Crash Test (Vehicles)
Posted by: Dennis (The Menace) on 26 February 2006
Silly me, I just came to the realisation that one cannot compare test ratings between category of cars or can you?
You see, based on my understanding, it would possibly, and I state again, possibly better to be in a 3 star Large off-roader than a 5 star small car (i.e. Jeep Cherokee 2002 vs. Renault Clio 2005) in any crash situation. I know there are ifs' and buts' like provided the off-roader stays upright etc. But have you ever ask yourself which type of vehicle you want to be in, in event of a crash? Does this influence your choice when you purchase your vehicle?
I am thinking of replacing my car & I was most impressed by the 5 star ratings of the small economical cars but fear what would happen to me if I meet a large off-roader which are increasing in numbers around where I live despite the increasing fuel cost!
Confused? I do not want to join the large vehicle brigade but may not have a choice
Posted on: 26 February 2006 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:
Confused? I do not want to join the large vehicle brigade but may not have a choice
Yes, that is confusing. The safety of small/medium vehicles has come on leaps and bounds. You might also factor in the better safety of vehicles that are more agile, steer, brake and handle better and carry less energy into a crash on account of reduced mass.
I cannot get to grips with the argument that you need an off-roader in order to have a vehicle of equal size in case you crash into a neighbour!
Of course if your neighbour is on foot then you'll kill the poor chap in your SUV good and proper rather than an inconvenient maiming....
Bruce
Posted on: 26 February 2006 by Tony Lockhart
I'd rather avoid the crash in the first place, therefore I go for primary safety over secondary.
If we do move to North Yorkshire then a Subaru will be on the drive, not an ugly, thirsty, roly poly wagon.
I do make myself laugh though. I'm 6ft 4, about 15 stone and something, yet love small cars. Even our Golf feels far too wide for most country roads.
And I can't imagine the cost of replacing a set of tyres on a Cayenne!
Tony
PS. If I had to have one, I think the VW Touareg is the best looking.
Posted on: 27 February 2006 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:
And I can't imagine the cost of replacing a set of tyres on a Cayenne!
Also add in the cost of disguises etc. as you wouldn't want anyone to see you in a car that ugly.
quote:
PS. If I had to have one, I think the VW Touareg is the best looking.
Also hideous IMHO plus I've seen some less than flattering reviews of it.
Posted on: 27 February 2006 by Tony Lockhart
When I lived in Saudi I thought the Toymota Blandcruiser would do for me. Then I came back here, drove on our roads, saw a Blandcruiser and realised what a silly thing they are. Great in Saudi etc, stoopid here. And who on Earth is willing to pay for the fuel consumption? A Range Rover Sport driven briskly must only do about nothing to the gallon!
Tony
Posted on: 27 February 2006 by Bruce Woodhouse
Incidentally...
I live in rural N. Yorks. I live 1/2 mile up a farm track, I drive around the Dales Nat Park every week on work (and pleasure) including the odd visit to isolated farms.
In the last 10 years I have been stuck for lack of a 4WD precisely once. If I owned a Land Rover I suspect I would have been left by the roadside waitng for a breakdown vehicle rather more than that!
Bruce
Posted on: 27 February 2006 by Dennis (The Menace)
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
You might also factor in the better safety of vehicles that are more agile, steer, brake and handle better and carry less energy into a crash on account of reduced mass.
The reduced mass will be a disadvantage, the higher mass vehicle will just mow you over despite your crumple zone etc.
I cannot get to grips with the argument that you need an off-roader in order to have a vehicle of equal size in case you crash into a neighbour!
So long as you can dodge another car which is going to collide with yours. You may just be the innocent by stander caught up in the action. Not contemplating in crashing into anyone but should the ineveitable happen, then at least you are not in a disadvantage position.
Of course if your neighbour is on foot then you'll kill the poor chap in your SUV good and proper rather than an inconvenient maiming....
That depends on how fast you are travelling init? Anyway so can a car if travelling more than 40mph! Which is the norm these days.
Dennis
Posted on: 27 February 2006 by Steve Toy
Drivers of fanny cages (SUVs) often only consider the outcome of a collision from their point of view and that of their occupants. These vehicles offer possibly good passive safety whilst being as nimble as a tank from an active POV.
The risk of injury and death to other road users is only increased by the very selfish, uneconomic purchase and use of these ill-fitted-for-their-use vehicles. They handle poorly making them more likely to be involved in a collision, but that is obviously ok when only the third party gets hurt.
They are as aerodynamic as the proverbial brick wall, their massive wheels offering equaly big rolling resistance.
Meanwhile their drivers get very smug about the fact that they often drive painfully slowly to anyone behind them, yet they are the same ones who pull out in the path of on-coming vehicles because their own notion of cocooned protection results in complacent driving to the detriment of others.
Perhaps I'm generalising excessively here, but patterns are to be observed nevertheless.
quote:
When I lived in Saudi I thought the Toymota Blandcruiser would do for me. Then I came back here, drove on our roads, saw a Blandcruiser and realised what a silly thing they are. Great in Saudi etc, stoopid here. And who on Earth is willing to pay for the fuel consumption? A Range Rover Sport driven briskly must only do about nothing to the gallon!
Quite. But then there is the Burberry fashion/keep-up-with-the-Jones's stakes in a world where high performance and efficiency is bad. People buy fanny cages because...
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by wellyspyder
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Drivers of fanny cages (SUVs) often only consider the outcome of a collision from their point of view and that of their occupants. These vehicles offer possibly good passive safety whilst being as nimble as a tank from an active POV.
The risk of injury and death to other road users is only increased by the very selfish, uneconomic purchase and use of these ill-fitted-for-their-use vehicles. They handle poorly making them more likely to be involved in a collision, but that is obviously ok when only the third party gets hurt.
They are as aerodynamic as the proverbial brick wall, their massive wheels offering equaly big rolling resistance.
Meanwhile their drivers get very smug about the fact that they often drive painfully slowly to anyone behind them, yet they are the same ones who pull out in the path of on-coming vehicles because their own notion of cocooned protection results in complacent driving to the detriment of others.
Perhaps I'm generalising excessively here, but patterns are to be observed nevertheless.
quote:
When I lived in Saudi I thought the Toymota Blandcruiser would do for me. Then I came back here, drove on our roads, saw a Blandcruiser and realised what a silly thing they are. Great in Saudi etc, stoopid here. And who on Earth is willing to pay for the fuel consumption? A Range Rover Sport driven briskly must only do about nothing to the gallon!
Quite. But then there is the Burberry fashion/keep-up-with-the-Jones's stakes in a world where high performance and efficiency is bad. People buy fanny cages because...
Yeah like you do not know it MIGHT IS RIGHT INIT? Hate it but you cannot win if you are not in it, so the lotteries tell ya!
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by living in lancs yearning for yorks
It is difficult to compare star ratings between different classes of car. Some 4x4s are safer than smaller cars - but in driving one you are arguably stealing safety from someone else - I understand that in a collision between a 4x4 and a car, the occupants of the car are likely to be worse off due to the lower mass of their vehicle. Plus, if we all drive them, then nobody is better off
But who can say that you are wrong for choosing a 4x4 when that (if chosen carefully) would make your family safer. I would not criticise you for that
there are problems with comparing star ratings anyway - cannot remember which car it is but I know that one model got increased to 5* from 4* when it fitted a warning system to remind dimwits to fasten their seatbelts. That's not about the car's safety standards, it's about stopping stupid drivers from missing out on their benefits - so a 4* car might be just as a safe in an accident as a 5* car (provided you've fastened your seatbelts)
there is some criticism of the current euroncap tests on the basis that they have forced manufacturers into making cars more rigid, which leads to worse whiplash injuries in a rear impact - the tests are arguably artificial and a real accidnet won't be identical. IIRC The Swedish authorities' surveys look only at real world accident data, which gives different results from the lab
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
When it comes to safety I will say that I am looking at crash survivability for me. Not the vehicle. I talked to my local garage who have the pretty gruesome job of salvaging for the police. They have been doing that for a good thirty years.
Recently I threatened my old Volvo 240 with the chop, but they simply said that I should run it on. 'You won't be nearly so likely to die in a crash in that compared to most modern cars. So much for progress, then. What better advice could there be.
