'09 Malibu Vs. '59 Bel Air Crash Test

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."

Comments

Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.

Re:Classic Cars

[blitzkrieg3]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up. IIHS doesn't consider it pointless to demonstratably show how far we've come since they started improving vehicle safety way back when. Additionally, it's an easy way to showcase the importance of the organization to the general public, kind of like how NASA highlights it's spacewalks and additional modules to the ISS even though most of what they do is boring research.

Re:Classic Cars

[A nonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up.

Then you have no soul. Old classic cars are not good *cars* as such, but they are classics, and that one in particular looked like it was in pretty good shape. Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.

Re:Classic Cars

[David Gerard]

Apparently they only paid a couple hundred dollars for this one, it wasn't a polished example.

Re:Classic Cars

[NixieBunny]

They shoulda used a 1958 model, considered to be the only non-classic late fifties Chevy.

Which is why I have one.

Re:Classic Cars

[Planesdragon]

Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.

You're assuming that GM and the IIHS crashed an original car that could still be driven. They probably did the cheaper of:

1: Buy a beat-up Bel-Air that would never drive again, but whose body was in good condition.
2: Buy a rebuilt Bel-Air using original specs but modern parts
3: Just build one for test purpsoses.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/

"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:Classic Cars

[MBCook]

I just wish they showed the cars up close afterwards. While both are trashed, it's clear from the video that the A pillar just collapses on the Bel Air and the driver is probably crushed to death. Showing that (or whatever you can film) versus the still mostly intact cockpit of the Malibu would have driven the point home really well.

Re:Classic Cars

[rubycodez]

'cause it wasn't the cool '57 Bel Air that is the quintessential All American Car. 1959 Bel Air, pfft, who gives a shit.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I brought it up first...

Re:Classic Cars

[TemporalBeing]

Old cars make us smile not for being better cars, but because they are rare, and a 59 Bel-Air is one of the rarer of the rare.

You're assuming that GM and the IIHS crashed an original car that could still be driven. They probably did the cheaper of:

1: Buy a beat-up Bel-Air that would never drive again, but whose body was in good condition. 2: Buy a rebuilt Bel-Air using original specs but modern parts 3: Just build one for test purpsoses.

Agreed - which also lends - was the steel used up to the same specs as what would have been used in the original ones off the assembly line, or was it the cheaper, lighter, more bendable stuff we use for cars now? If the car was not 100% identical to what would have rolled off the assembly line in 1958/1959 (since they start production in the prior year), and the frame had not been stressed in any way already (e.g. it was in an accident, etc.), then it's not a fair test as far as what the video shows.

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.

Just saying...

Re:Classic Cars

[los furtive]

They did: 09 Malibu and 59 Bel Air. RTFA and all that jazz.

Re:Classic Cars

[mweather]

Only 74,000 miles? Could have been restored.

Re:Classic Cars

[MachDelta]

You mean like this? :)

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

[nedlohs]

Must have missed out on trading it in during cash for clunkers.

Re:Classic Cars

[Schmorgluck]

What part of "74,000 milse on the odometer, which was broken" did you overlook?

Re:Classic Cars

[AigariusDebian]

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:Classic Cars

[RabidMoose]

And now, it's just a little bit rarer.

Re:Classic Cars

[Runaway1956]

Alright, I'm impressed. Very much against my will, I am impressed.

I'd still rather ride around in the '59 Belair......

Re:Classic Cars

[interkin3tic]

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

[Yvan256]

I bet it was the "which was broken" part!

If I'm the only one who bids, do I win? Like on eBay?

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Hurricane78]

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 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:Classic Cars

[Lonewolf666]

If you look at the video, that did not happen. The body stayed pretty much intact on the side away from the crash, no flying metal sheets.
The big problem was that the passenger cell did crumble, and the driver would have been squashed like a bug.

Re:Classic Cars

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

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:Classic Cars

[morari]

Actually, old cars do make me smile for having been better cars. I have a 1972 Volkswagen Super Beetle and 1977 MGB Roadster as my daily drivers. In the winter, in really bad weather, I pull out my 1965 International Scout. On nice summer days I have a Bradley GT2 built up on a 1973 Volkswagen Beetle pan.

Having owned a few modern cars, I know that these run better than anything on the road today. They're cheaper and easily to repair as well, because they were made with such thing sin mind. New cars are made to be taken to a mechanic every few months because of cheap parts and overly complicated systems. They quickly reach a point of diminishing returns, at which time they basically become disposable. Oh, and they still don't get as good of gas mileage as any of the properly tuned classics sitting in my garage.

Re:Classic Cars

[canuck57]

And no one expects a Malibu made today to last 51 years. Be lucky if it isn't in the heap by 10.

Re:Classic Cars

[bev_tech_rob]

The 59 Bel-Aire wasn't that big a classic. Now crashing a '57 would have been a crying shame!

Re:Classic Cars

[canuck57]

I just wish they showed the cars up close afterwards. While both are trashed, it's clear from the video that the A pillar just collapses on the Bel Air and the driver is probably crushed to death. Showing that (or whatever you can film) versus the still mostly intact cockpit of the Malibu would have driven the point home really well.

It isn't really a fair comparison. Years of rust, fatigue, grinding and polishing. The Bel Air is a graceful but very old lady. Then you put it against a newer Malibu is like having a 17 year old go after the 95 year old grandmother. Who do you think will win?

But in any case, pretty safe bet not many of today's Malibu vehicles, if any at all, will make it 51 years in running order. It certainly doesn't have the class.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean: 'Can save the victim of a moron.'? Because honestly the more morons we let die the better off we are. The problem is that often the morons are the one's who survive and it was the up and coming so and so with their life ahead of them who gets plowed into and dies.

Re:Classic Cars

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I'd still rather ride around in the '59 Belair......

Top tip: make sure you slide the seat back a bit! ;)

Re:Classic Cars

[internewt]

tl;dr

Re:Classic Cars

[Cramit]

They are better for doing work on yourself. I am nut sure that I believe that your classics can do better on gas-mileage versus a high-gas-mileage hybrid. The reason that they get such gas-mileage is that they are build with lighter materials then modern cars. This means that they do not stand up to impacts the same way that a modern car does. You are essentially driving a car that will seriously maim or kill you in a serious accident. I am not saying that classic cars are bad, I seriously want a late model Corvair, but I have no illusions that it is a "safe" car; but it is no more dangerous then anything else on the road at that time. Enjoy your classics, they are beautiful cars that are fun to work on and drive; but don't believe that they are better then modern cars as a daily driver.

Re:Classic Cars

[rickb928]

Keep this shit up, and we're gonna have to make nice with Cuba...

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.

Not everybody's into nostalgia, there's a reason why they don't make them anymore. Better shit came along.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the left hand (impact) side of the Malibu, I'd say it suffered considerable damage, more than just 'slight leg injury.' It's less apparent because of the door A-frame is shaped at a diagonal such that it is able to sustain more horizontal force. That doesn't prevent the engine block from smashing through the firewall and destroying everything from your shoulders downover.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the gay black Jewish klansmen are the best because who in their right minds would want to hear the incessant whining of lolita fondling emo transgendered Mongolian apotemnophiliacs? Even though they're arguably hotter, and easier, it's just not worth the pain.

Re:Classic Cars

[Rei]

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

[shiftless]

What part of "74,000 milse on the odometer, which was broken" did you overlook?

What part of "'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." did you overlook?

Re:Classic Cars

[cadeon]

As a driver, I think they need to point out that the idea is to NOT CRASH.

It all comes down to complacency. Safety items, on the vehicles and on the roads, encourages complacency. "If I stay in my lane I won't end up in an accident" - "If I follow all the rules and stop at the traffic lights I won't get in an accident"

These thoughts are fundamentally wrong. Avoiding wrecks is not a function of following the rules, it's a function of paying attention to what's going on around you, and what you're doing. Lines on the road and traffic control devices create a false sense of security and therefore encourages complacency.

I remember some studies where they removed all the lines and signs in some small towns in Europe and it resulted in many fewer accidents and an overall reduction in average driving speed. I really wish someone would try it in the US. We really need to remind our drivers that they are responsible for the safety of themselves and others.

Re:Classic Cars

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up

If you were a classic car enthusiast, you would understand the nearly pain watching this video causes. ;)

Re:Classic Cars

[Behrooz]

If you look at the video, that did not happen. The body stayed pretty much intact on the side away from the crash, no flying metal sheets.

And yet on the side of the vehicle that was involved in the crash, the driver would have died instantly. Unless you're completely confident that you can always sit on the side of the car that doesn't hit anything...

Re:Classic Cars

[Tim4444]

now they're even more rare. smile

Re:Classic Cars

[Svartalf]

No kidding. They ruined a classic car (not that I'd have painted the thing PINK like the one they ruined...but c'mon...).

Re:Classic Cars

[morari]

I'm not sure how anyone could think that modern cars are made of heavier materials. It's all plastic and fiberglass nowadays. Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It does allow for lower fuel consumption, and when properly constructed can be relatively safe, as the videos above proves. Of course, a serious car crash is going to maim or kill you no matter what you're driving. The best way to stay alive is to simply be a mindful driver, something most people are not. Just because you're not weaving in and out of traffic doesn't mean that you're being mindful either. Try watching and slowing down for those cars waiting to pull out onto the road, because you never know when they may decide to jump in front of you. Stay back off of other vehicles, and don't drive along side them in the other lane. There are millions of little things that people do to make them more prone to accidents. It's not because they are actively driving in an unsafe manner, but they are not paying attention to others who may be.

