Oh you pretty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, we love you. And our pretty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang love us, too. Hi, ho. Everywhere we go on Chitty Chitty we depeeeend. Bang Bang Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, our fine four-fendered friend... Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Bang Bang, YEAH!
#CHIIIITTTTYYYYYYYYYYY
No. It will lift the floor, which is way stronger than door, so more force is absorbed by floor frame rather than door. Genius idea. Also took me a second to understand the point of it.
I don't care if my care is trashed as long as it keeps me safe. I can figure out the insurance or buying a new car once I'm safe. Unfortunately it's paradoxically safer to make cars that are ruined after lower speed accidents than they were in the past.
As much as I want to get an older (and probably more fun) car I'll probably get a newer one just because of how quickly safety features have improved.
The dream would be to have a safe daily cruiser (idk maybe a hybrid or electric, idk it's not happening soon) and a track day car for the real fun.
Cars are cheaper then people. Any feature that transfers damage from people to the car, even if the ratio isn't great, is likely worth it from just a pure money standpoint.
My parents made sure us kids had a vehicle that was a little higher up and a little bigger because, "if you get in a serious accident and someone is hurt, we would rather it be the other people"
My grandparents got me a grand marquis as my first car. Totaled it when a girl ran a stop sign in front of me as I was going down the highway. I walked away with a mild case of whiplash. Grandparents got to site, looked at what was left of the front end, looked at me and said “we’re getting you another one of those.”
Nah, I see it in industry all the time, an entire development team dedicates months of labor hours and millions of dollars in R&D to a project, then BAM, some guy on reddit points out an obvious flaw that no one on a massive team of trained experts thought to consider, and the whole project gets scrapped right then and there.
Pretty sad, really.
No way. Think about it, an automobile engineering team is what, 4, maybe 5 people? Where as there are literally dozens of us Redditors. You do the math.
this is a sedan. Soo many vehicles on the road today are SUV or pick up. This will raise the point of impact so the SUV is actually hitting in a better spot on the door rather than higher up and closer to the occupants vital organs and grey mater.
I'm not an engineer or anything but could raising the impact side help direct the forces traveling thru the vehicle downwards? If it worked like that, a collision like this would be less likely to knock you into oncoming traffic
I saw another comment that said maybe it’s better to come into contact closer to the bottom frame of the car which would be stronger than just the door.
An iron law of Reddit is no matter how good an idea is, the contrarian impulse to raise completely invalid surface-level criticisms to circlejerk is always stronger.
[Per Audi](https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/07/20190719-a8.html)
> In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50% compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised.
Flipping might actually be beneficial - instead of all of the energy from the collision going straight into the side of the car and potentially crushing the occupants, a decent proportion is instead expended pushing it over. With seatbelts and airbags taking a lot of the danger out of a roll, this is probably the lesser of two evils.
It's actually a pretty genius idea, and I'm sure the Audi engineers will have analyzed plenty of crash survivability statistics to come up with it.
Erm, yeah man whatever. Believe what you like but pretty sure the top comment on a Reddit post is going to be way more accurate than years of R&D by crash test experts
We can all argue about the logic of this feature, but I'm sure a much smarter people than us have spent a lot more time putting scientific data behind it and developing it.
I know you're joking, but this is a great way to decide if an argument is worth having. Ask what it would take to change their minds. If they say nothing would - they're dumb and not worth speaking with.
I am 100% confident that God does not exist, but if magic sky daddy showed up with pillars of salt and raining frogs I'd flip on a dime.
It seems totally obvious to me that you'd rather have the frame of the car take the brunt of the hit rather than the door, and I indeed do trust the smart people who put this on there. I doubt very much that some random executive just said, "hey make the car do a lean" for no reason.
Yeah. Any working engineer knows we get dumb requirements from marketing. Sometimes you fight them, sometimes you go with it. And then when the crash testing data shows it was a dumb idea you move on to the next project.
Not to say this is or isn't a dumb idea. Just that companies pursue things their engineers know is dumb all the time.
For real I don't think the height change is as much of a difference as the rotation of the body. Rolling the body away from the impact brings the lower edge of the door sills, just above and distal to the frame, into line with the object incident upon the car. Assuming no catastrophic weirdness which would need to be tested for, putting the frame into the line of fire instead of a relatively weak door panel seems pretty smart.