Fredrik
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by HR
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Recently I threatened my old Volvo 240 with the chop, but they simply said that I should run it on. 'You won't be nearly so likely to die in a crash in that compared to most modern cars. So much for progress, then. What better advice could there be.
Fredrik
Fredrik,
Does your 240 have any air bags or are you driving with a large pillow on your lap? Safety these days does not depend soley on the thickness of the metal (or the skull).
Haim
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Haim,
No air-bags in the old bird: I take it that the seat-belt will mostly stop me killing myself on the steering column shaft! Also I am no speed merchant. If it was a lorry it tends to be curtains anyhow. But is is nice having five foot of best Swedish steel between you and the front bumber.
A bass playing friend (formerly front desk at Covent Garden) put me onto the idea of transporting the bass on the reclined front seat, and the Volvo is one of the few saloons roomy enough to do this. He was in a head on which destroyed his car, but he extracted his 1720's Italian bass himself before the fire bragade cut the other fellow out the the van that was on the wrong side of the road. The old instrument had not a scratch on it. I call that survivability, if you like. I disliked station wagons (estate cars) because there is no strengthe behind the back axle, which leaves the intrument terribly exposed, but it is considered alright to fit children's seats in that place. Mad in my view!
All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by HR
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Haim,
A bass playing friend (formerly front desk at Covent Garden) put me onto the idea of transporting the bass on the reclined front seat, and the Volvo is one of the few saloons roomy enough to do this.All the best from Fredrik
Fredrik,
Yo Yo Ma was spotted lately traveling with two basses, occupying three First Class seats on United Airlines. Now that is even classier than your 240.
Regards,
Haim
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Haim,
Did he get champaigne X3? The thing is that now I don't have a bass to transport (and my playing used to do more than keep the car), I really wish I did not have to run a car at all! I enjoy the train, and the nice thing is that if you don't use it it does not cost you something just to have it parked.
In the days when I had my old Baroque bass, I was terribly nervous about putting it into the VW Golf, which a stuctural disaster in the back as far as crash impact is concerned. It is actually designed to literally fold in the region behind the back axle, and I was more or less paranoid about tailgaters. It was at that time I asked my Covent Graden friend, and he suggested I get a strong saloon. I always thought it looked an impossible amount of trouble getting a bass in and out of the passenger front door, but given the peace of mind that was a small price to pay.
I never enjoyed a late train back from Birminghem to Worcester when carrying a bass, as there were always drunken people who thought nothing of trying to manhandle a very delicate instrument, while joking about big guitars!
Fred
Posted on: 28 February 2006 by erik scothron
Dennis,
Back in 1997 I drove a Renault Clio I had hired in the lake district virtually right through a dry stone wall, it was not written off and I was not much hurt (strained neck and whopping headaches for a few days). It was a foul night with rain and fog, the unfamiliar road tightened up suddenly and the breaks seemingly failed to work. I later discovered from local police that the in-bred farmer who owned the wall (and who appeared on the scene within seconds) made a tidy living out of re-building it (£1,000 for a mornings work for him and his 2 sons - also in-bred)as, on average, once a month some poor sod like me managed to plough through it aided by 1/ The removal of the road sign warning about the corner (by in-breds unknown)and 2/copious amounts of diesel on the road just at that corner and spilt there quite accidentally by (in-breds unknown)to facilitate the process of A/ defying the laws of inertia and B/supplementing the income received from overly generous EU farm subsidies. Despite buying a Range Rover (great for seeing over dry stone walls but untested by me at driving through them) I've always had a soft spot for Renault Clios ever since. Brave little car.
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 01 March 2006 by Rico
m. Toy on 4x4's...
quote:
They handle poorly making them more likely to be involved in a collision,
Steve, you've been reading too much Ralph Nader. If a 4x4 is involved in a collision, it's because of poor driver skills, not the poor handling. Or poor maintenance. what's that, you say? Yes - these modes of operation afflict all types of vehicles, not just 4x4's!. The real solution is to operate the vehicle within its safe operating envelope, and enjoy a lower hazard risk. It's similar to the guns argument - people kill people, not guns. 4X4's don't kill people - drivers do**.