As far as general fuel economy goes, I see a typical 40-45mpg out of everything I own. That's a real number too, not some "on the highway, under best conditions" thing. Cars today have so much anti-smog junk holding them back that it robs most performance, and thus kills any kind of real fuel efficiency. I think that dependability has a lot to do with making a good daily driver, and being able to easily and affordably work on something yourself creates that kind of dependability. That said, I wouldn't claim that any car is fun to work on, some can simply be worked on without a professionally setup garage and thousands of dollars worth of overly specialized tools. ;)

Re:Classic Cars

[hawk]

>I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up.

Uhh, maybe because they destroyed a '58 Bel Air???

"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?" :(

hawk

Re:Classic Cars

[supernova_hq]

Unless you want a crumple zone.

Re:Classic Cars

[hawk]

yeah, but they paid that "couple hundred" forty-two times, and still towed it . . .

It wasn't restored, but it was restorable (like the caddy in my garage).

hawk

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I like classic cars.

Re:Classic Cars

[Cramit]

1972 Super Beetle: 1850lbs http://forum.rigsofrods.com/index.php?topic=5870.0
1977 MGB Roadster: 2416lbs http://www.mgbmga.com/tech/mgb4(2).htm
1965 International Scout: 3956lbs http://www.4wdonline.com/International/Scout.html

2008 Yaris: 2405lbs http://blogs.motortrend.com/6238178/miscellaneous/top-10-slowest-vehicles-recently-tested-by-motor-trend/index.html
2006 Mazda MX-5 2410lbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5
2009 Ford Explorer 4460lbs http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Explorer-2009/available-trims

I think these generally compare with the cars you listed. In general our cars are quite a bit heavier then you'd think. The weight is in the frame of the car and has metal to move the force of accidents around the passenger compartment, and to adsorb the force of impacts by crumpling. All of the plastic and fiberglass is in the exterior panels which have never been structural. Thanks to technology gained in recent years, people walk away from pretty impressive collisions in modern cars. The numbers show us that our cars are many times safer today then they were back in the day.

.7 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 1979 to .2 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 2001 http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/161.pdf
Over the last 10 years the number of collisions has stated fairly constant between .15 and .18 per 100 vehicles. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Re:Classic Cars

[morari]

I really wasn't trying to argue that older cars are inherently safer in a crash. Throughout both posts, I debated that other factors made so-called classics more appealing. The price tag alone would keep me away from anything new. ;)

Though here is some food for thought. Remember, the Beetle is a rear-engine vehicles, so there is no motor upfront to help absorb impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRbwTutw-Hk

Re:Classic Cars

[operagost]

That throws this entire test into doubt, then, because if it wasn't in near-showroom condition it probably had a rust-weakened frame.

Re:Classic Cars

[interkin3tic]

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. ;)

And yet I DID laugh at the thought of one of those people, AND you even included an emoticon smiling! So we've proven that his argument was right.

Re:Classic Cars

[Martin Blank]

While I'm inclined to agree with you to a point, the idea that merely being aware of what's going on will make things significantly safer is likely demonstrably false. The NHTSA reported the 2008 Traffic Safety Assessment a few months ago, and they found that both injuries and fatalities dropped on both absolute and comparative bases. The total number of fatalities dropped by 9.7%, the number of injuries dropped by 5.8%, and the rates per 100 million miles driven decreased by 6.6% and 2.4% respectively. The number of vehicle miles traveled decreased by 3.4%. I expect that these numbers will improve still more as distance-measuring and automatic-braking systems become more common in lower-priced cars. It may lead some to tailgate more, but I don't think that's going to outweigh the benefits of the systems overall.

Re:Classic Cars

[MeatBag PussRocket]

the reason newer cars are heavier isint because of the materials they're made of. compare the weight of a fender from a 1930's anything to a modern car, it weighs significantly more. the reason modern cars tend to weigh so much is because the ammount of crap (read: technology) we put in them. ABS, Climate control, power windows power locks power seats, heated seats, power mirrors, satellite navigation, surround sound system, airbags, traction control, etc etc etc etc. the list of crap we have these days that didnt exist back in 1959 is very long. all that crap takes weight, its not just the computers that run it but there are mechanical bits too. theres been extensive leaps and bounds in weight saving materials, such as aluminum heads and engine blocks, thinner glass, thinner sheet metal, fiberglass, unibody construction and so on. a modern vehicle of a given market segment gets substantially better fuel mileage than the one of yester-year. also better design has allowed for more usable interior space. most vehicles today do not HAVE a frame rather a unibody composite structure where the body panels are reinforced and connected with other panels eliminating the need for a frame. many trucks still use body on frame construction for its towing advantages and higher gross vehicle weight limits, but it is a much heavier approach.

Re:Classic Cars

[serbanp]

I remember some studies where they removed all the lines and signs in some small towns in Europe and it resulted in many fewer accidents and an overall reduction in average driving speed. I really wish someone would try it in the US. We really need to remind our drivers that they are responsible for the safety of themselves and others.

I dare them to try this in Italy! The only drivers who would survive this experiment are the ones who have their car in the repair shop...

Re:Classic Cars

[bandmassa]

This sort of thing continues to push the line that safety is not the driver's responsibility. In many parts of the world the death tolls are pretty much the same percentage as back in the fifties. People drove these old beasts more cautiously, it was harder to get a licence and it was harder to afford a car.

Now, thanks to the safer cars make safer roads mentality to infests every corner of the world, motorists have become more selfish and irresponsible. Cars are sold as racing machines, police blame victims in crashes (cyclist or pedestrian, for example) and the roads have become like something out of a prequel to Mad Max/Road Warrior.

Safer cars is only one quarter of the equation. The other 75% has to be put into making licences harder to get and keep, and making cars harder to own.

Re:Classic Cars

[MeatBag PussRocket]

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 would have offered, instead people turned in perfectly decent cars that had a ton of usable life left, cars that perhaps _would have been_ classics if there weren't siliconed to death. if you were a classic car enthusiast you'd be thankful for this video; because you know what, they dont build em like they used to and i'm damn glad for that.

Re:Classic Cars

[MeatBag PussRocket]

the idea was to compare 50 years of the IIHS 1959 to 2009... a 58 woulda defeated the purpose.

Re:Classic Cars

[10Ghz]

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

[initialE]

To be fair they only spend 0.02 cars a year. The next bel-air they destroy will be in 2059.

Re:Classic Cars

[that this is not und]

It's fairly likely that the Malibu will be as rare in 2059 as the Bel Air is now.

Re:Classic Cars

[Alex Zepeda]

Woosh. Fenders are usually bolt on affairs that have nothing to do with structural integrity. How about a more valid comparison like doors? Your 1930s door would be mostly empty, and not particularly strong. Compare a 1997 or newer door, which will likely have a giant metal tube or two running through it (what? more metal in a newer car? nooooo) for side impact protection.

Re:Classic Cars

[xaxa]

I remember some studies where they removed all the lines and signs in some small towns in Europe and it resulted in many fewer accidents and an overall reduction in average driving speed. I really wish someone would try it in the US. We really need to remind our drivers that they are responsible for the safety of themselves and others.

That's not really an experiment, but it is combining several bits of standard practise onto one road.

I found a report by a traffic engineer about a road I use. It annoyed me that there are lines of cars parked along both sides, leaving room only for a single file of traffic (oncoming traffic has to wait). The parking was allowed because it slows the cars down, and turned a previously fast road in a residential area, where there had been a few accidents, into a slower, safer one.

Most residential roads don't have centre lines, and are quite narrow.

In general there are less signs than in the USA, but in some cases markings on the road take their place. E.g. a "mini roundabout" is used where Americans would find a four-way stop. It's just a big (2m) white dot in the middle of the junction, but it means you must yield to the left like on a normal roundabout.

Re:Classic Cars

[Fred_A]

As a driver, I think they need to point out that the idea is to NOT CRASH.

It all comes down to complacency. Safety items, on the vehicles and on the roads, encourages complacency. "If I stay in my lane I won't end up in an accident" - "If I follow all the rules and stop at the traffic lights I won't get in an accident"

These thoughts are fundamentally wrong.

On the other hand, since other drivers actually expect you (unless they've been around you for a while and know better by now) to follow the rules, following them actually *does* reduce the risks, or at least the level of stress all around by at least making you predictable.

"Oh, there's a traffic light, that guy is going to stop... well probably... I guess."

Re:Classic Cars

[David Gerard]

Reading TFA, they paid $8500 and made sure the engine and frame were in good order.

Re:Classic Cars

[BarMonger]

Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.

Why would they pointlessly ruin a 2009 Malibu? In 3 months, it's not like they make those anymore.

Re:Classic Cars

[mgblst]

As a driver, I think they need to point out that the idea is to NOT CRASH.
You are a fucking idiot.

This is one aspect of education for people. This isn't the only thing they are doing. Or do you think they should only do one thing???

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

> A tank is useless if in a 30 mph crash the engine flys off inside and kills all the crew.

Not quite. Russian tank crews regularly ram T-72/T-80 tanks at speed into iron and concrete reinforced double brick walls headfirst. The gunbarrel needs a bit of aligning or even replacement afterwards, but they feel it is important to train the crew in advance, so they know in war roadsign is where the bird flies. Tank crews in combat often drive totally blind, covering the periscopes with sheet armour grille to protect against against shrapnel damage or laser blinding. Not much can stop an 50ton plus, 1000hp plus tank anyhow, they just crush obstacles. They seldom run into a 110-ton diesel locomotive or bulk carrier cargo ship.

