Stop letting your kids drive fast cars (Hope: schools, living)

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc99

Doesn't the railgun rely on speed also. I think the name of the Navy's railgun program in Latin means speed destroys.

Of course, speed is the key factor, I will not refute that, but mass can't be discounted. Some rail gun projectiles are 7 pounds, quite heavy and necessarily so if you want it to destroy a tank. It accelerates a larger mass containment casing and releasing the arrow shaped 'heavy' particle with a great deal of kinetic energy to cause destruction. To destroy a tank you need high speed and relatively high mass.

[sickofnyc99]

Originally Posted by djdairyp

Of course, speed is the key factor, I will not refute that, but mass can't be discounted. Some rail gun projectiles are 7 pounds, quite heavy and necessarily so if you want it to destroy a tank. It accelerates a larger mass containment casing and releasing the arrow shaped 'heavy' particle with a great deal of kinetic energy to cause destruction. To destroy a tank you need high speed and relatively high mass.

I thought it was denisty that caused the penetration, thats why they use depleted uranium.

[djdairyp]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc99

I thought it was denisty that caused the penetration, thats why they use depleted uranium.

yes and no, more density will mean more mass for a given size. The energy delivered at impact is the kinetic energy =1/2 m v^2 of the projectile. A DU shell will be more compact and have more mass to deliver the kinetic energy in a smaller aerodynamic package, but you still must have the mass. Since they are radioactive, they are a poor choose of weaponry for those that must carry them.

Rail guns don't use DU, it was used in conventional weapons due to the convenience of it. A rail gun can accelerate a larger more massive particle of any material due to its design and uses no explosives, simply fires mass as high rates of speed.

[minesbroken]

Originally Posted by Egobop

Ok-here is my point. If someone is tailgating you on the Southern State Parkway they are not being safe. It does not matter if it is a SUV or a small car. You feel safer having someone driving another Galant tailgating you while talking on the cell phone than someone in an SUV doing it? They are both dangerous.

I am now done with this thread. It is obvious that this is an issue in which nobody is going to change their minds on how they feel so to keep going on about it is pointless.

yes I feel safer with some idiot in a 3 thousand pound car slamming into the back of my 3 thousand pound car than I do some idiot in an 8000 pound truck with the bumper at the top of my trunk lid slamming into the back of my 3 thousand pound car. MUCH SAFER!!! Why you cant see this is astounding.

[Egobop]

Originally Posted by minesbroken

yes I feel safer with some idiot in a 3 thousand pound car slamming into the back of my 3 thousand pound car than I do some idiot in an 8000 pound truck with the bumper at the top of my trunk lid slamming into the back of my 3 thousand pound car. MUCH SAFER!!! Why you cant see this is astounding.

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that people should not be tailgating regardless of what they are driving.

[56 Fighter]

Originally Posted by Egobop

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that people should not be tailgating regardless of what they are driving.

And people are people and will tailgate. We do not live on Sesame Street where all of a sudden everyone will do what's right. The way to mitigate disaster is reduce the size of the bigger cars.

[sickofnyc99]

I feel now you're starting to infringe on rights. I want a big truck, I can afford a big truck I'm allowed to own and drive a big truck. It fits in the lane it shouldn't be a problem. What about the 50's/60's when cars were tanks?

[mathjak107]

i remember my olds delta 88 ... now theres a car that had a crumple zone back in those days....it USED YOUR CAR AS A CRUMPLE ZONE!

[minesbroken]

Originally Posted by Egobop

I understand what you are saying. I am saying that people should not be tailgating regardless of what they are driving.

Yes but much like every time someone has an accident they put up a stop sign or a traffic light because people arent smart enough to slow down at an intersection, we might have to take the choice away because people are too stupid and or selfish to do the right thing on they're own. My argument is if they are going to drive like idiots anyway ( and they are) then why should I suffer? Let them cram onto the 495 with bigger truck and drive like morons. Another thing I've noticed is tractor trailer drivers driving like idiots lately. another case of a select few screwing it up for everyone. and Unfortunately even though you drive your 8000 pound truck like a civilized human being you are the minority. Most of these big trucks I see during rush hour are cutting me off, tailgating me, or driving between two lanes. People are stupid...selfish and greedy.

[minesbroken]

Originally Posted by sickofnyc99

I feel now you're starting to infringe on rights. I want a big truck, I can afford a big truck I'm allowed to own and drive a big truck. It fits in the lane it shouldn't be a problem. What about the 50's/60's when cars were tanks?

not saying you cant have one, I'm saying you should have to prove you can drive one, They should have a special license for these larger vehicles. In the 50's and 60's there were no mini's and Honda fit's cars weren't made of plastic and didn't weigh 1500 pounds. other than the occasional tr6 or mg most cars were tanks so chances are if you got hit by one you were also driving one. not like today where a Chevy Tahoe hits you from behind and slams you into a ford expedition and squishes your crappy plastic car like a grape.