question for physics/mathematics wizards
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Captain S itmagnet
- Rank 3
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:53 am
Thanks to all for your input and contributions...
After a few more days to mull over the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a physics/mathematical formulae to demonstrate a greater than 5mph impact are helpful, but redundant for the following reasons. After all, if one was to try to explain this an adjustor, you have to really dumb it down.
1 If the surface was bare and dry, our van would have moved, let's say for the sake of argument, one foot as a result of a minimal hit. Now, I agree this is apples and oranges, but a theoretical CRFI for the crash area that day, .3 to .5, would give an added landing distance in the range of 1.87 to 1.95 times the non-contaminated landing distance. Our van moved 20 feet after being hit. This requires a factor of 20 to make 20 feet. To repeat, apples and oranges, but there is a corelation of force applied, distance displaced, and friction of the road surface, etc and I'm needing to make it simple. Of sourse a Judge will be a lot more sharper.
2 Due to the contaminated road surface, energy that would have been absorbed by the van and its "crumpling" design, was instead transferred to forward movement, and also imparted upon our respective bodies. Ironically, had the road surface been uncompromised, there would have been likely no crash. In addition, if the impact still did occur, the van's design would have had the opportinuity to crumple as is it designed to do, which would have resulted in more visible damage, whixh also would have further proven the speed at impact was well in excess of 5 mph. In simple terms for my simple mind, the van did not get a chance to absorb/crumple, due the fact that the van was propelled considerably further than had the surface been "sticky".
CSM
After a few more days to mull over the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a physics/mathematical formulae to demonstrate a greater than 5mph impact are helpful, but redundant for the following reasons. After all, if one was to try to explain this an adjustor, you have to really dumb it down.
1 If the surface was bare and dry, our van would have moved, let's say for the sake of argument, one foot as a result of a minimal hit. Now, I agree this is apples and oranges, but a theoretical CRFI for the crash area that day, .3 to .5, would give an added landing distance in the range of 1.87 to 1.95 times the non-contaminated landing distance. Our van moved 20 feet after being hit. This requires a factor of 20 to make 20 feet. To repeat, apples and oranges, but there is a corelation of force applied, distance displaced, and friction of the road surface, etc and I'm needing to make it simple. Of sourse a Judge will be a lot more sharper.
2 Due to the contaminated road surface, energy that would have been absorbed by the van and its "crumpling" design, was instead transferred to forward movement, and also imparted upon our respective bodies. Ironically, had the road surface been uncompromised, there would have been likely no crash. In addition, if the impact still did occur, the van's design would have had the opportinuity to crumple as is it designed to do, which would have resulted in more visible damage, whixh also would have further proven the speed at impact was well in excess of 5 mph. In simple terms for my simple mind, the van did not get a chance to absorb/crumple, due the fact that the van was propelled considerably further than had the surface been "sticky".
CSM
