Talk:Crumple zone

The first car with Crumple zones was not the Ponton
Randroide 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Safety Cell: The idea of a "safe" rigid cell surrounded by softer "crumple zones" to protect people in a crash came from Bela Barenyi, a hero of car safety who worked as an engineer for Mercedes-Benz. The idea was patented in 1951 and went into production in 1959 on the "fintail" series..


 * In 1952, Mercedes-Benz engineer Bela Barenyi obtained a patent for his crumple zone – an invention first phased into a production Mercedes in 1959.

Fintails prodction started in 1959.

I am going to delete the erroneous Ponton reference.

There is nothing erroneous. Having actually owned and worked on pontons, I can tell you quite safely that they do in fact have crumple zones, front and rear. It's cute when you book-fed "experts" pretend to know about cars, but you're wrong.


 * I recently read an article by one of the men behind the 1946 Saab 92001 where it said it was designed with crumple zones. But then I have also read that it din't have crumple zones and SAAB would intriduce crumple zones with the 1968 Saab 99. It may ofcourse be a sliding scale. // Liftarn


 * I think that the Saab 92001 history is a bit unlikely: Bela Barenyi patented the concept in 1952 . Moreover: The Saab car was developed in very difficult post-war conditions. I can not imagine those Saab designers giving thought to something as esoteric (in the 1940´s) as passive safety. On the other hand, the shape of the Saab body is so modern, su futuristic (...and so beautiful), that I doubt Saab engineers had enough spare creative juices to think about a crumple zone. Thank you for the Randroide 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be the first time someone patent something that already exist. What "difficult post-war conditions"? According to the articls the main problems were that they were aircraft engineers and there was some problems sourcing the sheet metal for the production. Thet they thought about passive safety is obvious, but most sources say they did it as in an aircraft design and aircrafts don't have crumple zones (but they are designed to keep the crew safe in event of an accident). I'll dig up the article and re-read it. // Liftarn




 * Could you please point to the "obvious" passive safety traits in the Saab 92001?. This is very interesting, and new for me. Please try to locate that article. Mercedes-Benz got all the kudos for the crumple zones, but, who knows, maybe we have a swedish Alexander Lodygin to the Edison that could be Bela Barenyi.Randroide 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that the 92 had the first safety cage in a production car. The reason the 92 didn't have a boot lid and the rear window is so small was to strenghten the design. But as I said, it's a bit of a sliding scale. It wasn't until the 96 that SAAB actually reinforced the passenger compartment with steel beams. // Liftarn


 * OK. I finally located this Saab in my radar... it´s the prototype for the Saab 92!!!. The article you linked is very interesting: It is always a pleasure to know what was the thinking of the men making an industrial design. But... a "safety cage" and a reinforced roof is NOT a "crumple zone". Is this the article you were talking about?. If not, I beg you to locate the article talking about crumple zones.


 * Project leader Gunnar Ljungstrom said at the time: "If this car's shape can save 100 litres of fuel a year, it will have been worth making it look like a frog."


 * LOL. This quote should be immortalized!!!. Thank you, Liftarn. Randroide 09:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I love so much the quote that I created this .Randroide 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny! Anyway, I located the passage of the article (the article is En katt bland hermelinerna eller Hurledes grunden lades till SAABs bilproduktion vid flygmaskinfabriken, by Hans Osquar Gustavsson and Sigvard Lenngren in Bakrutan 4-2006). It says "Hållfasthetsfolk från den ordinarie hållfasthetsavdelningen medverkade tidigt i det ordinarie konstruktionsarbetet och ställdes inför litet ovanliga arbetsuppgifter. Här gällde det att beräkna karossens vridstyvhet och deformationszoner." (rough translation: "Solid mechanics people from the ordinary solid mechanics department participated early on in the regular construction work and faced somewhat unusual tasks. They had to calculate the torsional strenght of the bodywork and deformation zones.") // Liftarn

