Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Small cars crash tests


Crashing the smallest cars against mid sized from the same manufacturers.
Obvious results.

Still quite scary...

22 comments:

Unknown said...

1800 lbs vs 5000 lbs is a matter of physics...the more massive object will win. Its a matter of what tolerances we are willing to accept to have these smaller fuel efficient vehicles. In a world where these cars share the road with 18-wheel semis, simple physics will dictate the outcome of many collisions, despite chocking them full of the latest safety technology.

el_monty said...

Oh, how surprising that the insurance companies would want to nudge the public to buy larger cars, for which they can charge higher premiums...

Anonymous said...

They crahed those cars with a speed that is much higher than the average speed that´s driven in cities. That means that the results say nothing about the real life...

Anonymous said...

They should do all crash tests against mack trucks and abrams tanks.

I'd like to see how well a Suburban fares against an Abrams tank on the highway.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but anyone who has driven on any road in America, in 2009, knows that 40 mph is probably the slowest that some of these mini-cars would ever be driven! These crash speeds and situations aren't nearly as far-fetched as the manufacturers and others would like to believe. Do crashes like this never happen or something?

Anonymous said...

I'd take the Smart and Fit well before I'd even consider a Yaris!!!!

The Fit and Smart, while they get tossed around, looked a lot better after the test concluded. That Yaris was MANGLED and the door came open!!!

Anonymous said...

They ran them into each other with both going 40MPH that is avg speed in city driving since streets here(in California) vary from 25 to 60. These test are legit like it was said before it physics :)

Anonymous said...

Toyota makes unsafe cars. Look at that crumple

Anonymous said...

This test was done with both cars going 40 MPH, seeing as how most roads (at least CA) are between 45 and 60 not including HWY's. This would make 40MPH a little under the avg speed. IMHO these test are legit, and its just a matter of physics :)

Anonymous said...

YOU SAID: "Oh, how surprising that the insurance companies would want to nudge the public to buy larger cars, for which they can charge higher premiums..." The truth of the matter is that insurance companies WANT you to buy SMALL cars. A funeral is a LOT cheaper than 20 hours of surgery followed by a decade of physical therapy.

Anonymous said...

Time to buy a Hummer? Survival of the fittest seems like a good idea again.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you are wrong.
As Rachel alluded to, you don't have to test every vehicle at every speed to prove known physics.
Rest assured that a Toyota Yaris is much safer than a 1965 VW Beetle or any motorcycle.

Hmmm how much fuel does that Hummer use?

Anonymous said...

Wow... shocking results!! lol
Why did they waste money on this research?? I could've record myself in a video saying all that, in 2 different languages, for a fraction of the cost, instead of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on this obvious to the most ignorant research.
Their next research: Detailed mechanism of the Umbrella
lol

Anonymous said...

They crahed those cars with a speed that is much higher than the average speed that´s driven in cities. That means that the results say nothing about the real life...

April 15, 2009 11:21 AM

yeah i just wish ppl would say the same thing about cars coming from emerging markets like china/india.

Soul2Stinger said...

This begs to differ (Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus)
:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I


Although the Volvo is a bit older...so comparable weights and safety features still need to be used, but older cars aren't illegal to drive, so a good mix seems real world worthy, and this is a great example.

Anonymous said...

If the insurance and testing companies bought more cars to wreck they could save the auto industry. You know - buy em and wreck em.

Anonymous said...

Agree the laws of physics aren't going to change with trends. Only solution, more people buy small cars.

Anonymous said...

Duh.....!

iQuack said...

Is anybody surprised by this?

Good reason to fear (and maybe outlaw) monster vehicles--especially any with jacked-up suspensions that increase bumper height to a level dangerous to other cars.

Koji Tojo said...

No-in most collisions BRAKES slow the car down, so the collision is slower than the cars were going originally. That being said, head-on crashes are a very small minority of all accidents. I agree that physics has a part in the accident and you're ultimately safer in a new Mercedes S-Class than a Smart, but that being said there are other variables, such as the age of the car (Old Volvo 940 versus new Supermini). I really
think that the IIHS is using this as a ploy to
1) Get people to buy larger cars (higher insurance premiums)
2) Get the speed limit back to 55mph (read their press release).

But there are some flaws in their arguments that need to be pointed out:
1) When the speed limit went back up to 70 in most states, the number of fatalities actually went down
2) Here, in Europe, we have a LOT more smaller cars than in the US and guess what-we have less fatalities.

The IIHS is a LOBBY GROUP for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY and at the end of the day, what they are doing is to serve their best interests.

They are using scare tactics to make people steer away from small cars and I think we need to let them know that we're not that dumb.

Anonymous said...

Responding to the poster on April 17th at 4:06am

"2) Here, in Europe, we have a LOT more smaller cars than in the US and guess what-we have less fatalities. "

That is because your driver education is FAR superior to what we have in the US. You actually can't even compare the two. Anyone with a pulse can pass the test in America. America has some of the worst drivers I have ever encountered.

"They are using scare tactics to make people steer away from small cars and I think we need to let them know that we're not that dumb."

Yes, (We) Americans are that dumb. Our mentality is bigger is better, and bigger MUST mean safer. Absolutely untrue.

Not only are we fat and lazy, but we are fat and dumb too.

This is coming from an American.

Anonymous said...

The guy who said: "Not only are we fat and lazy, but we are fat and dumb too" is obviously not too bright. But he isn't a typical American. Most Americans have a better grasp of simple physices than this guy and have an innate comprehension of the fact that more massive vehicles are generally safer-- in ANY type of accident. Europeans have fewer fatalities because they have FAR FAR fewer cars; (AND fewer per capita). MANY American famillies own three (3) vehicles compared to MANY European families owning NONE and most of the rest only owning (1)one (which they don't drive 1-2 hours a day EVERY day like commuting Americans do). I do agree that America desparately needs to re-test drivers every couple years ( and probably EVERY year for the first 5 years). While most 16-year old teenage kids in the US drive all the time -- most 16-20-year old Europeans DON'T -- Most don't even OWN a car! Add to that a constant influx of immigrants driving in the US for the first time and it's a wonder anyone makes it to work alive every day.