Fragility of the hatchback

I find that the drive shaft on the Bolide comes separated kinda easily. It's not bad, but I wish that sucker was in there a little tighter.

 

I personally feel the simulation is pretty close to the real thing. Not exact, but close enough. Have this .gif from 9gag.
(keep in mind the trucks are two different models.)

(imported from here)

 

That .gif is AMAZING!

 

I agree with you about the fragility of the Covet. However you are sending a 4x4 probably at full speed ...
We must not forget that the Covet comes from the automotive industry for years 80-90. Model Japanese at that.

Personally, I find not fragile but buggy I say. I said rolling style Rally on an island, I found myself with the right steering shaft broke. This also happened to me on the test card.

Brief. All that to say, the result of your crash does not surprise me.

Look that : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuYS6mx5Pt8

P.S nice gif pulley999

 

9gag has a staff that it paid to go and find content on other websites and post it to 9gag while manipulating to upload time to look like it was uploaded first and then give the post tons of upvotes no matter if people actually voted on it. That's a cool gif but I highly doubt it came from 9gag originally.

 

we do not care where it comes from. This is the analogy of the crash that interested us.

 

-REDACTED-, misread. :/
Anyways, Gabe said they found an issue with the tyre model that was causing all sorts of problems.
Tire-model-improvements-Round-7-453

 

I hear you Jakkar. The cars are too strong from the midle in some cases. Like in frontal crash. But when you crash covet between wall and truck it will turn into metal ball like in real world. The physics are almost perfect but still in some cases something is wrong.
I made a comparison between covet and early 90´s civic. Both doing about 60km/h, offset frontal. See pic.
The front of the car looks almost the same. Front wheel has moved. There is some bending in floor and a-pillar but not enough. Yes the cars are not the same and it´s just a game. But I think you get my point.

I still do believe that this game offers as close as possible real world crash physics so dont get me wrong

 

Have you watched the mythbusters episode on it? Because it proves you wrong...

Picture it like this. When two identical cars at the same speed hit each other dead on, they both stop in their tracks. When one car hits a wall, it stops in its tracks. The deceleration is what causes the damage, and is the same in both cases.

Now if one car hit an identical car that wasn't moving, then you're right, the non-moving car would 'give' into the moving car, reducing the damage done by the impact. But when the car is traveling the same speed at the opposite direction, it has already "given" just by its own deceleration, and doesn't provide any give for the other car. It effectively becomes a wall.

I can't really explain it any better than that. Watch the mythbusters episode if you still disagree.

 

wat? Of course the forces add up. The crumple zones just add up too, so twice the force is absorbed by twice the crumple zone. This has not really anything to do with newtons 3rd law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If one of the cars had no crumple zone, the other one would suffer twice the damage.

 

Yup, energy absorbing is a big part of head-on crashes.