***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Fifth Gear discussion - not to be confused with Top Gear which has its own thread somewhere else.
Volume 1 is HERE:-
-----------------------------------
Returns for a new series (season 20) Friday evening at 19:30 on Channel 5
181348
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 6 Nov 12 at 01:10
|
Hope they just stick to doing some decent road tests - Jason and Johnny do a good job, but they tend to let the format drift into copying the top gear boys and I just dont think it works.
Will sky+ it so I can forward the dull bits
|
|
No matter how bad it is it has to be better than Strictly Come X Factor Brothers Dancing in the House on Ice or whatever guff they want to call it next...
|
|
Fair point, and VBH is quite pleasing on the eye
|
>> VBH is quite pleasing on the eye
I think she's a minger.
|
He's just jealous because she can drive much faster than him.
|
>> Bit harsh.
You're probably right. She hasn't reached the Jodie Marsh stage just yet.
|
>> You're probably right. She hasn't reached the Jodie Marsh stage just yet.
Watch it - she's a body builder now
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2047996/Jodie-Marsh-bodybuilder-Time-away-now.html
|
>> Watch it - she's a body builder now
Who is sponsored by Ronseal.
tinyurl.com/6cw2595 - links to The Sun
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Oct 11 at 21:25
|
I like to think of her as a well loved shoe
Once sexy, shiny and attractive, but now scuffed, worn, smelly and very squeaky.
|
Are you known for your chivalry then?
I quite like her - it's the laddish production and scripts that stink and squeak, resulting in the forced TV persona, not VBH.
|
As Al Murray would say "She's delectable"..."I'd delect her"
:-)
|
>> Are you known for your chivalry then?
Of course I am! otherwise I would have described her as a worn out old tart, but being a gent, I didnt.
|
|
She needs to sort her Barnet and railings aht.
|
>> She needs to sort her Barnet and railings aht.
Ok, so Barnet is Barnet Fair - hair.
What are railings?
|
>> What are railings?
Teeth.
|
|
Quite enjoyed it - half an hour of undemanding entertainment with some nice cars. Surprised the Evoque is (apparently) so good. Not sure VBH can get away with skirts as short as the one in the Bentley piece these days. Disgusted at the high speed crash test - what do they mean it turned the Focus into a piece of modern art? :)
|
|
That 1 in 1 HDC thing was most impressive - I have played with it in the X1 - it is spookily effective.
|
>> That 1 in 1 HDC thing was most impressive
Yeah - must have been 'interesting' inside as it just went over the top and the back wheels came off the ground a bit...
|
|
I used it coming down the "road" from some houses on the side of Snowdon when I was on the census - very scary when the X1's long bonnet was seemingly airborne at one point as it sort of tipped over a brow - "look mum no feet"
|
The Evoque surely is one of the ugliest cars around today, after the Nissan Juke (Joke) and a BMW model, the name of which eludes me at present.
I still reckon it's nice to see an almost 'proper' motoring programme like this after the nonsense that is TG, although the latter does/did have its moments.
Last edited by: Oldgit on Sat 15 Oct 11 at 09:16
|
|
I've seen dozens of Evoques - stunning design - deserves to sell really well, not to my personal taste though. I hope it succeeds, there is nothing quite like it, good to see Germans and Japanese on the back foot design wise.
|
|
I quite like it especially in 5 door form. Bit too small for my needs as indeed the Qashqai was. I suspect it will end up being mainly a "ladies who do lunch" and moderately successful footballer's "WAGS" car though.
|
|
Yes, you do wonder how many of them are ever going to go off the tarmac.
|
You are not going to walk away from one like that.
tinyurl.com/66ktqdb
|
|
Curtains I'm afraid sobering thought.
|
|
Not nice but in reality how many of us are likely to hit an immovable object at 120mph or have a head on crash where both vehicles are travelling at 120mph?
|
|
Don't worry about 120mph, I doubt if you would walk away from a head on at 40mph, (80mph closing speed).
|
|
Bare in mind thats the same as hitting a concrete block at 40mph which i'd have thought would be survivable.
|
>>head on crash where both vehicles are travelling at 120mph?
That will give a combined speed of 240MPH. Two vehicles travelling in opposite directions at the 'A' road speed limit of 60MPH will give 120MPH impact, albeit with two crumple zones.
|
>>head on crash where both vehicles are travelling at 120mph?
>>That will give a combined speed of 240MPH. Two vehicles travelling in opposite >>directions at the 'A' road speed limit of 60MPH will give 120MPH impact, albeit with >>two crumple zones.
