'09 Malibu Vs. '59 Bel Air Crash Test 496
theodp writes "To celebrate their 50th anniversary, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air into a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. Hate to spoil the ending of the video, but if you find yourself participating in a similar car-jousting contest, pick the Malibu over the Bel Air. (Not that you'll be complaining afterwards if you don't, or doing much of anything.) Guess there is something to those crumple zones after all."
Classic Cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd still rather ride around in the '59 Belair......
Top tip: make sure you slide the seat back a bit! ;)
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like this [autoblog.com]? :)
The pictures with the doors removed are simply amazing. Note how, not only is the Bel Air dummy folded up like a pretzel, but the entire body of the car has twisted such that the rear door no longer fits properly. The Malibu on the other hand is almost untouched from the firewall back. What an awesome demonstration of energy dissipation.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Funny)
Good news for the Bel Air owner though: the fuzzy dice looked like they survived mostly intact, although I think the string connecting them got ripped or cut.
Seriously, points to IIHS for including the dice. You can see them flying around the cockpit at 1:03 to 1:09. They look like they might present a hazard of as you are crashing, they might hit you in the eye, potentially causing you to blink and miss the carnage right before you die.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a restorer, I think it's a waste of a car.
As a mechanic, I think it's a pretty invaluable display of safety innovations in 30 years.
As a driver, I think they need to point out that the idea is to NOT CRASH.
Try slowing down, hanging up, and being sober. No amount of safety features can save a moron.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Interesting)
As a driver, I think they need to point out that the idea is to NOT CRASH.
No kidding! In the US we have this mindset that the only way to be safe on the road is to buy a giant armored tank and sit four feet off the ground. And so they buy a huge SUV which has god-awful maneuverability and is many times more likely to roll over. And who cares about the risk you put other drivers in (or pedestrians -- SUVs are several times more likely to back over a child, for example).
If everyone focused on light, agile, and well-built, the roads would be a lot safer place. I think it's quite telling that there's far more variance in crash survivability between vehicles in a given class than between classes -- even within the same price bracket. If the Smart Fortwo can pass crash testing with that tiny little crumple zone, it's pathetic that so many vehicles don't do any better than they do.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US wanted to copy Europe on anything w.r.t. driving, it would be the standard of testing. Turning on the ignition, driving around the block in an automatic and parking again shouldn't get you a licence.
Then you need to abandon the concept of driving being a right, rather than a priviledge. But this might not be compatible with US suburban sprawl.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that classic cars have (emotional) value for most of us.
But your argument makes no sense. By that rule, child raping chainsaw murdering Arabian black Jewish gay Nazi women [radiantempire.com] would be the best, and make us smile the most, because they are so rare. ;)
It rather is, because they are a piece of old art. Designs that you can't buy anymore. Technology that shows us what we once did badly or even better.
There's no reason to not include the crash test into that beauty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
And no-one expected a Bel-Air to last 51 yeas either. If they did, why do we have all these complaints about wrecking a car that is so rare? Could it be that overwhelming majority of 51 year old Bel-Airs are in the heap, and only few are still around? I bet same thing applies to modern cars in 50 years. Overwhelming majority are gone, and few remain.
People look at old things and think "they build those things to last!", while they fail to understand that most of them have failed over time, and only handful remain. And since the thing in question (be it car, radio or whatever) is so rare, the few remaining are taken good care of, giving us the illusion that they are somehow more durable.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Informative)
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/ [nytimes.com]
"We didn't want to crash a museum piece," Mr. Zuby said. "We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality." But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable.
They found what they wanted in Indiana. "The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound," he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition.
The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Keep this shit up, and we're gonna have to make nice with Cuba...
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Funny)
I bet it was the "which was broken" part!
If I'm the only one who bids, do I win? Like on eBay?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not everybody is equiped to capture those long sentences
-How long is your attention span?