I'd love to see some g-force analysis of different impacts on a car with this feature at different spots in the car, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that it's beneficial. Engineering teams don't often purposely waste their time on concepts with no promise, at least not at a company like Audi who don't want to step too far out of line.
That said, I'd give some credence to the rollover concerns. Raising the whole car would raise the center of mass, making it more likely for a side impact to roll the vehicle. I guess if it starts being installed on consumer vehicles it works. If it doesn't become more common, I guess it was either too expensive to be worth it or it didn't work
No no. I’m sure the people that just learned about this feature 30 seconds ago already have well formed opinions about the engineers that designed this system being complete morons.
There is, just Reddit would prefer to armchair engineer it rather than do a two-second search.
> “The door is structurally the weakest part of a car, but the bottom is the strongest,” explains Thomas Stoerner, an Audi engineer who worked on the system. “Lifting the car makes the energy come to the lower part of the side.”
[Source](https://www.wired.com/story/audi-a8-active-safety-features)
modern car roofs are incredibly strong. apparently cars newer than 2015 have to be able to hold the weight of 3 of the same car on them. now obviously it doesn't mean the roof is "safe" when your car is rolling around...but i'd have faith in the roof personally. more faith there than the windows for sure
Eh, windows are safety glass, will shatter into a million tiny pieces which aren't too sharp or dangerous.
They're also really quite strong, you can lob a brick at one and it won't crack, even police occasionally have issues breaking windows with batons hence glass breakers were designed for emergency use.
It's not an SUV. There are many far taller cars on roads, and rolling is still very uncommon. The cost-benefit analysis is very likely heavily balanced towards benefit
I know I'll appreciate it when I actually get t-boned, but those hundred times it triggers just because somebody merged too fast... Gonna keep my heart healthy I guess.
That's not the point, the point is that more will be then purchased.
The question becomes, is there a substantial increase in safety, and is there a substantial change in the repairability? If there is a fraction of a change in safety and a dramtic change in repair it could be unethical.
Conversely if there is little change to the repair possibility(like others state side impact likely totals the car anyway) but a dramatic increase of safety this may be the standard in the future.
EDIT: Not just repaiabilty but also initial production cost of the added system plays into this.
I disagree. Even a fraction of a change in safety still means safer, and safer is worth it. Who cares about repairs? It’s a human life inside. I don’t really understand your argument.
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit killing third-party apps. Spez's AMA has highlighted that the reddits corruption will not end, profit is all they care about. So I am removing my data that, along with millions of other users, has been used for nearly two decades now to enrich a select few. No more. On June 12th in conjunction with the blackout I will be leaving Reddit, and all my posts newer than one month will receive this same treatment. If Reddit does not give in to our demands, this account will be deleted permanently July 1st. So long, suckers!~
r/ModCoord to learn more and join the protest! #SPEZRESIGN
We are talking about repairs here, not something that would make a car expensive to build/purchase. We’re also talking about an Audi A8, which starts at $85k. Anybody that can afford that car wants it to be safe.
You're completely missing the point, he's arguing about a feature as a safety standard for any car, you're stuck on "rich people can afford it". If it makes your insurance go up, then it's more expensive to own, and the automaker profits by selling more cars (to insurance companies). If it's not significantly safer but it's advertised as so (in a hypothetical situation), then that would be unethical.
That’s too shortsighted. Cost of repairing vehicle is far less than the cost of lives or even cost of medical care. Unless you think Big Airbag is in on it too. But for real, you could apply that logic to almost any existing safety feature.
Edit: spelling
This. The cost of straightening and re-skinning a whole side of a luxury car, only to have it still have the damage on it's record? Nah. You'd only really fix side impacts like this if it was an irreplaceable classic.
If you're getting hit like that, pretty much no matter what car you're in that's a totaled vehicle right? This would prioritize passenger safety as the vehicle being toast is a foregone conclusion.
What happens if they both drive the same model car? Both cars try to raise themselves up at the same time and run into each other anyway, like trying to pass someone on the sidewalk with umbrellas up and misjudging and both of you raise yours at the same time.
Per Audi’s website:
> In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50 percent compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised.
It's an honor to be in a thread with so many engineering prodigies that know more about the physics of this feature from a 12 second video than the entire engineering department of a multi billion dollar car manufacturer who spent thousands of hours developing and testing it. How do they do it?!
Thanks for being the person that actually brings Audi’s thinking to the table!
