s*******e 发帖数: 1298 | |
i****k 发帖数: 4085 | 2 撞墙差,实际碰撞撞到dfbb毛事没有
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 得要选好的,不能觉得是个pickup就安全。 : ram和silverado比较车还烂~ : http://iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70
|
f****t 发帖数: 15913 | 3 JOKE OF TODAY.
All full size trucks can nuke a camcord in a head to head collision. Have
some sense of physics before you post.
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 得要选好的,不能觉得是个pickup就安全。 : ram和silverado比较车还烂~ : http://iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70
|
s*******e 发帖数: 1298 | 4 仔细看看链接里的侧撞成绩,再仔细读读测试说明就是了。
【在 f****t 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : JOKE OF TODAY. : All full size trucks can nuke a camcord in a head to head collision. Have : some sense of physics before you post.
|
f****t 发帖数: 15913 | 5 When a car hit a wall, the car is actually hit the earth. So a heavier car
will have more severe than a lighter car. If a train hit a mountain, the
damage will be much worse than a big truck. Can you get the conclusion that
a car is safer than a train?
In real world, cars do not hit the earth. Cars hit cars. Heavier cars
will have less impact than a lighter car. Heavier cars have more room to
deform before the passengers are hurt.
If you plan to hit a wall, a lighter car will be better than a heavier car.
Not everyone wants to hit a wall. You may be an exception.
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 仔细看看链接里的侧撞成绩,再仔细读读测试说明就是了。
|
K******S 发帖数: 10109 | 6 about 50% crashes are signal vehicle crashes. I bet those drivers didn't
plan to hit wall/tree either.
car
that
.
【在 f****t 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : When a car hit a wall, the car is actually hit the earth. So a heavier car : will have more severe than a lighter car. If a train hit a mountain, the : damage will be much worse than a big truck. Can you get the conclusion that : a car is safer than a train? : In real world, cars do not hit the earth. Cars hit cars. Heavier cars : will have less impact than a lighter car. Heavier cars have more room to : deform before the passengers are hurt. : If you plan to hit a wall, a lighter car will be better than a heavier car. : Not everyone wants to hit a wall. You may be an exception.
|
t******6 发帖数: 9093 | 7 遇到2B也是死路一条
【在 i****k 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 撞墙差,实际碰撞撞到dfbb毛事没有
|
y***g 发帖数: 10422 | 8 从参数看,RAM 1500 侧面的 structure 强度并不差。怎么对驾驶员躯干的保护会这么
差,有点不可思议。。。
Silverado 侧面的 structure 强度太烂了。。。不过 contractor 们买车时候估计不
会看这个。
三个 Good 车型里面,结构强度基本上 Tundra > F150 > Ridgeline。
最后总结一下:即使是美式皮卡,也是 Toyota 最安全。日系V5 。。。
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 仔细看看链接里的侧撞成绩,再仔细读读测试说明就是了。
|
w**e 发帖数: 2424 | |
s*******e 发帖数: 1298 | 10 不幸的是各个级别所有车辆在iihs的侧撞测试中都是有同一个施撞车辆以同一速度撞击
的,成绩烂就可以直接说明车子设计得有问题,就可以说比有些轿车差。
你所说的撞墙的情况只能用于正碰测试:测试车速一样,车越重车体要吸收的动能越大
;各个级别的车不能直接比较。
car
that
.
【在 f****t 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : When a car hit a wall, the car is actually hit the earth. So a heavier car : will have more severe than a lighter car. If a train hit a mountain, the : damage will be much worse than a big truck. Can you get the conclusion that : a car is safer than a train? : In real world, cars do not hit the earth. Cars hit cars. Heavier cars : will have less impact than a lighter car. Heavier cars have more room to : deform before the passengers are hurt. : If you plan to hit a wall, a lighter car will be better than a heavier car. : Not everyone wants to hit a wall. You may be an exception.
|
|
|
v****0 发帖数: 1887 | 11 一个1*的pickup 可以把所有的5*的midsize 车撞烂一遍
然后接着开
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 得要选好的,不能觉得是个pickup就安全。 : ram和silverado比较车还烂~ : http://iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70
|
t*****g 发帖数: 7455 | 12 看来iihs的测试还是不如nhtsa的细致
【在 w**e 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : NHTSA的碰撞测试结果恰好相反,Tundra的roll over和正碰很多都是三颗星 : http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/
|
s*******e 发帖数: 1298 | 13 两者强调的东西不一样:
拿rollover来比,iihs比的是车身强度,nhsta比的是重心高度。
正碰里,nhsta的速度要比iihs慢而且是100%覆盖面积(车体吸收能量更充分),但是
撞水泥墙(墙不能变形无法吸能);而iihs的是40%覆盖面积(车体吸收能量更少,对
车身结构要求更严),但是撞的“墙”有变形。
所以两者各有千秋,要综合的看。
【在 t*****g 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 看来iihs的测试还是不如nhtsa的细致
|
h****y 发帖数: 9234 | 14 碰碰车爱好者真多.
【在 v****0 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 一个1*的pickup 可以把所有的5*的midsize 车撞烂一遍 : 然后接着开
|
w******k 发帖数: 130 | 15 其实撞树和撞墙效果差不多,而撞树的可能性还不小。
倒是实际生活中的撞墙大车要安全得多,米国的墙都
太不结实了。。。
【在 i****k 的大作中提到】![](/moin_static193/solenoid/img/up.png) : 撞墙差,实际碰撞撞到dfbb毛事没有
|