Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Crash test results

  1. #1

    Default Crash test results

    Interesting stats on the new test...

    People often buy little cars for their kids. Buying small offsets the cost of fuel.



    Small cars get crushed in crash tests
    By Peter Valdes-Dapena @peterdrives January 22, 2014
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/22/auto....html?iid=Lead

    Excerpts:
    "Six of the cars earned the Institute's lowest rating of "Poor." Those were the Nissan (NSANF) Versa, Toyota (TM) Prius c, Hyundai Accent, the Mitsubishi Mirage, Chrysler Group's Fiat 500 and the Honda (HMC) Fit. The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and Ford (F, Fortune 500) Fiesta were deemed Marginal, the second-worst of four possible ratings. Most of these cars have done well in the Institute's other crash tests and in government tests. "

    "In real life, however, cars this size are much more likely to hit a larger vehicle, the Institute pointed out. Insurance Institute crash tests have indicated that, in crashes between larger and smaller vehicles, occupants in the smaller vehicle will suffer significantly greater injuries."


    .
    Last edited by KC; 22-01-2014 at 07:04 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Well that is obvious, especially with the wider range of vehicles size wise these days. The size of pickups/semi's has increased dramatically.

  3. #3

    Default

    So we should get bigger vehicles to be safer. And then the people with bigger vehicles should get bigger vehicles than that to be safe. Etc, et nauseum....

    Maybe the solution would be to reduce the size of all those other vehicles on the road? Discourage people from driving a 5 ton missile around town to pick up their pizza?

  4. #4
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    As per the usual quality of CNN journalism, that's a very disjointed article. The quarter overlap test they're talking about doesn't really have anything to do with a small car colliding with a larger vehicle. And it is also not testing the latest model of some of those cars.

    Of course it's rather obvious a small car isn't going to do well against an F250. But also keep in mind that smaller vehicles perform better in other crash scenarios than larger ones. You have to consider all the crash categories when shopping around for safety.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^^Liability insurance rates should be higher for heavier vehicles to reflect the increased hazard in a collision.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halocore View Post
    As per the usual quality of CNN journalism, that's a very disjointed article. The quarter overlap test they're talking about doesn't really have anything to do with a small car colliding with a larger vehicle. And it is also not testing the latest model of some of those cars.

    Of course it's rather obvious a small car isn't going to do well against an F250. But also keep in mind that smaller vehicles perform better in other crash scenarios than larger ones. You have to consider all the crash categories when shopping around for safety.
    Rollover risk is low for people mainly driving in the city, whereas side impact I'd guess is a more important consideration.

    I have an Ford Excursion with a "blocker beam" under the front bumper to better equalize the situation when hitting a smaller vehicle. Things like that should be mandatory on all vehicles... Some sort of standardized bumper height across all vehicle types.

  7. #7
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    ^ For commercial vehicles, Canada is leagues ahead of the states for some standards. Semi trailers have to have much stronger and wider underride guards here. Underride situations are the most dangerous type of accident to be involved in with a semi. Without those guards, the height difference in bumpers is very dangerous for a car (or even many suvs).

    Unfortunately I'm sure auto makers lobby hard to prevent some sort of bumper height standard like you describe. It would really limit their design flexibility. The US toughened its bumper standards in new cars in 2012. But not only was there no mention of a height regulation, trucks and suvs are actually excluded from observing the new requirements at all.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by halocore View Post
    ^ For commercial vehicles, Canada is leagues ahead of the states for some standards. Semi trailers have to have much stronger and wider underride guards here. Underride situations are the most dangerous type of accident to be involved in with a semi. Without those guards, the height difference in bumpers is very dangerous for a car (or even many suvs).

    Unfortunately I'm sure auto makers lobby hard to prevent some sort of bumper height standard like you describe. It would really limit their design flexibility. The US toughened its bumper standards in new cars in 2012. But not only was there no mention of a height regulation, trucks and suvs are actually excluded from observing the new requirements at all.
    Bumper heights, while not all identical, are at least within a decent range. Same for side impact beams and bumpers. Stock that is.
    I can't understand why its legal to lift your rig rocket and drive it on road. Completely defeats the purpose of bumpers, and in fact makes them a thousand times worse. The become battering rams for your head. Next time you see one at a light, see if the bumper lines up with the steel in your door, or the glass. The imagine what happens when someone goes through a stop sign or red light. Bumpers are the most basic safety feature on a vehicle. The first things (aside from brakes) that were added. And yet, we allow people to flaunt their purpose because 'it looks cool'.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    I agree we should have standard bumper heights. Modern styling trends have given smaller vehicles higher front ends anyways so it shouldn't be that difficult. I think it is kind of ugly, but apparently it substantially reduces the risk of serious injury to pedestrians who are hit.

    We should standardize headlight heights too, so truck headlights don't shine directly into the eyes of anyone driving a smaller car. It should also be illegal to drive a vehicle on a public highway if it has been modified so the bumpers and/or headlights are no longer in the standard range.

  10. #10

    Default

    An ancient but quite informative video on designing for car safety. Their post accident connected network is quite advanced for its day. I'm not sure if anyone does that today. (I'm sure this must have been pre-GM involvement in Saab.). Their comment that only 7 of their 21 impact tests was legislated was interesting too.



    Their famous Moose test is shown too:

    SAAB 900 / 9000 real life safety_1995

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtJpU4tZorg

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I agree we should have standard bumper heights. Modern styling trends have given smaller vehicles higher front ends anyways so it shouldn't be that difficult. I think it is kind of ugly, but apparently it substantially reduces the risk of serious injury to pedestrians who are hit.

    We should standardize headlight heights too, so truck headlights don't shine directly into the eyes of anyone driving a smaller car. It should also be illegal to drive a vehicle on a public highway if it has been modified so the bumpers and/or headlights are no longer in the standard range.
    That works opposite for cars like the corvette though
    Excellence is a continual Journey up a staircase where there is NO top step...

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KenL2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I agree we should have standard bumper heights. Modern styling trends have given smaller vehicles higher front ends anyways so it shouldn't be that difficult. I think it is kind of ugly, but apparently it substantially reduces the risk of serious injury to pedestrians who are hit.

    We should standardize headlight heights too, so truck headlights don't shine directly into the eyes of anyone driving a smaller car. It should also be illegal to drive a vehicle on a public highway if it has been modified so the bumpers and/or headlights are no longer in the standard range.
    That works opposite for cars like the corvette though
    With today's sensors the corvette could have a rail(s) pop up just prior to collision (say inside the bumper or under the headlights) .

  13. #13

    Default

    Old video but interesting. DetroitNews once had a story about Volvo's XC90 roof strength and how Ford wanted to cheapen everything to minimum acceptable - note the comments in the video about GM.


    Saab strength vs BMW - TopGear
    Published on Jun 4, 2014
    1980's Saab 900 and 1980's bmw dropped from 8 ft onto roof. Results are stunning!

    https://youtu.be/_9fw9nou_G8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •