Featured Volkswagen design boss: 'wrong' not to develop dedicated EVs

I feel I must respectfully disagree with this one. Energy that goes into shifting a giant block of metal is energy that is being absorbed by that giant block of metal. If the ICE was not there the energy would still go into something, possibly the occupants.

 

It has also been decades since cars were designed to have the engine drop under the cabin in a crash.

 

You've failed basic, highs school physics. It is a question of stress-vs-strain of a block of metal versus the ability of crush structures to convert kinetic energy into metal deformation instead of being a ram into the cabin.

Regardless, your family and not mine.

GOOD LUCK! I prefer mechanical engineering and not your approach.

Bob Wilson

 

Have you never seen one of the little physics toys with 5 balls suspended by strings?

Try changing the middle ball to something that crumples, like a wad of paper

Mike

 

And what happens when the middle ball's strings snap when a force is applied to the ball?

 

Never happens because in physics you always use string with infinite strength and zero mass

Mike

 

I used to own a Ford E-100 van. It was a snub nose model where the engine sits between the two front seats. The front seats were mounted completely above the low bumper. I was working on the front of it one day and noticed that in a front end collision there was nothing between you and the world except some sheet metal and the windshield wipers. The next model year after mine Ford redesigned the E series to take the engine out of the cabin and put it out ahead of everything else so as to improve performance in front end collisions.

Let us take a hypothetical car that comes in either ICE or electric. Assume the gas engine weighs 400 pounds. In a collision the front bumper takes the initial hit. The plastic deforms, the foam compresses, the bumper and crumple zones soak up energy by crumpling and deformation, absorbing some of the kinetic energy of the accident by using it to do mechanical work and by spreading the pulse of unabsorbed energy out over a longer period of time, thus reducing the peak energy delivered to the occupants.

The engine is not really your first choice, but after everything else has absorbed all the energy that it can, the various do-dads mounted to the block will absorb energy by crushing and shearing and deformation, and the block itself absorbs energy by the stretching and tearing of the bolts that hold it in the engine bay, and deformation of the areas of the frame it was mounted to, and by tearing of the rats nest of pipes, cables, and wire that run around up there, and towards the end by deforming a large area of the firewall.

Lets assume the same car, the same accident, but no ICE. Instead you have 400 more pounds of batteries mounted down under the floor. In front of you an empty frunk (front trunk). That empty frunk now has 400 less pounds of mass between you and trouble. You have the same inertia, the same amount of energy that must go somewhere, but there is now a reduced barrier between it and you. Where does the energy that would have been used up in moving the block now go?

Now if the manufacturer adds in a huge amount of crushable material to that area, that would help much more than an engine block, but I am not familiar with anyone doing that. Maybe Volvo would do that. Are there any electric Volvos yet? Do they have extra crumple zones? Does any one?

 

I was alluding to what engines are designed to the do in the event of a crash.

Engines are designed to move downward during a crash. They no more move directly move straight into the firewall as steering shafts are no longer solid steel spears.

It is possible to direct crash forces around the cabin once the front devices have absorbed all that they can. I think it was a smart car front crash test in which the rear quarter panels were damaged. That was energy that didn't go into the cabin or passengers.

 

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "huge" amount of material. It just needs to be able to absorb a certain amount of energy. Tesla adds several high strength metal beams, designed to crumple and absorb energy in a consistently predictable manner.

In the following article, there is an interesting video comparing a Model 3 and an A4 in a frontal crash against a solid barrier.
Tesla shows off front-end crash protection structures on Model 3 - Repairer Driven NewsRepairer Driven News
If my eyes don't fool me, the Model 3 decelerates more evenly over a slightly longer period of time than the A4, which appears to have a harder deceleration jerk at the end of the crash.

 

In 1973? Me too. 1st car. Mid 60's ford van. straight 6. 5yr old gutless oil leaker.

Your 1st 2 words above "let's assume" unfortunately is not reality ;
Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA | Tesla

My first realization of Tesla safety came during one of the very first Model S iterations. It / driver had a fatal front-end high speed Collision in nearby Laguna Canyon. Tesla driver walked away while the other driver was taken to the morgue.
Wind the clock forward / ½ decade to the model X. High speed drug-infused wrong-way freeway driver versus a Model X. Same thing happened. Tesla driver walks away, the other driver taken to the morgue

Assume - versus years of similar tesla road proven satistics.
Plus - not all accidents are dead center Front End. There are offsets, side-impact, roll over, rear enders.
Ever see another SUV avoid rolling over like this?

This is the result of making a dedicated EV body
.