|
|
| Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. (643048) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE. |
|
|
Posted by Gerry6309 on Tue Jul 1 23:17:02 2008, in response to Re: Since We are on the subject....TIME TO SHOW HOW ROBUST THE OLD SMEES ARE., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jul 1 12:58:42 2008. There is a difference in the principles used to construct the various types of cars. The smashed up R-38, was probably partially telescoped, at the expense of any occupant of the cab (or the adjacent public area). The more modern equipment has full width cabs, offering more protection to the public. The whole body also absorbs the blow reducing the danger to any cab occupant. New York was very slow to adopt lighter weight construction techniques, long in use elsewhere. I am not a structural engineer, but I do know the basic laws of physics. The energy of the moving object in a collision has to go somewhere. It is absorbed by the vehicle struck or transferred to it. The newer designs absorb the energy through the whole structure, the older ones do not. Ask a real engineer which is better, because I am not qualified to render an opinion on that!. |
|
|
|