Car and truck collision











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












When a car and a truck crash, the car seems to get damaged a lot more. Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 8 at 20:04










  • When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 9 at 0:02















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












When a car and a truck crash, the car seems to get damaged a lot more. Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 8 at 20:04










  • When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 9 at 0:02













up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1






1





When a car and a truck crash, the car seems to get damaged a lot more. Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?










share|cite|improve this question















When a car and a truck crash, the car seems to get damaged a lot more. Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?







newtonian-mechanics forces momentum conservation-laws collision






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 8 at 21:13









Qmechanic

99.6k121781116




99.6k121781116










asked Nov 8 at 19:41









Isabella

361




361












  • Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 8 at 20:04










  • When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 9 at 0:02


















  • Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
    – Kyle Kanos
    Nov 8 at 20:04










  • When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 9 at 0:02
















Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 8 at 20:04




Related physics.stackexchange.com/q/28995/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/54150/25301, physics.stackexchange.com/q/291910/25301
– Kyle Kanos
Nov 8 at 20:04












When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
– Acccumulation
Nov 9 at 0:02




When you say "truck", do mean something like a pick-up truck, or something like an eighteen-wheeler? The physics are a lot different for a pick-up truck versus a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
– Acccumulation
Nov 9 at 0:02










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote














Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?




Mostly for practical reasons.



When cars were first being built, they were simply horse carriages with engines. Over time, these evolved into the first really modern cars like the Model T. These still had many vestiges of the carriage era. For this question, the key one is that the chassis of the car was separate from the body.



In most cases there was a framework of steel in a rough H or 8 shape as seen from above, with the wheels and engine mounted to it. The body and interior were then placed on top. In the case of the Model T, you could buy several entirely different bodies for the same frame.



The skins of the body had no structural needs beyond holding themselves together when you slammed the door and such, so they could be relatively light weight. When you take apart a car from the 1950s pretty much everything comes off until you're left with a big go-cart. This basic construction method was used into the 1960s.



At that time, techniques that had been used in the aircraft industry started pushing into the automobile world. Aircraft designers had noted that if you shape a sheet of metal properly, it becomes very strong in certain directions. For instance, if you roll it into a tube, it becomes extremely resistant to bending. So now you don't need to have a structure at the rear of the plane, just make a tube of thin metal and mount the tail to it. You just removed all the framing from the back of the plane and saved a bunch of weight.



So then you started seeing the removal of the car's frame and its replacement by carefully bent pieces of the skin of the car. For instance, the "A pillars", the bits on either side of the front window that often have airbags in them now, used to be a separate piece of metal. But now it's just a rolled up bit of the skin. This is way lighter, because all you have is the skin, not the skin AND a framework under it. Better yet, you can carefully tailor the skin to respond in certain ways depending on how you shape it, which is why cars crush up when hit - they're supposed to, the energy going into bending the metal is not going into your body.



So... back to your question. Trucks aren't built like this. They still have frames. Look in the wheel well of any pickup and you can see it, typically a big black-painted chunk of steel.



So when a car and truck meet, the force of the collision in the car goes into unrolling all those bits of metal, whereas in the truck it goes right into a couple of huge I-beams. So the car is going to lose, every time.



Now that sounds bad, but its not. Consider a car and a truck hitting a steel wall going the same speed. Both stop "instantly". In the case of the car, that energy goes into the body work, folding it up. You walk away. I seriously hope you never experience the same thing in a truck, it can be non-nice.



So are trucks less safe? No, but not for the reason you might think. When a truck hits a car it folds the car up, and thus the truck gets half the advantage. Additionally, the reason trucks have a frame is so they are way stronger, so they can manage a lot more impact without you ending up with the engine in your lap.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
    – Nuclear Wang
    Nov 8 at 20:23










  • Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
    – Criggie
    Nov 8 at 23:20










  • Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
    – user71659
    Nov 8 at 23:47












  • @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
    – Maury Markowitz
    Nov 9 at 14:08


















up vote
3
down vote













Conservation of momentum causes the car to lose more velocity and hense kinetic energy. Where does this kinetic energy go ? Into heating and deforming the car.



From Maury’s reply I’d like to add that cars are built to crumble on impact for the passengers‘ safety. The truck on the other hand is built like a tank. It will spend lots of time on building sites and will take a good beating during its lifetime. It is not designed to crumble.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439746%2fcar-and-truck-collision%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    10
    down vote














    Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?




    Mostly for practical reasons.