RE: the unusual luggage loading of the SAAB 92, the 1950s British Standard Eight and Standard Ten and also the Austin-Healey Frogeye AKA Bugeye Sprite used the same arrangement.85.119.112.37 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The need for crumple zones
Why no mention of the need for crumple zones as a way to absorb impacts because autobodies are lighter now due to emission and fuel consumption requirements? I'm sure a vehicle built like a brick outhouse and knowledge of deformation control (ok I know, crumple zones :) ) would be far safer than the lightweight disposable vehicles running around today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.181.148 (talk • contribs)


 * So you are saying a car built like a brick would be safer? // Liftarn


 * It depends on the era you're comparing to, but in many parts of the world cars today are heavier than they've ever been. Crumple zones were introduced long before the 21st century oil price runup or the Kyoto treaty.  The use of "Deformation Control" is explicitly sufficient to call structural parts of the car body a crumple zone.  In other news, a 10 ton metal cylinder impacting the ground at 10mph is more than enough to kill someone seated inside.  If you make it stiff (non-deformable), it will bounce back at 20mph, and the person will find themselves impacting the front of the cylinder with their skull.  Secondarily, counting on your vehicle not slowing down much because it plows through the other guy's light vehicle, killing all occupants, is a fool's game: it converts a huge fleet of automobiles into a tiny fleet of tanks, and doesn't help you against immobile objects.  The point of all this is to increase the amount of time the collision takes in order to decrease the amount of acceleration your body is subjected to. Lesqual (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * lighter now? Modern cars are heavier than similar models of just 20 years ago. VW golfs have gained hundreds of lbs. from 1,750 lb (790 kg) − 2,145 lb (973 kg) for the mk 1, but 2,917 lb (1,323 kg) to 3,565 lb (1,617 kg) for the Mk 5 (this is about the same weight as a large 70s car such as a Mk1 ford Granada, and approaching that of a 70's Jaguar XJ). A current BMW MINI has 300lb over a volvo 340 of 20 years earlier. The increased mass comes in part from the extra material needed to overcome in inherent weakness that crumple zones bring to a crash structure. (for the same mass, crumple zones give less protection, so more mass is needed to offset and make as safe or safer). Oh, and I was in an accident with two different volvo 340s (no CZs) one with a vauxhall Nova saloon, with CZ. nova had significant damage throughout (twisted chassis) despite being a rear impact. Volvo lost radiator, wing and bonnet. Second incident was a 2000 golf impacting the rear of the 340. Golf a write off, no significant damage to the volvo. Both 30-40mph impacts. 68.223.72.76 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail to take into account that the VW Golf Mk5 is significantly larger than the Mk1. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect picture
Randroide 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) This is not a proper picture for the concept "crumple zone", because the crumple zones of this Mercedes had not been activated: Note the intact bumper.

Smart (automobile)
The Smart has a small crumple zone. There´s a common misconception about this car having no crumple zones. I deleted the erroneous line created by me. Randroide 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone don't like crumple zones
but fails to give any source at all for the conspiracy theory. // Liftarn (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An attempt to describe the change as "conspiracy theory" is level DH3 or lower on the Graham disagreement hierarchy.


 * The proponent of "crumble zone" theory is responsible for supporting the new theory. The criticizer is not required to prove a negative.  The proponent is free to search traditional structural treatises and find the existence of "crumple zones" to refute the criticism, thus availing of Graham's level DH5 or DH6.  Until then, the lower DH levels would probably been seen as acquiescence to the opposing statements.


 * Or we could just crumple zone what it is called in engineerin; buckling, structural failure, or catastrophic failure.


 * A structure will "yield" as the load causes it to deform in the plastic range. A well designed structure can still take significant load while it yields.  A poorly designed structure buckles and collapses.  If cars had crash protection behind the bumper, there would be web braced structure filled with stiff plastic foam.


