That guy is truly lucky. The crane weight godknowshowmanytons moved 50 inches!!!
Only a hand full of passenger vehicles would have saved this guy like that cruiser did.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
A handfull?
Just curious which other ones you think would of given you the same chance at survivability?
Given its reputation, mabey a Volvo?
I dont think he'd of survived without the ARB added either...
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
It's hard to say. I would guess a tahoe/suburban/H2, maybe an expedition or excursion, nissan titan/patrol. If you count pickups as passenger then most 1 & 3/4 tons would probably offer equal protection even a few 1/2 tons. I don't think my tundra or a sequoia would offer the same protection unless maybe it had a bull bar. Lots of stuff is built now to aford survival at 60-70mph square headon. It's the offset and side impact crashes that kill much more easily. Offset frontals is where I would guess an ARB shines.
It would have to be something big with alot of mass/distance between the crane and the ocupant to absorbe the forces. Also without an airbag it wouldnt mater how big a car he was driving. Basal skull fracture would have killed him.
[ 05-03-2005, 11:36: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I don't think the bullbar had any more to do with his survival than the truck itself and the airbag/seatbelt combo. They all probably had equal hand in saving him.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Without the Bullbar the truck would have folded up alot more. I guess the BB works with airbags (they say they don't).
[ 05-03-2005, 12:04: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: I guess the BB works with airbags (they say they don't).
Its not that it doesnt work. Its that the ARB is so solid, that front end collisions that should NOT deploy the airbag tend to with the ARB because it doesnt absorb that much energy, just transfers it to the frame.
I agree with the guys brother that took those photos (Idahodoug, safety is his business in some regard). The stock front bumper would of change the dynamics of that crash a lot (because its a piece of bloody tinfoil). NO WAY would the two frame rails done as much to absorbe all that energy without the rigid ARB crossmember at the front. Both bent 90degrees straight up, and the pass side then broke. They would have been driven straight back and "crushed" or pealed back separately with the crappy stock front bumper. Just mnsho.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Thats probably true. Being that the bull bar basically became an engine and drivetrain push bar it transfered more force to the frame than the stock POS would have. Evident by the fact that the whole damn truck nearly folded in half. What gets me is the transmission or driveshaft (i cant remember which) actually pushed a 10" deep dent in the gas tank and the tank held. Not one drop of fuel leaked.
The fact that he didnt die in a subsaquent fire is truly amazing.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I think he said the Transfer case was driven back and down, into the gas tank like u said, and then down into the ground and thats why the truck looks kinda jacked up in the rear.
What I found really amazing is the ARB actually did damge BACK to the damn crane. Sliced tire and rim.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
The older brother of the guy in this Accident also followed up with this post. Never even considered that american SUV's only go thru our standards, where the 80 series is sold in more than 40 countries.
"I'm not sure that everyone on the list fully appreciates the safety aspects of this vehicle. Because it is sold in over 40 countries, the 80 had to be engineered to meet ALL of them. German offsets, German rollover, US side impact, Japanese Wheel League, blah, blah. Little things like fuel line protection, high strength steel in the roof, and seat frame beef all create a statistical pileup in your favor when the worst imaginable happens. Try it with a domestic SUV that meets, uh, well it meets only US standards. A few years ago, we had a horrible tragedy here when a family in a late model Jeep Grand Cherokee pulled to the side of the freeway because the husband heard a funny noise in his tire (might still come up on a Google search of I90/Coeur d'Alene). While he was standing by the right rear tire, an inattentive driver clipped the Jeep, shoving it a little ways down the shoulder. The husband ran to the Jeep but could not open the doors because the unibody (no frame) had sprung and jammed the doors shut. Within seconds, a fuel leak ignited and he watched in horror as his two young children and his wife burned to death before his eyes. I simply cannot fathom that as I have two young children - in no way. Would an 80's doors open? Would an 80's fuel system allow that leak? I like to think that the 80 is engineered to a higher standard. Thank you, Toyota!!"
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
From what I understand our crash standards are in most cases the most stringent. Jeeps have always had fuel fire problems. On two different occasions I have stoped on off ramps and offered aid to two families standing about 50 yards from a fully engulfed jeep grand cherokee.
Then again the two mazda rx-7s I own are prone to fuel fires too
RX-7s have been sold in almost every country and there isnt a whole lot I would survive in those little tin cans.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
BTW never in your life will you see a deer-in-the-headlights look like a person watching their newer car go up in flames on the side of the freeway.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)