You want the front of the car to absrob the energy. When it crumples, it absorbs the energry and lesser energy is transferred to the passengers. The Engine is tough and will not crumple. It will thus not absorb the energy but transfer it to the passengers.
So I just checked out some crash videos on YouTube. The Model S appears to have a surprisingly small crumple zone.
That's just my layman's perspective, but take a look and see if you don't agree. The front readily collapses, but just past the center-point of the wheels (presumably about where the motor area starts) it's a brick wall and the whole 2+ ton vehicle just stops in it's tracks.
Compare that to Volvo crash tests, especially the Euro NCAP Small Offset. The front fender of the Volvo disintegrates, but then the wheel actually flys off and the front of the cabin even appears to absorb some energy. It looks like a much softer landing. The interior shots are even more impressive with less deformation and a lot more padding with a lot less slack in the airbags.
I didn't run across any Model S tests where it looked like that long hood was actually doing much for it since it appears to hit some sort of impenetrably stiff wall halfway through. You can look at the crash test video during a Musk demonstration and see the same thing. There's some sort of structural member there in front of the motor that just doesn't seem to give way.
BTW, it actually appears the Honda Accord mentioned is slightly safer (except for pedestrians) despite the tested model being 5 years older.
The Model S is no doubt a very safe vehicle overall. But it's not the second coming, and Musk's talk of crumple zones appears to be more Marketing than Truth (and the ratings bear that out).
That "Tesla Model S breaks roof test" for example? Not the strongest. Not even at the time of testing. Here's the current generation XC90's results for example: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/volvo/xc90-4-door.... Over 10 tons. The previous generation was off about a ton. As far as I can figure out both figures are greater than the Model S's despite the fan-faire.
Seems I remembered it the wrong way round – it was the Corsa that held up and crumpled well enough to not have significant intrusion even at 110 km/h (70 mph).
This isn't really evidence that it's possible to make an engine that can crumple. In fact, quite the opposite.
This particular Corsa B (93-2000) was a 1.4i (1.4L engine) - the physical dimensions of the engine are extremely small[1], and there is a lot of empty space in the engine bay that isn't taken up by the main engine block (excluding various plastics, wiring, etc - actual metal). I don't think it's so much the case that this engine "could crumple", rather that there was a lot of space for the front to crumple into, before there was none left and the engine was then pushed into the cabin.
Engine blocks are, well, blocks of metal. They're not going to crumple in any meaningful way.
The picture clearly shows a 'winged' rocket as described in the article.
"The episode has the smell of government propaganda."
Not sure from where you get the smell of government propaganda. ISRO has been credited for some of the most successful launches. They sent a probe to mars in the first attempt. There seem to be smart folks working there.
"Scientists at ISRO believe that they could reduce the cost by as much as 10 times if reusable technology succeeds, bringing it down to $2,000 per kg."
Wow! That's extremely cheap! What are SpaceX's expected numbers?
"The Falcon Heavy, aims to lower the cost to $1,000 per pound [or $2,204.62 per kg]." (old article) [0]
However, the pricing page for SpaceX shows the Falcon Heavy runs $90 Million USD for a launch of 54,400 kg to LEO (on a fully expendable vehicle, so no refunds). That works out to be $1,654 per kg (or $750 per pound, under their original estimate). Reusing the first stage rockets reduces the lift profile but the costs are projected to be about 2/3 of their original value, so I'd suspect the overall cost to be even lower - around $1,300/kg or so.
[Edit] Elon Musk is on record as saying his ultimate goal is $100 per pound, or $254/kg. That presumes daily flights.[2] In a Senate meeting in 2004 he said, "Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound [$1,270 per kg] or less is very achievable."[3] Depending on discounts on the Falcon Heavy, SpaceX is sitting around that cost level.
It still runs on a single 7$ hobby dyno. Package and registry downloads goes directly to our CDN so the dyno only gets traffic for the HTTP API and website.
