November 19, 2007: Bear vs. Truck

[Warren Peas]

Hm, I think he's playing possum, maybe that blood ain't his own, maybe it belongs to the missing gas jockey.

[think-floyd]

Note the cartoon style tongue-protruding-from-side-of-mouth face the bear managed to pull before he croaked. At least he had a sense of irony!

[ZenGum]

Welcome Warren Peas. You're so obvious, I can read you like an open book!

The IotD sure does draw them in, doesn't it?

[Warren Peas]

Thanks for the welcome Zen. Quite a set of mittson that bruin, reminds me of the joke about the dog, walked into a bar. Says" I'm lookin for the guy that shot my pa.

[TheMercenary]

Gotcha.. I agree completely.

This is what I always wanted to get for my pick-up truck but the thought of the added weight and the drag on my gas milage made me make a wiser decision.

http://www.roadarmor.com/ra3/ford_trucks.html

[Shawnee123]

It's a magic truck that changes from blue to red.

[glatt]

The ironic thing about that "road armor" is that the stronger it is, the more likely you are to die in an accident, because you are eliminating the crumple zones that absorb all that kinetic energy. It's also irresponsible because you endanger the other vehicles on the road, taking away the crumple zones that would make an accident less dangerous for them. But hey, if you hit a pedestrian, your grill won't break. It's all worth it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

The ironic thing about that "road armor" is that the stronger it is, the more likely you are to die in an accident, because you are eliminating the crumple zones that absorb all that kinetic energy. It's also irresponsible because you endanger the other vehicles on the road, taking away the crumple zones that would make an accident less dangerous for them. But hey, if you hit a pedestrian, your grill won't break. It's all worth it.

Hey good points, I never considered the pedestrian angle, and it would be less likely that I would get any blood on my paint. I doubt your assertion that it would be more unsafe for me, in fact if I hit you with a tank because you pull out in front of me and you die, then you should think twice about pulling out in front of my tank. Big trucks hit small cars all the time. Not my problem. To bad for you. Thanks for your comments anyway.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I doubt your assertion that it would be more unsafe for me, in fact if I hit you with a tank because you pull out in front of me and you die, then you should think twice about pulling out in front of my tank.

I've a strong suspicion that your tongue may be in your cheek for most of your post, but this part conflates two points.
You need crumple zones if you hit an object that is immovable or at least very much larger than yours - say, a semi trailer. Without them the deceleration is passed on to the passengers at full intensity. Mind you, driving something like what you posted here ... there aren't gonna be too many things that are immovable.

That crash bar is good for protecting the vehicle when it hits very large animals: moose, deer, bears. It may leave you (the human cargo) vulnerable in sudden-stop collisions. You'd want to weigh up the likelihood of each happening, allow for gas consumption, do the cost-benefit analysis, and make your decision. Unless very large animals are common where you frequently drive, I don't think it would be justified. Seems like you thunk this all through already though.
With what was shown here rollover would be a bigger worry for me. Or running over your kids in the driveway because you couldn't see them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I've a strong suspicion that your tongue may be in your cheek for most of your post, but this part conflates two points.

:

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I doubt your assertion that it would be more unsafe for me

You are confusing mass with rigidity. Sure, the "armor" provides a few hundred pounds of mass, but that is insignificant compared to the weight of the entire truck. You could get the same addition of mass by throwing a few bags of sand in the bed. What the "armor" really does is add rigidity. It keeps the crumple zones from crumpling. Highway fatalities have come down steadily over the decades even while the number of cars on the road have increased. This is due in large part to crumple zones in vehicles. This "armor" defeats that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

You are confusing mass with rigidity. Sure, the "armor" provides a few hundred pounds of mass, but that is insignificant compared to the weight of the entire truck. You could get the same addition of mass by throwing a few bags of sand in the bed. What the "armor" really does is add rigidity. It keeps the crumple zones from crumpling. Highway fatalities have come down steadily over the decades even while the number of cars on the road have increased. This is due in large part to crumple zones in vehicles. This "armor" defeats that.

The other thing that has happened on newer trucks is that they are droping the front suspension, which pisses me off because it really changes the way they look, but it does make it safer for other drivers. Not that I really care much about the other guy...

[Shawnee123]

OK, seriously. Is it the lighting, or what? The truck, the same in every other way I can see, is blue in the first pics.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

OK, seriously. Is it the lighting, or what? The truck, the same in every other way I can see, is blue in the first pics.

I'm pretty sure they are different trucks, one for hitting the bear and one for hauling it.
The hauler is blue, has double back wheels, a spare tire on the roof, and side handles on the frame at the back. The hitter is red, and has single wheels and toolboxes on the flatbed at the back and is considerably newer.
Also the blue one has a huge dead bear on the back

Let's play spot the differences!

[YellowBolt]

The red truck is the one that hit the bear. The blue one is the one that is hauling the carcass away.