Once again, I think the biggest drawback to the vanagon is the physical
distance to the object in front of you.  Just the physics of an accident: if
you are two feet from the object drastically slowing your van down, you've
got to go from 50mph to 0mph in about two feet... with the nose of something
in front of you (ie Volvo), that crumple zone allows you to decelerate your
body over a 4-5 foot space - I'm no math major, but that's a heck of a lot
less force transmitted to your seatbelt, steering wheel, or whatever else is
slowing you down.  Yes there are advantages to being up higher and in a
larger / heavier van, and there's something to be said for driving a diesel
that doesn't go faster than 55, but don't kid yourself about that impact.
The people in the back may decelerate much nicer, but driver and front
passenger better be tied down well.
Movin' nice and slow,
Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
> Of Aristotle Sagan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Vgon Crash Tests
>
>
> No Bill... don't hit anything in that Toyota... but remember there iIS a
> full frame underneath it. You would do OK.... It's just not worth the risk
> testing this theory though.
>
>
> tim in SJ.
>
>
> >yeouch.  yeah, vanagon it is.  i worry more now about an accident in our
> >pickemup truck.
> >
> >(muttering off...teeth in the dash...ugh)
> >
> >bill
> >'87 syncro westfalia
> >santa cruz, ca.
> >
> >laughing out loud at your return address, matthew.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>