Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Staga on July 29, 2004, 06:12:28 AM
-
J-A-B wrote in another thread;
Yet another real world demonstration of the "safety" of little tin can cars.
That's one thing which really depends how well car is built to last crashes.
For example my small familycar Peugeot 307 (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/peugeot307.jpg) (weight 1300kg/2800lb) managed to get better reviews in crash tests (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=2&id2=107) made by EuroNCAP than many bigger cars.
Friend saw this in "RL"; A guy made a suicide by driving his 307 straight to nose of a 18-wheeler in full speed.
Whole nose of the car basically disappeared but the cabin itself kept its form; even doors were straight after the crash. Even this couldn't save the driver; guess the G-forces were too much or something...
Car won't have to be big as 70s Cadillacs to be a safe one; all it needs is some high-tension steel, good design and plenty of airbags.
-
Hmmm and some thought SUV's are safe cars? Jeep Cherokee 2002 (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=9&id2=124)...
-
nothing would save the suicide driver if he wasnt using his seatbelt....using belt when killing yourself is rather silly so i suspect he wasnt using it.
just my thoughts, and it was halfway on topic :)
-
Heh I didn't even thought about seat belts; Been using them from seventies and personally I'm surprised if someone is so stupid he don't use them if car has them.
Of course if your goal is to move to an another dimension then go ahead; put a rope around your neck and tie it to the back seat... :)
-
This measure of safety has the premise that safety is achieved by designing the vehicle to absorb the energy of the collision in a way to spare the occupants.
Some small cars enhance safety by avoiding the collision in the first place with enhanced maneuverability.
-
My Golf GTI is a bunch more maneuverable than any SUV or 70's Cadillac gunboat. Wouldn't call it a sports car exactly.
-
ever try to hit a squirrel while driving down the road? Pretty tough to do.
Just saying being a good broken field runner is sometimes as good a defence as wearing a suit of armour.
-
I guess you're not going to get my point. I got your's several posts ago. I've played billiards, I understand transfer of energy in a collision.
-
Staga--
I don't know how Finland rates cars for crash effectiveness.
I do know this:
In the USA, the system of crash testing is completely and deliberately rigged to disproportionately favor smaller cars.
Why?
Because as GScholz pointed out, it is a matter of weight. In the USA, cars are crash tested in a manner that replicates a crash against a vehicle of equal weight .
This means that a Honda Civic has to stand up against an impact from a 2700 pound vehicle to get a good rating......while my Buick has to survive an impact from a 4200 pound object to get the SAME rating. Problem is--in a REAL crash, you can't just choose the weight of what hits you!
Guess what happens if the 4200 pound Buick hits the 2700 pound Honda. Well....it isn't pretty for the guy in the Honda, despite the fact that the Honda gets a slightly higher "government safety rating".
What a crock of baloney!
If government crash data was actually meant to be a reliable indicator of vehicle safety, it would simulate a crash against a vehicle of "average" weight. This would cause the smaller cars to invariably fare very poorly and hence the manufacturers would balk.
Another problem with many small cars is that they aren't made to transport heavy loads and have rather inadequate tires and suspension due to cost savings. This applies to the "economy cars" (eg. Civic/Focus/Cavalier and such) and not really to small performance cars or things like Subarus with AWD. It is disturbingly easy to make something like a Ford Escort fishtail at speed simply because the tires are inadequate. Adding passengers only compounds this problem. Factor in the poor state of maintenence such cars are usually in (nobody drives an Escort ecause he's rich after all) and you have a recipie for trouble!
As for SUV's? Note that I am always talking about cars...SUV's are deathtraps due to their high CG and poor handling. I would never feel safe driving one of those on a highway. I hate them almost as much as I hate small cars. I view an SUV as nothing more than a jacked-up station wagon that trades safety for "cool factor". Not an equitable trade as far as I'm concerned.