-At least five... Oh look, that's a pretty keyboard!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
tl;dr
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
If the frame stays intact, but the body shears away in a shrapnel of sharp metal, then the frame is useless. The frame of the car in the video could have stayed 100% intact, but all the bodywork and engine and all crashed inside the passenger compartment ... then all of them are dead anyway. A tank is useless if in a 30 mph crash the engine flys off inside and kills all the crew.
Modern cars are safer by miles. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There were a lot of vehicles from that era and earlier where the vehicles would have survived an accident intact - but the passengers would not, having been thrown around in the vehicle upon impact. Typically stronger steels were used, and designs were such that the vehicles were like tanks - but without passenger restraints it killed the passengers any way.
Another issue is that in those older vehicles, no special attention was paid to reinforcing the passenger compartment. The whole vehicle was stronger, but if enough force was applied to start crumpling the frame, it was more likely to crumple the passenger compartment than the engine compartment.
In contrast, modern vehicles provide a strong protective cage around the passenger compartment. Even that cage may not be as strong as a 1959 vehicle's frame, but it is quite strong, and outside of that cage the
Re:Classic Cars (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you people really chap my ass. its ONE damn car. we're not talking about a Deusenberg for Gods sake, its a Chevy. i'm a car enthusiast and i think its GREAT that they demolished this thing. sure i love classic cars, and i've worked on restoring some _very_ rare ones. i'm about ready to slip into a tirade about how SEMA lobbied to have the C4C program limit cars to a certain year because they didn't want 'classics' getting junked. how stupid is that? if its a 'classic' car its worth more than the C4C program
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Gee, why is everyone complaining that they destroyed some old picture of a lady that wasn't realy smiling while comparing the materials available to Michaelangelo to today's?" :(
I think you've mixed up your Ninja Turtles.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Funny)
They shoulda used a 1958 model, considered to be the only non-classic late fifties Chevy.
Which is why I have one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Must have missed out on trading it in during cash for clunkers.
Re:Classic Cars (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Funny)
The brown car had such an angry mouth, so it was probably not a very nice car. But the gray car looked friendlier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They addressed that, they wanted a car that was structurally sound but not a trailer queen. It drove in under it's own power...an inline 6. So, it was useful to demonstrate the advances without being overly conspicuous in it's consumption.
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Informative)
How often do two vehicles on the highway hit each other dead-center head on? Front left fender vs front left fender is a more realistic approximation of a highway accident in my opinion. I'd take the Malibu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is that most accidents don't happen on the highway - you're 4 times as likely to have an accident on secondary or local roads than on the highway, and if you want realism, a LOT of those are one car blindsiding another (T-boning), or rear-ending another. On the highway, a lot of accidents are multiple-car collisions, and a lot of other accidents are single-car events (driver loses control, ends up in ditch|against concre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a 2*40 mph (80 mph) collision. This is roadway speeds, not highway.
Highway would have been WAY worse.
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no, it wouldn't.
Notwithstanding the extra weight of the iron-block, iron-head inline 6, the Malibu's motor is still a substantial chunk of metal that can be considered essentially solid. You certainly aren't going to force the I6 motor THROUGH it.
What you will do is load up the engine mounts - which are much, much stronger on the Malibu, and designed to crumple in such a way that the passenger cabin is minimally infringed.
A more likely case in a 100% head-on collision is the Bel-Air's engine coming to rest in the Bel-Air's back seat, having been forced through the cabin by the Malibu.
DG
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:4, Insightful)
I assumed it had to do with offset collisions being very frequent. Engine to engine crashes are fairly rare, but someone drifting a little over a center line isn't uncommon at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Offset collisions are also more dangerous to cabin occupants than full, head on collisions. Car safety tests used head on collisions for a long time, but that was abandoned in the 80s or early 90s when it became apparent that they don't reflect real life accidents or the damage they cause to occupants.
The physical reasoning behind it is pretty simple: if you are offset, there is less material to soak up the energy of the crash. Typically enough that old school engine mounts or suspension parts would fail
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While IIHS tests offset the feds test all cars with a full front end crash into a very unforgiving concrete wall. The Malibu received the highest rating from the feds for front impact. The Bel-Air in the federal test would end up killing everyone in the front seat. The Bel-Air isn't going to hurt the Malibu anymore than a solid wall.
Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak (Score:5, Informative)
And you are wrong about what would happen. My guess is that the engine would be stopped by the Malibu, and the Bel Air would end up collapsing around the engine, making the test that was fatal for the driver suddeny fatal for all occupants of the car. The Malibu, a leg injury for the driver, would turn into a foot and leg injury for the two front passengers. If you did the test they did with a full car, you get one dead person in the Bel Air and a minor injury in the Malibu. Make if full frontal and you get two minor injuries in the Malibu and five dead people in the Bel Air. And yes, though never employed as such, I have taken classes in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction.
the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Informative)
Right around that year GM went to a wild X-frame design which allowed the door sills to be moved down several inches, making the cars easier to step out of. But the X was not very strong-- there were plenty of news photos showing Impalas broken in half by not very hard accidents.
Also if you look at a 50's car, the bumpers are massive but held up by a couple thin pieces of mild steel stock-- a strong toddler could bend them out of place.
Re: (Score:2)
Frickin slashdot 2! I meant to mod you Informative, because you are quite correct about the X-frame design of that time.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in an accident in it, a guy in a 1981 Toyota ran a red light and I t-boned him, going about 30mph. His frame was bent, axles were snapped, all side windows, the windshield, and rear window were broken. The frame damage snapped a few of his engine mounts, and also broke his radiator. His car was totaled. My car had the frame holding the headlight pushed back about half an inch, and scuffed the chrome bumper.
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Informative)
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
"Minor" accidents can be much more severe if your body is taking the jolt instead of the crumple zones. Injuries like whiplash are extremely common in "minor" accidents. You might be able to get your Ford's frame straightened, but you can't get your neck fixed anywhere as cheaply or easily.
30 mph is not a minor accident, by the way. That's like falling out of a second story window (taking into account conservation of momentum leading to smaller forces on your body)
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:4, Insightful)
"Minor" accidents are something like 5 mph. Around 1980, regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(automobile)#Strengthening_standards [wikipedia.org] actually required the bumper to handle that. I once had a 1989 Opel Vectra whose bumpers still seemed to match that requirement, and it has saved me a nice chunk of money.
But I agree that you should not expect the bumper to handle a 30 mph crash.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:4, Insightful)
My brother works in an emergency room. He notes how fragile the human body is compared to the interior of a car. A patient of his was admitted from a minor car accident where he was rear-ended at least than 20 mph. The patient, who did not have his seat belt on, slapped his head against the steering wheel. That opened up a gash that required dozens of stitches.
You can very easily be in a heavily-built car but suffer severe injuries in a relatively minor accident if you are not buckled up. A newer car would crumble to absorb the shock. The tank would hold its shape, then slam into you as you're held in place by inertia.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Funny)
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
Yep, that's why before getting involved in any traffic accident, I always carefully choose the car I own which would be best suited. Now if you'll excuse me, I might accidentally run over my neighbour in his backyard while I'm on my way to the store. I think I'll pick the Hummer, it's the better one to get through wooden fences.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just one of those things car designers learnt from trial and error, like where to put a petrol tank so it doesn't explode and why not to use metal steering wheels.
I tried to find the European NCAP rating for the Malibu but wasn't able to so i have no idea on how safe the car is. But a while back on Top Gear they felt so safe about a 5 star NCAP car a presenter crashed it into a wall at 30/40MPH he came out without a scratch. Admittedly they'd wrecked the car, but the presenter didn't even have whiplash, you just wouldn't do that in a 50's car because chances are you'd end up with broken legs or internal injuries (generally from the steering wheel). Sure you were fine, but those changes happened because most people wern't ok.
Have a look at race cars (Score:4, Informative)
When those things wreck, they disintegrate. The whole car seems to come apart, and you are amazed the driver could survive. However, it is BECAUSE they come apart like that that the driver survives. They have a rigid cage enclosing the driver, and a compliant body. That way the body takes the massive energies involved in the rapid acceleration to a stop, rather than them being transferred to the person.
That whole pesky F=MA thing applies to cars just as well as anything else. When a massive object like a car rapidly accelerates to a stop, there is a shit ton of energy. How that energy is dealt with and dissipated can be the different between a person having a bruise, and dying from their internal organs being destroyed.
Re:Have a look at race cars (Score:4, Insightful)
I really like formula-derivative cars for demonstrating the point of "destroy the car, not the driver" idea. You see an F1/Champcar/Indie car collide with anything and its just parts flying everywhere. I point out to people "each chunk of metal flying away from the crash is a bit of mass, and velocity not flying towards the driver".
I think that's the coolest thing about car-design safety in racing. It's made drivers much more likely to survive, and vids to watch just HELLA way more cool...
I mean, when a girl gets excited watching cars blow up into a million pieces (because I obviously didn't know the person in the car) you know it has to be impressive!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was in an accident in it, a guy in a 1981 Toyota ran a red light and I t-boned him, going about 30mph. His frame was bent, axles were snapped, all side windows, the windshield, and rear window were broken. The frame damage snapped a few of his engine mounts, and also broke his radiator. His car was totaled. My car had the frame holding the headlight pushed back about half an inch, and scuffed the chrome bumper.
In other words, his car sacrificed itself to save both you and him.
My observations were that I'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The bumpers were never supposed to protect you in a big crash, only from the little knocks and scrapes you get when when parking. Maybe not even that, I'm sure a lot of them were just there to add some extra chrome to the car.
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, sorry but I would MUCH rather spend $1k than have my neck suffer 23G's of acceleration (what can occur in a 15mph crash without cushioning). That $1k represents a fraction of the monthly earnings for the average first world family, it's much cheaper to fix the car than fix the person.
Speaking as a motorcycle rider... this is why most of the time, I'm wearing a good $500 of gear when I ride my bike (half of that is around my head). Just the ambulance to the hospital from one crash was $400, then with the x-ray, and the CT scan ("Ma'am, this is super really big important, are you SURE you're not pregnant?") it easily got up to about $4k. And this was with NOTHING wrong with me except some road rash.
My jacket was in pretty reasonable condition, and my protective pants were torn to shreds
Re:the wunnerful 50's, not (Score:5, Insightful)
Old car crash: $50 to mend scratch on bumper, $7500 for head injury, untold lost earning power because now you're an idiot, total: $7550+
Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surgery (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an orthopaedic surgeon, and wind up taking care of a lot of people from car accidents. Even a 10 MPH crash is enough to cause whiplash.
Car repairs are much, much cheaper than hospital bills, and there are some things that we aren't still good at fixing like cartilage damage, and whiplash - who likes chronic pain?
'52 Citroen DS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rubbish. kph is a well-known abbreviation for kilometres per hour. It is pretty unambiguous because a) it is really widely used and understood, b) it has no other sensible meaning, c) using 'p' for 'per' isn't in the SI system anyway so you aren't really abusing anything.
Pedant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess the 2CV is unibody
No, it had a separate chasis, that is why they could build derivatives like the Mehari [wikipedia.org] (OK, based on the Dyane, but that was derived from the original 2CV)
I see the problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Now this is a story all about how my life got flip turned upside-down. I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I totally destroyed a classic car in the name of science.
YouTube Commenters strike again (Score:5, Insightful)
The comments on the video are rather telling. A number of people claim the video must have been faked, because "The Chevy would have barely gotten scratched."
Notably, a number of the panelists on the hearing about the sinking of the Titanic expressed serious doubts that mere ice could have torn iron. In other words, time marches on, but ignorance of physics remains a constant. (Also see, "This is the first time in the history of mankind that fire has melted steel.")
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All you have to do is look at the fatality rates. The number of people who die per mile traveled today is a quarter of the number in the early fifties.