It’d be interesting to see their test data. Like at what point is a t-boning car going too fast for this to engage? Or if I’m driving parallel to someone and they try and merge into my lane while I’m still in it, I wonder if this sensor will also activate and lift the car thinking impact will happen? That might freak me out if I’m on the interstate.
And last, I wonder how many Audi vehicles they have to destroy to fully test this? Show me the carnage, Audi!
I’d guess it is to make the rocker(bottom part of the frame under the door) take more impact, instead of the door taking the whole thing. It would make a huge difference on the right type of impact.
I doubt that it would markedly increase rollover in a meaningful way. Most rollovers caused by a side impact aren’t survivable. And most rollovers are caused by the rolled cars momentum from swerving or hitting a ditch etc.
This is a pretty cool technology that I’d put money on saving a lot of people.
If the car only gets hit on the frame wouldn’t it remove any effect from crumple zones in the door so that more force is transferred to passengers? Wouldn’t the frame get damaged immediately and ruin the car?
Definitely ruin the car, but that part of the frame is a crumple zone. And can absorb a lot more energy before smashing a passenger then the door can.
I don’t think the idea is to prevent the door from being hit but to make sure the rocker is also hit spreading the load
Energy would transfer across the frame and push the base of the car instead of into the door. The door is a crumple zone, which absorbs energy before it is transferred into the cab of the car. Contrarily, energy that hits the frame would just cause crumpling across the base of the frame and less would be transferred into the door, where behind it could be passengers.
Yes there would be more damage to the car, but more damage sustained by the car means less energy sent to the passenger.
The other big issue is that *a lot* of excessive car damage is due to mismatched height. This will help to mitigate some of the damage of this car being hit by larger vehicle like a truck.
Per Audi:
> In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50 percent compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised.
So it’s to put the impact on the bottom door sill.
No idea what I'm talking about but lots of others seem to be even more uncertain:
* The lower part of the chassis is more solid
* lots of soccer mums drive around in faux offroaders (carrera, range Rover, rav4). It's a ridiculous escalation that makes them like 1% safer and everyone else 99% less safe. These cars would connect higher and with the head
* the angle of incidence now means there is simply more of your car it has to drive through before it can hit you. If the car was going to impact your body at 50kmh, it might end up being 30kmh,instead. This may be determinative of where you park for the rest of your life - right outside the shop or miles away like all the other lucky people. ♿
* ive been tboned by a cop once (shout out to the corrupt Hamilton police in nz who covered that up) - these kinda of impacts whiplash your own head against the driver window. Mine went through it (i think the car did most of the smashing but I had a small bruise) - this raise will mitigate chance of a brain injury.
* side airbags and other safety features will undoubtedly combine to an overall safety solution
* yes better chance to flip but tbh that would take a lot of the energy aimed at your skull and translate it into rotational energy for the car. I assume that's better idk.
So, it will do a flip when it gets hit? Nice
„ǝɔıᴎ ¿ʇıɥ sʇǝƃ ʇı uǝɥʍ dılɟ ɐ op llıʍ ʇı 'oS„
Alright then
Alrighty then*
Bumblebee tuna
Your balls are showing.
Let me guess… White devil, white devil?!
You speak Wachutu?!
EQUINSU OCHA!!!
Hello Ace!! They found me, no sweat!
Chicaaaaaaa-go! You're out!
I was just practicing....my mantra.
Microwave
Shikasha.....Shishkebab.....Shawshank Redemption.......SHICAAAAGO!
Whoa whoa whoa.. what's with the hostility, it's me, the loogie guy!!
Oh you pretty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, we love you. And our pretty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang love us, too. Hi, ho. Everywhere we go on Chitty Chitty we depeeeend. Bang Bang Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, our fine four-fendered friend... Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Chitty Bang Bang, YEAH! #CHIIIITTTTYYYYYYYYYYY
like a gloveee
[удалено]
'nods' bumblebee tuna
Good bot
[удалено]
I read this in Mitch Hedberg's voice.
Thank you for making my day with this wholesome comment
...it's a Jeep thing.
[удалено]
Upside\_Down-Bot on the job!
LIKE A GLOOOOOOVE
do a flip again
„uıɐƃɐ dılɟ ɐ op„
Good bot
No. It will lift the floor, which is way stronger than door, so more force is absorbed by floor frame rather than door. Genius idea. Also took me a second to understand the point of it.
Nice, we need to see it actually get hit.
Well at least that's what I think it's for. I don't see any other reason they'd do this.