And certainly--not using your seatbelt is completely retarded no matter what you drive. Statistics show you are about 40!! times as likely to be severely injured/killed if you're not wearing a belt.
I don't have statistics on the relative death rates of people in different vehicle sizes. I do however see this in action in the real deal all too often. I speak from experience.
One example out of too many:
Cement truck versus Honda Civic (the civic made an improper left turn into path of Cement truck)....result--no survivors in Honda (four dead). Same model of Cement truck a month later against a Buick Electra in the same situation (same intersection actually) at the same speed....result--the two people in the Electra survived; one of them was still walking. Car was all bent up and partially crushed, but it kept its occupants alive.
I've seen Cadillacs get hit by trains and people survive....I've seen a Beretta have its entire top half torn off when a semi ran completely over it. I've witnessed more than my fair share of accidents and dealt with the aftermath of far more. The most gristly was the Honda I mentioned above. There were a bunch of kids in that one out for a joyride. I still get angry thinking about it.
Small cars are simply inherently unsafe. No amount of affordable tech will change this. You are gambling with your life if you willingly choose a smaller vehicle. It's not a risk I'm willing to take, because what you drive is one of the few things you DO have some control over on the road. You can't make people stop drinking, you can't make people pay more attention--but you CAN put as much metal as possible between you and the other guy!
J_A_B
-
GScholz it's right and wrong :)
Right from a physic stand point but wrong for safety as it depend alot on the design of the cars.
I won't bet on the passenger of a old design 2 ton car without seatbelt and airbag :)
-
Look at this J_A_B : http://www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/introduction.php
-
Holden--
I sincerely hope that your driving SA is so good that you will always be able to foresee the unexpected! And I hope your reflexes are so excellent that you'll always be able to avoid a sudden change in events. I wouldn't count on it though--not even racecar drivers can always avoid crashes!
In my experience the VW Golf is a pretty unsafe car with unspectacular handling (my wife's friend has one so I have some experience with it). At more than 55 MPH my land-yacht of a Buick will handle better with more stability and less chance of spinning. Heck I ran over a wooden matress frame once at 70 MPH and kept it on the road! Small cars frequently feel like they have better handling than they really do because they are uusally given stiff shocks which helps them corner good at low speed. If your Golf has better than the stock tires than they could make it hadle a LOT better. It would be a wise investment if you haven't already done it.
EDIT:
Thanks for the link regarding Euro testing procedures Straffo! As with the American tests, it appears that it simulates a crash against a vehicle of equal weight although I will have to do more studying to confirm this.
J_A_B
-
Hmm... I've never hit a wooden matress frame... I've managed to avoid those. And all else for that matter. Chalk one up for my side.
-
I will say this:
In the last decade, smaller cars have generally become a little bit safer. This is due largely to an increase in mass.
My favorite example, the Honda Civic, has gained almost 600 pounds over its last few revisions. This is a good thing as almost all of that extra weight is used directly for beefing up the frame and body. Tire and suspension quality is also generally improved. I still wouldn't trust my life with one or recommend one, but at least they're marginally more survivable now. Certainly the manufacturers noticed the inherent lack of safety in smaller cars and are trying their best to make them better, which is why you don't see me railing against the auto industry. People seem to want the little cars nowdays, and the industry is trying to make an inherently unsafe concept as good as it can possibly be.
EDIT:
As for the matress frame, I had utterly no chance to avoid it. Some jerk most unexpectedly threw it out the back of a truck directly in front of me...cars on both sides so I had nowhere to go. This was in Michigan just south of Detroit; I think those people are nuts!
J_A_B
-
I love my FWD in the snow... I'll take a FWD over a RWD in the snow anyday. I haven't needed traction devices in 10 winters, no problems.
-
Bad weather handling is largely the reason why FWD replaced RWD. While they're generally easier to drive in bad weather, you do have to watch for a tendency to understeer. My Cadillac was especially bad for this--it liked to go straight :)
I lost it because it kept going straight--right through the front end of a Honda Accord that pulled out in front of me, lol. No chance to avoid that one either due to the massive ice present. I think I have bad luck.