    When cars were first being built, they were simply horse carriages with engines. Over time, these evolved into the first really modern cars like the Model T. These still had many vestiges of the carriage era. For this question, the key one is that the chassis of the car was separate from the body.



    In most cases there was a framework of steel in a rough H or 8 shape as seen from above, with the wheels and engine mounted to it. The body and interior were then placed on top. In the case of the Model T, you could buy several entirely different bodies for the same frame.



    The skins of the body had no structural needs beyond holding themselves together when you slammed the door and such, so they could be relatively light weight. When you take apart a car from the 1950s pretty much everything comes off until you're left with a big go-cart. This basic construction method was used into the 1960s.



    At that time, techniques that had been used in the aircraft industry started pushing into the automobile world. Aircraft designers had noted that if you shape a sheet of metal properly, it becomes very strong in certain directions. For instance, if you roll it into a tube, it becomes extremely resistant to bending. So now you don't need to have a structure at the rear of the plane, just make a tube of thin metal and mount the tail to it. You just removed all the framing from the back of the plane and saved a bunch of weight.



    So then you started seeing the removal of the car's frame and its replacement by carefully bent pieces of the skin of the car. For instance, the "A pillars", the bits on either side of the front window that often have airbags in them now, used to be a separate piece of metal. But now it's just a rolled up bit of the skin. This is way lighter, because all you have is the skin, not the skin AND a framework under it. Better yet, you can carefully tailor the skin to respond in certain ways depending on how you shape it, which is why cars crush up when hit - they're supposed to, the energy going into bending the metal is not going into your body.



    So... back to your question. Trucks aren't built like this. They still have frames. Look in the wheel well of any pickup and you can see it, typically a big black-painted chunk of steel.



    So when a car and truck meet, the force of the collision in the car goes into unrolling all those bits of metal, whereas in the truck it goes right into a couple of huge I-beams. So the car is going to lose, every time.



    Now that sounds bad, but its not. Consider a car and a truck hitting a steel wall going the same speed. Both stop "instantly". In the case of the car, that energy goes into the body work, folding it up. You walk away. I seriously hope you never experience the same thing in a truck, it can be non-nice.



    So are trucks less safe? No, but not for the reason you might think. When a truck hits a car it folds the car up, and thus the truck gets half the advantage. Additionally, the reason trucks have a frame is so they are way stronger, so they can manage a lot more impact without you ending up with the engine in your lap.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
      – Nuclear Wang
      Nov 8 at 20:23










    • Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
      – Criggie
      Nov 8 at 23:20










    • Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
      – user71659
      Nov 8 at 23:47












    • @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
      – Maury Markowitz
      Nov 9 at 14:08















    up vote
    10
    down vote














    Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?




    Mostly for practical reasons.



    When cars were first being built, they were simply horse carriages with engines. Over time, these evolved into the first really modern cars like the Model T. These still had many vestiges of the carriage era. For this question, the key one is that the chassis of the car was separate from the body.



    In most cases there was a framework of steel in a rough H or 8 shape as seen from above, with the wheels and engine mounted to it. The body and interior were then placed on top. In the case of the Model T, you could buy several entirely different bodies for the same frame.



    The skins of the body had no structural needs beyond holding themselves together when you slammed the door and such, so they could be relatively light weight. When you take apart a car from the 1950s pretty much everything comes off until you're left with a big go-cart. This basic construction method was used into the 1960s.



    At that time, techniques that had been used in the aircraft industry started pushing into the automobile world. Aircraft designers had noted that if you shape a sheet of metal properly, it becomes very strong in certain directions. For instance, if you roll it into a tube, it becomes extremely resistant to bending. So now you don't need to have a structure at the rear of the plane, just make a tube of thin metal and mount the tail to it. You just removed all the framing from the back of the plane and saved a bunch of weight.



    So then you started seeing the removal of the car's frame and its replacement by carefully bent pieces of the skin of the car. For instance, the "A pillars", the bits on either side of the front window that often have airbags in them now, used to be a separate piece of metal. But now it's just a rolled up bit of the skin. This is way lighter, because all you have is the skin, not the skin AND a framework under it. Better yet, you can carefully tailor the skin to respond in certain ways depending on how you shape it, which is why cars crush up when hit - they're supposed to, the energy going into bending the metal is not going into your body.



    So... back to your question. Trucks aren't built like this. They still have frames. Look in the wheel well of any pickup and you can see it, typically a big black-painted chunk of steel.



    So when a car and truck meet, the force of the collision in the car goes into unrolling all those bits of metal, whereas in the truck it goes right into a couple of huge I-beams. So the car is going to lose, every time.