Re:Classic Cars

[Krneki]

Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.

Because there are still idiots who believe heavier is safer.

Troll disclaimer

Yes it still gives you an advantage, but the technology gives you more.

Re:Classic Cars

[eam]

I remember some studies where they removed all the lines and signs in some small towns in Europe and it resulted in many fewer accidents and an overall reduction in average driving speed. I really wish someone would try it in the US.

Come drive in Philadelphia, PA. It wasn't intentional, but they've allowed most of the lines to fade away completely due to lack of maintenance. I don't think you'll find it has caused the drivers to become more careful.

Re:Classic Cars

[indy_Muad'Dib]

the test was set up.

the frame had been precut so it would be more dramatic

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

In the photos you can clearly see rust all over the place and during the accident there is even more. Doesn't seem all that solid to me.

Not that I disagree with the results. There are many European TV shows that have done lots of tests like this (usually with 70's or 80's cars against a modern car).

Re:Classic Cars

[cadeon]

I wasn't saying that safety devices on cars are bad- they certainly do save lives as your numbers show. But the traffic control devices do very little (or nothing) to help prevent accidents, which preventing wrecks is one of the primary reasons they exist.

Re:Classic Cars

[MtViewGuy]

This test showed that automakers now use the research originally developed for Indy open-wheel racers in the 1960's--you need a way to dissipate the energy of the crash. Note that by the late 1970's when an Indy racer hit the wall, all those body parts flying away from the point of impact served to absorb the energy force of the crash. By the early 1970's, companies like Mercedes-Benz and Volvo designed their cars so the engine compartment and trunk areas would crumple deliberately, dissipating the energy of the crash to reduce the impact force on the passengers.

Re:Classic Cars

[cadeon]

The road in front of my house is two lanes, probably 10m wide total, with banked turns, reflective lines and signs indicating where the turns are. The speed limit is 40 mph, though I've personally seen 70 as they go by.

The road was rebuilt about 10 years ago to these specifications because it was considered to be dangerous - it was made wider, banked more, and marked better to help reduce the accidents.

In the last six months, there have been two collisions in front of my house- one car v car and another car v tree- that one was due to excessive speed and resulted in three deaths.

The idea that roads can be made safer by widening them and adding lines and signs is wrong, in most cases. And unfortunately, it seems to be the typical response to dangerous roads in the US. If driving is mildly difficult, people will pay more attention and not hit things as often

Re:Classic Cars

[brackishboy]

But don't you think those old cars have a certain something that makes them worth taking care of? I drive a 2000 Mitsubishi Colt (Mirage for all you 'Merkins) and I seriously doubt that in forty years time there will be a single one left. Not because it isn't perfectly good as a method of getting to where you want to go; more because it wasn't designed in the same mindset as that '59 Bel Air. It's a white good- 3 1/2 metres of car. The Bel Air was sold on the buyers' aspirations- my Colt was sold because the first owner preferred it to riding the bus to work.

Re:Classic Cars

[brackishboy]

In West Philidelphia?

Re:Classic Cars

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

It's fairly likely that the Malibu will be as rare in 2059 as the Bel Air is now.
Yes, but will anybody want one in 2059? Just checkout the Barrett Jackson Auto auctions to see how much desire there is for the 1959 Bel Air.

Re:Classic Cars

[AndersOSU]

Removing traffic control devises only works in areas with slow (~10mph) driving, like really congested city centers and parking lots.

If you want to travel at speed, you need lane markings, traffic lights, and road signs. We all know that it's not 100% certain that you won't be T-boned going through a light that's been green for 35 seconds, but we prefer to take that chance, rather than driving everywhere at the same speed horses travel.

Re:Classic Cars

[10Ghz]

But don't you think those old cars have a certain something that makes them worth taking care of?[/quote]

Just about all old items have certain value in them, even if that value is not monetary. But again: for every "great item" from the past, there's dozens of items not worth a damn.

[quote]I drive a 2000 Mitsubishi Colt (Mirage for all you 'Merkins) and I seriously doubt that in forty years time there will be a single one left.[/quote]

And there were lots of crappy cars in the fifties that are more or less vanished from the face of the planet. So what's your point?

Besides, in 50 years your Mitsubishi Colt would also be a rare car, and that rarity would also make it valuable.

Re:Classic Cars

[AndersOSU]

You'll notice that the odometer on the Bel Aire broke at 74000 miles, so I'm not sure you want to spend too much time talking up the reliability of a '50s era car. Yes, the odometer isn't essential (unless you want to sell it) but when minor things break, it's a sign of overall workmanship.

On the other hand, when the '50s era car breaks down it's easier to fix than a modern car. But cars aren't more complicated just for the sake of it, computer controlled fuel injection is BETTER than a carburetor. We all know that american car makers had serious quality issues starting in the late 70s, but an American car today will present you with far fewer problems than an antique - and if you do have problems they're likely to be cheaper to fix due mostly to the fact that parts for 50 year old cars are hard to come by.

Re:Classic Cars

[AndersOSU]

I understand the sentiment, but the 1999 2WD explorer wasn't ever going to be a classic.

Re:Classic Cars

[MonsterTrimble]

Even if the odometer was broken the 250 (Don't call it a 3.9 liter - it was NEVER called a 3.9 liter. Nobody calls a 426 Hemi a 6.6 liter) was good to easily double that. The inline sixes of that era (Especially Chrysler's slant six) while not high on the horsepower* they ran forever. You had to pretty much run them out of oil while redlining to truly kill them.

* The inline sixes were actually good performers on the continents. Australia had a '72 Hemi 6 barrel inline 6 which was the fastest production car on the continent for something like 30 years.

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

These thoughts are fundamentally wrong. Avoiding wrecks is not a function of following the rules, it's a function of paying attention to what's going on around you, and what you're doing. Lines on the road and traffic control devices create a false sense of security and therefore encourages complacency.

Thank you.

It's been more than 20 years, but I still remember the first 15 minuts of my first class of driving instruction.

Instructor: "Now here we have a picture of an intersection with a stop light. Your car has stopped for a red light, which has now turned green. To your right, there's an oother car is approaching a red light. Is it safe to go?"
Some kid in class: "Yes."
Instructor: "No."
Kid: "No, you've got the green, he's got the red?"
Instructor: "So?"
Kid: "He's supposed to stop."
Instructor: "What makes the other car stop?"
Kid: "The red light."
Instructor: "Red lights and stop signs don't stop traffic." Kid: "Huh?"
Instructor: "The car's brakes make it stop. The red light is just a suggestion. If he's not paying attention, he might not even see the red light. If he's in a hurry, he might just run it. If it's that annoying part of the morning/evening rush hour where the sun is perfectly aligned in his face - like it is on XYZ Street, which was laid out like that deliberately so that the merchants on both side of our fine town's main drag wouldn't have their storefronts in shadow during winter - he might be trying so hard not to look at the light that he didn't notice it go from green to yellow. Doesn't matter. Red lights don't stop cars. Brakes do. When you see him start to slow down, it might be safe to proceed."

That little bit of wisdom - red lights don't stop cars - has saved me from at least three side impacts over the years, and at least once from being run over as a pedestrian. 9,999 times out of 10,000, they do, but if you stop at enough red lights over your lifetime (and you will), you'll encounter the exception to the rule. A p=0.0001 event is a certainty if you drive far enough.

Re:Classic Cars

[Civil_Disobedient]

the idea was to compare 50 years of the IIHS 1959 to 2009

They could have done it LAST YEAR.

Re:Classic Cars

[swillden]

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 modern vehicle is designed to collapse, dissipating the force of the collision so that the cage stays intact, as seen in the video.

Add to that the fact that the crumple zones allow a more gradual deceleration of the passenger compartment, reducing the forces applied to the passengers, plus safety belts to keep the passengers inside that protective cage and reduce their collisions with the steering wheel/dash/seats in front of them, plus air bags to further cushion those collisions. Yes, 50 years of research into automotive safety has made collisions much more survivable.

Now if only we'd made similar improvements in the safety of *drivers*...

Re:Classic Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a classic car enthusiast, you would understand the nearly pain watching this video causes. ;)

If you were an English enthusiast, you would understand the nearly pain reading this sentence causes.

Re:Classic Cars

[drsquare]

I remember some studies where they removed all the lines and signs in some small towns in Europe and it resulted in many fewer accidents and an overall reduction in average driving speed. I really wish someone would try it in the US. We really need to remind our drivers that they are responsible for the safety of themselves and others.

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

[MeatBag PussRocket]

the IIHS wasnt around in 1958 2009 is their 50 year anniversary. need a calculator?

Re:Classic Cars

[MeatBag PussRocket]

probably but you just dont know. look at the edsel.

Re:Classic Cars

[Civil_Disobedient]

That's what I get for not reading the article and going straight to the video.

Re:Classic Cars

[Azghoul]

Just out of curiosity, what light, agile, well-built car would you buy to transport 3 young kids given the rules about car seats?

Because I'd rather not by a 3-row SUV like the Traverse or Highlander, but I don't see any other good option, other than not having kids, and that's a pretty shitty one.

Re:Classic Cars

[silverspell]

"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

[EvilBudMan]

Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's worth much. The article said the Bel-Air had the 6 cylinder in it. I wonder how the V8 would have done? One of the big things though is generally if the older car took a small lick, it would be easier to fix. Now, with bumpers covered in plastic, it's not so easy. Just 5 miles an hour can be very costly, but I guess it's worth it if it saves lives in the higher impact scenario.