RWD tends to be a mixed bag in bad weather. My Roadmaster handles great in snow, even better than the FWD Cadillac did, but my wife's Grand Marquis is rather terrible. The "work" Crown Victoria with upgraded traction control is marginally better than the Grand Marquis but not by a whole lot. All three will oversteer in snow if abused.
Do you live in Oregon Holden?
J_A_B
-
yup
-
Here is a lot of talk about collisions with other cars. However this type of accident accounts for a very small amount of accidents. Most of the accidents result in cars hitting objects (trees, posts, buildings) around the road either because they lost control or because they hit other car (relatively) lightly and then got out of control. Thus collision tests against solid objects is much more representative of collisions. The solid object collisions also tend to be more destructive than collisions against other cars - even though there is less energy to dissipate more of it has to be absorbed by the car in shorter time. At least EuroNCAP conducts its tests using solid collision targets.
-
yanno , i have always wondered why cars were never as tough as the diecast hotwheels cars. those things can take abuse. but a real car 15 mph or so , tears up pretty badly, when hit a wall (etc).
if anyone has the know how, could you say, figure what a real car would be like ( weight and stuff etc ), if built like one those hotwheels cars.
-
Just thought I'd mention this since it happened last week.
Two mothers who live in our neighborhood (My oldest son plays with one of their sons) were recently coming home from Tacoma from an event at 9pm at night in their Dodge Durango, 2002 model. I do not know the crash test history of this vehicle, but to make a long story short, a drunk driver in a pick up truck crossed the center line on a 2-lane road, colliding head on with Lindsey and Karen. Estimate travel speed was roughly 45-55 MPH, both vehicles. Both vehicles caught fire after the collision, and Karens Durango ended upside down, her passenger, Lindsey had a broken wrist but managed to drag Karen out the busted-out back window as Karen had suffered two broken knee caps and could not move as the fire began licking the underside of the crumpled dash board. The airbags went off as advertised and prevented yet more serious injury than what was sustained.
Naturally, the drunk driver walked away without a scratch (they always do, don't they?)
Both women claim they owe their lives to the Durango. Had this happened in a smaller car (and subsequent collision with a pick up truck) they say they wouldn't be alive today.
Long live SUV's.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Hmmm and some thought SUV's are safe cars? Jeep Cherokee 2002 (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=9&id2=124)...
Protection given to pedestrians proved to be poor, however.
Pedestrianrating(http://www.euroncap.com/assets/results/white_star.gif)
:rofl that's reasuring....if i get hit by it while walking i'm screwed....good to know!
-
Most SUVs get poor ratings in collision tests. There are few bad things in most SUVs:
-Poor frontal cell preformance especially in the area of drivers knees. Because short hood and large mass of the car the frontal cell can't be built strong enough to last. This means that in most frontal collisions the driver's legs are going to get serious injuries.
-High center of gravity. This makes SUVs very likely to roll over in most accident situations making them much worse. It may also cause SUVs to roll over where other cars would come out unscathed.
Also the added safety in other areas is very small compared to big cars especially when looking at collisions with solid objects where the higher mass is a clear drawback. Combine this with greatly increased tendency to get into accidents due to worse handling and tendency to tip over and the end result is that risk for serious injury or death per kilometer is at about same in SUVs as in small cars - it is much worse than in big cars.
As to Rip's story, they were certainly better off in the Durango than in small car but probably would've been even better off in a large sedan. Especially the broken kneecaps and possibly the tipping over sound like typical result caused by SUVs in accidents.
-
3 words that would make a difference: Russian ejection seats
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
:rofl that's reasuring....if i get hit by it while walking i'm screwed....good to know!
It just goes to show how severe injuries the pedestrian would get when hit by car at speed of X.
Your legs are definately going to get more seriously injured when hit by high profile SUV than a low profile sedan.
