mzso wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:02 pm
henry wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:44 am
Probably not. The key point of the structure is not absorption of the energy but control of the rate of absorption. The G forces. Shorter, thicker, structures would absorb the energy at the expense of higher loads on the driver.
You may be right about the loads on driver, difficult to say. But you're self-contradictory by saying it's not the key point to absorb energy.
OK, the structure must absorb the energy at impact. But that’s not the only criterion that determines if the success of the test. The other criterion is the rate of energy absorption which leads to peak decelerations or forces. It is this that would be affected by increased thickness, stiffer, construction.
There are two tests with differing impact energies. Test 2 explicitly mentions the driver, or his proxy dummy.
The maximum deceleration in the chest of the dummy for a cumulative 3ms shall be reported, this being the resultant of data from the three orthogonal axes.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus