h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As a kid, my toy cars were generally pulverized through natural selection. It was great fun, throwing them off a roof, blowing them up with firecrackers, smashing them with hammers, etc. but it just wasn't enough for me. I knew that a real car always had better looking damage. Crumpled panels, broken
glass, twisted frames, engine block through the bumper were all effects I wanted to re-create. I knew that my toy cars were much too stout for their size to replicate real damage.
DCCs will have more true to aspect ratios of components. The body panels will be very thin. Internal components such as the drivetrain will be suspended by scale bolts with similar shearing properties. Weight distribution will be the same, to facilitate realistic rollover properties. Framework will be designed to buckle and contort. All glass objects are replicated to break in a similar fashion. Many of the same crash scenarios in real life can be re-created with the DCC.
Yes, I know what you're thinking. This is going to be expensive. Well, not quite. Different models are available, with less detail and fewer crash features. Keep in mind the body panels are probably going to be the thickness of a few sheets of aluminum foil.
Given as a toy, a child will learn quickly about the gruesome effects of a 70mph crash just by ramming the DCC into a wall(child versions won't have glass, of course).
For pyromaniacs, slots all around the vehicle can hold fireworks to simulate a landmine. A small easily ruptured gas tank, maybe a few ounces, can hold lighter fluid, and a spark generator in the engine compartment can replicate Hollywoods obligatory car-falling-off-a-cliff explosion.
The scenarios re-created are endless, but the DCC could only be used a few times. Puts squishy head office stress relievers to shame.
The Crash Test Dummies
http://x-entertainment.com/articles/0900/
Info for [stilgar]'s reference (scroll down a little) [Acme, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Crash bonsai
http://www.crashbonsai.com/
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
This reminds me of how I used to treat my Barbie dolls. [+] for the eductional aspect of it. |
|
| |
This is what the 'Crash Test Dummy' cars should have been. + |
|
| |
Gummi human drivers and passengers are sold separately. |
|
| |
"Oohh, so that's what an escalade would look like if it were to fall down a flight of concrete stairs that were 10-1 scale. Who would've thought?" |
|
| |
[2 fries] With the DCC, you could make your own. |
|
| |
These parts are going to be *very* hard and most likely impossible to manufacture, and retain the properties of the original scale. Consider how much your car weighs, and how thin the sheet metal is already. The model car would have to be 50 kilos, and have metal thicknesses of a thousandth of an inch. Clearly it won't support its own weight. Material properties simply don't scale well, because the forces subject to them by the user, (like picking it up by anything but the undercarriage, for instance), would be comparatively huge. |
|
| |
Some portions of the DCC can't be scaled and expect to have similar properties, I understand that. Material properties can be re-created by using different metals. For instance, bolts for the engine mount could be made of thin aluminum, or for that matter a totally different material all together. |
|
| |
I do agree with you, however, about how fragile one of these would be. Anywhere under the body of the DCC would suffice, such as the frame or bumper, as long as you don't squeeze the sides to pick it up. |
|
| |
Of course, it doesn't have to be a perfect replica. You could always ram it into the brick wall a little harder :D |
|
| |
Toy cars that "break" in collisions exist. They can be assembled good as new and re-used, which is an important consideration when parents are buying toys. |
|
| |
"Destructionism Crash Cars" are not for kids. Toys with flying shards (glass or not) may never reach store shelves. This seems like a very limited customer base -- the target group is a handful of weirdoes (present company excluded, of course).
You weren't clear on whether these models were in fact, models to assemble. But if so, that's a workable plan. Kits would come with "molds" or forms, that you wrap with foil, and a reusable framework. Build the model, destroy it, start over. |
|
| |
[2 fries] the background on that link web site near blinded me. If i was american i would sue. |
|
| |
I can't take credit for that link. I'm sure I saw it here first but can't find it now. |
|
| |