Did Oil Just Become Too Expensive?

[Wyldesoul]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Ooooo, a big crowbar! That packs what, .000001% of the force of even a 5 mph impact?.

Um... Nope. And really, no need to be so rude. And if you really think it's such pittance? Go wail on your front bumper with a crowbar. I mean, it's only .0000002% of what a 2.5mph impact is, right?

A bit of math... My quick research on average speed brought up a lot on golfing, and was showing the average driver head speed at 120 kph So, assuming a crowbar at approximately 1/3 of the length of the club, the end of the crowbar would be going at about 40 kph. (Or, about 11 meters per second)
A quick bit of research found a lot of crowbars at between 8-10 kg (for steel), and assuming about 50% of the weight to be what's "behind the blow", let's just pick 4kg.

Kinetic energy is .5(mass x velocity^2) (in joules)

so, swung crowbar has about 240 joules behind it. (rounded down)

The car weighs about 1600 kg, and at 5mph (2.2 meters per second), it has about 3900 joules of kinetic energy. (rounded up)




It makes quite a bit of sense for the impact of the crowbar to be no more than 4 cm^2. (crowbars are usually about 2cm wide, and the impacted portion of the bumper is 2cm wide), so with 240 joules impacting 4cm^2, you have a pressure level of about 60 joules/cm^2.

The car is about 1800cm wide, and let us even assume that only 1/2 of it has an impactable bumper. that's 900cm of impaction width, and still assuming out 2cm bumper width, 1800cm^2.
3900 joules impacting 1800cm^2 comes to about 2.2 joules/cm^2. (rounded up)

Heck, let us assume that only that little ridge in the front can impact anything. A mere 30cm tall portion of the bumper. It's the leading edge of the car, and in an impact with a wall, that is all that would hit.

Still, assuming that same 2cm width that was impacted, we come up with 60cm^2. 3900 joules impacting 60cm^2 comes up with 65 joules/cm^2.


So, 60 Joules/cm^2 as the level of impact force for the crowbar on the bumper.
And 65 Joules/cm^2 for the impact force of the car hitting a wall at 5mph.
(And this is rounding down all calculations with the crowbar, and rounding up all calculations with the car)

Yeah. .0000001%.



Of course it is.






Edit:

Sorry for the really long winded math heavy thing, but I don't take well with people being flat out ******* level of rude in an otherwise fairly calm discussion.

[theclencher]

zzzzzzzz

what?

So one model of one car makes what point?

[Jay2TheRescue]

As long as I'm behind the wheel of the said model of car when it gets hit by a vehicle traveling at about 30 MPH, it means EVERYTHING to me.

[Wyldesoul]

Originally Posted by theclencher

zzzzzzzz

what?

So one model of one car makes what point?

One example of quite a few. Though not every car had durable bumpers pre-5mph bumper regs, cars which were considered "safe" were based on car durability, not on passenger safety. Rigid, solid bumpers and frames that withstood the impact with minimal damage.

Of course, lower cost, non-"safe" cars didn't fare nearly as well in any account.

And once more, no need to be so rude.

[theclencher]

I apologize, you are correct about my rudeness. I've just had a car stolen and I'm somewhat punchy.

[ben98gs]

Originally Posted by theclencher

I think the bumper issue deserves it's own thread.

I agree, but since it is not in another thread, but here....

Originally Posted by theclencher

But I will say that some of you are disregarding WHEN the 5mph standards were in effect. I have several cars from pre '71 and to claim those bumpers offer any meaningful protection vs post '71 bumpers is a joke.

&

On another note, look at bumpers from the '60s, prior to fed bumper regs. A shopping cart could damn near take em right out. They were little more than little chrome ornaments.

How can you make an argument with such a false and generic statement.

I have a '68 Mercury Montego that was in a parking lot fender bender with a late 90's car. Hit the front passenger corner of the Montego. Fender is slightly crumpled, but the bumper (other then some paint scuffs and a slight dimple) is completely intact and ready for another hit. The other car actually crumpled around the bumper (at parking lot speeds) and that is the only reason for the damage to the fender of the Montego in the first place, the fact the OTHER/NEWER car could not handle the light hit.

I can tell you for a fact, that the bumper on my '68 Montego is a lot thicker and heavier gauge steel then I have on newer cars that I have owned ('98 Regal and '95 Civic for example) because I have had bumpers off all three. And I am talking about the actual metal "hidden" bumper on the newer cars.

That said.....

Originally Posted by theclencher

I'm not gonna dig for it now, but y'all have probably seen the Insurance Institute's video clip of the '59 vs '09 Impalas head-on impact??? Yeah, the '59 is all steel and the '09 is all plastic... but the '59 got CLOBBERED.

