R.I.P. Mazda 3

[camera_man]

It was a dirt road, don't go fast unless you have dirt tires on.

I have done some dirt sliding with these tires before, but it's been on dirt roads without trees right next to the road, and at speeds that I know were manageable. As a result, I have a general sense of what can and cannot be done with them. At the speed I was entering the corner (and with my knowledge of what the corner looked like), I would NEVER have attempted to slide around it - hence the reason for braking before the corner. I never anticipated the rear end to step out like it did... again, mistake on my part.

I say he didn't know where the mazdas limits are... I don't really know where the 2s limits are it surprises me when i push it and the limits exceed what i imagined they would be, under other conditions the low limits surprise me. I haven't spun out enough to know the limits of my car. To know the limits you have to have pushed past them more than a few times, otherwise its just a guess.... and i wouldn't guess on my life.

As I said before, I'm aware of where the limits of the 3 are for dry pavement. Between two autocrosses and driving twisting (paved) roads, I know where the limit of dry traction it, when I'm approaching it, and how to prevent crossing said threshold. And yes, I have passed those limits, so I know where they are. Fortunately, with the 3, when you pass the limit, you just understeer, but I had learned to predict that and prevent it. On gravel I'm not quite as aware of the limits, hence my poor judgment in speed choice and braking technique/timing.

It's funny, I keep replaying the accident in my head, but it's incomplete. I remember approaching the corner, applying the brakes... then it skip to when I'm in the final slide towards the trees.... I remember seeing the trees come into the headlights, and then I remember seeing the airbag deflating. Those few seconds in between each part are missing. I never blacked out or anything from the impact, but I just can't remember what happened. I didn't even really have time to see the trees come into view and go, "OH S***, THIS MAY HURT!!!" I always envisioned being afraid when you realize there's an impending accident, but in reality, there's just no reaction time... not even for emotions. Until it's all over that is....


Edit: Sorry, didn't realize I ramble on so much about this all... just never been in an accident before, and there are so many different aspects to it I never even imagined!

[fa22raptorf22]

First and foremost, Im glad you walked away with no ill effects.


However;

high-performance all-season

No such beast

You could argue as such, but i beg to differ otherwise.

I had potenza re960as ' s which were "ultra-high" perfomance all-seasons.

I think they classify as such when such tires have Z+ speed ratings and can still work well in rain or snow.

That being said, if you are going to crash into an immovable object, it all becomes about crumple zones rather than weight.

Duely noted!

I still do feel that a lighter vehicle would do better than a heavier one with similar crumple zones.

From my own experiences and those from others I know, everyone in heavier cars were hurt more and the car more damaged than the smaller, lighter ones.

[eggwich delfiero]

Here was my understanding of teh crash physics. We can put this topic to rest now cuz I've never been wrong about anything, ever! (Disclaimer: that's a joke.)

In a crash with another vehicle, you want to be in a larger vehicle so you are the inflicter of pain rather than teh afflicted.
Preferably with an aggressive front end so nothing goes over your hood and in your face. Think pickup truck.

In a crash with a stationary object, let's call it The Immovable Object, you're better off in a lighter vehicle, due to the force of your accident being lower than a heavier vehicle traveling at the same speed. Of course, crumple zones matter too, but the force with which you hit is what causes all the crumpel stiltskins.

And slightly related and probably already know by all, but anyway: Active safety=the ability of your car to avoid an accident due to stopping distance, maneuverability, etc. Think motorcycle.
Passive safety=ability of your car to protect you from harm after an accident has occurred. Think Panzer tank with air bags.

And I too vote for Mazdaspeed3, sooo much fun. Or Mustang! (Sorry, had to say it.)

[camera_man]

I've never been a fan of Mustangs at all... I respect them for what they are, but I would never own one. Mazdaspeed 3 is FAST! I've driven one, but I'm looking to get something with AWD and a turbo (or a big engine - i.e. Audi S4 with the V8).

[IMBoring25]

I agree with your assessment of the effect of vehicle weight in multivehicle collisions, but must take exception with your assessment of a collision with a stationary object.

It is true that the larger vehicle carries more energy to the collision. However, it also has greater mass to deform and dissipate that energy. Provided the design of the structure is comparable, in that respect, there should be little or no correlation of weight to crash performance. However, there are two caveats that I would argue skew this equation in favor of a heavier car, even in a single-vehicle crash.

First, you have the option, when adding the mass to the vehicle, to use part of it to make the vehicle longer. While this is contrary to modern vehicle design for a number of relevant reasons, it does permit you to design the structure to crumple over a greater distance, reducing the accelerations experienced by the safety cage (One of the primary injury criteria) in a crash of a specified severity.

Second, The Immovable Object is a hypothetical, one that seldom exists in the real world (Though mature trees and bridge pillars unguarded by energy-absorbing devices are close). A Saturn struck the brick entryway to a local neighborhood a few nights back. Even with the fabled brick wall and a relatively small vehicle, the brick wall was rendered a movable object. The more movable the "immovable" object can be rendered, the lower the accelerations that will be experienced by the safety cage. Clearly, a heavier vehicle, all else being equal, will do a better job moving a given object.

