Car Guys, Assemble!

[skorpx1]

For the new Charger and Challengers have been revealed.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/04/17/dodge-charger-challenger/7815555/



Personally I like the look of the Challenger, but the Charger is just god awful. What idiot was put in charge of designing that abomination?

[Skuzzy]

Never have liked the reincarnation of the Charger.  The 1969/70 models were some of the sexiest cars made, in my opinion.  I wish they had drawn from those years.

Now it appears they are trying to make it look like an Audi.  Sheesh.

I wish they would shrink the Challenger and lose some of the fat it gained in its reincarnation.  Loved that one too.

[skorpx1]

Never have liked the reincarnation of the Charger.  The 1969/70 models were some of the sexiest cars made, in my opinion.  I wish they had drawn from those years.

Now it appears they are trying to make it look like an Audi.  Sheesh.

I wish they would shrink the Challenger and lose some of the fat it gained in its reincarnation.  Loved that one too.

I agree that the size should be reduced but then you're trading off something kind of important - safety. The bigger car makes for a bigger crumple zone in the event of a crash but if you take that out, then you won't have the same level of protection.



As far as the Charger looking like an Audi, i'd have to say the headlights look like they were rounded off Ford Fusion headlights, the tail lights were ripped directly off an Audi and the rest of the car is just a more rounded out version of the previous Charger.

[Skuzzy]

The blackout treatment, up front, mimics the shape of the Audi grill work.

As far as size goes in relation to safety.  They are really two very different things.  The engineering is what determines the safety.  The size only helps, if it is engineered correctly, but it can also work against you.  The amount of energy stored in a 2 ton vehicle moving at 70MPH is far higher than a 1 ton vehicle.

Hence, it takes more car to absorb the energy from the added weight.

Here is a simple test.  Take 500 sheets of .001 thick aluminum and space them 1/2 inch apart, suspended in a rack.  Hoist the rack 125' feet in the air.  Place a rabbit on the top sheet.  Drop it on a carbon steel spike which is 24' tall and 1/8 of an inch in diameter.

Repeat the test using a single sheet of aluminum which is 1/4 inch thick.  This is half the weight of the 500 sheet rack.


Feel free to run the numbers.  I already know the results.

Point being one is better engineered than the other to absorb and distribute the energy before the spike kills the rabbit.  Which one do you think it is?  Why?

[danny76]

The blackout treatment, up front, mimics the shape of the Audi grill work.

As far as size goes in relation to safety.  They are really two very different things.  The engineering is what determines the safety.  The size only helps, if it is engineered correctly, but it can also work against you.  The amount of energy stored in a 2 ton vehicle moving at 70MPH is far higher than a 1 ton vehicle.

Hence, it takes more car to absorb the energy from the added weight.

Here is a simple test.  Take 500 sheets of .001 thick aluminum and space them 1/2 inch apart, suspended in a rack.  Hoist the rack 125' feet in the air.  Place a rabbit on the top sheet.  Drop it on a carbon steel spike which is 24' tall and 1/8 of an inch in diameter.

Repeat the test using a single sheet of aluminum which is 1/4 inch thick.  This is half the weight of the 500 sheet rack.


Feel free to run the numbers.  I already know the results.

Point being one is better engineered than the other to absorb and distribute the energy before the spike kills the rabbit.  Which one do you think it is?  Why?

I'm impressed you got the rabbits to sit still long enough to get kebabbed.

Seriously though, isn't this the crux of Chobham armour

[Skuzzy]

I'm impressed you got the rabbits to sit still long enough to get kebabbed.

Seriously though, isn't this the crux of Chobham armour

Really?  I thought it was more impressive we hit the spike from 125 feet, in a free fall.

By the way, it was a class project in our college structural/mechanical engineering classes. If I state the point of the test, it will give away the results.

[danny76]

Really?  I thought it was more impressive we hit the spike from 125 feet, in a free fall.