You are talking about bumpers (low speed rating) and then move to full head-on impacts at 60mph or whatever speed was in that video (for an "effective" impact of 120mph). That is comparing apples to oranges. Plus the '09 is far from "all plastic". Sure, the plastic skin is all that you see on the surface, but them there is a "styrofoam" absorber, a metal beamed bumper, metal frame and crumple zones, etc.

I am not doubting that a newer car is better equipped for a high speed impact with the new standards and crumple zones/technology. But that has nothing to do with the actual bumper once you get past a 5-10 mph impact. The pre-'70's cars you talk about will have a lot less damage at 10 mph then a newer car that will get "crumpled".

[ben98gs]

Just because I like playing "devil's advocate" (and not that I truly believe it, but do see the "irony"), is BP totally to blame for the spill?

1. You, me, hell basically EVERYONE uses something every second that used oil at some point during it's production/use/transportation to end user. Most anything plastic used quite a bit of oil in production, cars are the obvious one and the trucks/trains used to transport both the end product and the various items needed to produce items are a "hidden" use.

2. The environmentalists.... There is a reason the well is so far out in the Gulf/water and it is because the environmentalists and others do not want the drills where they might "disrupt nature". What does this mean? When something does happen out miles under the water, it is a lot harder to try and do something because the depths provide its own complications. Plus, closer to shore, the spilled oil is "easier" to contain because it has less time to spread out and affect MANY others.

3. US Government can partially be blamed for some of the shoreline damage because they do not want to pay the bill to fix it. There have been other nations that have offered to be hired to help clean up/contain the spill, but because the government does not want to spend the money, they were turned away (sure it should not necessarily be the governments job to foot the bill, but they have a lot more power to go after BP).


Again, I do not "believe" or "promote" these as legitimate arguments, but are things I have heard people think about that made me sit back and at least think about the fact everyone is always willing to point the finger of blame on someone else, but when you get down to it, there is a REASON they were drilling WAY OUT AND UNDERWATER for oil and it was not just because they are the only ones that use/want the oil.

[trollbait]

2. The environmentalists.... There is a reason the well is so far out in the Gulf/water and it is because the environmentalists and others do not want the drills where they might "disrupt nature". What does this mean? When something does happen out miles under the water, it is a lot harder to try and do something because the depths provide its own complications. Plus, closer to shore, the spilled oil is "easier" to contain because it has less time to spread out and affect MANY others.

I believe the reason it is so far out is because that's where the oil is. If a barrel of oil was cheaper, they probably wouldn't be drilling there. It's more expensive to drill at such depths. I think the Canadian tar sands are moth balled now because they would lose money on each barrel produced.

I doubt being closer to shore would make things easier. It's likely easier to remove the oil from water than scrub it off the ground. There is a greater diversity of life along the shoreline at risk. The blowout off Mexico in 1979 was at a depth of less than 200ft. It could 9 months to stop it. Yes, a mile down the environment is harsher, but the conditions are known, and they had 30 years to improve the technology and techniques.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

The funny part was this accident happened in my rescue squad's first due area. When the ambulance arrived, they parked right behind my Buick. They were shocked to find out that I was a patient as well. They thought I stopped to help the guy that ran into a tree. They had no idea he ran into me, spun my car over to the opposite side of the road, facing the opposite direction, and then continued on to hit the tree. I called 911 from the payphone that I nearly ran over.

There is a lot more detail here than what you originally posted. That post left the impression that the only contact was between the cars. This is totally different. His damage could have been mostly do to the tree. Your lack of damage could been because most of the transferred force was expended in the slide.

[ben98gs]

LOL, like I said, I do not necessarily believe those "pass the blame," they are just some arguments I have heard. But you are partially right/wrong. Sure they were way out there drilling that deep because that is where the oil is, but that is because they cannot look for oil closer because currently regulations will not allow drilling close to the coast.

Again playing devil's advocate, but the there is still truth there. Go through and read the 300+ pages of regulations and tell me there is not anything in there banning them from drilling close to shore.

Again just playing devil's advocate, but sometime truths or even partial truths paint a different picture.

Originally Posted by trollbait

There is a lot more detail here than what you originally posted. That post left the impression that the only contact was between the cars. This is totally different. His damage could have been mostly do to the tree. Your lack of damage could been because most of the transferred force was expended in the slide.

Or it could have been because the car is built like a tank (like most people consider older cars to be) and took the hit/force that was transferred to it without any damage. If you hit a newer vehicle in the rear hard enough to spin it, there is going to be significant damage due to the crumple zones. Sure, if the guy hit Jay's car and still continued to the tree, the tree probably did some more damage, but even if he just clipped Jay, there was significant enough force to damage most newer cars.