Re:Classic Cars

[hurfy]

No doubt.

I believe my old '55 Ford could run over anything with barely a scratch. However...with a hard steering wheel(with nice metal center cap), a steel dashboard, a slick bench seat, and no restraints the ride may not be too much fun! At the very least you have a FORD impression in your forehead for the next year :O

Anything you hit had better be the object to give way

Re:Classic Cars

[spun]

That's right. Meddling government regulators have never done anything good. These 'crumple zones' are not for our safety. They are actually amplifiers for the Major League Baseball mind control beams. But you sheeple go on purchasing your new cars with your 'crumple zones' and 'better gas mileage' and 'superior handling.' I'll be safe in my classic Ford Pinto.

Re:Classic Cars

[JWSmythe]

    What roads do you drive on? I look at every vehicle on the road as a potential hazard. Just this week, I could have been in a dozen accidents from other drivers not following the rules (like obvious ones like you don't drive through a red light, or stay in your lane). Not that I'm an accident magnet, I'm just driving in a particularly stupid part of town this week. It has a higher accident rate than most places I go.

   

Re:Classic Cars

[yurtinus]

"Built like a tank" -- Perhaps. I don't doubt at a lower speed, the Malibu would be crumpled to hell and the Bel Aire would suffer some scratches in the chrome. But, once your speed gets high enough you reach the point where regardless of how strong the steel is, it's still going to bust and bend. *This* is where the safety engineering of new cars comes into play, rather than pushing for strength, you design to disperse that energy around the occupants.

There's definitely a tradeoff here, the older more rigid body on frame designs are likely going to better handle a low speed collision and still drive away. The tradeoff is once you cross that threshold, an energy dispersing crumpling design is much more likely to let *you* walk away. We design for the big ones even though it means sacrificing the car in a minor accident.

I love a classic car as much as the next guy (probably more than a lot of the next guys :P ), and I'd cruise around in one in a heartbeat-- but it wouldn't be because I felt more safe in a large car like that. Appreciate the classics for what they are, it doesn't mean you can't appreciate modern engineering.

Re:Classic Cars

[Chrisje]

Old cars making us smile tells me we're stupid in many ways. I'm not a complete stranger to nostalgia, but the technology the old cars stand for is repulsive in my eyes. The 59 Bel Air should be in a museum for those that are interested in the vehicle, but all other units should be scrapped and recycled. You don't want them on the roads, at any rate.

Re:Classic Cars

[thexile]

Loosen up grandpa, It's just for fun!

Re:Classic Cars

[FuturePastNow]

Not many '59 Bel Airs made it 51 years in running order. Certainly no one in 1959 expected them to last that long.

Re:Classic Cars

[LeadSongDog]

Why would the pointlessly ruin a 1959 Belair? It's not like they make those anymore.

To prove that given 50 years, even GM can learn a few things?

Re:Classic Cars

[hrimhari]

Nonsense, they already ignore the signs anyway!

Re:Classic Cars

[Chirs]

The Mazda 5 has three rows but is smaller than the SUVs you mentioned. The back seat is a bit tricky for some carseats, but it can be (and has been) done.

Re:Classic Cars

[daremonai]

Russian tank crews regularly ram T-72/T-80 tanks at speed into iron and concrete reinforced double brick walls headfirst.

Yep, vodka'll do that to you.

Re:Classic Cars

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm not sure why I do that, but I do have tendency to omit words - I usually catch it on preview though. I considered posting to correct it, but ultimately figured that the point was made regardless -- it wasn't worth having to wait five minutes on the page to be able to make the post.

Re:Classic Cars

[toddestan]

The 1959 Bel Air is a comparatively simple machine. A competent machinist who possesses some mechanical ability and knows a few things about cars could keep it running forever. I really can't say the same about modern cars, with their exotic materials, complex electronics, parts machined to an extreme tolerances, control systems locked down with DRM, amongst other things. No matter how much you would want to keep it running, at some point something will break on it that you simply can't fix, and once you can no longer get spare parts for it by cannibalizing other vehicles then you're pretty much done.

Re:Classic Cars

[toddestan]

You never know. Plenty of people enjoy restored cars that were extremely common back in their day. Perhaps even more so, if they actually owned that model years ago. I've been rather surprised at some of the restored early 80's cars I've started to see driving around.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>IIHS doesn't consider it pointless to demonstratably show how far we've come since they started improving vehicle safety way back when.

Why not burn a Renaissance painting to show how far art supplies have come?

Or is that different somehow?

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>Just out of curiosity, what light, agile, well-built car would you buy to transport 3 young kids given the rules about car seats?

I don't know, but there have been discovered some simple and effective methods to prevent reproduction. Would you like information on that?

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>I bet same thing applies to modern cars in 50 years.

DRM means they can basically be expired.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>At the very least you have a FORD impression in your forehead for the next year :O

Yes, the dashboard of a '59 Chevy is not something you'd want to eat. I always had this awareness when I was driving mine that the bezel over the speedometer would easily decapitate me. I knew from rebuilding it, that the steering wheel didn't have any kind of steel core and would break and so the fear was not unfounded...

I understand that some '59s had lap belts but that it was an option only in the 2-door and 4-door with post models, but not on convertibles and hardtops ("hardtop" being the popular sedan model that has no post between the front and back doors, which made for a *very* neat effect, especially with the curved glass.)

I miss that car, but I don't miss it being my only transportation.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>Having owned a few modern cars, I know that these run better than anything on the road today.

As a VW enthusiast, I will chime in. I've had gas mileage in the mid 20s on various beetles, low 20s on my Kombi, and a quarter mile in 2.8 gallons in my '66 Type 3 ;-)

But whenever any VW (I've had 7 different Aircooled VWs) was my main transportation, and I drove a rental or any other late model, unthrashed car, I'd have to describe the experience as "embarrassingly nice." And if you keep your foot out of it, these cars will do much better in gas mileage, and if you really look at the emissions on a 1600 Type I or whatever, it's not honest to say it's superior.

I sold my last VW (a 61 custom Kombi, which I really miss) after I got my Volvo. So now my daily driver and only vehicle is a '91 Volvo with about 245,000 miles on it. It doesn't run like new, but it runs exactly like it did with 100,000 miles on it, and that is to say it more than gets the job done. I've seen VW crashes and I've seen Volvo crashes and I don't have any problem making the choice, BTW.

Plus, I live in Arizona and now I think of Air Conditioning as something essential, and the ability to accelerate to 85-90 while going 70 is pretty useful, it turns out.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>I'm not sure how anyone could think that modern cars are made of heavier materials. It's all plastic and fiberglass nowadays.

I think you'd be surprised at how much steel is in your "plastic/fiberglass" car and where it is found.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>Uhh, maybe because they destroyed a '58 Bel Air???

Actually, that would have been much more easy to accept.

The 59 model year is particularly desirable. 58 and 60, not so much.

On the other hand, BelAir's and Biscaynes are basically regarded as parts cars for Impalas.

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>They shoulda used a 1958 model, considered to be the only non-classic late fifties Chevy.

It's true. There are clubs and whole shows devoted to 57, and almost as many 54-55-56 clubs and events.

'59 stands alone, '60 was an attempt to produce the same design without the expensive labor.

In '61 it wasn't cool to get a sedan, you'd have been trading your '57 on a Corvette. I'd love to seem them crash test a '61 Corvette against a 2010 Corvette. (The 2010 Vette would be the cheaper of the two.)

Re:Classic Cars

[fishbowl]

>The other 75% has to be put into making licences harder to get and keep, and making cars harder to own.

In much of the U.S., you'd have to redesign cities, which have developed around individual transportation. I have a feeling there'd be some pushback on that.

Re:Classic Cars

[smithmc]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing this up.

Then you have no soul.

Ah, if we don't share your particular fetish for old stuff, we have no soul. Check.

Re:Classic Cars

[Spock627corfu]

Basically saw this in life a couple of years ago -- left front collision between Big Old Boat and Little New Midsize thing. Nobody wore seat belts. Midsize passengers were walking around, talking on their phones, etc., etc., due to crumple zones and airbags. Old Boat driver had two broken ankles and a probably concussion; Old Boat passenger was ejected, and I think things did not end well for him. I second the motion: Modern cars are safer by miles.

Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Eevee]

All I can say is "You bastards! You murdered a car with tail fins! Have you no heart?

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Eudial]

The brown car had such an angry mouth, so it was probably not a very nice car. But the gray car looked friendlier.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[K. S. Kyosuke]

As it had no Batphone, it would make a pretty lame Batmobile, don't you think?

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Matey-O]

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

[tomhudson]

they wanted a car that was structurally sound but not a trailer queen. It drove in under it's own power...an inline 6

They went out of their way to avoid the engines colliding, because those inline 6 engines weigh a LOT. The video shows a front-left-fender vs front-left-fender collision. In a direct head-on crash, the Chevy's engine and transmission would cream the Malibus' much lighter engine/transaxle.

For this reason, the video is bogus.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[MachDelta]

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:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[DG]

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

[poopdeville]

They went out of their way to avoid the engines colliding, because those inline 6 engines weigh a LOT. The video shows a front-left-fender vs front-left-fender collision. In a direct head-on crash, the Chevy's engine and transmission would cream the Malibus' much lighter engine/transaxle.

I am calling bull. Even though I agree that the Bel-Air's drivetrain is heavy. Why? Because the Bel-Air's frame failed, and let the drive train substantially deform the cabin in this test. This means, specifically, that the Malibu engaged the engine mechanically, during the course of the collision.