Re:YouTube Commenters strike again (Score:4, Insightful)
All cars now also come with seat belts and most people wear them.
Re:YouTube Commenters strike again (Score:5, Insightful)
The YouTube stupidity wasn't limited to claiming it was faked. Here we have an actual YouTube commenter trying to draw a comparison between Hitler's Eugenics program and the engineering principles behind car safety. It's like crazy in a can.
Re:YouTube Commenters strike again (Score:4, Funny)
The YouTube stupidity wasn't limited to claiming it was faked. Here we have an actual YouTube commenter trying to draw a comparison between Hitler's Eugenics program and the engineering principles behind car safety. It's like crazy in a can.
You must be new to the Youtube comment section. Welcome.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But youtube commenter marcsiry did make it worthwhile:
Even worse, the guy in the Belï Air was texting at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, Youtube. It's the place that makes all but the stupidest Slashdot comments look intelligent.
TopGear (Score:5, Interesting)
The crash investigator they had evaluate the results said the driver of the older car would have had multiple broken bones, including both femurs, and even if he'd survived the crash he would have bled to death by the time they could extract him, which would take 30-40 minutes as the car was so badly deformed.
In contrast, the modern Espace's computers decided the crash wasn't bad enough to deploy the air bags! Only the seat belt pre-tensioners fired. The investigator thought everyone in that car would have walked away from the accident uninjured.
Their conclusion was that modern crumple zones and stiffer chassis work but because they are stiffer older cars suffer much more when colliding with a modern car.
What always surprises me is how much damage is done to any car, old or new, at these low speeds! Really says to me that any speed limit over 40 mph on any single-carriage way road is just insane.
that would be Fifth Gear (Score:5, Funny)
Top Gear tries to stay away from useful facts and info as much as possible.
And the idea of Top Gear having TWO cars that cost below $40,000 on the screen at the same is pretty far fetched.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You seem to have missed the episode, where they tested ultra-cheap east-asian cars, at below $10,000.
Depending on your point of view, you could even count the dog-sled that they went to the freakin' *north pole* with!
Re:that would be Fifth Gear (Score:4, Insightful)
Is *anybody* here under the illusion that watching Top Gear will help them choose their next car? Sheesh.
Re:that would be Fifth Gear (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Top Gear is about fun and entertainment. And they're doing a very good job in that department!
Fifth Gear is the boring but useful relative.
It's like with women: They need the latter, but they love the first one. And while the second one helps as much as he cans, just to be loved, the first one is loved specifically because he is exciting rather than useful. Poor Fifth Gear. Will he ever realize what the problem is? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Arranging head on collisions sounds a lot more like 5th Gear than Top Gear.
But just like the Chevy test video linked to hear, everyone's on YouTube's an expert when it comes to stuff like that.
They've done several like Renault Espace vs. Land Rover Discovery [youtube.com] and Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus [youtube.com].
I don't recall one with a new and old Espace. The closest I can come to that comparison is the 940 vs the Modus, but that doesn't mean they (or Top Gear) didn't do one with Espace vs Espace - I just can't remember s
And some follow up comments (Score:5, Informative)
A few people were calling shenanigans, claiming there was no drive train or that the IIHS used a vehicle with a rusted out frame.
So a writer for the NY Times caught up with "David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute's crash-test center in Virginia"
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/ [nytimes.com]
Re:Crumple zones (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nothing to do with cheapness (steel girders are a lot cheaper than all the R&D needed to design good crumple zones) it's to do with safety and weight reduction.
Crumple zones are safer. If you're sat in a rigid box then you take a much higher G-force peak than if you're sat in something that deforms. What are you more worried about in a head-on, yourself or the car?
Crumple zones mean weight is only added where it's needed, body panels can be thinner/lighter. Less weight means better performance and
Re:And some follow up comments (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so if you have a collision, you have kinetic energy that WILL be dissipated. It's is going to go somewhere; it cannot just be swept under the rug.
If you make the car 100% rigid and ensure that the driver is tightly secured - as some NASCAR feeder series cars were in the late 80s and early 90s - then that energy is fed into the occupants. Subject them to 50Gs and you start ripping hearts loose in chest cavities and inducing massive concussions as the front of the skull decelerates the brain. This is suboptimal for survival.
So the car's structure has to be designed to dissipate that energy to a survivable level. Plus street cars don't have the luxury of securing the occupants as tightly as race cars (and putting them in helmets and HANS devices) so secondary impacts within the cabin are a real concern.
A properly-engineered crumple zone not only dissipates the energy of the crash, it crushes the structure in such a way that nothing intrudes into the passenger compartment, that doors remain closed, but yet the door frames remain mostly intact so the doors can be opened more-or-less easily post impact. Granny in the back seat isn't going to be crushed by a flying engine block that winds up in her lap, and little Jimmy isn't going to bleed to death while the EMS crew watches because it takes a hydraulic ram to wrench the door open to get at him.
The crash engineering really is amazing. It is incredible just how well the structures are tuned to maximize occupant survivability.
And pedestrian survivability as well. Almost a third of "Unsafe at Any Speed" (credit the devil, Nader wrote a groundbreaking book) was dedicated to discussing vehicle-vs-pedestrian impacts, and how decorative designs like the "missiles" on the hoods and bumpers of the cars at the time were inflicting horrible wounds on people struck by them. While being hit by a car is always going to be a serious, traumatic event, you are much better off being struck by a modern car than by a "classic".
In every measurable way, modern cars are so much better than cars of just 20 years ago that it is utterly amazing - and cars 50 years ago are, in comparison, steam locomotives.
DG
is there any historical data available? (Score:2)
I realize the crash-test setup and standards continually change, but is there any sort of archive of data tables, or graphs, or something of that sort, showing improvement over time? Like, can I see what the difference in forces on the driver or likelihood of serious injury would be for a 1985 Civic vs. a 2005 Civic going 40 mph into a barrier?
Patiently waits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Patiently waits (Score:5, Funny)
Top 10 Ways American Cars Would be Different if Ralph Nader Had Never Been Born
10. Dashboard hibachis
9. Seat belts made of piano wire
8. Windshield replaced with ant farm for kids
7. Strobe headlights make oncoming traffic look like old time movie
6. 50-foot antennas allow you to broadcast while driving
5. Optional front-seat hammocks
4. Wiper fluid reservoir routinely filled with thousand island dressing
3. New York City taxis would be exactly the same
2. The paper Buick
1. Speedometer replaced with electronic voice chanting "Punch it! Punch it!"
I drive a 58 Chevy... (Score:5, Interesting)
One reason that the door crumpled so readily is the crazy wraparound windshield. The windshield pillar contains a free-hanging right angle, which is not the way that a structural engineer would have done it. It also bangs the knees.
The big problem with older cars is that the body shape was sculpted from clay in a studio separate from the rest of the car designers, rather than being designed as part of an automobile. The end result being that the body shape had no basis in sound mechanical design.
Let's Land on him, we'll cripple his car (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It had the straight six, which you can see on the interior shot shoving the dashboard back violently. The straight 6 engines in those cars offered no protection in an offset crash, and just smashed back through the dash killing the occupants, who were dead anyway.
Re:Where's the engine? (Score:5, Funny)
The straight 6 engines in those cars offered no protection in an offset crash, and just smashed back through the dash killing the occupants, who were dead anyway.
Fucking classic-car-driving zombies...
Well, if they were dead anyway... (Score:4, Funny)
Then they wouldn't mind being killed a little more would they?
And this repels morons? (Score:5, Insightful)
My friend, many motorcyclists care deeply about their bikes, but that does not prevent surgeons from referring to them as "organ donors".
Re:And this repels morons? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, being an attentive and skilled operator of your vehicle can and will reduce the chances of an accident drastically. I have several horror stories about coming within inches of a major accident, only to dodge it. Mainly because I take my cars to track day and know exactly how far they can be pushed.