The crash in that video is what will happen with two cars each travelling at 120mph toward each other. To demonstrate the damage that will happen in a 60mph + 60mph you'd need to carry out that test with car at 60mph.
Last edited by: 832ark on Mon 24 Oct 11 at 14:56
|
>> The crash in that video is what will happen with two cars each travelling at
>> 120mph toward each other. To demonstrate the damage that will happen in a 60mph +
>> 60mph you'd need to carry out that test with car at 60mph.
>>
I disagree, that demonstration is the equivalent of two cars head on at 60 mph, 2 X 60 = 120.
|
>>I disagree, that demonstration is the equivalent of two cars head on at 60 mph, 2 X 60 = 120.
Nope I'm afraid you're wrong. There's twice as much energy involved in that video than the 2 x 60mph scenario. That demonstration is 2 x 120mph.
Last edited by: 832ark on Mon 24 Oct 11 at 15:01
|
>> Nope I'm afraid you're wrong. There's twice as much energy involved in that video than
>> the 2 x 60mph scenario. That demonstration is 2 x 120mph.
>>
Where do you get the extra 120mph from? The car is doing 120mph, the concrete block is stationary.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 24 Oct 11 at 15:09
|
|
There is no other 120mph, however if there were 2 cars of equal mass travelling at 120mph then each car would be subject to the same forces as that single car hitting the solid object at 120mph. Have a look at Newton's third law. The energy involved is due to kinetic energy being proportional to the square of speed. One car at 120mph has 4 times the kinetic energy than 1 car at 60mph an therefore twice the kinetic energy as 2 cars at 60mph.
|
Spot on!
The correct way to think about this is in terms of deceleration hitting an oncoming vehicle travelling at the same speed as opposed to a concrete block.
Deceleration is a direct result of speed lost and the time taken to do it. As the starting speed (60mph) and ending speed (0mph) are the same in both cases, the only possible variable is the time taken for the deceleration to occur in.
Now, if more time were taken, the vehicle would travel further as it is moving for longer. Thus for a lesser deceleration to be experienced in hitting a concrete block, the decelerating vehicle would have to pass through the concrete block.......(!)
Q.E.D.
"Mythbusters" did some extraordinarily impressive practical demonstrations to prove this one. It may appear counterintuitive to the uneducated eye, but seeing two[1] identical vehicles suffer identical levels of damage in car vs. car and car vs. wall tests brings it home nicely.
[1] Ok three, 'cos you need two for the car vs. car test. All exhibited indentical levels of squishedness.
|
>> "Mythbusters" did some extraordinarily impressive practical demonstrations to prove this one.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4
|
>>It may appear counterintuitive to the uneducated eye,>>
OK you win, its just degrees of dead. :-)
|
832ark is quite right.
An impact into a solid wall is a very good simulation of a head on crash between a car and its mirror image.
|
|
That's gone and done it, the five tonne supermini is on its way when the EU see that.
|
|
To many problems in the EU at the moment Cameron and the French fellow had a spat.>:)
|
|
Quick wave of the £ cheque book will resolve that. The French giant is only hacked off 'cos Merkel was the only one with a Teddy Bear for the little 'un.
Last edited by: gmac on Mon 24 Oct 11 at 14:48
|
Here's a video of a Merc SL crashing on the autobahn at 200km/h (near enough 120mph). Watch to the end of the video and you'll see the driver get out.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxlz1tWYGF0
|
|
That didn't stop quite so quickly!
|
>> That didn't stop quite so quickly!
No, in a high speed crash a car generally won't stop immediately, unless of course it's teathered to a big metal chain and being pulled relentlessly towards a block of concrete.
Normally at high speed the car will hit something, bounce off and carry on, spinning and possibly flipping over like the Merc in the video. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere.
|
>> Here's a video of a Merc SL crashing on the autobahn at 200km/h (near enough
>> 120mph). Watch to the end of the video and you'll see the driver get out.
He only bounced around with glancing hits, If he had a solid hit on a bridge support he would not be walking away.
|
Like this Firebird in the US on I675.
(Start at 55 seconds).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ6CPIM1ZCs&feature=related
Last edited by: gmac on Mon 24 Oct 11 at 15:06
|
Here's a video of a Merc SL crashing on the autobahn at 200km/h (near enough 120mph). Watch to the end of the video and you'll see the driver get out.
I am not surprised he headed for the bushes!
|
Look, if you are travelling at 120 mph, and you are forced to an absolute stop in the blink of an eye (which is all that video is doing) it does not matter how stable or complete the car stays, your internal organs will turn to mush and your brain will eject out of your eyes.
The human body internals will not sustain that G.
|
Not much left at 500mph...only the wingtips to pick up and carry away.