It is pretty clear that the Bel-Air's cabin is going to suffer a lot more damage than the Malibu's. Even in a fully head on collision.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[davidphogan74]

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:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

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, and cause the drivetrain parts to intrude upon the cabin, like the Bel-Air's engine did in this test.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[s73v3r]

Maybe it was the car from Project Satan

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[dangitman]

I love it how you claim that a test by an organization with 5 decades of experience doing this is "bogus" just because of your uninformed "intuition" about old cars.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

'09 Malibu vs '59 Bel, fine, but that wasn't an air crash test. ::Disappointed::

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[gmhowell]

You are truly a master. It's not even Tuesday.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

How often do two vehicles on the highway hit each other dead-center head on?

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 concrete).

Want to make it realistic? Then you simply won't be having a 1959 Chevy Bel-Air vs a 2009 Malibu. But if you're going to do the comparison, make it a fair, head-to-head, contest.

Also, unit-body construction (the Malibu) won't last 50 years in most climates - there's no real frame - the sheet metal will have deteriorated too much by then, whereas the Bel-Air, with a separate frame, was at least drivable. It's one reason why you see more older pickups than cars.

As others pointed out, they also cherry-picked the Bel-Air as probably the worst car of its' era.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

In a head-to-head, the Malibu is going to fair a lot worse than it did. I'm NOT arguing that the Bel-Air will come out a winner - just that the Malibu is going to have to absorb much more energy that, in the corner-to-corner, was dissipated by the Bel-air twisting itself to death. Sure, the bel-air will still disintegrate - but the engine and transmission will no longer be off to one side, outside the impact zone, helping to pull the bel-air apart - they'll be free - literally flying free - since the engine mounts will fail early in the accident - and they'll continue right into the Malibu.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[confused one]

1. That simulates a more realistic crash with a worst case result -- full impact absorbed by driver side
2. The 6 doesn't weight more than the alternative, a v8
3. I have, unfortunately, been in a head on crash in a car with an inline 6. I can tell you that the 3 point mount fails -- the engine tears free of the frame.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

No question about it, the engine thrashing about in an offset collision did a lot of damage. Of course, since the engine/transmission would be similarly free of any engine mounts in a head-to-head, but NOT being torqued sideways by an offset collision, a lot more energy would be directed to the Malibu instead of being diverted into helping disintegrate the Bel-air.

A realistic test would require a time machine - go forward into the future and find a 50-year-old Malibu. Of course, one of the problems with unit-body construction is that it's dependent on the shape and strength of the sheet-metal, and the continued integrity of the spot welds - there's no real frame. A 50-year-old Malibu, if you could get it to start, just might fail catastrophically at the first speed bump.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[poopdeville]

Yeah, except none of that is going to happen. Put conservation of energy and conservation of momentum together, and you will see why. We already saw the Bel-Air's engine cram itself up inside the Bel-Air's cabin, at least enough to sever a person's legs. The Malibu clearly engaged the Bel-Air's engine mechanically, or else the "driver" wouldn't have had his legs cut off.

Cars always do better head on than in offset crashes. Each side's crumple zone has to deal with half as much force.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

Thanks, and glad to see you around :-)

The comparison is a bit weird - if we're going to do a head-to-head comparison, at least make the collision head-to-head. Sure, let the Bel-air engine rip free of its' mounts, but instead of twisting around in the engine compartment and ending up in the front seat of the Bel-air, let it continue forward and pole-axe the Malibu, same as an old pickup truck engine would. In those older cars, a head-on collision was safer than a corner one - the engine would absorb a lot of the energy - just don't get impaled by the non-collapsible steering column.

Besides, does anyone believe the Malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? Once the rot sets into a unibody, there's no saving it. You can't just weld some reinforcement into a cracked frame - there IS no frame.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

The old inline 6 was HEAVY - a lot heavier than today's engines. Cast iron weighs a lot, and they weren't trying to save weight by making engines lighter back then.

Sure, the engine will be flying free - but in a head-on, it won't be torqued sideways and tear the bel-air apart - it will be going forward into the malibu.

And do you believe that the malibu will even be drivable in 50 years? As the ads used to say, "This isn't your grandfather's Oldsmobile." Good chance the airbas won't work (most people don't even know that airbags have an expiry date).

The "test" is pure publicity. A stunt. Sure, cars are safer today - but it took decades of educating the public to DEMAND safer cars. It's not like GM wanted to make them safer, just like it's not like GM wanted to make more fuel-efficient cars. Of course, now we have cars that need $3k in repairs after a 7mph bump, to replace a bunch of plastic and styrofoam ...

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

A 3-digit UID?

So, what was the Big Bang like?

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it was a publicity stunt. There's no safety reason to publish a crash test with a 50-year-old car. However, for the Institute's 50th anniversary it makes a nice contrast to show how unsafe cars really were 50 years ago. Lots of people look at $3k repair bills for minor fender-benders and think it would have been nice to drive an old all-steel car like they used to have.

Don't forget, that $3k bumper absorbed all that energy so your head didn't have to. The car could have stayed perfectly intact and your face could have just hit the steering wheel at 7mph.

And remember, it's not like the public really asked for safe cars. Have you ever noticed that whenever somebody mentions a '57 car, it's always a '57 Chevy -- never a Ford? It's because in 1957, Ford sold safety, while GM sold cars. Ford touted how much safer their cars were, but nobody cared because they wanted the fancy styling of the Chevies. By 1957 most cars had optional seatbelts, but only a tiny percentage of people actually bothered to pay for them, and fewer still used them. It's actually the government that has forced us to demand safer cars (by requiring safety features like crumple zones, air bags, etc.)!

dom

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Lothsahn]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You're rambling. And trying too hard not to be wrong. Time to stop. The engineers might know a little more than you.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[confused one]

The inline isn't that heavy. I've picked them up a couple of times -- literally picked up the block with my bare hands. sure, it's lighter than the aluminum blocks they're using now.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that a head-on is the most likely scenario. It's not. If you do end up in a direct head on collision, the inline 6 would have hit the transverse mounted 4 near it's strongest point, the "rear" mounting flange where the tranmission bolts to it.
A 2009 Malibu is just as likely to be on the road in 50 years as a 1959 Chevy is today. There aren't that many of them. Most of those that are out there (the '59) honestly don't have many original parts in them. Airbags are less troublesome than some other parts, like the plastic used in the intake.
Of course it's a publicity stunt. They said so. Why are you compaining the cars are safer?

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[AK Marc]

They did the test that way, not because they were rigging it, but because that's their standard offset crash test. It was done to simulate their crashes. The NHTSA did full-frontal crashes against a stationary barrier for years, and the IIHS called bullshit on that test. And the IIHS was right and the government was wrong. This test is a recreation of the offset crash test. That's much more likely to happen in the real world, and much harder on the cars.

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.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it how you claim that a test by an organization with 5 decades of experience doing this is "bogus" just because of your uninformed "intuition" about old cars.

That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of this exercise is to validate their 5 decades of existence. I doubt "all modern cars" would have done so well as the Malibu and there are very likely numerous embarrassing examples that they were able to avoid choosing with their grand experience in the field of crash testing. I'm not saying they're wrong or that the testing is useless, just that it could still easily be bogus.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tomhudson]

The head and manifold is where the manufacturers have made big weight savings - cast iron weighs a lot more than today's heads and manifolds.

Both a full-on head-to-head and the corner-to-corner are classified as "head-on" for statistical purposes, and combined only represent 2% of all accidents. [citation].

The most likely accident scenario is a rear impact - 29.6%, followed by side and at-an-angle (T-bone) impacts at 28.9% The type of collision shown represents only 2% of all collisions. You're more likely to hit an animal than to have an accident like the one shown in the video.

And the accident contributing the most fatalities? Single cars accidents where the car runs off the road and hits something/someone. But that just doesn't make for a good video.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[interkin3tic]

How often do two vehicles on the highway hit each other dead-center head on?

It happens with pretty high frequency when I see someone in the oncoming lane with a stupid vanity plate.

Friends don't let friends put plates on their cars that say things like "swinga."

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[MeatBag PussRocket]

the point of the crash test is not to determine which car would last 50 years, its obvious that a unibody car wont likely last, but the point is to show how much safer the new cars are tahn the old ones.

i disagree that a head on collision would benifet the bel-air. the frame has already failed in this test and as you can see there is already engine to engine contact, in wich the malibus motor doesnt move significantly. the motor mounts in the malibu are obviously much stronger and rather than getting 'pole-axed' the engine would not abosrb the energy but become a projectile into the passenger compartment.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[dangitman]

I doubt "all modern cars" would have done so well as the Malibu

Of course, but that doesn't mean the Bel-Air would do in better in those tests, just that a less safe modern car would do worse. In fact, the Bel-Air would likely come off worse against a less-safe car, as the safer car is also absorbing the impact to the benefit of the Bel-Air.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[squizzar]

I thought the corner-to-corner strike, like the one in the video, was considered the most lethal. You have all the momentum of both cars, but going through a much more concentrated area. Rear end, head to head, even t-bone impacts surely dissipate the force over a much wider area of the car body. I would guess that driving into a post is also one of the nastier accidents to have. Also, when you're heading down one of those secondary local roads, what is the most likely way for you to hit another car? Probably someone drifting over into your lane because they're asleep or texting or something. Driver side, corner to corner impact, just like the video.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[gmhowell]

I read some while at work, but rarely post any longer.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[tehcyder]

And yes, though never employed as such, I have taken classes in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction.

