In heavy/high speed crashes ALL cars can get torn apart.
THAT's why most countries do NOT try to ensure survivability at 100mph head-ons.
THere's an implicit understanding that a driver will be trying to brake so speed will be reduced.
We can't mitigate for all possibilities ( like Massa's spring hit
)
Being light, then the "advantage" is that once a lot of energy is absorbed by the design it then does "bounce off". Again lots of energy dissipated so the momentum transferred is a LOT lower.
Ther's lots of confusion over what happens in an accident regarding strength, absorption and momentum trasnfer.
Rather than goign through ALL the physics on it, a vide ...
</title></head>"+"<body onload='if (!window.parent.StateManager || window.parent.StateManager.frameSaving) return;"+"window.parent.StateManager.restore(decod eURIComponent(document.body.innerText));'>"+encode URIComponent(state)+"</body></html>");h.clo
70 miles per hour straight into a concrete wall.
Looking at it, then I'd certainly expect to see lower limb injuries, but the rest looks amazingly intact .... ( you'd still not have survived it though as your brain will have foudn it's way out your eye sockets
)
Now if mom&pops are running a 5 year olf F150 then consider this ...
YouTube - Crash Test Ford F150
As a static impact I doubt this will be at 70mp and more likely at the standard 50 or below.
OUCH. Whcih one "Looked" like it woudl survive before the impact ??
US commentary ...
YouTube - Crash Test for Dummies
We woudl all agree I'm sure that whilst crash tests are "useful" they aren't the whoel story.
eg Whilst crumple zones are a great idea for that first impact, if it's a multiple impact situation then on the second hit there IS no crumple zone. If we could determine when and what kind of accident we were going to have and pick the right car for that day then life woudl be safer for sure