The rest is dust !
www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
Ted
|
>> The human body internals will not sustain that G.
It's true, which is why the next generations of jet fighters will have no human pilot.
|
>> The human body internals will not sustain that G.
>>
>>
>>
I think a lot of the big money is now being spent on how they can provide better protection to the organs in an accident, as 5 satr cars are pretty safe in most situations
|
>> I think a lot of the big money is now being spent on how they
>> can provide better protection to the organs in an accident, as 5 star cars are
>> pretty safe in most situations
>>
>>
Even big money can't change the fact that big impact = high g loads = internal organs scrambled. In those circumstances only a human body redesign will improve things.
|
>> Even big money can't change the fact that big impact = high g loads =
>> internal organs scrambled.
Doubling the length of the bonnet/crumple zone could halve the g load, but obviously there are practical limits.
|
>> Doubling the length of the bonnet/crumple zone could halve the g load, but obviously there
>> are practical limits.
>>
Unfortunately frontal impacts are only part of the problem. I would think side impacts are more dangerous as there is no crumple zone..
|
>> In those circumstances only a human body redesign will improve things.
Become an insect with an exo skeleton. They're bombproof. You'd have to redesign the seats though.
|
>> >> In those circumstances only a human body redesign will improve things.
>>
>> Become an insect with an exo skeleton. They're bombproof. You'd have to redesign the seats
>> though.
At least with all those arms and legs you could cope with BMW indicators and operate the I-Drive at the same time.
|
>> Become an insect with an exo skeleton
>> At least with all those arms and legs you could cope with BMW indicators and
>> operate the I-Drive at the same time.
Although as PU once pointed out, only if you are a left handed insect (in the UK).
|
|
I didn't get on with the MMI controls in an Audi (said to be easier to use than iDrive)... and I am left handed.
|
>> I didn't get on with the MMI controls in an Audi
No, I don't like the Audi MMI controls either. Did you try the Apple-like touchpad system on the centre console of the new A6?
|
|
Sorry to disagree with two posters whose opinion I respect , but I'll take the Audi MMI controls (and indicators!) over the BMW any day.
|
I have to agree that after around 3 years experience with I-Drive and similar with the MMI Lite interface on my A4 I find the Audi implementation more intuitive. Though with both interfaces I found/find the voice control plus steering wheel controls enough for most functionality - in reality I barely need to use the main controller. Nav via voice command is particlularly slick in the Audi.
It's my biggest nagging doubt about taking a stock MB - having the 'poor man's' NAV 50, not full blown COMMAND, means that voice control (or linguatronic in MB speak) is not included. Now having seen it slated by JC perhaps I shouldn't worry, but without it inevitably I will have to rely on the main control interface in the centre...
Peter
|
I seem to have entered a world of mystery !
Ted
|
|
At least you've steadied your needle Ted !
|
I would have seriously considered an A4 in Technik spec but the MMI ruled it out before I had even got around to booking a test drive. I prefer the touchscreen sat nav in the Passat. Which is only for radio, media and navigation too.
Except I was in one this week. Initial impressions as a passenger:
- A bit small, especially in the rear (and the Passat CC is compromised)
- The leather felt cheap and not as soft as in the Passat
- Ride was firm - and the car had 17" rims and mine has 18"
Not tested taking the key out of the ignition whilst driving. On the to do list. And not crashed it at 120mph into a solid block of concrete either (not on the list!).
|
>> Not tested taking the key out of the ignition whilst driving. On the to do
>> list. And not crashed it at 120mph into a solid block of concrete either (not
>> on the list!).
>>
WARNING..... the 2 may be related!
|
Short link but long article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
This gentleman subjected himself to a number of deceleration tests in which he once experienced 46.2 g, at a time when 18g was thought to be the most that could be survived. I agree that this is not the same as 120mph to static in the length of a hatchback car!
|
|
I am sure that someone can work out the G involved.
|
|
The Mail article says the the test produced 400 G, but it is the Mail. :-)
|
|
Where is the learned number cruncher when we need him? 120 mph to stop, for the drivers head in a Focus, would be about 4 feet distance? That's going to be a lot 'g'
|
Typo - make that c -95g for 5 feet. Meldrew's 4 feet would be an average -120g.