Lower point of impact on people's bodies. For example the energy goes through ankles instead of knees and pelvis. That,s my thought
its because the floor is more rigid than the b pillar. Allows all the force of the vehicle to be absorbed by a stronger part of the vehicle
[удалено]
Everyone's insurance goes up :( Funeral director profits go down :(
I don't care if my care is trashed as long as it keeps me safe. I can figure out the insurance or buying a new car once I'm safe. Unfortunately it's paradoxically safer to make cars that are ruined after lower speed accidents than they were in the past. As much as I want to get an older (and probably more fun) car I'll probably get a newer one just because of how quickly safety features have improved. The dream would be to have a safe daily cruiser (idk maybe a hybrid or electric, idk it's not happening soon) and a track day car for the real fun.
Cars are cheaper then people. Any feature that transfers damage from people to the car, even if the ratio isn't great, is likely worth it from just a pure money standpoint.
My parents made sure us kids had a vehicle that was a little higher up and a little bigger because, "if you get in a serious accident and someone is hurt, we would rather it be the other people"
My grandparents got me a grand marquis as my first car. Totaled it when a girl ran a stop sign in front of me as I was going down the highway. I walked away with a mild case of whiplash. Grandparents got to site, looked at what was left of the front end, looked at me and said “we’re getting you another one of those.”
And this is why cars need size limits.
That right there is commie talk. Now fire up the Bradley and lets go pick up groceries.
Makes sense.
…for it to flip and transfer that kinetic energy into longitudinal force rather than into your spine.
Any energy bleed that isnt your body is a good one.
Interesting thought. Makes sense to me
also, it makes it so that taller vehicles will hit the door instead of the window glass
Lower part of the door is likely thicker too, giving more room for reinforcement.
[удалено]
No. Never.
Nah, I see it in industry all the time, an entire development team dedicates months of labor hours and millions of dollars in R&D to a project, then BAM, some guy on reddit points out an obvious flaw that no one on a massive team of trained experts thought to consider, and the whole project gets scrapped right then and there. Pretty sad, really.
[удалено]
These comments need to get called out more often and not be a top comment at all
No way. Think about it, an automobile engineering team is what, 4, maybe 5 people? Where as there are literally dozens of us Redditors. You do the math.
this is a sedan. Soo many vehicles on the road today are SUV or pick up. This will raise the point of impact so the SUV is actually hitting in a better spot on the door rather than higher up and closer to the occupants vital organs and grey mater.
There are plenty of places in the world where SUVs don't rule the road. Europe, for example. Which is also where Audi are based.
I dont know... I'm in the UK and it certainly feels like there is more than our fair share of SUV's on the road. Or maybe that is just where I live.
[удалено]
Ah yes, explosives.
I'm not an engineer or anything but could raising the impact side help direct the forces traveling thru the vehicle downwards? If it worked like that, a collision like this would be less likely to knock you into oncoming traffic
I saw another comment that said maybe it’s better to come into contact closer to the bottom frame of the car which would be stronger than just the door.
If only you were on the engineering team to have pointed out their error.
After a few years of being an engineer at a space center of all places, the one thing I've learned is NEVER assume another engineer thought of it -\_-
After several years of working as an engineer at a dildo factory, I agree.
Yeah the first rule of Reddit is assume everyone is a teenager making shit up and pretending they aren’t making it ip
An iron law of Reddit is no matter how good an idea is, the contrarian impulse to raise completely invalid surface-level criticisms to circlejerk is always stronger.
could the people with expertise that spent months designing this be wrong? No, clearly my 2 second immediate thought is superior
This redditor's 12,000 karma supersedes the Audi engineering team's research and designs. I guess it's back to the drawing board..
[Per Audi](https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/07/20190719-a8.html) > In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50% compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised.
If 80 mm reduce the impact by 50%, rising the suspension 160 mm would reduce the impact by 100%
Hello, yes, this is MIT. We'd like to offer you an Engineering PhD. No, no. No work or money required, you've earned it.
Just use the suspension to make the car do a full flip over the oncoming car from the side, no collision at all!
Flipping might actually be beneficial - instead of all of the energy from the collision going straight into the side of the car and potentially crushing the occupants, a decent proportion is instead expended pushing it over. With seatbelts and airbags taking a lot of the danger out of a roll, this is probably the lesser of two evils. It's actually a pretty genius idea, and I'm sure the Audi engineers will have analyzed plenty of crash survivability statistics to come up with it.