    Now that sounds bad, but its not. Consider a car and a truck hitting a steel wall going the same speed. Both stop "instantly". In the case of the car, that energy goes into the body work, folding it up. You walk away. I seriously hope you never experience the same thing in a truck, it can be non-nice.



    So are trucks less safe? No, but not for the reason you might think. When a truck hits a car it folds the car up, and thus the truck gets half the advantage. Additionally, the reason trucks have a frame is so they are way stronger, so they can manage a lot more impact without you ending up with the engine in your lap.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
      – Nuclear Wang
      Nov 8 at 20:23










    • Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
      – Criggie
      Nov 8 at 23:20










    • Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
      – user71659
      Nov 8 at 23:47












    • @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
      – Maury Markowitz
      Nov 9 at 14:08













    up vote
    10
    down vote










    up vote
    10
    down vote










    Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?




    Mostly for practical reasons.



    When cars were first being built, they were simply horse carriages with engines. Over time, these evolved into the first really modern cars like the Model T. These still had many vestiges of the carriage era. For this question, the key one is that the chassis of the car was separate from the body.



    In most cases there was a framework of steel in a rough H or 8 shape as seen from above, with the wheels and engine mounted to it. The body and interior were then placed on top. In the case of the Model T, you could buy several entirely different bodies for the same frame.



    The skins of the body had no structural needs beyond holding themselves together when you slammed the door and such, so they could be relatively light weight. When you take apart a car from the 1950s pretty much everything comes off until you're left with a big go-cart. This basic construction method was used into the 1960s.



    At that time, techniques that had been used in the aircraft industry started pushing into the automobile world. Aircraft designers had noted that if you shape a sheet of metal properly, it becomes very strong in certain directions. For instance, if you roll it into a tube, it becomes extremely resistant to bending. So now you don't need to have a structure at the rear of the plane, just make a tube of thin metal and mount the tail to it. You just removed all the framing from the back of the plane and saved a bunch of weight.



    So then you started seeing the removal of the car's frame and its replacement by carefully bent pieces of the skin of the car. For instance, the "A pillars", the bits on either side of the front window that often have airbags in them now, used to be a separate piece of metal. But now it's just a rolled up bit of the skin. This is way lighter, because all you have is the skin, not the skin AND a framework under it. Better yet, you can carefully tailor the skin to respond in certain ways depending on how you shape it, which is why cars crush up when hit - they're supposed to, the energy going into bending the metal is not going into your body.



    So... back to your question. Trucks aren't built like this. They still have frames. Look in the wheel well of any pickup and you can see it, typically a big black-painted chunk of steel.



    So when a car and truck meet, the force of the collision in the car goes into unrolling all those bits of metal, whereas in the truck it goes right into a couple of huge I-beams. So the car is going to lose, every time.



    Now that sounds bad, but its not. Consider a car and a truck hitting a steel wall going the same speed. Both stop "instantly". In the case of the car, that energy goes into the body work, folding it up. You walk away. I seriously hope you never experience the same thing in a truck, it can be non-nice.



    So are trucks less safe? No, but not for the reason you might think. When a truck hits a car it folds the car up, and thus the truck gets half the advantage. Additionally, the reason trucks have a frame is so they are way stronger, so they can manage a lot more impact without you ending up with the engine in your lap.






    share|cite|improve this answer













    Why does the car get more damaged then the truck in the collision?




    Mostly for practical reasons.



    When cars were first being built, they were simply horse carriages with engines. Over time, these evolved into the first really modern cars like the Model T. These still had many vestiges of the carriage era. For this question, the key one is that the chassis of the car was separate from the body.



    In most cases there was a framework of steel in a rough H or 8 shape as seen from above, with the wheels and engine mounted to it. The body and interior were then placed on top. In the case of the Model T, you could buy several entirely different bodies for the same frame.



    The skins of the body had no structural needs beyond holding themselves together when you slammed the door and such, so they could be relatively light weight. When you take apart a car from the 1950s pretty much everything comes off until you're left with a big go-cart. This basic construction method was used into the 1960s.



    At that time, techniques that had been used in the aircraft industry started pushing into the automobile world. Aircraft designers had noted that if you shape a sheet of metal properly, it becomes very strong in certain directions. For instance, if you roll it into a tube, it becomes extremely resistant to bending. So now you don't need to have a structure at the rear of the plane, just make a tube of thin metal and mount the tail to it. You just removed all the framing from the back of the plane and saved a bunch of weight.