Whereas I have only minimal training (almost didn't pass the driver test as a kid, never did donuts in empty parking lots, etc), and yet haven't even come close to a "major" accident (and only a single minor incident shortly after barely passing the test, went half off the outside of a curve at maybe 5-10mph the first time I drove in snow (very wet snow that was coming down rather quickly... and when I tried to get back on the road the car slid sideways and got a minor dent from a tree).).
Perhaps if you wer
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you ever worry that your feelings are trying to get you killed?
1998 Toyota Corolla - 40mph into side of truck that turned left in front of me for no apparent reason. Drove the car to a parking lot and got out without a scratch. Car totalled.
2001 Toyota Echo - car driving horizontally to traffic plowed into my left front bumper sending me across a lane of traffic and hitting a concrete highway divider twice. Tires, were resting against the divider. Got out without a scratch. Car totalled.
Now granted I hav
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They collide them at an angle because that's the most typical head-on collision scenario. Full head-on collisions are rare.
Re:Pointless Sensationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
And why do they collide at an angle, because that definitely favors one style of construction over another - frame, engine placement, driver's side vs. passenger side, body materials, bumpers, etc.
Because in the real world, cars collide at an angle just short of 100% of the time. Getting an actual, straight, head-on collision is a very difficult task that requires a great deal of setup and effort on the part of the people doing the testing. In the real world, drivers don't arrange their crashes with such mathematical precision. "at an angle" is pretty much a given...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing Bush isn't around any more - he'd buy into it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing that you can predict that. Why do you think the Bel-Air's block would "cut through the Malibu" instead of cutting through the Bel-Air's cabin, like it essentially did in this test?
Re:How about some REAL bumpers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mainly because they don't look as nice.
That said, a car accident has a massive amount of energy involved even at low speeds. That energy has to go somewhere. In a new car the energy goes into destroying the vehicle or parts of it. In an old car the energy goes into throwing the driver around. Essentially, at some people people decided that losing a car is preferably to losing their life or suffering life long disability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, IANA Physicist, but I'd bet that they don't make bumpers like the ones you describe, because they're so rigid. The energy of the collision would be telegraphed through the bumper, into the frame, and eventually into the driver and passengers. Modern bumpers absorb more of that energy (when they get crushed), and that much less of it gets into the cockpit.
It might make sense to swap out a modern bumper for a steel monster if you know you're going to have a minor crash (let the passengers absorb the en
Re:Combined speed? (Score:5, Informative)
Your physics makes no sense. Why is this modded informative? The ground is not a magical reference point!
If two cars travelling in opposite directions at 40 MPH slam into each other, that's exactly equivalent, in terms of energy dissipation and momentum transfer, to one car travelling at 80MPH slamming into a stationary vehicle. Each vehicle, in its own reference frame, sees another vehicle travelling at 80MPH.
Think about it: if two identical cars crash, and one is stationary, then for a moment (before they come to a stop due to friction against the pavement) they'll be moving together at half the speed of the moving car before the crash. One car goes from 80MPH to 40MPH (40MPH difference); the other goes from 0MPH to 40MPH (40MPH difference).
This is exactly equivalent to going from 40MPH to 0MPH (40MPH difference).
When you're working out simple kinematics like this you should be starting with momentum, which is linear with velocity. You can work out how much energy is released afterwards; you'll see that it works out:
(1/2) * (1500kg) * (36m/s) ^ 2 = 972 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy in the moving car at 80MPH
(1/2) * (1500kg) * (18m/s) ^ 2 * 2 = 486 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy left after the crash: 2 cars at 40MPH
972 kJ - 486 kJ = 486 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy dissipated in the crash
(1/2) * (1500kg) * (18m/s) ^ 2 * 2 = 486 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy in 2 cars at 40MPH
(1/2) * (1500kg) * (0m/s) ^ 2 * 2 = 0 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy left after the crash: in 2 cars at 0MPH
486 kJ - 0 kJ = 486 kJ - Amount of kinetic energy dissipated in the crash
(Yes, kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2, not mv^2!)