I like that, after various updates, the cars become heavier and less rigid; however, one thing still remains: the roof structures of certain vehicles are way too strong. The Gavril van, for example, has an unrealistically-rigid roof. In reality, American vans have incredibly-weak pillars. Other cars whose roof structures are overly-rigid include the Pessima(s), the Covet, the Hopper, the LeGran, the Roamer (somewhat), and the Grand Marshal. The cars whose roof structures are realistically strong (or, in this case, weak) are the Miramar and the Moonhawk.
Thread's a bit old but it caught my eye. I have noticed via the CRD Monster truck, the validity of what your saying, I've noted it for a fair amount of time. I've been to multipe monster truck shows, watched a Crown Victoria police car(the only prep done was popping the tires, and they may have busted the glass, that's it) decimated in someones yard by a real NHRA monster truck in 6-8 passes. Yet in BeamNG to get the same result on the Grand Marshal(which is modeled after cars like a Crown Vic) in the CRD(Very well modded after an actual NHRA Monster truck). I have to make like perhaps 12-14 passes, so just about double to yield the same crushing. Seems, yeah, the Grand Marshal seems to have a roof that is about 2x the strength that it should be without a roll cage. I've noticed this with other vehicles as well, but that car in particular stands out to me as I've seen the essentially real life counterpart fair worse in about half the time vs the same punishment. So, I do agree at least half the roofs are too strong for having no extra reinforcement.
I do have to wonder. Chassis are really heavy. Do they really have enough weight to crush a recently-rolled vehicle while it's still?
Glass also retains some structural relevance even after "breaking" (glass structure actually only deforms and texture is changed to broken glass) which might give the impression of a roof stronger than expected. If you remove all glass surfaces from crush cars, for example, you'll notice a pretty significant difference.
The thing with the Miramar is that it's based off of a Japanese car which favored practicality and safety over style and grace (Though the Miramar is still an amazing little sedan in its own right), while the Moonhawk is based off of any number of '70s American cars, and well - We all know what most safety features were for most '70s American cars.
ETK K-Series handles 6000kg rock on top of the roof quite fine, sure there is small deformation and glass breaks, but it holds up fine.
although that seems like a tad bit much, it's hard to judge modern cars, since they are held to a much higher safety standard than older ones. NHTSA safety standards require your roof is required to hold up 1.5x the weight of your vehicle before beginning to crush you, starting in 2004 i believe. in this article, it claims that up to 30% of roof strength is compromised once the glass is broken, so remove the glass and try again (since breaking glass in beam is not as realistic as this test requires it to be). https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/safety_briefing_on_roof_crush_final.pdf try using the h-series and increase the gravity to 150% and then drop it about 1ft onto it's roof at an angle and see what happens then.
I'm not sure it is much, considering if you drop car from 1 meter, that is increasing mass quite a bit, so carefully put 6000kg on top of roof without dropping, I'm not thinking it is too much really, or at least I hope real cars will hold that much, otherwise they are pancakes when rolling on floor of any severe way. Rollbars of course did help a lot with old cars, but AFAIK, newer ones are tested for roof strength even by manufacturers, so probably should get much closer to rollbar equipped old car performance. Old Swedish cars were quite good also in situation where you hit a moose, which does require quite bit of strength from a-pillars which helps a lot with roof. Saab 99 was quite safe to roll on it's roof, probably best of it's time.
not sure if this is correct or not, but it seems that if you take the 1580kg of the ETK KC6T, dropped from 1 meter, the impact force would be about 7896840000kg (assuming the vehicle and ground is 100% rigid) probably didn't do that correctly, but the concept is there; 1m fall increases force on an object
Uhh, I think there is minor fault in that, try this one https://www.livescience.com/46560-newton-second-law.html
I do have to wonder. Chassis are really heavy. Do they really have enough weight to crush a recently-rolled vehicle while it's still? Either this actually happens or this is something fake that movies to to increase tension...
No. NHTSA requires a vehicle's roof to hold at least 2 times its own weight. Thats why so many people survive rollover crashes now.
It's a JEEP: Euro car roofs seem to hold: American cars can be flattened by a Honda: Idk: Nooooooooooooooooooo