There is major difference with being depressed and having clinical depression. I have been fighting the latter for the last few years and I can vouch for there being no cause.
Example: I was with my extended family members in mountains of coffee plantations enjoying a vacation. There was no internet connection and thus nothing to disturb me. We were all (over 20 of us) having a great time. We were playing a game of cricket, where during the game I had a depression attack and almost collapsed on the ground. There was nothing there to upset me at all.
This is just one example. I have faced many more in a similar manner.
There is one thing for sure. Community support helps you fight depression very well. I am a member of a Buddhist group and their encouragement and support has really help me fight it.
I have dropped all anxiety medication after starting a very regular and strict meditation routine. today I was in a large meeting/workshop with mostly unknown (to me) people. This would previously have caused major anxiety symptoms, possibly even an full blown panic attack hours ahead of the meeting or during.
Yet I felt happy and energized by just being with these people and being mindful at the same time. Any racing thought quickly identified and dismissed. Never experienced anything like this before. I now truly think anxiety can be blown to shreds by applying what you learn in meditation in your daily life.
> On top of that requiring a percentage to be produced locally is just asking for trouble in a country with as much corruption is India.
Not sure that I understand the reasoning behind this. Are you saying that if a country has corruption then it shouldn't manufacture? If that's the case, you have excluded 90% of the countries including China from manufacturing.
Wow! This comment is really far away from reality.
1/ There are no studies that show correlation between free basics and increase in internet penetration. In fact, Reliance Telecom, Facebook's free basics partner in India, marketed it was a way to surf facebook & whatsapp for free.
2/ Google is giving away free internet in Railway stations in India. Unlike free basics, it gives access to the complete internet and not to a set of websites that have done a deal with facebook. No one opposed it, since it does not break net neutrality.
3/ I find it ridiculous that some folks in Western countries can start dictating what's good for the poor in India and think that the arguments of people actually living there are invalid.
I would encourage you to try to understand the issue from a local perspective by speaking to the people who live there rather than have unsubstantiated assumptions.
1. Facebook has provided studies that do indicate increased internet adoption after free basics (real internet adoption, after having been introduced via Fed basics). You're welcome to read the studies and debate their bias, but the studies exist.
How the telecoms market is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course they're going to market having access to the most popular websites and apps. Hell, they probably use the same advertising when selling real internet service.
2. Also irrelevant. Internet in train stations is not comparable at any level to cellular data connectivity for 10's of millions of people.
3. You are right in this point, but I also find it presumptuous that the Indians with enough money to have internet are the ones dictating what is good for the Indian people without enough money for internet.
2/ Clearly you haven't the slightest idea of the number of people that travel by trains in India. In Mumbai alone, close to 8Mn people use the train to get to their place of work EVERYDAY. Many of them travel for over 2 hours at a time (over 4 hours in total). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway)
3/ You have no idea how rich/poor the ones fighting for net neutrality are. You shouldn't be making such statements. It reflects badly on you. The fact is that a bunch of few activists with no financial backing were able to put an end to intense lobbying by multi-billion dollar telecom and media companies.
This is exactly what you expect from a good regulator. I am extremely happy with TRAI. They saved my bootstrapped education startup.
Live in Mumbai and while I dont travel via train every day, I do it quite often and spend hours at the platform or in the train. People actually spend 3-4 hrs in trains traveling.
Yeah. It might have, again might have some benefits I. Short run but free basics is and will hold both the people and companies back. Nobody is criticising Google and others trying to provide free access or subsidised access to internet because they actually befefit from the open internet and there companies aren't breaking net neutrality. Your farmer from rural India probably doesn't need an email address, his needs are quite different.
As someone from a developing country, it really shocks me to read stuff like this about the US. Mainly because we kind of look up to their justice system to be better than ours. Yes, there are police harassments in my country as well. But it's not this bad. And apparently what they did is legal, which is really shocking.
I am virtually certain that it is illegal on a lot of counts, but that circumstances and the law make it very difficult to fight in an effective manner.
