Beautiful and revolutionary. Too bad he didn't take the care to get all his ducks in a row before he got himself in trouble. Who knows what he might have accomplished. Even though the Elio production seems to drag on forever at least it won't go turtle due to financial shennanigans! I hadn't realized the driver had the center spot on the Torpedo. Cool.
-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
The Tucker...an Elio Design Precedent?
- Thread starter Jeff Bowlsby
- Start date
Jay3wheel
Elio Addict
That brings up a point that perhaps should go into another topic, but I've been curious about it: With the relatively small surface area of the Elio's front and rear, wouldn't that mean in a collision the forces of impact are likely to be more concentrated? This would make that 5-star safety rating even more difficult to achieve and all the more impressive once they achieve it!
That Tucker is very impressive, indeed. Let's hope Elio Motors has much greater success than they did. I suspect they will. I think the Tucker has more in common with Tesla or Fisker, than Elio. The Tucker vehicles were not "vehicles for the masses" but rather technological demonstrations. I think Elio Motors is a safer bet due to the high-volume/low-cost model that's going allow a much greater presence in the real world.
The formula for the forces created is F=MxVxV. Mass times velocity squared, the light weight of the Elio will help to reduce the forces in the impact. The speed will still be a bigger factor. Also, the mass of what ever else in involved in the collision, if it is moving also. High school physics was a long time ago, but I doubt the laws have been changed too much.
Yeah you're correct. I wasn't accounting for how light the Elio is, I suppose. So while the forces would be more concentrated, the mass of the Elio is around half as much as a normal car anyway, canceling each other out.
(@ Jay3wheel) Kind of. Sort of. Not really.
Kinetic ENERGY is 1/2mv^2.
Your formula calculates out to twice the vehicle's kinetic energy, which is not the same as force. Force is mass times acceleration. Acceleration has units of distance^2 divided by time^2 (e.g. m2/s2).
Damages due to impact do relate to kinetic energy, but also how long it takes to dissipate that energy (impulse moment). The longer it takes, the less damage. The less energy, the less damage.
Dropping car mass does help (you arrived at a correct conclusion), but so does slowing down the dissipation of energy (crumple zones, phase change materials, airbags, and other energy dissipators.)
So Kronos's original question had a lot of merit. For a smaller vehicle, there's less area and volume to distribute the forces, and it's harder to engineer effective crush zones. Which is why EM has placed the wheels outboard and forward of the driver's knees. The bending and gnashing of suspension components will dissipate some of that energy, and also spin/bounce the car away at angles in offset crashes, which also reduces the impact's impulse moment.
EM also wisely specifies Electronic Stability Control which is proven most effective at avoiding collisions in the first place. About the only thing they could do better is to have automatic sensing of road conditions (ice, slick roads) and adjust tire pressures on-the-fly. But no such technology currently exists at affordable prices and reasonable weights.
Kinetic ENERGY is 1/2mv^2.
Your formula calculates out to twice the vehicle's kinetic energy, which is not the same as force. Force is mass times acceleration. Acceleration has units of distance^2 divided by time^2 (e.g. m2/s2).
Damages due to impact do relate to kinetic energy, but also how long it takes to dissipate that energy (impulse moment). The longer it takes, the less damage. The less energy, the less damage.
Dropping car mass does help (you arrived at a correct conclusion), but so does slowing down the dissipation of energy (crumple zones, phase change materials, airbags, and other energy dissipators.)
So Kronos's original question had a lot of merit. For a smaller vehicle, there's less area and volume to distribute the forces, and it's harder to engineer effective crush zones. Which is why EM has placed the wheels outboard and forward of the driver's knees. The bending and gnashing of suspension components will dissipate some of that energy, and also spin/bounce the car away at angles in offset crashes, which also reduces the impact's impulse moment.
EM also wisely specifies Electronic Stability Control which is proven most effective at avoiding collisions in the first place. About the only thing they could do better is to have automatic sensing of road conditions (ice, slick roads) and adjust tire pressures on-the-fly. But no such technology currently exists at affordable prices and reasonable weights.
The safety features of the Elio are one of my favorite things but they can only mitigate disaster so far. Everything is designed to keep us as safe as possible but when the imponderables (stepping on the gas rather than the brake, jumping the curb and coming through our windshields, etc.) come at you they probably will overcome the saftey devices to do us in. After riding the scooter for 3 seasons, a fully enclosed cabin, seat belts, airbags, ESC, anti-lock brakes and so forth puts my mind at ease. There's nothing that can make your life completely safe so when this much effort is taken, it makes driving fun and pretty stress free!
Also, there is this late 1940's reverse trike with front wheel drive and rear wheel steering! Grandpa Elio probably showed this photo to Paul years back and the vision stuck in his head.Very beautiful design. It only had one too many rear wheels
Jay3wheel
Elio Addict
100 MPGe It was electric! (I made that up too)! lol
I'm planning on gangster whitewalls, baby moons, and open fenders to show them off on my Elio.