 * I did nothing to remove the history of "crumple Zone" lore. Perhaps you could be just as accomodating by recognizing the singular aspect of crumple zones existence in car talk, or recognize the controversy. Sodden (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only recognises controversies which have already been recognised by reliable sources. If you can dig out a newspaper article or scientific paper that describes crumple zones as "junk science" and "sales puffery", please do so and we can work that into the article. If it's just your own personal conclusion, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --McGeddon (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

German CZ wikipage google translation - Info for inclusion?
In the event of a crash in the vehicle is stored kinetic energy is converted into deformation energy. While the work done (energy change) is the integral of force over the distance traveled:

$$W = \int \mathbf F\,\mathrm{d}\mathbf x\,.$$

If we now replace the force F by the product of mass (m) and acceleration (a) concerns

$$W = \int \mathbf m*a\,\mathrm{d}\mathbf x\,.$$

or

$$W=\mathbf m*a \cdot \mathbf s\,.$$

The work to be done (W) and mass (m) depend on the vehicle and its impact velocity and therefore constant. If the distance s increases in energy conversion, must inevitably be a small acceleration in order to maintain equality.

Im Crashfall wird die im Fahrzeug gespeicherte kinetische Energie in Verformungsenergie umgewandelt. Die dabei verrichtete Arbeit (Energieänderung)ist das Integral der Kraft über dem zurückgelegten Weg:

$$W = \int \mathbf F\,\mathrm{d}\mathbf x\,.$$

Ersetzt man nun die Kraft F durch das Produkt von Masse(m) und Beschleunigung(a), ergibt sich

$$W = \int \mathbf m*a\,\mathrm{d}\mathbf x\,.$$

bzw.

$$W=\mathbf m*a \cdot \mathbf s\,.$$

Die zu verrichtende Arbeit(W) sowie die Masse(m) sind abhängig vom Fahrzeug und dessen Aufprallgeschwindigkeit und somit konstant. Wird die Strecke s des Energieumwandlung vergrößert, muss zwangsläufig die Beschleunigung a kleiner werden, um die Gleichheit zu wahren.

Deformation zones (crumple zones)

The deformation zones of an automobile can be seen in the areas of vehicle's front, side and rear divide. Front: In frontal collisions usually occur at the highest speeds relative to the obstacle, so the design of the front end the most important. In most cars in this area is the engine that is in spite of the high forces occurring virtually non deformable and thus absorbs no energy. Most of the energy absorbing side members, which are usually constructed as hollow sections of steel sheet. Including through cross member is in an uneven force (offset-crash vehicle meets only a portion of the front end of an obstacle), a uniform distribution of forces on structures reached the opposite side shock.

Page: In a collision from the side is only a very small deformation are available, while the structure is mainly subjected to bending, both of which are unfavorable for the energy absorption. The side impact collision is thus the most critical form. In the door parts are like speakers, power window and door closing mechanisms. To prevent penetration of these parts in the passenger compartment a corresponding interior door trim is used. Side air bags act as internal deformation zone between the passenger and side wall.

Rear: The rear impact is fairly easy because the relative speeds of the obstacle are usually rather small and large deformation free of distracting elements such as an engine block is present. Only the fuel tank is usually at the rear. In order to achieve the legally required tightness of the fuel system, the tank will be placed as far forward and down, often under the rear seat. In modern automobiles is the body specifically designed for crashworthiness. The Fontent can be roughly divided into three zones:

The first area is designed to prevent collisions at low speeds, such as parking accidents, permanent damage to the vehicle. This is supported by elastic elements, including how to reach the front apron. On some vehicles to the bumper with foam or similar resilient material is filled.

The second area is to provide for less severe collisions (up to 20 km / h) ensure that the structure of the vehicle is not damaged and a repair can be done as inexpensively as possible. This among other so-called crash tubes are used. These consist of a hollow steel section, which convert the incident energy by rolling up the profile. In the left image is the undeformed to see the right rolled Crashtube.

The third area is the so-called survival space, which is maximal stiff designed to secure for the survival of the occupants.

File: Crash Tube.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.35.18 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor phrasing, could use a rewrite
"force equivalent to many times their normal weight due to gravity"

I find this sentence confusing as can be, had to read it multiple time to get it, but I can't come up with a better way to phrase it. Can anyone else?

2601:282:A80:6530:28D6:683B:5FD5:B1F0 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crumple zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)