-400g peak sounds likely to be possible, without knowledge of how the acceleration varies after impact.
|
|
The average acceleration, depending on the estimate of the distance travelled by the bods after impact, is according to my O level sums around -60g to -85g (for 8 feet and 5 feet respectively). Assuming the g increases over the time from impact to rest, 400g at some point sounds feasible.
|
|
Given your head is travelling at 120 mph, and your neck is flexible, at the initial deceleration period of your body, I think its likely to detach from the rest of your torso.
|
Here's the sums for 4 feet, constant decelleration
>> v_ms=120*1609.3/3600; % Converts to metres per second
>> % Using v^2 = u^2 + 2as
>> s=4*12*25.4e-3; % Converts 4 feet to metres
>> a=(v_ms^2)/(2*s) % Acceleration m/s^2
a =
1.1801e+003
>> a_g=a/9.81 % Acceleration in g
a_g =
120.2978
However, the peak will be higher than this.
Having said this, the human body can't respond quickly, and so, if the peak is only of short duration, the body won't react to it.
|
>>Having said this, the human body can't respond quickly, and so, if the peak is only of short
>>duration, the body won't react to it.
Confused. Are you suggesting shear thickening of the human body?
|
>>Confused. Are you suggesting shear thickening of the human body?
No.
All I am suggesting is that the human body isn't a rigid body, and it isn't rigidly fixed to the vehicle's structure.
For the purposes of dynamic analysis, it's possible to analyse a body as an assemlage of masses and springs, and so, different parts the human body can be said to posses natural frequencies or resonances.
If the frequency content of an acceleration signal is significantly higher than the natural frequency of the body part of interest, then, the body part will not be significantly excited by the acceleration - phrased another way, at high frequency (or short duration pulse loading) the body's padding is acting as a vibration absorber, and the "mass" doesn't see the full effect of the acceleration pulse.
So, when people talk about acceleration loadings, particularly fast transient loadings, it's important to be careful to specify exactly where the measurement is taken. In contrast, the brave test subject on the wikipedia page was being subject to acceleration loads which were, when compared with the speed of the body's response, quite slow and therefore, the body wouldn't be working as an absorber in that case.
|
I made it 120.36, using 32.174 ft/s^2 for g, but you probably wouldn't worry about that 0.06g if your head had come off.
Can't wait for the answer re shear thickening. Anything that helps me get the HP sauce out of the bottle would be most welcome.
|
>> Can't wait for the answer re shear thickening.
Shear thickening in action (suggest fast forward to 2:40):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN2D5y-AxIY
|
Your ketchup is shear thinning.
(And that isn't custard. It's a cornflour/water mix that hasn't been cooked.)
|
Don't start them off on cooking again MM:)
Pat
|
|
I don't know why you're worried about G scores - whiplash would be the last thing to worry any occupant....
|
>> Your ketchup is shear thinning.
I thought ketchup was thixotropic.
|
Fifth Gear and Channel 5 are no more.
Its new home is the Discovery Channel, and the new episodes start on the 3rd Sept at 8pm. It's also back to 60 mins (inc. adverts)
tinyurl.com/cctsgfp - www.broadcastnow.co.uk
www.discoveryuk.com/web/fifth-gear/
Sky 520 (521 + 1 hour) (536 HD)
Virgin 212 (213 + 1 hour) (214 HD) - I think.
|
Oh, Great! .......NOT !
I watch very little TV, so a subscription to pay TV is not worth it. (Plus, I'd hate to give any money to Murdoch's empire anyway).
Now I find that one of the few programs that I do want to watch is no longer free.
(Wanders off muttering to himself....)
|
|
It *might* eventually end up on Quest (freeview 38)
|
Did anyone watch it?
I haven't had chance yet. Don't want to be wasting my time if it was crap.
|
|
No fancy schmancy TV set-up for me either. Free to air only and quite limited in The Highlands. I'llhave to rely on YouTube for an occasional VBH fix. but, also, would be interested to know how the new 5thG was.
|
Currently on youtube - might be removed?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkJQF3_vll0
|
|
I'm a Sky refusnik so itys YT for me tonight.
|
Thanks Focus - Watched that yesterday evening. It was alright, I'll keep an eye open for an episode here and there but won't cry if i don't get to see it;-p!
Thanks again for the YT link.
Zuave.
|
Found it a bit disappointing.
Who really cares how much "air" you can get with a new VW beetle over a hump back bridge?
|
|
Would have been quite important to me at one time I suppose...
|
|
you wouldn't have needed to be told by a TV prog.
|
|
I forwarded past the flying VeeDub test as it was the least interesting part of the show. The big truck-thing was OK. Generally it passed the time whilst I had my evening meal but will lose no sleep if I miss it.
|
Enjoying this latest series on Discovery.
Monday's episode showed the benefits to start stop technology, which until now I just thought was a gimick.
Also loved that tuned up Nissan Juke (The Juke-R).
jalopnik.com/5878322/nissan-juke-r-first-drive
|
Fifth Gear Returns - mikeyb
