Speeding Porsche with no plates involved in horror N11 crash

[Lupus]

Surely the kinetic energy from the other car must add to the equation or is this weight based?

Nope it doesn't, in a head on collision the fastest car or heaviest car would be the one applying the most kinetic energy, that's why if two cars with identical mass and speeds collided it would be the same speed, if one was heavier or faster it would be that car's force.
That's why if a faster car hits a slower car the slower car is normally pushed back, as the excess energy is transferred into pushing the slower car back.
This might help?
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html

 

[thestaggy]

I don't recall the exact physics buried 2 cars have a head on and both are driving at 50km/h then for all intend and purposes the crash speed for both would be 100km/h?

If so, then between the Porsche and the Fortuner the combined crash speed could have easily been over 300km/h which would explain the devestating damage.

This is a Volvo XC90 at 80 km/h. Volvo are noted for making some of the safest cars on the road.

100 - 120 km/h head-on collision is going to look like a bomb went off.

For reference, this is what 200 km/h sounds/looks like.

 

[DreamKing]

Some people have no imagination lol. When speeding, your reflexes are less effective, hence head-on collision.

that is funny.

It's also possible to survive a head-on collision... Just not when your vehicle looks like that result.

do you understand what is Newton's laws of motion?

I guess you don't. if you drive about 60km/h of head- collision, that is far more than enough to kill you instantly.

 

[tRoN]

Could be the SUV i.e. Porsche Cayenne


A driver that is dumb enough to cause a head-on collision is dumb enough to kill people at lower speeds as well. Speeding is not a bad thing, shitty drivers and / or shitty cars are a whole different matter altogether.

It was an older model Cayenne as per pic of actual car below

 

[pb41]

This is an absolutely shocking and tragic incident. It seems that the alleged speeds involved here would have
made any collision non-survivable.
In addition, the Fortuner is built on a rigid ladder frame (body-on-frame) chassis which is far less effective in safely absorbing impacts as compared to a unibody (monocoque) chassis which has crumple zones. Also, in general, unibody vehicles are better at carrying out emergency maneuvers to avoid a high speed collision in the first place. These features would have made no difference in this case due to the excessive speeds and massive impact forces involved but is something prospective SUV buyers should be aware of, I believe.

 

[Pitbull]

Sigh. Again, 192km's/h into a steel barrier is no comparison.

Do you even physics?

Steel barrier or not, 2 cars hitting each other at speed, is similar to a car hitting a standing solid object. There is no difference.

 

[FaSMaN]

Do you even physics?

Steel barrier or not, 2 cars hitting each other at speed, is similar to a car hitting a standing solid object. There is no difference.

Also worth considering that the other car you hit will exprience the exact same so technically speaking its better to hit a barrier if you can, in this instance the other car had all its passangers die, which is the sad part

 

[Willie Trombone]

that is funny.

Who am I to judge tour sense of humour. Please tell me you don't need me to explain it though.

do you understand what is Newton's laws of motion?

I guess you don't. if you drive about 60km/h of head- collision, that is far more than enough to kill you instantly.

You don't have to know Newton's laws of anything to be killed at 20 km/h. Or are you going to tell us that's impossibru? You were making a point, just not sure what it was.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Do you even physics?

Steel barrier or not, 2 cars hitting each other at speed, is similar to a car hitting a standing solid object. There is no difference.

If the vehicles in a head on collision are significantly different in mass, the people in the heavier one will come out much better as the inertia will cause them to keep moving forward, so they stop less abruptly. The people in the lighter vehicle will be worse off as not only do they stop abruptly, they also start moving backwards.

This is assuming the vehicles don't crumple completely or burn so the people die anyway.

 

[Gaz{M}]

Also, if the head on is offset from the centre of both vehicles, they tend to hit and then rotate around and end up facing the opposite direction on the wrong side on the road. So it is hard to guess who hit who.

 

[DreamKing]

Who am I to judge tour sense of humour. Please tell me you don't need me to explain it though.



You don't have to know Newton's laws of anything to be killed at 20 km/h. Or are you going to tell us that's impossibru? You were making a point, just not sure what it was.

simply because you have no idea what is Newton's laws of motion.

 

[Willie Trombone]

simply because you have no idea what is Newton's laws of motion.

Hey, two can play at that game. Do you even English bro?

 

[Mekon]

Porsche Cayenne with no plates. They need to check which government ministers or extended family didn't check in for work this morning and they'll probably find out who it was.

 

[Pitbull]

If the vehicles in a head on collision are significantly different in mass, the people in the heavier one will come out much better as the inertia will cause them to keep moving forward, so they stop less abruptly. The people in the lighter vehicle will be worse off as not only do they stop abruptly, they also start moving backwards.

This is assuming the vehicles don't crumple completely or burn so the people die anyway.

We all understand that, mass would be to your advantage.

The reply was in direct response to what he typed with a stationary barrier being worse, which is not the case. Like for like it would be the same be it a stationary fixed object or an objected moving in the opposite direction and having a collision.

 

[DreamKing]

Hey, two can play at that game. Do you even English bro?

what is the problem? please explain.

 

[Willie Trombone]

simply because you have no idea what is Newton's laws of motion.

Here you go
"....simply because you have no idea what is Newton's laws of motion are."

 

[DreamKing]

Here you go
"....simply because you have no idea what is Newton's laws of motion are."

stupid, "Newton's laws of motion" is a "name". NOT law(s), so the grammar is correct. grammar Nazi.

 

[SaiyanZ]

We all understand that, mass would be to your advantage.

The reply was in direct response to what he typed with a stationary barrier being worse, which is not the case. Like for like it would be the same be it a stationary fixed object or an objected moving in the opposite direction and having a collision.

It's really difficult to say which would be better. There's a few factors like crumple time which changes depending on how fast you're going. Most cars are designed to crumple most efficiently at slower speeds like 60km/70km per hour. Once you go multiple times faster than that the vehicles crumple way too quickly so the crumpling doesn't help to spread the stopping over a duration. The more the vehicles crumple (to the extent that the passengers don't get crushed) and the longer they take to crumple, the safer the passengers will be.

Both vehicles crumpling is better than one vehicle, so hitting a solid wall is worse. However the other vehicle also adds to the speed in a head on collision so you're both going faster vs just colliding with a wall. Then there's also the mass that comes into play like I said.

The only thing you can be sure of is that the heavier of the two vehicles is going to be worse off hitting a solid barrier, at a speed that is the sum of the two vehicles speed. eg. Both vehicles travelling 100km/hr. The heavier one hitting a solid barrier at 200km/hr is going to have a worse time compared to hitting an oncoming vehicle with both going at 100km/hr.

 

[Splinter]

Do you even physics?

Steel barrier or not, 2 cars hitting each other at speed, is similar to a car hitting a standing solid object. There is no difference.

Again - crumple zones. There is a reason car manufacturers spend billions on R&D on safety.

 

[krycor]

Wrt daytime vs nighttime driving.. it makes a difference as you have better visual perception, unless on a blind bend/hill can see and pre-empt knowing the safe bounds of road (at night it’s a huge risk to go into yellow lane) etc

With it being a square head on, someone was well into the others lane or both driving in centre (which does happen).

Meh.. that’s why I hate driving after sunset when doing a road trip. At least in the day I can preempt