 

[skorpx1]

The blackout treatment, up front, mimics the shape of the Audi grill work.

As far as size goes in relation to safety.  They are really two very different things.  The engineering is what determines the safety.  The size only helps, if it is engineered correctly, but it can also work against you.  The amount of energy stored in a 2 ton vehicle moving at 70MPH is far higher than a 1 ton vehicle.

Hence, it takes more car to absorb the energy from the added weight.

Here is a simple test.  Take 500 sheets of .001 thick aluminum and space them 1/2 inch apart, suspended in a rack.  Hoist the rack 125' feet in the air.  Place a rabbit on the top sheet.  Drop it on a carbon steel spike which is 24' tall and 1/8 of an inch in diameter.

Repeat the test using a single sheet of aluminum which is 1/4 inch thick.  This is half the weight of the 500 sheet rack.


Feel free to run the numbers.  I already know the results.

Point being one is better engineered than the other to absorb and distribute the energy before the spike kills the rabbit.  Which one do you think it is?  Why?

I saw math and then my brain fried.

No math for me. Ever. 



Who wants waffles? I literally just made like 40 of them for myself. I don't think I can eat them all.

[jeep00]

I saw math and then my brain fried.

No math for me. Ever. 



Who wants waffles? I literally just made like 40 of them for myself. I don't think I can eat them all.

See? This is why you need math, so you know 20 is plenty. 

This is also why those break away pieces are so important in that they are destroyed while removing some more of the energy of the impact upon the core of the vehicle and in particular the passenger compartment area.

And these new ones truly puffed up versions/bastardizations of the truly beautiful lines of the originals. Perhaps these new ones can turn left AND right though.....

[-ammo-]

Never have liked the reincarnation of the Charger.  The 1969/70 models were some of the sexiest cars made, in my opinion.  I wish they had drawn from those years.

Now it appears they are trying to make it look like an Audi.  Sheesh.

I wish they would shrink the Challenger and lose some of the fat it gained in its reincarnation.  Loved that one too.

I am of a different opinion of the late model chargers.  I think they are a great looking car with nice options and great power.  Almost bought an SRT Charger in 2010 but good sense prevailed; $45K is too much for a Dodge.  Hence I am a mustang owner and I OWN Chargers when it comes to a head to head challenge.

OK, so what's wrong with an Audi?  They are beautiful cars and super engineered.  I know, I know -  ridiculously priced.  And forget about annual maintenance bill associated with ownership. But still, the A5 and A7 are absolutely beautiful.  I like them all (except the TT and A3).

[Skuzzy]

Oh, do not get me wrong.  I think Audi's. from most angles, are some of the best looking cars on the road today.  I have not been a fan of the grill on the newer models though.

[Copprhed]

Skuzzy, isn't this thread hijacking? The original thread was about the Charger/Challenger, and you've made it about rabbits, aluminum and Audis.......

and not ONE mention of sheep! Sheeeeesh!

[Skuzzy]

The title is "Car Guys, Assemble".

The structural integrity of an automobile is just as important as the drive train and was also brought up by the thread starter.

Might want to read rule #5.

[skorpx1]

Skuzzy, isn't this thread hijacking? The original thread was about the Charger/Challenger, and you've made it about rabbits, aluminum and Audis.......

and not ONE mention of sheep! Sheeeeesh!

I don't see how we got off topic here. 


But seeing that we're on Audi's why not mention the other German beauty - Mercedes Benz. I'd love to have an SLS AMG but the darn things cost well over 200 grand, and for the same price I could get an older SLR 722 with a bigger engine, better performance and better looks.

[-ammo-]

I don't see how we got off topic here. 


But seeing that we're on Audi's why not mention the other German beauty - Mercedes Benz. I'd love to have an SLS AMG but the darn things cost well over 200 grand, and for the same price I could get an older SLR 722 with a bigger engine, better performance and better looks.

Why not really dream big: Porsche Carrera GT.  I have been passed by one of these twice in my current tour in Germany.