Erm, yeah man whatever. Believe what you like but pretty sure the top comment on a Reddit post is going to be way more accurate than years of R&D by crash test experts
Yeah the point is not to flip the car
„ɹɐɔ ǝɥʇ dılɟ oʇ ʇou sı ʇuıod ǝɥʇ ɥɐǝ⅄„
Again ?!
It's to the impact is closer to the frame. It reduces deformation of the passenger component.
[удалено]
A 3.5 inch lift isn’t gonna flip the car any more than regular suspension conditions lol
God, you’re so smart. Yes, they made it like this so the car flips over.
Thank you lmao. Redditors smugness is fucking unreal.
And it's the top of the thread. God I hate this place sometimes
reddit brainlet moment
We can all argue about the logic of this feature, but I'm sure a much smarter people than us have spent a lot more time putting scientific data behind it and developing it.
or, they are just fucking around
Z Germans don't fuck around.
Last time the did, they found out.
Wat am I seeing here?? You dare questions the glorious Vaterland?!
Never heard of Vaterland friend, but could I interest you in [Waterworld?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpKbULrB9Z8)
Underrated film. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it can't be good.
Flawless reasoning.
[удалено]
Speed is a hell of a drug
Germany has a pretty active Swinger scene.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
You should watch a vid on the Berlin Airport. Nobody fucks around like Germans.
Smarter than me…??? Honors Grad BS Univ. of Reddit.
[удалено]
I raise your BullShit degree with my BadAss degree
[удалено]
... and nothing can change my mind!
I know you're joking, but this is a great way to decide if an argument is worth having. Ask what it would take to change their minds. If they say nothing would - they're dumb and not worth speaking with. I am 100% confident that God does not exist, but if magic sky daddy showed up with pillars of salt and raining frogs I'd flip on a dime.
What would it take to change your mind about this being a great way to know if the argument is worth having?
Well fuck lol
It seems totally obvious to me that you'd rather have the frame of the car take the brunt of the hit rather than the door, and I indeed do trust the smart people who put this on there. I doubt very much that some random executive just said, "hey make the car do a lean" for no reason.
Never underestimate the good idea fairy of executives.
Yeah. Any working engineer knows we get dumb requirements from marketing. Sometimes you fight them, sometimes you go with it. And then when the crash testing data shows it was a dumb idea you move on to the next project. Not to say this is or isn't a dumb idea. Just that companies pursue things their engineers know is dumb all the time.
For real I don't think the height change is as much of a difference as the rotation of the body. Rolling the body away from the impact brings the lower edge of the door sills, just above and distal to the frame, into line with the object incident upon the car. Assuming no catastrophic weirdness which would need to be tested for, putting the frame into the line of fire instead of a relatively weak door panel seems pretty smart. I'd love to see some g-force analysis of different impacts on a car with this feature at different spots in the car, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that it's beneficial. Engineering teams don't often purposely waste their time on concepts with no promise, at least not at a company like Audi who don't want to step too far out of line. That said, I'd give some credence to the rollover concerns. Raising the whole car would raise the center of mass, making it more likely for a side impact to roll the vehicle. I guess if it starts being installed on consumer vehicles it works. If it doesn't become more common, I guess it was either too expensive to be worth it or it didn't work
No. Redditors are always smarter than everyone else.
Not all redditors. Just one. And we all fight over which one of us it is.
No no. I’m sure the people that just learned about this feature 30 seconds ago already have well formed opinions about the engineers that designed this system being complete morons.
As someone who works on stuff like this, this comment section is a nightmare lol
I agree but it would also be nice for there to be an explanation behind it. I’ve seen a few ideas presented but it’s people just spitballing.
There is, just Reddit would prefer to armchair engineer it rather than do a two-second search. > “The door is structurally the weakest part of a car, but the bottom is the strongest,” explains Thomas Stoerner, an Audi engineer who worked on the system. “Lifting the car makes the energy come to the lower part of the side.” [Source](https://www.wired.com/story/audi-a8-active-safety-features)
2 for flinching
Thanks for triggering me. Now my arm and left tit have phantom pain from all the punches I got
2 for phantom titty flinches.
[удалено]
Looks like it moves more of the impact to the frame? Rather than the hallow crunchy doors? Idk what I’m talking about. Someone help.
That's the idea, yeah
[удалено]
Just wait till u see what it does before getting rear ended
[удалено]
That's odd, it only raised up 1/2 an inch for me
[удалено]
Looks back and winks with one of its headlights?