Your approach sounds remarkably close to the "I take no responsibility for my life and prefer to sue with lawyers where I make an error" mentality prevalent in society today. 'Pleased to see you're still providing (somewhat frivolous) entertainment, at any rate.
** there is an obvious exception to this, and that is the 4x4 ranges manufactured by owners of the Jeep brand. Do a google on "Jeep seatbelt class action" if you're interested.
Posted on: 01 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis (The Menace):
I am thinking of replacing my car & I was most impressed by the 5 star ratings of the small economical cars but fear what would happen to me if I meet a large off-roader
That's the market, Dennis.
The rich just squeeze the poor.
Anyway......with my old Clio i do drive very carefully and in many years nothing happened.
Except a very marked colour gloss deterioration.
Posted on: 01 March 2006 by wellyspyder
quote:
Originally posted by living in lancs yearning for yorks:
It is difficult to compare star ratings between different classes of car. Some 4x4s are safer than smaller cars - but in driving one you are arguably stealing safety from someone else - I understand that in a collision between a 4x4 and a car, the occupants of the car are likely to be worse off due to the lower mass of their vehicle. Plus, if we all drive them, then nobody is better off
But who can say that you are wrong for choosing a 4x4 when that (if chosen carefully) would make your family safer. I would not criticise you for that
there are problems with comparing star ratings anyway - cannot remember which car it is but I know that one model got increased to 5* from 4* when it fitted a warning system to remind dimwits to fasten their seatbelts. That's not about the car's safety standards, it's about stopping stupid drivers from missing out on their benefits - so a 4* car might be just as a safe in an accident as a 5* car (provided you've fastened your seatbelts)
there is some criticism of the current euroncap tests on the basis that they have forced manufacturers into making cars more rigid, which leads to worse whiplash injuries in a rear impact - the tests are arguably artificial and a real accidnet won't be identical. IIRC The Swedish authorities' surveys look only at real world accident data, which gives different results from the lab
You are correct in stating that lab test are not perfect. Current crash test rating is mainly single car collision with stationary barrier. This is usually not likely in the real world. Usually 2 or more cars are involved with varying speed and mass in the dangerous roads out there.
Lab test is therefore a rather confusing guide to passive safety, only great in single car collision with stationary barrier.
Posted on: 01 March 2006 by Steve Toy
Things are very different in Australia or Rico is trolling.
Posted on: 02 March 2006 by Jono 13
quote:
Steve, you've been reading too much Ralph Nader. If a 4x4 is involved in a collision, it's because of poor driver skills, not the poor handling.
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in the States some years ago - "Guns don't people, people kill people" neatly avoiding the logical conclusion that if you don't have the bloody gun in the first place.....
Anyway back on topic, the answer to Dennis' question its more a case of what and where the impact energy goes. Also the resulting structural failure and occupant safety zone survival is actually more important. For example in the event of an accident its much better for the energy to go around the occupants than through them. This is where twin floor cars like my Modus and the Scenic do well. All the energy gets dissapated through the lower floor which means the rest of the structure can survive, along with the contents. Then when the event is over the doors will open and you can get the hell out of the area.
For an example of the effectiveness of modern design Top Gear crashed a Megane into a barrier and the driver got out and walked away.
Fredrik - the airbag is to stop you caving your skull in on the large steering wheel in front of you as much as anything else. A friend did some university resaerch into the injuries sustained from belted in drivers and it pointed to the steering wheel doing more damage to a belted up driver.
Jono
Posted on: 02 March 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Jono,
Perhaps I take a fairly mordent view of my own demise! I could hardly care less. I got the old Volvo as a bass carrier, when I did care that a nice instrument should survive. Personally I would prefer curtains to survival in a helpless state! Maybe my next car should be a vintage thing with an open wooden body-style, and then if I am in a pile-up the result will inevitable!
Happy days! Fredrik
Posted on: 02 March 2006 by Steve Toy
quote:
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in the States some years ago - "Guns don't people, people kill people" neatly avoiding the logical conclusion that if you don't have the bloody gun in the first place.....
One for Rico I think. In the gun stakes the fanny cage is a blunderbuss.