No, you have to say IANATEOAR here.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[jellomizer]

Did you watch the video? They were not not dead-center front end. They were left half vs. right Half. Like one car was driving in the middle of the road.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it how you claim that a test by an organization with 5 decades of experience doing this is "bogus" just because of your uninformed "intuition" about old cars.

While I totally agree with the the idea that safety engineering has improved greatly in the last fifty years, I have to object to the "5 decades of experience" being some sort of qualification.

It could mean "wisdom and a vast body of technical knowledge and history to draw on" but it could just as easily mean "old, inflexible, obsolete, and stuck in ancient, restrictive dogma".

Also, let's double the speed of the test to realistic highway numbers -- I bet both cars would be reduced to blizzards of flying sheet metal bits. Or what if the Malibu was hit by a transport truck? Is the IIHS doing everything to advance car safety that they can? Or, is "that's not how we do things" getting in the way at this point?

The company I work for has reached a level where dogma and red tape make it impossible to progress. It takes six months to get all access credentials straightened out if you switch between two similar jobs. And we're less than half of the IIHS' age.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[elrous0]

Ma'am, we have some good news and some bad news for you. The good news is that the engine in your husband's car is just fine...

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[LWATCDR]

I will explain it for you as a car fan.
1. This test was a show. Not useful science came from it. It has zero safety value.
2. Does anybody really think that cars have not gotten safer in the past 50 years? I am sure that there are some but they are the same kind of folks that fear wifi, western nuclear power plants, and black helicopters so no proof will show them any different they also think seat belts are dangerous because they want to be "thrown clear of the wreck".
3. Head on wrecks are extremely rare. Which it so totally true and of very limited value for safety testing. Off set hits happen a lot more often.
4. It wasted a very restoreable car for nothing. That car could have been restored are made into a very nice street rod. The frame and body panels where in good shape. It was a huge waste for nothing but a dog and pony show. You may not like street rods but for some people that is their creative outlet. They drive them very few miles a year so the fact they they don't get great mileage really doesn't hurt anything. Odds are they burn less gas a year than a snowmobile, jetski, or average fishing boat so the environmental impact is very low and the joy they give to their creators and fans is pretty high.
So yes this test was bogus because it had zero value. It was an advertisement and nothing else.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[Kagato]

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

[Cornflake917]

You assume that neither driver would have slowed down a bit before they saw the oncoming car. I wouldn't be surprised if a 80 mph difference is typical when dealing with head on collisions on the highway.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[dangitman]

2. Does anybody really think that cars have not gotten safer in the past 50 years?

From reading this slashdot thread, apparently so.

4. It wasted a very restoreable car for nothing. That car could have been restored are made into a very nice street rod.

And what would be the point of that? Expending time and effort to put a wasteful vehicle on the road that wastes space for show, when it could be recycled to make something useful?

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[LtGordon]

I think you're missing the point. If the IIHS wanted to quantitatively figure out which car would score better in a crash test, they would have destroyed another dozen '59 Bel Air's by putting them through the modern crash testing process and then compared results with the Malibu.

The point wasn't purely scientific, however. The point was to do exactly what they've done: get press coverage, mind-share, and some recognition for the improvements in automotive safety that would likely not have occurred without a regulatory shove in the right direction.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[fishbowl]

No kidding. 59 Impala/BelAir/Biscaynes are pretty rare and really highly sought after cars in any condition.
I had a 59 Impala in the 80s, and even though I participated in quite a few Chevy enthusiast activities, I never saw another car with the same options as mine, and I saw a *lot* of 59's. Lots more 60's. The 59's had bit of late-blooming popularity -- they sold well after they dropped the price. So they simplified the construction for 60, where they stamped out the sheet metal on machines instead of hand shaping. It's quite an obvious, stark contrast to look at a 59 and a 60 Chevy side by side.

Anyway I'm pretty sure this is my all-time favorite car (maybe the 1973 Buick Riveria is a tie). I hate to see one destroyed, but somebody obviously doesn't mind taking a stack of 1000 dollar bills, setting it on fire, filming it and putting it on the internet. That's all I see here.

Re:Speaking as a non-car-freak

[LWATCDR]

"And what would be the point of that? Expending time and effort to put a wasteful vehicle on the road that wastes space for show, when it could be recycled to make something useful?"
Enjoyment and expression.
No different than people that "waste" resources painting pictures, playing video games, buying big screen TVs and home theaters, or going on vacation.
Just because you do not enjoy it doesn't make it a waste. Customs, street rods, and restoring old cars are a hobby for some people. They will spend years restoring old cars to be perfect right down to the owners manual and the jack in the trunk. They enjoy doing it. Same with custom cars and street rods. They will tend to drive them very few miles a year and for customs and street rods they will often replace the engine with a modern engine that meets modern emissions standards. restored cars will keep the original engine but will be used for very few miles a year so the total emissions will probably be the same as a riding lawn mower.
They are no more of a waste than any other hobby. Think of all the poor people that could get food if all the money "wasted" on video games was used to feed the poor? Or the money wasted on cable TV?
Just because it isn't your hobby doesn't mean that it lacks value. Actually you should go to a custom car show and take a look at the craftsmanship that goes into one of those cars.
While I am not a big fan of customs I can still recognize the effort and skill that goes into it.

the wunnerful 50's, not

[Ancient_Hacker]

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:the wunnerful 50's, not

[GRH]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, back in the 50's we didn't need all these fancy crumple zones, seat belts and air bags. Men were real men. Hell, I'll bet you dollars to donuts any man from the 50's driving that Bel-Air would have jumped right out of that wreck to help the crying sissy-boy with a cut lip driving that Malibu.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[SoCalChris]

My first car was a 57 Ford Custom 300 (Full size sedan). This was in 1995. The bumpers were massive and thick steel, and were bolted directly to the frame, nothing that a strong toddler could bend.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably right. But the steering wheel impaled through Fifties Guy's gut would slow him down a bit. Wow, those old steering columns were nasty.

He still would have toughed it out, though, and called 09-guy a whiner.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Joce640k]

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

[value_added]

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.

That's a feature! ;-)

Seriously, though, there's still something to be said for older cars that don't require $1000 worth of work to fix a bumper damaged in a 15mph collision.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[afidel]

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.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[anagama]

Yeah, it makes sense that an old tank destroy an old smaller car. But as you mention, modern cars protect better in bad crashes. Thing is, we don't get to choose our accidents so I'd choose a modern car for any crash. Besides, even in small crashes there is more than one collision going -- the one between the cars, and the one between the occupants and the interior of their cars. Modern cars do better at creating a box that isn't crushed and protecting occupants from slamming up against the inside of that box.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[poopdeville]

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

[drinkypoo]

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.

I'm in love with the big body benzes, it dulls my senses...

Also known as, there is a happy middle ground: The Mercedes-Benz W126. There's a TON of room, and you could buy one and have the engine of your choice swapped in for less than buying a new car anywhere near as nice. I mention this because I want to keep them out of the scrap yard; I drive a 300SD (a diesel W126) and I like being able to get cheap body and chassis parts.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[anagama]

Modern car crash: $1000 for bumper and $0.10 for bandaid, total: $1000.10

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+

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[4D6963]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 50s, Life was cheap and steel was expensive. They built cars you could abuse and expect to keep for a few decades. Now, we think life is dear and steel is cheap, so we build cars as sacrificial or ablative structures to protect the occupant. You can walk away from a stunningly high-energy collision in a modern car, but you can total the car by looking at it cross-eyed.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[interkin3tic]

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.

The lesson here is clear: only run a red light if there is NOT a classic car waiting to go.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Comatose51]

Ah yes the good old 50's, when men were men and women were property.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Hurricane78]

Have you seen the pictures? He would only have jumped again, if they would have attached his upper body to a bouncing ball.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Stevecrox]

Crumple zones were added into cars because of the high number of injuries sustained in car accidents in rigid steel frames cars. The whole point of a crumple zone is for it to crumple reducing the collision energy which reduces the shock to the people inside which reduces the number of broken bones. In essence you want the new car to be wrecked, if its wrecked that means much of the collision energy was used in crumpling the frame of the car and not in jolting the passengers.

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.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

Or....he would have gotten out of the old Chevy and beat the other guys ass....just because he needed it.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Lonewolf666]

"Minor" accidents are something like 5 mph. Around 1980, regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(automobile)#Strengthening_standards 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

[leuk_he]

Besides that, the person form the 50 would have died. Well

-He is old now. No problem. old people die.
-Beside that, for insurance a dead person is much cheaper than a disabled person that they will have to pay out for a long long time.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[T-Bone-T]

The petrol tank can't explode, no matter where it is. The petrol has to be vaporized with the proper air/fuel ratio for it to explode, a condition that is not possible in a petrol tank.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[poopdeville]

It can be if the (typically polypropylene) tank is squeezed and fuel is aerosolized...