Say byebye to your kneecaps.
plus what other factors there can be...
-
About heavy vs lightweight car colliding: I saw a video where a light and small A-Model Mercedes (http://www.belcyber.net/allhtml/meersmancars197.html) collided with much bigger and heavier Mercedes E-type.
After collision both cars stopped pretty much in same point where collision happened; E-type rolled maybe 3-4 meters forward from the impact point while A-type jumped couple meters backwards.
My guess is people are over-estimating the benefit of the heavier car in accidents...
Of course there are cars like some little Suzukis which would propably collapse like a house of cards if someone would hit it with a bicycle...
-
"E-type rolled maybe 3-4 meters forward from the impact point while A-type jumped couple meters backwards. "
And you don't view that as signifigant? That's almost a gaurantee that the people in the smaller car will suffer more serious injuries. And the E-series isn't even a really big vehicle!
But...as I understand it there aren't a lot of big cars actually available in Europe. The E-series Mercedes is what I would call "midsize". Since there are fewer big vehicles in Europe, I'd guess that there's less chance that you'll be struck by something far larger than you. Hence it's less of an issue.
The USA is the land of the SUV's and such; small cars are at a massive disadvantage here.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"
The USA is the land of the SUV's and such; small cars are at a massive disadvantage here.
J_A_B
True.
America has bigger roads, bigger distances to cross for commutes, bigger dicks, you name it, we're "bigger" than the rest of the world in every way. :lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... bigger egos ... bigger mouths ... biger butts ... bigger women ... ;)
We rule! ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... bigger egos ... bigger mouths ... biger butts ... bigger women ... ;)
Bigger noodlees and bigger bank accounts. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Staga the problem for the small cars is weight. In a head-on collision the lightest car will always be at a disadvantage because it will literarily be thrown back since the heavier car has more energy. The heavier car will just slow down. The extreme example is a dump-truck against a small car like the Peugeot 307. Therefore the people in the lightest car will always have less chance of surviving.
yeah, but the cabin frame was intact... :D
-
If small cars are dangerous, wouldn't we expect to see this in accident stastics from someplace like Japan?
-
The benz are a lot better im terms of safty imo than the honda's and light little ricer cars. Benz combined weight and manuverablity into some very well designed cars. The test drivers and engineer's over in german have a play ground to test the cars on, which the US doesn't have, so from expirence they know how to make a car safe.
-
hmmmm that would be quite nice slogan in a T-shirt... "I'd rather crash in a Mercedes"
-
Originally posted by Staga
hmmmm that would be quite nice slogan in a T-shirt... "I'd rather crash in a Mercedes"
DAMN RIGHT. i would not trust my life to a ricer for any reason.
-
Friend is going to buy a Lexus LS400; I wonder if it's acceptable to call him a "ricer" ?
-
nah. call him a guy with an eye.
-
Aside from the fact that pickups and SUVs protect their occupants by inflicting terrible damage to normal sized cars, they have four safety drawbacks.
1. Prone to rollovers.
2. Poor braking distance.
3. Poor dynamic steering response (agility).
4. Poor lateral acceleration limits.
Not to mention all of the environmental and economic damage they cause.
I for one can not wait to see this destructive trend die out.
-
In a collision with a static object, it's clear from testing results that size alone does not impart much of a safety advantage. Engineering is more important. A well-engineered small vehicle can outperform a poorly-engineered behemoth.
In a collision with another vehicle, large vehicles gain an advantage mainly by bringing a lot more inertia and kinetic energy, thereby making the magnitude of any collision much more severe. The large vehicle driver gains a minor advantage for himself, but only by endangering every other motorist on the road.
-
If people really want to make their vehicles more survivable, why not take some real safety measures.
1. Maintenance. Tire wear, tire pressures, brakes, steering, suspension.
2. Buy the stickiest tires possible at the expense of wear. So many brands are marketed on the basis of tire mileage life or price, two factors which work against safety.