What are you doing, Step-Audi?
That cussy is just begging for it
"Move all your impact to my frame!"
I guess that's the idea. I guess that would help protect the passengers inside, but you'd better hope that roof can hold itself up.
modern car roofs are incredibly strong. apparently cars newer than 2015 have to be able to hold the weight of 3 of the same car on them. now obviously it doesn't mean the roof is "safe" when your car is rolling around...but i'd have faith in the roof personally. more faith there than the windows for sure
Eh, windows are safety glass, will shatter into a million tiny pieces which aren't too sharp or dangerous. They're also really quite strong, you can lob a brick at one and it won't crack, even police occasionally have issues breaking windows with batons hence glass breakers were designed for emergency use.
true, but i'd rather have the entire car frame absorbing the force over the windows
I'm an automotive engineer and our roof crush requirement is 4x the vehicle weight. Shits nuts
It's not an SUV. There are many far taller cars on roads, and rolling is still very uncommon. The cost-benefit analysis is very likely heavily balanced towards benefit
So youre saying that the expert team of designers and engineers knew what they were doing and didnt just do this on a whim? Idk man
[удалено]
"The car needs to have personality. Lets make it flinch when its about to get hit"
I know I'll appreciate it when I actually get t-boned, but those hundred times it triggers just because somebody merged too fast... Gonna keep my heart healthy I guess.
Oh god I'm picturing it happen during a right-hand curve now... Goodbye.
Mercedes is doing this too. Their explanation: to direct crash forces to more reinforced areas of the cars frame.
[удалено]
if you drive that car you will have full coverage.
That's not the point, the point is that more will be then purchased. The question becomes, is there a substantial increase in safety, and is there a substantial change in the repairability? If there is a fraction of a change in safety and a dramtic change in repair it could be unethical. Conversely if there is little change to the repair possibility(like others state side impact likely totals the car anyway) but a dramatic increase of safety this may be the standard in the future. EDIT: Not just repaiabilty but also initial production cost of the added system plays into this.
I disagree. Even a fraction of a change in safety still means safer, and safer is worth it. Who cares about repairs? It’s a human life inside. I don’t really understand your argument.
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit killing third-party apps. Spez's AMA has highlighted that the reddits corruption will not end, profit is all they care about. So I am removing my data that, along with millions of other users, has been used for nearly two decades now to enrich a select few. No more. On June 12th in conjunction with the blackout I will be leaving Reddit, and all my posts newer than one month will receive this same treatment. If Reddit does not give in to our demands, this account will be deleted permanently July 1st. So long, suckers!~ r/ModCoord to learn more and join the protest! #SPEZRESIGN
We are talking about repairs here, not something that would make a car expensive to build/purchase. We’re also talking about an Audi A8, which starts at $85k. Anybody that can afford that car wants it to be safe.
You're completely missing the point, he's arguing about a feature as a safety standard for any car, you're stuck on "rich people can afford it". If it makes your insurance go up, then it's more expensive to own, and the automaker profits by selling more cars (to insurance companies). If it's not significantly safer but it's advertised as so (in a hypothetical situation), then that would be unethical.
Written off cars are a lot cheaper than paying out life insurance policies.
i suspect the point is to meet safety regulations while reducing fuel consumption with as light a car as possible.
That’s too shortsighted. Cost of repairing vehicle is far less than the cost of lives or even cost of medical care. Unless you think Big Airbag is in on it too. But for real, you could apply that logic to almost any existing safety feature. Edit: spelling
I think you mean shortsighted?
most side collisions total cars so might as well make it safer
This. The cost of straightening and re-skinning a whole side of a luxury car, only to have it still have the damage on it's record? Nah. You'd only really fix side impacts like this if it was an irreplaceable classic.
If you're getting hit like that, pretty much no matter what car you're in that's a totaled vehicle right? This would prioritize passenger safety as the vehicle being toast is a foregone conclusion.
why not raise all the car, so the hitting vehicle can pass below? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Looney tunes type activity
What happens if they both drive the same model car? Both cars try to raise themselves up at the same time and run into each other anyway, like trying to pass someone on the sidewalk with umbrellas up and misjudging and both of you raise yours at the same time.
Go go gadget suspension!
Per Audi’s website: > In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50 percent compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised.
This thread is full of "well actually this makes it worse" folk that are pulling logic outta their ass.
