These comments apply to any crash analysis in general and simplified momentum analysis in particular which include a major simplifying assumption when applied to motor vehicle crashes.

The major shortcoming when applying some simplified momentum solutions in equations or simulations:

*There are many programs out there with good options & graphics:*- This applies to programs like PC-CRASH, Virtual Crash, Planar Impact Models, and others as well as hand calculation and spreadsheet techniques

- A word of caution to be very careful as momentum and some simplified momentum crash simulation programs include the simplifying assumption of an '
' which requires the user select a subjective '*instantaneous exchange of momentum*' for that assumed instantaneous exchange*point and angle*begs question: if so easy, why isn't it automatic?These programs are useful however they can bein many impact configurations.*very sensitive*

Simplified momentum equations and programs which include this simplifying assumption require the user to pick a point and angle/direction to instantaneously exchange the momentum of a vehicular crash.

- The full exchange of momentum in any vehicular crash takes 50-150 milliseconds (or more).
- These programs/equations which include the simplifying 'instantaneous exchange' assumption consider a crash a SINGLE '
**instant**' (less than 0.001 second!) AND require the user select some subjective point and angle for the momentum exchange.- See SAE 97-0949 and others which demonstrate the movement between point of impact (POI) and point of separation(POS) in collisions.
- Here is a simple illustration from the 1997 paper which is based on real world tests.

Also see RICSAC97 SAE 97-0961 and other 'real world' tests which demonstrate vehicle move and rotate between POI and POS.*This also means DO NOT use these simplified momentum solution procedures for side-slap collisions*

Main point: Real world collisions take time (50-150 ms or more) and have*changes in positions and orientations*

- Here is a simple illustration from the 1997 paper which is based on real world tests.

- See SAE 97-0949 and others which demonstrate the movement between point of impact (POI) and point of separation(POS) in collisions.
- When applying a momentum solution with the simplifying assumption it is very subjective and random
**HOW**and**WHERE**a user places/sets the LOCATION and the ANGLE/DIRECTION for the INSTANT of the momentum to be*"instantaneously exchanged"*

- Simplified momentum program vendors need to prepare OBJECTIVE instructions on these subjective random inputs for placing and directing the "point of momentum exchange"
- Their current instructions like "place at point of maximum engagement" and/or "fit the damage areas together like a puzzle" are extremely subjective and random.
- To be more honest about it they should add to their instructions "
*You should randomly and subjectively adjust the point and angle for the 'instantaneous exchange' until you get the answer you want and need!!'*

THAT would be more honest!

- To be more honest about it they should add to their instructions "
*The validations for these programs use the BEST approximation for the random and subjective momentum exchange POINT and ANGLE/DIRECTION to get the best possible MATCH of the KNOWN results.*- They have done 'sensitivity studies' on these programs which interestingly use the SAME 'point and angle' arbitrarily and subjectively determined in their 'validations' and leave THAT out of the sensitivity study...
- In other words they don't vary the 'point and angle' for the instantaneous exchange which would
**demonstrate the major issue which can occur with a BAD point and angle for the 'point of instantaneous exchange'.**

- In other words they don't vary the 'point and angle' for the instantaneous exchange which would

- They have done 'sensitivity studies' on these programs which interestingly use the SAME 'point and angle' arbitrarily and subjectively determined in their 'validations' and leave THAT out of the sensitivity study...

- The instructions ignore the fact that vehicles have different stiffness and restitution properties and so the residual damage in a crash MAY NOT BE a good indication of the maximum damage and engagement of the vehicles during the crash

- Their current instructions like "place at point of maximum engagement" and/or "fit the damage areas together like a puzzle" are extremely subjective and random.

IF it is so SIMPLE...

WHY NOT...

make it AUTOMATIC!

WHY NOT...

make it AUTOMATIC!

- Here are some related articles:
*Nov 2020*Question on Cone of Departure in Momentum from another forum demonstrating issues of 'instantaneous momentum exchange' particularity when there is a sideslap*Nov 2020*What is a Sideslap?*Nov 2020*PC-CRASH: How Many % May An Investigator Be Wrong with pc-crash? Question posed on another forum*Sep 2020*A Negative Coefficient of Restitution? An**Irresponsible**vCrash Video! Silly Irresponsible video which caused confusion*Aug 2020*More Discussion on PC-CRASH type simplified momentum solutions Review of a pay-per-view pc-crash training video*Jun 2020*Does Momentum Analysis Requires COM Common Velocity? Some alleged 'experts' run fast and loose with science*May 2020*Planar Impact Model assumptions Planar impact models also have issues