    So then you started seeing the removal of the car's frame and its replacement by carefully bent pieces of the skin of the car. For instance, the "A pillars", the bits on either side of the front window that often have airbags in them now, used to be a separate piece of metal. But now it's just a rolled up bit of the skin. This is way lighter, because all you have is the skin, not the skin AND a framework under it. Better yet, you can carefully tailor the skin to respond in certain ways depending on how you shape it, which is why cars crush up when hit - they're supposed to, the energy going into bending the metal is not going into your body.



    So... back to your question. Trucks aren't built like this. They still have frames. Look in the wheel well of any pickup and you can see it, typically a big black-painted chunk of steel.



    So when a car and truck meet, the force of the collision in the car goes into unrolling all those bits of metal, whereas in the truck it goes right into a couple of huge I-beams. So the car is going to lose, every time.



    Now that sounds bad, but its not. Consider a car and a truck hitting a steel wall going the same speed. Both stop "instantly". In the case of the car, that energy goes into the body work, folding it up. You walk away. I seriously hope you never experience the same thing in a truck, it can be non-nice.



    So are trucks less safe? No, but not for the reason you might think. When a truck hits a car it folds the car up, and thus the truck gets half the advantage. Additionally, the reason trucks have a frame is so they are way stronger, so they can manage a lot more impact without you ending up with the engine in your lap.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 8 at 20:03









    Maury Markowitz

    2,863522




    2,863522












    • Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
      – Nuclear Wang
      Nov 8 at 20:23










    • Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
      – Criggie
      Nov 8 at 23:20










    • Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
      – user71659
      Nov 8 at 23:47












    • @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
      – Maury Markowitz
      Nov 9 at 14:08


















    • Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
      – Nuclear Wang
      Nov 8 at 20:23










    • Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
      – Criggie
      Nov 8 at 23:20










    • Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
      – user71659
      Nov 8 at 23:47












    • @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
      – Maury Markowitz
      Nov 9 at 14:08
















    Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
    – Nuclear Wang
    Nov 8 at 20:23




    Interesting indeed, I always thought of this from a momentum/kinetic energy point of view, but the reality is simpler - trucks are just built tougher than cars. Interesting paper at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821629 showing that car vs. unibody SUV crashes are in fact less often fatal than car vs. body-on-frame SUV crashes, for both the car and SUV driver.
    – Nuclear Wang
    Nov 8 at 20:23












    Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
    – Criggie
    Nov 8 at 23:20




    Curiously, A/B/C pillars have grown substantially thicker over the decades too.
    – Criggie
    Nov 8 at 23:20












    Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
    – user71659
    Nov 8 at 23:47






    Then how come when they crashed a body-on-frame 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs a unibody 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, the Malibu fared far better? Unibody is going to be much better because crashes come from any direction with different forms, whereas a body-on-frame only has an advantage when the forces directly transfer into the frame elements.
    – user71659
    Nov 8 at 23:47














    @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
    – Maury Markowitz
    Nov 9 at 14:08




    @user71659 - body-on-frame does not imply stronger strength. Trucks vs. cars imply stronger strength. Plus, we've done a lot of engineering in those 50 years, the outcome should not be surprising.
    – Maury Markowitz
    Nov 9 at 14:08










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Conservation of momentum causes the car to lose more velocity and hense kinetic energy. Where does this kinetic energy go ? Into heating and deforming the car.



    From Maury’s reply I’d like to add that cars are built to crumble on impact for the passengers‘ safety. The truck on the other hand is built like a tank. It will spend lots of time on building sites and will take a good beating during its lifetime. It is not designed to crumble.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Conservation of momentum causes the car to lose more velocity and hense kinetic energy. Where does this kinetic energy go ? Into heating and deforming the car.



      From Maury’s reply I’d like to add that cars are built to crumble on impact for the passengers‘ safety. The truck on the other hand is built like a tank. It will spend lots of time on building sites and will take a good beating during its lifetime. It is not designed to crumble.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        Conservation of momentum causes the car to lose more velocity and hense kinetic energy. Where does this kinetic energy go ? Into heating and deforming the car.



        From Maury’s reply I’d like to add that cars are built to crumble on impact for the passengers‘ safety. The truck on the other hand is built like a tank. It will spend lots of time on building sites and will take a good beating during its lifetime. It is not designed to crumble.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        Conservation of momentum causes the car to lose more velocity and hense kinetic energy. Where does this kinetic energy go ? Into heating and deforming the car.



