Would cars be safer if the average vehicle mass was 10-20 tonnes

>>17213523
You want the car to deform you autismo.
That's why race cars blow apart into 1,000 pieces and why a 10mph fender bender totals your civic.
They are designed to do that for safety.

uhh no

you dont want some thick metaled car

its why old shitbox American barges are unsafe

>>17213523
Deformation means the energy is beind dissipated.
Also 10 tonnes vehicle would need crazy amount of power and so fuel to accelerate even at low speed, I don't even speak about braking.

>>17213532
You do understand that when you in your crumple zoned euro shitbox hits me in my 95 GMC 1/2 truck, it'll be me walking away, and you carted away in a bag...right?

If the force of the crash can't bend the car it will transfer to the soft meaty things inside.

>>17213673
In a truck maybe, but he said shitbox landbarges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Sooo no, land barge would get clipped by a swift and the driver would lose their legs

>>17213673
I very much doubt it. In the old days if you heard a crash you used to listen for how long the horn stayed on for. If it stayed on past a couple of seconds, there was no point getting out of your chair too quick as they were dead. This rarely totalled cars but it sure did total drivers.

>>17213523
I think some of these anons are missing the point. If you have a car made of 10mm plate steel, and you get hit by some econobox, their car will be completely fucked and you'll be fine.
If you get in a crash with another 10 ton car though, you won't be any better off than you would have been in an econobox vs econobox wreck.

I think they should make cars out of Hot Wheels metal. I've been crashing them together for decades and they're still perfect. Just scale it up 1000x.

>>17213712
That's fucked up man.

>>17213770
You ever saw a snail trapped inside of a waterbottle violently shaken around? Well the waterbottle didn't deform.

>>17213523
Have fun keeping up with the roads when every car weighs that much

>>17213693
While I'll be the first one to admit old cars are unsafe as fuck, I'll also say that video is somewhat biased due to choosing a '59 Bel Air, which ran on the one or two year only X-frame instead of a standard rails-and-crossmembers frame and was known to be unsafe as fuck even at the time it was made.

>>17213673
You do understand that when you're in a crash in a old metal car the impact isn't absorbed by the "euro crumple zones" it flows through it and typically kills whoever's inside from the force. I got rear ended by a box truck in my plastic econbox and barely felt a thing thanks to that plastic you're complaining about. Not to mention plastic is lighter making newer cars faster.

>>17213693
Sorry bud but the 59-60 X-frame Chevrolets were considered unsafe even for that time

>>17213770
Sorry mate that's life. If you can't handle really painful death or seeing horrible deformed things, Motorsport is not the sport for you.

>>17213523
You dip, if every other car is just as heavy, crashes will be just as bad. All it really means is that brick walls stand no chance

>>17213523
deforming is what helps people survive crashes since it absorbs a lot of the power

>>17213693
>Let's choose a car without seat belts and poor reviews for it's time!
>Also let's set up the test so it hits the weakest part of the car!

>2017
>not making cars out of pillows and marshmallows