[eggwich delfiero]

Dude, big respect for saying you don't like Mustangs but that you respect them for what they are. I hear that. I would say go for the MS3 over the S4 though all day, as insurance and repair costs on an S4 will cost you as much as two MS3s over a few years. (Source for this fact: Encyclopedia Britannica) (Yup, I'm spreading Audi exorbitant cost myths here, but with the S-line, I do think they are somewhat based in reality.)

And yes, ImBoringguy, there definitely aren't many immovable objects out there. Your reasoning sounds good to me. I am no physics expert by any means. I only took it in high school, and that was at 8 in the morning, and I was stoned pretty often.

[theholycow]

I say he didn't know where the mazdas limits are... I don't really know where the 2s limits are it surprises me when i push it and the limits exceed what i imagined they would be, under other conditions the low limits surprise me. I haven't spun out enough to know the limits of my car. To know the limits you have to have pushed past them more than a few times, otherwise its just a guess.... and i wouldn't guess on my life.

Misattributed quote. I did not write that.

In a crash with a stationary object, let's call it The Immovable Object, you're better off in a lighter vehicle, due to the force of your accident being lower than a heavier vehicle traveling at the same speed. Of course, crumple zones matter too, but the force with which you hit is what causes all the crumpel stiltskins.

You guys are missing the point. The issue of the amount of energy involved affects the vehicle and the immovable object, but does not affect the occupants. The transaction is done entirely without consulting them. If the heavier vehicle is designed to absorb its additional energy as well as the lighter vehicle is designed to absorb its lesser energy, the occupants will be subject to the same deceleration. A 150 pound driver at 60mph has the same kinetic energy in his mass regardless of the size of his car.

The theory is pretty easy, but perhaps more telling would be a study of how cars are actually built. Heavier cars are certainly built to absorb more energy, else their crash test ratings would suck. However, there is always a difference from one model to the next; perhaps there is a pattern. Anyone have data besides NHTSA crash test ratings?

[camera_man]

Misattributed quote. I did not write that.

My mistake. Fixed.

[Jastreb]

I didn't even really have time to see the trees come into view and go, "OH S***, THIS MAY HURT!!!" I always envisioned being afraid when you realize there's an impending accident, but in reality, there's just no reaction time... not even for emotions. Until it's all over that is....

I think that in dramatic situations like this, one is too busy for emotions. The drama is all in hindsight. When I was 18 and relatively inexperienced, I once did a 360 on a crowded highway in a Nissan Altima, from highway speed. This was not intentional. I remember, as the nose rotated from 180 (facing wrong way) to 270 degrees, calmly thinking, "That's it, I have wrecked the car - any minute a semi is going to plow into me." But I was not scared, this was kind of like a calm realization. It wasn't until the car came to a stop (facing the right way again) and I had pulled over into the shoulder, that I felt relief/anger/fear.

[Sypher]

glad you're ok after the accident but....

As I said before, I'm aware of where the limits of the 3 are for dry pavement. Between two autocrosses and driving twisting (paved) roads, I know where the limit of dry traction it, when I'm approaching it, and how to prevent crossing said threshold. And yes, I have passed those limits, so I know where they are. Fortunately, with the 3, when you pass the limit, you just understeer, but I had learned to predict that and prevent it. On gravel I'm not quite as aware of the limits, hence my poor judgment in speed choice and braking technique/timing.

to think that with 2 autocross events and "driving twisty roads" you "know" the limits of your 3 is just asinine (especially when speaking of doing 40mph on a dirt road). I have over a dozen autoX events under my belt driving my 3, including lots of spirited driving, and it was only near the end of this year's autoX season that I have finally began to understand the limits of my 3. Through last year, and this year, I have pushed my 3 much further than you could've with just 2 events. I have gotten the 3 to produce massive understeer, as well as snap oversteer (one time nearly taking out some expensive timing equipment). If you knew the limits of your 3, you would've know that once you start to slide/oversteer, the correct course of action would have been to smoothly get onto the accelerator to pull the car out of the while countersteering.

Also, I have gotten in a similar situation as you have, but on a snow/slush covered road (with snow tires), and at the time, was unfamiliar with slide control too. I have nearly flinged the car completely around (good thing no one was following me, as I was taking up both lanes to correct the oversteer) because I was on the brakes when I was suppose to be on the throttle.

I don't think now is a good time to be thinking of getting a car with more performance....

[theholycow]

There are many ways to get the experience to learn your car's limits. It's not necessary to do a dozen, or even any, autocross events.

[fa22raptorf22]

There are many ways to get the experience to learn your car's limits. It's not necessary to do a dozen, or even any, autocross events.

Yeah.

This is why i like inclimate weather driving.

In the snow you can feel your car out real easy, but at a low enough speed to not cause any real problems. But then again this is just the car's limit for the weather, but whatever.

[RITmusic2k]

I'm really sorry to be a nitpicker and I already know I'm being a dick for not ignoring it, but it's come up in this thread like three times already and for some reason it's really bugging me . The word you're looking for is inclement