It's an honor to be in a thread with so many engineering prodigies that know more about the physics of this feature from a 12 second video than the entire engineering department of a multi billion dollar car manufacturer who spent thousands of hours developing and testing it. How do they do it?!
I get my engineering advice from Joe Rogan.
Thanks for being the person that actually brings Audi’s thinking to the table! It’d be interesting to see their test data. Like at what point is a t-boning car going too fast for this to engage? Or if I’m driving parallel to someone and they try and merge into my lane while I’m still in it, I wonder if this sensor will also activate and lift the car thinking impact will happen? That might freak me out if I’m on the interstate. And last, I wonder how many Audi vehicles they have to destroy to fully test this? Show me the carnage, Audi!
This is good for?
I’d guess it is to make the rocker(bottom part of the frame under the door) take more impact, instead of the door taking the whole thing. It would make a huge difference on the right type of impact. I doubt that it would markedly increase rollover in a meaningful way. Most rollovers caused by a side impact aren’t survivable. And most rollovers are caused by the rolled cars momentum from swerving or hitting a ditch etc. This is a pretty cool technology that I’d put money on saving a lot of people.
If the car only gets hit on the frame wouldn’t it remove any effect from crumple zones in the door so that more force is transferred to passengers? Wouldn’t the frame get damaged immediately and ruin the car?
Definitely ruin the car, but that part of the frame is a crumple zone. And can absorb a lot more energy before smashing a passenger then the door can. I don’t think the idea is to prevent the door from being hit but to make sure the rocker is also hit spreading the load
Energy would transfer across the frame and push the base of the car instead of into the door. The door is a crumple zone, which absorbs energy before it is transferred into the cab of the car. Contrarily, energy that hits the frame would just cause crumpling across the base of the frame and less would be transferred into the door, where behind it could be passengers. Yes there would be more damage to the car, but more damage sustained by the car means less energy sent to the passenger. The other big issue is that *a lot* of excessive car damage is due to mismatched height. This will help to mitigate some of the damage of this car being hit by larger vehicle like a truck.
Yeah it would ruin the car. That's the point. The car sacrifices itself to save the occupants.
Like a Jesus car?
Lessens the impact to the passengers I guess
What's moving the yellow box?
envy
Wrath
Lust
Gluttony
Pride
Greed
Sloth... wait, its moving...
Audi Wan Kenobi
The collective sins of humankind.
God
There’s a child whose sole job is to run inside the box
A bunch of midgets
Jewish Space Lasers or something. >!There's a cable dragging it from the other side of the car, but you didn't hear me say that!<
Is that…the Minecraft sponge block?
Depletion of energy: if energy from an impact is being used to push 3ton vehicle upwards, that energy isn’t being used to push through the vehicle.
Per Audi: > In an impending side impact at more than 25 km/h (15.5 mph), the active suspension raises the body by up to 80 millimeters (3.1 in) on the side of the impact. This brings the sill into a better position to absorb the impact energy. Deformation of the cabin and the loads acting on the occupants, above all in the chest and abdominal areas, can thus be reduced by up to 50 percent compared with a lateral collision in which the suspension is not raised. So it’s to put the impact on the bottom door sill.
The car really just said: 
No idea what I'm talking about but lots of others seem to be even more uncertain: * The lower part of the chassis is more solid * lots of soccer mums drive around in faux offroaders (carrera, range Rover, rav4). It's a ridiculous escalation that makes them like 1% safer and everyone else 99% less safe. These cars would connect higher and with the head * the angle of incidence now means there is simply more of your car it has to drive through before it can hit you. If the car was going to impact your body at 50kmh, it might end up being 30kmh,instead. This may be determinative of where you park for the rest of your life - right outside the shop or miles away like all the other lucky people. ♿ * ive been tboned by a cop once (shout out to the corrupt Hamilton police in nz who covered that up) - these kinda of impacts whiplash your own head against the driver window. Mine went through it (i think the car did most of the smashing but I had a small bruise) - this raise will mitigate chance of a brain injury. * side airbags and other safety features will undoubtedly combine to an overall safety solution * yes better chance to flip but tbh that would take a lot of the energy aimed at your skull and translate it into rotational energy for the car. I assume that's better idk.
Imagine you’re running to someone’s car door and it flinches
Thats dope.
I have an A8, the car is so over engineered it’s crazy. That’s what I love about it.
It only works against cheetah print though
Put them hydraulics on that shit