Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)
-   -   Another accident on Morse (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/another-accident-morse-181483/)

autumnspring 02-10-2016 10:56 AM
reply
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagboy (Post 1183944)
So if everyone had an ID tag on their cart, all laws would be obeyed and there would be no accidents?
Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.

golfing eagles 02-10-2016 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suesiegel (Post 1183956)
Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.
Only if head on. But get hit by a car that weighs 10 times as much and the momentum is that much greater.
The problem with ID tags is that it prevents nothing, like Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid" It creates a whole new layer of regulation and bureaucracy, and only helps to identify someone who intends to flee the scene, which is rare.

bagboy 02-10-2016 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suesiegel (Post 1183956)
Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.
My golf cart is adjusted to 20 mph.

Rapscallion St Croix 02-10-2016 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suesiegel (Post 1183956)
Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.
It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

Polar Bear 02-10-2016 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix (Post 1183988)
It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.
Sorry, but that's not right. It does work that way. I know what you mean about a solid wall...there's less energy absorption than a more collapsible vehicle. But it doesn't change the fact that...

When two vehicles collide, it's the RELATIVE speed that determines the severity of the impact. If two vehicles collide head-on, each going 20 MPH, it is the equivalent of a 40 MPH collision.

Consider this, if you're traveling along going 20 MPH, and you hit the vehicle ahead of you, which is going in the same direction at 19 MPH, the collision is not that significant. Because the relative speed (differential) is only 1 MPH.

tuccillo 02-10-2016 12:18 PM
I believe you are correct. Two carts each traveling at 20 MPH and colliding head on is roughly the same, in terms of damage to the cart, as a cart hitting a solid wall at 20 MPH. Of course, with two carts having the head on collision you now have 2 carts damaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix (Post 1183988)
It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix (Post 1183988)
It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

Newton was wrong?

Rapscallion St Croix 02-10-2016 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1184006)
Newton was wrong?
Nope.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:29 PM
I guess crash dummies know best.

Polar Bear 02-10-2016 12:38 PM
Another accident on Morse
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix (Post 1183988)
It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1184004)
I believe you are correct. Two carts each traveling at 20 MPH and colliding head on is roughly the same, in terms of damage to the cart, as a cart hitting a solid wall at 20 MPH...
Go read a physics book, guys. :)

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184022)
Go read a physics book, guys. :)

The Villages is in a different dimension. Physics rules are different.

golfing eagles 02-10-2016 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184022)
Go read a physics book, guys. :)
Well said. The situation is not equivalent because the brick wall is not moving therefore it's momentum (mass x velocity) is 0. This is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the object, which determines all kinds of things such as damage and injury. If they don't believe this, there is always the field experiment----run your cart head on into another going 20, and run it into a brick wall at 20. Care to guess which is worse?

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:48 PM
I think in a real world head to head crash the damage would be less then a brick wall crash at half the speed. The carts would need to be perfect cubes and meet tangent to equal the math equation.

Chatbrat 02-10-2016 12:49 PM
Energy= MV, mass x's velocity---the bigger the mass , more energy --for the same speed

What does more damage? a 60 gr bullet @ 1000 fps or a 230 gr bullet @ 1000fps ?

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:50 PM
Anyone up to a game of chicken ?

tuccillo 02-10-2016 12:51 PM
This is really an old physics exercise. Go look it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184022)
Go read a physics book, guys. :)

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:55 PM
Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

Polar Bear 02-10-2016 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1184035)
This is really an old physics exercise. Go look it up.
It's not an exercise, it's a basic physics principle. Of course there is energy absorbed by the "deformable" vehicles as opposed to a non-deformable wall. But it doesn't change the basic principle.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 12:56 PM
Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

tuccillo 02-10-2016 01:01 PM
Consider a wall and two golf carts collide into the wall from either side at 20 MPH. The wall doesn't move. Each cart has the same amount of damage. Now remove the wall and have the carts collide head-on at the same 20 MPH. You will have the same effect. Two cars colliding head-on have twice the energy of one car running into a wall but with the head-on collision you have two cars damaged. One car running into a wall does not have to travel at 40 MPH to experience the same damage as if it had a head-on collision at 20 MPH. Now do you understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184039)
It's not an exercise, it's a basic physics principle.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:03 PM
Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

Polar Bear 02-10-2016 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1184043)
Consider a wall and two golf carts collide into the wall from either side at 20 MPH. The wall doesn't move. Each cart has the same amount of damage. Now remove the wall and have the carts collide head-on at the same 20 MPH. You will have the same effect. Two cars colliding head-on have twice the energy of one car running into a wall but with the head-on collision you have two cars damaged. One car running into a wall does not have to travel at 40 MPH to experience the same damage as if it had a head-on collision at 20 MPH. Now do you understand?
"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges.

Relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

tuccillo 02-10-2016 01:17 PM
the effect will be roughly the same. Of course, the discussion was about something different: whether the damage to a cart having a head-on collision with another cart at 20 MPH was the equivalent of a cart colliding with a wall at 40 MPH. They aren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1184029)
Well said. The situation is not equivalent because the brick wall is not moving therefore it's momentum (mass x velocity) is 0. This is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the object, which determines all kinds of things such as damage and injury. If they don't believe this, there is always the field experiment----run your cart head on into another going 20, and run it into a brick wall at 20. Care to guess which is worse?

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:18 PM
Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

tuccillo 02-10-2016 01:28 PM
Just so there is no confusion, I am addressing the statement that a cart has to run into a wall at 40 MPH to sustain the same (roughly) damage as if it had a head-on collision with another cart at 20 MPH. This is not true. When two carts at 20 MPH collide, the same amount of energy has to be dissipated as if they both ran into a wall at 20 MPH. The wall will absorb a small amount of the energy but the vast majority will be absorbed by the carts (plus some goes into sound and heat). Twice the energy, twice the number of carts, same damage to each cart, same as if the cart ran into a wall by itself at 20 MPH. Of course, there is a fundamental, and I assumed obvious, assumption that we are talking about a "substantial" wall. One that remains intact after the collision.

I will do the mathematical proof but I am not sure anyone will follow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184053)
"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges. But relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

tuccillo 02-10-2016 01:32 PM
You are working from the assumption that a wall has the same mass as a golf cart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184053)
"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges.

Relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:32 PM
Two old men walk into a bar and start to argue. The first guy throws a punch at 45 mph, hits the second guy square in the chin. First guy breaks his wrist, second guy his jaw. Both go to the VRH and wait 14 hours to see a doc. First guy is a Villager, second guy a Stonecrester. They both get ****ed.

Allegiance 02-10-2016 01:36 PM
All laws of science are suspended in the bubble.

Arctic Fox 02-10-2016 01:38 PM
don't forget that we are dealing with energy here, not momentum

momentum is mass x velocity: m x v

kinetic energy is "half m v squared": 0.5 x m x v x v

Polar Bear 02-10-2016 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1184066)
You are working from the assumption that a wall has the same mass as a golf cart.
Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.

And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.

You get the last word. It's been fun. :)

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:42 PM
Two retired teachers walk into a bar and start to argue. The first teacher takes a swing at maximum velocity straight to the second teachers belly. Immediately the second teacher kicks his opponent square into his family jewel box. Both see the futility of it all, step up to the bar and have a beer.

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184073)
Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.



And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.



You get the last word. It's been fun. :)

General or Specific, carry on...

tuccillo 02-10-2016 01:47 PM
I tell you what, you go ahead and prove your point, whatever that may be. You can have the last word when you post your proof. Oh, and you can skip the personal insults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1184073)
Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.

And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.

You get the last word. It's been fun. :)

RickeyD 02-10-2016 01:48 PM
Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

chuckinca 02-10-2016 01:51 PM
From Wikipedia:

While it is true (via Galilean relativity) that a head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is equivalent to a moving vehicle running into a stationary one at 100 mph, it is clear from basic Newtonian Physics that if the stationary vehicle is replaced with a solid wall or other stationary near-immovable object such as a bridge abutment, then the equivalent collision is one in which the moving vehicle is only traveling at 50 mph.,[3] except for the case of a lighter car colliding with a heavier one.

.

ajbrown 02-10-2016 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1184081)
Fun show.... here is the short clip pertaining to this subject...

Mythbusters Car Crash Force

tuccillo 02-10-2016 02:00 PM
Yes, correct. The important point is a collision into a substantial wall where the vehicle has to absorb virtually all of the energy. For the head-on collision, the important point is that both vehicles collide directly into each other and the combined KE is equally absorbed by both vehicles. In that case, it is as if both vehicles collided into a wall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckinca (Post 1184082)
From Wikipedia:

While it is true (via Galilean relativity) that a head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is equivalent to a moving vehicle running into a stationary one at 100 mph, it is clear from basic Newtonian Physics that if the stationary vehicle is replaced with a solid wall or other stationary near-immovable object such as a bridge abutment, then the equivalent collision is one in which the moving vehicle is only traveling at 50 mph.,[3] except for the case of a lighter car colliding with a heavier one.

.

tuccillo 02-10-2016 02:27 PM
I hadn't seen that before. That pretty much proves it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1184081)

RickeyD 02-10-2016 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1184100)
I hadn't seen that before. That pretty much proves it.

Mythbusters rule.

tuccillo 02-10-2016 02:47 PM
Yes, they do. I have always been impressed by the fact that they practice good experimental design. For an "entertainment" show, it would be easy for them to be a bunch of hacks but they always seem to run well thought out controlled experiments. Besides the fact that they are pretty funny, I believe that is why they have lasted so long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1184118)
Mythbusters rule.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.