3. Wear a Snell/FIA approved full face helmet.
4. Use a racing seat with a 6 point harness.
5. Wear a HANS device.
6. Have an FIA approved roll cage welded into your car.
7. Wear a fireproof suit, socks, gloves, and head sock.
8. Replace the factory gas tank with a properly installed ATL fuel cell.
This would be a lot more effective than worrying about how big or small your car is.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
In a collision with a static object, it's clear from testing results that size alone does not impart much of a safety advantage. Engineering is more important. A well-engineered small vehicle can outperform a poorly-engineered behemoth.
In a collision with another vehicle, large vehicles gain an advantage mainly by bringing a lot more inertia and kinetic energy, thereby making the magnitude of any collision much more severe. The large vehicle driver gains a minor advantage for himself, but only by endangering every other motorist on the road.
Admit it dude, you just can't afford to buy an SUV.
-
I wouldn't buy an SUV if you paid me to drive it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The large vehicle driver gains a minor advantage for himself, but only by endangering every other motorist on the road.
Speaks like a true socialist!
Che lives! :D
-
"If small cars are dangerous, wouldn't we expect to see this in accident stastics from someplace like Japan?"
I don't know enough about Japanese roadways or traffic habits to comment. I only know what is true for my own neck of the woods--in this case rural and small city USA.
------------------------------------------------------------
"In a collision with another vehicle, large vehicles gain an advantage mainly by bringing a lot more inertia and kinetic energy, thereby making the magnitude of any collision much more severe. I fail to see how that is a good thing."
Yeah the bigger vehicle protects its occupants mainly by using the smaller vehicle as its personal deceleration zone. Whether it's a good thing or not depends on which car you're in :)
Unfortunately for you Funked, you'll likely be the guy in the smaller car being used as a crumple zone so I can see why you wouldn't be too thrilled with the prospect.
You actually make excellent recommendations FUNKED---but now the problem of economics rears its ugly head. Most of us don't have the cash to blow on building something like that. If I had the cash to built a full roll cage into my car...you better believe I would.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I wouldn't buy an SUV if you paid me to drive it.
that's what all the girlie car drivers say. :)
-
"The large vehicle driver gains a minor advantage for himself, but only by endangering every other motorist on the road. "
Eh?
How can you possibly look at it that way when you CHOOSE what you drive? It is so easy for you to even up the odds!
Has to be come sort of a troll. You're too normal to resort to such wierd reasoning Funked.
J_A_B
-
Exactly - they choose what they drive. They choose to give up maneuverability and braking ability for a size advantage. They are making accidents not only more likely but also more dangerous for others because of the inertia and kinetic energy of their vehicles.
If they chose to drive normal size cars (like people did in the days before the SUV trend took over) they would be less likely to get into accidents and (excepting those accidents where large vehicle offenders (LVOs) are involved) not significantly more likely to be injured in an accident.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Speaks like a true socialist!
Che lives! :D
Choosing not to indulge in antisocial behavior is not the same as being a socialist.
-
Huh ?
You don't like big cars = you're antiamerican = you're socialist, maybe even commie or... gasp... a FRENCH !
Have a good weekend; Don't get killed in your tiny antiamerican car !
:aok
-
Shuddup you dang nordicfrog :D
-
"They are making accidents not only more likely "
Um no, it's the alcoholics and the reckless and negligent idiots who make crashes more likely. The courts would agree with me. I'm sure you do too except you're half trolling (and I'm half biting).
Protecting yourself and driving by the rules isn't antisocial....antisocial is the guy driving like a reckless madman or drunk with no regards for himself or others.
And if you think that superior handling is going to help you much in an accident....you're likely wrong. Your reflexes are the bottleneck--if your car handles well enough to cope with what your reflexes are capable of (this is where SUV's usually fail), then anything beyond that is waste. Most drivers grossly overestimate their reflex speed.
J_A_B