News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by mc32 on Thursday February 09, 2023 @02:34PM (#34729957)
Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by mannerheim on Thursday February 09, 2023 @02:38PM (#34730015)
You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars.

https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by ceejayoz on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:25PM (#34730845)
Their cheapest one failed a crash test against a child's pinata.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by mannerheim on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:49PM (#34731219)
Well, yes, they're not particularly good or safe cars.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by ceejayoz on Thursday February 09, 2023 @03:50PM (#34731246)
I didn't expect one to fare well in a crash test against another car.

I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box.

There's "unsafe", and then there's this.

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by Dylan16807 on Thursday February 09, 2023 @04:40PM (#34731925)
It messed up the bumper? Wouldn't that happen with tons of cars?

And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by ceejayoz on Thursday February 09, 2023 @05:22PM (#34732512)
None of that damage should have occurred from a pinata.

At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by Dylan16807 on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:25PM (#34733223)
I'd like to see some tests with other vehicles. A pinata at that speed is still a good chunk of force and many bumpers are plastic.

> At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.

Sure but if you're doing that then you don't need the pinata test at all.

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by someweirdperson on Thursday February 09, 2023 @05:03PM (#34732250)
As unsafe as cars in the 60s.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by mc32 on Thursday February 09, 2023 @05:49PM (#34732841)
No, 60s cars were rigid boxes that did not crumple --which because of a lack of other safety features meant you got ejected or got banged around inside this metal box. These things allow you to get squished inside the foil box.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by beamgirl on Friday February 10, 2023 @12:02PM (#34742384)
So the whole rigid box thing is kinda a "they dont make em like this anymore" myth. Here's a 1959 Chevy crashed into a 2009 Chevy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck. They both crumple, but the 2009 only crumples in the crumple zones. The crumpling on the 1959 impala is more spread out and you can see includes more of the interior
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by ceejayoz on Friday February 10, 2023 @12:21PM (#34742654)
It's less about that sort of crash and more about small fender benders. You're likely to get much more bumper damage hitting a car at 5 mph in stop and go traffic in a modern car. (The upside being, of course, you're a lot less likely to snap a pedestrian's leg in a similar hit.)
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by beamgirl on Friday February 10, 2023 @12:42PM (#34743006)
More bumper damage sure, but even at a couple miles per hour, a car where the bumper bolts straight to the frame moving at a couple miles an hour has to dissipate that energy. I'd expect to see some bent metal. My 82 bronco actually has a foot of steel bars that act as sacrificial bumper mounts so the frame doesn't take that impact.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by bsder on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:04PM (#34733019)
A 60s Buick would not lose against a pinata.

The cars in the 60s were rigid. This meant that, by and large, the car did damage to everything else until that threshold was passed.

The problem was two fold:

1) You tended to get thrown around inside the rigid box since internal restraints weren't very good (poor seatbelts, poor headrests, no airbags, etc.).

2) Once you finally had enough energy to get past the failure point, the car collapse was uncontrolled. This generally meant that the steering column got pushed into the driver.

Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by megablast on Friday February 10, 2023 @12:18AM (#34735913)
Failed? Some minor damage on the roof rack.
Re:The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment by ceejayoz on Friday February 10, 2023 @06:20AM (#34738263)
That’s the first thing they notice. Watch further.