And there's always the risk of "explosive fire". Not a true explosion in the sense of detonation, but a fire that engulfs a car in 10 seconds is just as dangerous as a fire that does it in a 10th of a second. Especially if you're trapped in the vehicle.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Dare nMc]

Probably why their are so many old cars for sale. After a Crash, You can just wash the blood off the metal dash, replace the steering wheel, replace the bumper, and driver. /joke
I think that is supposed to be the point of this, every new car has been tested in a number of ways to have some consistency to avoid a week spot into the occupants safety. Old cars are were more of a matter of luck (for the occupants) on how you make out.
And a single observation, really isn't all that conclusive, every car has week, and strong spots, yours was the classic strong spot vs week spot (of most cars.) IE had you swapped which car got T-boned, you likely would have swapped which car was totaled (probably totaled both, but you would probably gotten hurt worse in the reversed situation.)
My mom had a situation in a newer car, where the rear gas tank was protected by a 1/4" thick piece of metal. got rear ended where the other vehicle lifted hers off the ground, and hit that plate square on. Other car was totaled, her car had one 3"x1/8" long scratch in a plate of steel. I also saw a accident where a little car hit (offset like this) head on into a lifted truck. Somehow the little car backed back out and wasn't that bad (drive-able but ugly), the Truck lost it's LF suspension, rear drive shaft, broken leg on driver... Not the result I would expect most of the time.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Chris Burke]

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'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.

If you could always count on crashing into a modern car that would take the damage for you, sure. But if the next red-running idiot took your viewpoint to heart and had an 'old tank', then the outcome of this 'minor' accident might not be as nice for you.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[darkmeridian]

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

[hibiki_r]

You might have been a lot less happy if it was the same two cars, but it was you getting t-boned.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[couchslug]

"Hell, I'll bet you dollars to donuts any man from the 50's driving that Bel-Air would have jumped right out of that wreck to help the crying sissy-boy with a cut lip driving that Malibu."

Assuming he wasn't ejected. :P

Have some Signal 30:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-rXEdaGao

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Jaime2]

About 10 years ago, a guy in a Chevy Suburban rear-ended my Pontiac Grand Am. His steel front grill was totalled and my plastic rear bumper just popped out after the accident with some minor paint scratches. Your one experience doesn't mean that bigger vehicles are safer or that they take less damage in an accident. If you value your life, buy a car rated well by the IIHS and get collision insurance on it. Going your own way and feeling safer because a car is bigger or "stouter" is foolishness that will get you killed. The collision insurance will eliminate the urge to buy a car that will get through a crash with less damage to itself rather than a car that will allow less damage to be inflicted on you.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[HockeyPuck]

The whole point of a crumple zone is for it to crumple reducing the collision energy which reduces the shock to the people inside which reduces the number of broken bones. In essence you want the new car to be wrecked, if its wrecked that means much of the collision energy was used in crumpling the frame of the car and not in jolting the passengers.

Isn't it ironic that the car called The Smartcar, doesn't have any form of rear crumple zones? there's about 3in of space between the back of your seat and the back of the car. If someone rear ends you while you're in a Smartcar, you're gonna feel every lb of force.

Not so smart if you ask me. I should know, I've been rear ended in a smart car, and I was hit by a honda civic.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[interkin3tic]

Hell, I'll bet you dollars to donuts any man from the 50's driving that Bel-Air would have jumped right out of that wreck to help the crying sissy-boy with a cut lip driving that Malibu.

A 1981 Malibu? In the '50s? More like a DeLorean.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[zwede]

The X-frame is key to the video. They obviously wanted a dramatic result showing all the progress we've made and an X-frame car in an offset crash delivers. The same cars in a head-on would have looked different. Other cars of the same era using perimeter frames would also have done much better in an offset crash. Not saying new cars aren't light years ahead of old cars safety wise, but this was carefully chosen for dramatic effect.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[MartinSchou]

Now, what makes you think that the damages to your car were because you were driving a 57 Ford rather than you T-boning the Toyota?

When you T-bone a car, you're essentially just hitting sheet metal with no structural integrity. It is not in any way, shape or form surprising that the car doing the T-boning gets away with barely any damage.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[SoCalChris]

I also love the old Benzes, particularly the W116. I owned a 73 450SE (Which was my second car, purchased after the 57 Ford that I mentioned in the parent post), and I still own a 79 450SEL 6.9 (Grey market, originally imported from France by a lawyer who moved to Hollywood). The 6.9 is an absolute beast, and really amazing to drive. I test drove an E class around 2001, and it simply didn't compare to the 6.9. It didn't have the raw power, didn't drive as nice, and didn't ride nearly as smooth as the 6.9 (The hydro pneumatic suspension is awesome, I've never ridden in another car that drove that smooth). I still have the 6.9, but don't get it out very often. It's an awesome car though, with some seriously impressive engineering.

The W126 is also a beautiful car. I almost bought a 560SEC at one point, but found the above mentioned 6.9 and bought it instead.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[3247]

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...

This one's easy: Put it outside the view-field of a Hollywood film camera.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Minor" accidents can be much more severe if your body is taking the jolt instead of the crumple zones

I can attest to that! My wife has permanent disabilities from a crash that left her car undamaged to the point that the cop taking the report refused to believe that she had been involved! And, because of that cop, she got pretty much nothing from the insurance company.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[snowgirl]

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. My jacket however had ridden up my arm, and why I had road rash, and my legs has the tiniest of road-rash scratches on it.

I'd much rather buy new gear, than new body parts...

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[snowgirl]

Modern car crash: $1000 for bumper and $0.10 for bandaid, total: $1000.10

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+

Only $7500 for a head injury? Which country do you live in? In the good-ol' US of A, it costs $4k just to x-ray and CT scan your neck to make sure that your neck isn't broken.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[ebvwfbw]

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I used to lift the car to change the tire using the bumper - using a bumper jack. There were bumper hitches to allow you to tow a trailer. If a toddler could bend that bumper out of place, you must have a grown Mike Tyson as a toddler. I doubt even he could do it. The front is also strong, sometimes a tow truck would hook up to that and if they went back to the frame, the sling would be over the bumper with most of the weight on the bumper.

I also think we saw some hog wash. I think they removed the engines. It could also be they hit off center so they would miss the engine and to maximize the damage to the Bel Air.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[NJRoadfan]

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.

Except that if the car was in Europe, it NEVER had to meet the 5mph bumper impact standards. It was strictly a requirement of the FMVSS used in the USA and Canada, and was reduced to 2.5mph starting in 1984.

Most folks with European cars in the USA would swap out the ugly big, goofy (and heavy!) 5 mph bumpers for the smaller cleaner European bumpers. At the time, those European bumpers were nothing more then a piece of plastic with some wimpy rebar behind them.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[brackishboy]

It was a Renault Megane. They did another test where the three presenters were driving cars made in the late 80s and early 90s (A Volvo 760, an Audi 80 and a Rover 416) into a wall at 30mph. I believe Clarkson chipped his thumb after misjudging his speed and crashing the Volvo at 40mph, but the others were fine.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes the good old 50's, when men were men and women were property.

Much like most modern-day Arab societies.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

They also liked to fold the car in half when placed on a hydraulic lift. The X frame, which was introduced in 1958 was really flimsy.

It would be interesting to try a 1955-1957 Chevrolet, which used a much more rigid ladder frame or a more recent 1964-66 Chrysler Imperial which used a double perimeter frame stacked under an early unibody, making it about the strongest car ever produced.

Anecdotally, in a demolition derby, I once saw a '66 Imperial get ganged up on by five early 1970s GM wagons, and it just kept going and going and going and going - after a certain point, there was simply no damage that could be done to the car that did not damage the wagons to a greater extent.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[EvilBudMan]

--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.--

Speaking of the petrol tank or gas tank or whatever, couldn't a bladder be used inside them that collapses as the fuel is used up? That is the way they protect helicopters that might take a round or two and racing cars. I know what they have now may be better than it was but not as good as it could be. There are probably also ways to retrofit older cars to make them safer.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to find the European NCAP rating for the Malibu

That's probably because the Malibu is based on the same Platform as the Opel/Vauxhall Vectra C, which has been replaced by the Insignia, which has a 5 Star NCAP rating. Chevrolet really doesn't have any relevant presence on the european market, everyone just gets the equivalent Opel/Vauxhall cars.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about the people driving modern cars who are already idiots?

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Lonewolf666]

Maybe GM did not want to spend money on designing two different bumpers for the US and Europe.

I remember one case where I rammed a concrete pillar at maybe 3 mph, with only a tiny dent in the bumper. A few days later, I watched someone else hit the same pillar with a newer Opel model. That one had a weaker bumper. Which got bent, and the rear fender got bent too. With the rear light being another casualty. I guess that cost at least 1000 Euros where I did not bother to make repairs at all.

So give me a ugly big, goofy (and heavy!) 5 mph bumper any day ;-)

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[Ancient_Hacker]

Yes, there were some cars with sturdy bumpers. I remember so many cars had bumper jacks.

But I was thinking in particular of the 58 Ford Fairlane, or maybe it was the Mercury Convertible that my father was restoring a few years back. One look under the front bumper and I crawled out shaking my head. He knew immediately what I was thinking: "could not get any cruder, could it"?
  We're both electrical rather than mechanical engineers, but it doesn't take a genius to recognize really crappy engineering.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[ebvwfbw]

That is unfortunate. I've never been underneath of a 1950s Ford. Nobody I knew would have one by the 1970s. So many rusted out, which they were famous for. Then off to the junk yard and then recycled along with many Chevys and others. Many surviving cars from that era have been reworked. You may find brakes from another model or even make on some cars. It is often I find a Ford with a Chevy engine in it. I'm sure it came with a better attached bumper than what you found.

Look at the bright side, it isn't an aircraft. I maintain a 1954 Bonanza. Everything has to be certified.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[fishbowl]

>But the steering wheel impaled through Fifties Guy's gut would slow him down a bit.

