In article <4ee21033-b832-45c3-ba92-b5f9466be40b@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 12:25 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The comedy lies in your ability to continuously demonstrate your silliness
> > and raw ignorance. Claiming that others don't understand physics, yet can't
> > recognize that drivers in high speed crashes get beat up, roll cages and helmets
> > nothwithstanding.
>
> There's an old saying that applies here- "It's not the fall that kills
> you- it's the sudden stop." My father was a physics professor, he
> probably told me that one. So it's not how fast you are going when you
> crash, it's how suddenly your vital parts stop that determines the
> extent of your injuries. Usually your head and neck are the most
> vulnerable.
Why didn't you learn that from him, then? Yes, head and neck *are* most frequently
receivers of the most obvious damge, but often it involves other stuff, like
internals. Besides, it isn't just about death. You seem to be doing a grand job of
claiming that a driver in a high speed crash walks away without a scratch.
> So in the case of my friend who was fatally injured in a
> fairly low speed bike crash, she hit her head on the pavement while
> wearing one of those old "hairnet" helmets with the padded leather
> straps (this was circa 1975). The helmet didn't dissipate the kinetic
> energy of her head, so her skull and brain pulled a lot of g's when
> she hit. In contrast, most of the kinetic energy of Tony Stewart's
> crash was absorbed by his car, and therefore his injuries were minor.
Many assumptions in that last bit. As an example, in the mid to late '80s, a
series of seemingly minor crashes in a pavement modified series resulted in the
deaths of several drivers (including a nine time champion, Richie Evans). It was
finally determined that the cars were stiff enough to handle great but couldn't
dissipate the energy from a crash. Note that these cars are not traveling at the
speeds that NASCAR stock cars do, either. The point is injuries are not consistent in
crashes, as you may have discovered in the one that caused your friend's death.
Others might have walked away from that one (at least based on your in-group
descriptions).
> But seriously, you have an uncanny ability to look at a set of facts-
> Tony Stewart is in a spectacular crash at 150 mph and walks -er- limps
> away with a bruised foot- and immediately ask the crucial question-
> "How badly is his foot bruised?"
It's very simple - you heaped scorn on the guy for "only having a bruised foot"
when you have no idea the extent of the damage. Perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to
do that if you'd ever had a really serious impact and the bruising that comes with
it. It seems to me that you really have a need to have your chosen sport be the
gnarliest, baddest, most dangerous one around - probably because that gives your wee
life meaning.
--
tanx,
Howard
Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
