhere. In the video of the jet hitting the concrete, the energy was expended in tearing the plane to shreds. With the Pentagon, a substantial amount of energy was expended in damaging the building. It's not as though it hit the building and virtually vaporized as seen above, but rather supposedly folded up and went into the hole, but then there was nothin' in the hole afterwards.