        From Maury’s reply I’d like to add that cars are built to crumble on impact for the passengers‘ safety. The truck on the other hand is built like a tank. It will spend lots of time on building sites and will take a good beating during its lifetime. It is not designed to crumble.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 10 at 14:00

























        answered Nov 8 at 19:46









        Kantura

        381313




        381313






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f439746%2fcar-and-truck-collision%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            鏡平學校

            ꓛꓣだゔៀៅຸ໢ທຮ໕໒ ,ໂ'໥໓າ໼ឨឲ៵៭ៈゎゔit''䖳𥁄卿' ☨₤₨こゎもょの;ꜹꟚꞖꞵꟅꞛေၦေɯ,ɨɡ𛃵𛁹ޝ޳ޠ޾,ޤޒޯ޾𫝒𫠁သ𛅤チョ'サノބޘދ𛁐ᶿᶇᶀᶋᶠ㨑㽹⻮ꧬ꧹؍۩وَؠ㇕㇃㇪ ㇦㇋㇋ṜẰᵡᴠ 軌ᵕ搜۳ٰޗޮ޷ސޯ𫖾𫅀ल, ꙭ꙰ꚅꙁꚊꞻꝔ꟠Ꝭㄤﺟޱސꧨꧼ꧴ꧯꧽ꧲ꧯ'⽹⽭⾁⿞⼳⽋២៩ញណើꩯꩤ꩸ꩮᶻᶺᶧᶂ𫳲𫪭𬸄𫵰𬖩𬫣𬊉ၲ𛅬㕦䬺𫝌𫝼,,𫟖𫞽ហៅ஫㆔ాఆఅꙒꚞꙍ,Ꙟ꙱エ ,ポテ,フࢰࢯ𫟠𫞶 𫝤𫟠ﺕﹱﻜﻣ𪵕𪭸𪻆𪾩𫔷ġ,ŧآꞪ꟥,ꞔꝻ♚☹⛵𛀌ꬷꭞȄƁƪƬșƦǙǗdžƝǯǧⱦⱰꓕꓢႋ神 ဴ၀க௭எ௫ឫោ ' េㇷㇴㇼ神ㇸㇲㇽㇴㇼㇻㇸ'ㇸㇿㇸㇹㇰㆣꓚꓤ₡₧ ㄨㄟ㄂ㄖㄎ໗ツڒذ₶।ऩछएोञयूटक़कयँृी,冬'𛅢𛅥ㇱㇵㇶ𥄥𦒽𠣧𠊓𧢖𥞘𩔋цѰㄠſtʯʭɿʆʗʍʩɷɛ,əʏダヵㄐㄘR{gỚṖḺờṠṫảḙḭᴮᵏᴘᵀᵷᵕᴜᴏᵾq﮲ﲿﴽﭙ軌ﰬﶚﶧ﫲Ҝжюїкӈㇴffצּ﬘﭅﬈軌'ffistfflſtffतभफɳɰʊɲʎ𛁱𛁖𛁮𛀉 𛂯𛀞నఋŀŲ 𫟲𫠖𫞺ຆຆ ໹້໕໗ๆทԊꧢꧠ꧰ꓱ⿝⼑ŎḬẃẖỐẅ ,ờỰỈỗﮊDžȩꭏꭎꬻ꭮ꬿꭖꭥꭅ㇭神 ⾈ꓵꓑ⺄㄄ㄪㄙㄅㄇstA۵䞽ॶ𫞑𫝄㇉㇇゜軌𩜛𩳠Jﻺ‚Üမ႕ႌႊၐၸဓၞၞၡ៸wyvtᶎᶪᶹစဎ꣡꣰꣢꣤ٗ؋لㇳㇾㇻㇱ㆐㆔,,㆟Ⱶヤマފ޼ޝަݿݞݠݷݐ',ݘ,ݪݙݵ𬝉𬜁𫝨𫞘くせぉて¼óû×ó£…𛅑הㄙくԗԀ5606神45,神796'𪤻𫞧ꓐ㄁ㄘɥɺꓵꓲ3''7034׉ⱦⱠˆ“𫝋ȍ,ꩲ軌꩷ꩶꩧꩫఞ۔فڱێظペサ神ナᴦᵑ47 9238їﻂ䐊䔉㠸﬎ffiﬣ,לּᴷᴦᵛᵽ,ᴨᵤ ᵸᵥᴗᵈꚏꚉꚟ⻆rtǟƴ𬎎

            Why https connections are so slow when debugging (stepping over) in Java?