Actually the steering wheel would have broken, allowing the very sharp, protruding, curved steel bezel over the speedometer to decapitate him. This very real possibility was never very far from my conscious mind as I drove my 1959 Impala. It's really not a dashboard you'd want to eat.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[fishbowl]

I tend to think of the Smart Car as something more akin to a large enclosed motorcycle than a small car. If it turns out to be more dangerous than a typical motorcycle I'll be very interested.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[fishbowl]

>There's a TON of room, and you could buy one and have the engine of your choice swapped in for less than buying a new car anywhere >near as nice.

Apples to Oranges, not a realistic comparison. Your scenario requires a lump-sum purchase and there's some risk and some effort involved. Buying a new car is usually a matter of a small payment to work as security on a loan, and a long-term commitment to monthly payments which hopefully outstrip the depreciation of the vehicle.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[fishbowl]

>("Ma'am, this is super really big important, are you SURE you're not pregnant?")

We're dying to know how the baby ended up.

Re:the wunnerful 50's, not

[snowgirl]

>("Ma'am, this is super really big important, are you SURE you're not pregnant?")

We're dying to know how the baby ended up.

He's a radioactive superhero, who goes around saving people, who then mysteriously die from radiation poisoning...

It's the funniest thing...

'52 Citroen DS

[drerwk]

CitroÃn had unibody, disc brakes, and the equivelent of crush zones. The were required however to put a 5mph bumper on the car instead of the 4kph as in europe due to US insurance demand. Would like to know how the test would have looked against a Cit.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[Kokuyo]

While I agree with your post, I'd like to point out that you mean kmph or km/h. kph would be kilos per hour... but kilos of what?

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[ZERO1ZERO]

kilos of metres, obviously.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[4D6963]

kmph? If mph is miles per hour, does it make kmph kilo miles per hour?

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[drerwk]

Ok, I missed a single letter while typing at my iPhone from the driver's seat...

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[poopdeville]

Citroens have had unibody construction since the 40s. E.G. Budd came up with the idea for unibody steel construction, and Citroen bought into it in 1940 or so.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[drerwk]

My first car was a 1969 Citroen ID-19 bought used in 1981. So I am mostly familiar with the ID/DS line. I guess the 2CV is unibody. I loved that car, but at some point I didn't have time to do my own work, and it was very expensive to get it done in AZ, or CA for that matter.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[Timmmm]

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:'52 Citroen DS

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

I guess the 2CV is unibody

No, it had a separate chasis, that is why they could build derivatives like the Mehari (OK, based on the Dyane, but that was derived from the original 2CV)

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[dangitman]

While I agree with your post, I'd like to point out that you mean kmph

Kilo-miles-per-hour? That's fast.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[poopdeville]

I'm not very familiar with Citroens at all. I know a little bit about their early history because of the "The Car" episode of "The Secret Life of Machines" (which really focuses on unibody construction). If I recall correctly, E.G. Budd was trying to form a car company c1939, but instead ended up selling dies (for pressing body panels) to all the major manufacturers. Citroen was the first of these in 1940.

They've got video of a unibody Volkswagen-looking Citroen doing flips down sand dunes. The only thing that broke was the wind shield.

http://www.secretlifeofmachines.com/the_tv_series.shtml

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[drerwk]

The Traction Avant then?

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it means kilophots.

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[PaintyThePirate]

You're posting to slashdot while driving? I think you may want to watch the video in the linked article...

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[El_Oscuro]

Watching it now as I dri

***** NO CARRIER *****

Re:'52 Citroen DS

[drerwk]

THanks

I see the problem.

[SilverHatHacker]

It should have been a reverse Bel Air.

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.

Where's the engine?

[e9th]

Seriously, can anyone see an engine in the BelAir?

Re:Where's the engine?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[e9th]

Ah, I think you're right. I was assuming a V8.

Re:Where's the engine?

[interkin3tic]

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...

YouTube Commenters strike again

[the Dragonweaver]

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:YouTube Commenters strike again

[ucblockhead]

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

[Anarchduke]

There are many aspects of old tech that are still superior to current tech. The primary reason it isn't done is cost of manufacturing. All this "self-evident, 50+ years of engineering" nonsense is quite presumptuous. Hitler used similar arguments making the case for white supremacy. Business buys results, not pure research.ï This is a propaganda ad pure and simple. Go check who paid for this to be made and who profits from it.

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

[the_raptor]

All cars now also come with seat belts and most people wear them.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[westlake]

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

The collision with the iceberg didn't have to tear anything, it only had to buckle the plates and pop the rivets.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Eudial]

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:YouTube Commenters strike again

[0xFCE2]

YouTube stupidity

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/202/

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[interkin3tic]

But youtube commenter marcsiry did make it worthwhile:

Even worse, the guy in the Belï Air was texting at the time.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Vellmont]

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."

The people with the most to lose will always be the most motivated. In this case it's all those idiots who've turned their love of old cars into a religion. This video directly contradicts a long held belief that the old cars were somehow "safer".. so it just CAN'T be true!

Don't judge the masses on a few ignorant comments by a small number of vocal fanatics.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Hurricane78]

And you expected what? ;)

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Grishnakh]

Regardless, it's still pretty stupid: the mass of an iceberg is far, far more than the mass of the Titanic. It really should be pretty obvious that ice can tear iron when dealing that much ice.

What's really interesting is that the Titanic probably would have survived had it turned to hit the iceberg head-on, instead of trying to avoid it. It would have sustained a lot of damage in the front obviously, but it may have been able to remain floating.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Nimey]

Ah, Youtube. It's the place that makes all but the stupidest Slashdot comments look intelligent.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Grishnakh]

And people also drive much faster than they used to, but even with all that extra energy that goes into modern crashes, the fatality rates are much lower.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[arb phd slp]

I love that some of the Youtube comments get modded down so you can't read them. It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when the guy in the mob shouts out "More witches!" and the rest all look at him like he's the idiot.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[quenda]

Youtube is like reading slashdot idle at -2 threshold.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly it's time slashdot /i/nvaded youtube.

Oh wait... wrong forums.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[xaxa]

YouTube is like reading Slashdot with anything +1 or above removed.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

That logic if flawed. Modern cars are much less resilient to impact than cars used to be because, some time ago, we realized that keeping the car in one part is not the goal; keeping the passenger alive is. At lower speed, say 25km/h, I would have expected the old car to be fine, and the new one to be severely damaged, while the driver in the new car would be fine and the one in the old car dead.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[snowgirl]

All cars now also come with seat belts and most people wear them.

I heard an interview question with Ralph Nader at one point, and someone asked him, if he was upset that his legacy might be that he ran for president 8 hojillion times, and never won. He responded, "I put seat belts in cars... My legacy is already set."

I applauded him that day... still didn't nor ever have voted for him, but I must admit, the guy did put seat belts in cars...

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[ucblockhead]

Er....we're talking about safety here not how well the cars hold up.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[EvilBudMan]

Yeah, I wouldn't stir that can full of crazy either. This is why I very seldom go to youtube anymore.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[dbet]

That's just the new popular thing to do in an argument. Anything you don't like - is Hitler. Go ahead, try it. You'll win every argument as your opponent just shakes his head and walks away.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again

[Anarchduke]

"I don't like the new wallpaper, it's just like Hitler's invasion of Poland."

I don't know that's going to work, but if anything can get my wife to not put pink flowers up in our bedroom I am all for it.

TopGear

[CountBrass]

A recent TopGear did something similar: they crashed an NCAP (European crash standards body) 5 star+ rated (the highest rating) car (Renault Espace) into an earlier model of the same car (a 1998 Espace I think it was) at 35 mph.

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.

Re:TopGear

[CountBrass]

PS

Scares me even more that I drive a 2 seater sports car with a 3.2 litre engine and I regularly overtake fast on single carriage ways: 1 car pulling out and I'd go squish.

Re:TopGear

[Kartoffel]

"Really says to me that any speed limit over 40 mph on any single-carriage way road is just insane."

Typical nanny-state goodthink from the UK, amirite?

Re:TopGear

[MartinSchou]

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 and Volvo 940 estate vs Renault Modus.

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 seeing it.

Re:TopGear

[Anonymous Coward]

What always surprises me is how much damage is done to any car, old or new, at these low speeds!

Not so surprise: the car kinetic energy is:
0.5*m*v^2
which increases by factor of 4 when doubling speed.
This energy is to be dissipated at crash...

Lets go further. Imagine you are 70Kg (=154 lb), and you travel at 50Km/h (top speed at Spanish cities). Imagine you crash into a solid wall, and you are lucky enough your car nose gets deformated 1meter. The seat belt, has to do a work on your body so dissipates all your kinetic energy during that meter (work = force * distance). Thus, you can get an average of the force of the seat belt on your chest:

0.5*70*13.8^2 = 1*Force_in_Newton
(13.8m/s=50Km/h=31miles/h)

This is 6750 N (=690Kg_force = 1520 lb_force). This is an average! the peak shall be higher!. Note also that 1meter is perhaps an optimistic deformation (just look at the pictures...)

Hopefully you get aware of the crash and you can brake, but when people get slept at the wheel, results are so bad.
If we duplicate the speed (100Km/h, 62 miles/h), the deformation shall increase but not much longer than 1m, and the energy is multiplied by 4, so a force around 2000Kg_force or 4400 lb_force is expected.

Re:TopGear

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvoumToSP5c

Re:TopGear

[drsmithy]

Arranging head on collisions sounds a lot more like 5th Gear than Top Gear.

Oh, no, it sounds completely like Top Gear. It's the "Espace vs Espace" part (as opposed to, say, "London Bus vs Lotus Elise") that sounds a bit out of place.

Re:TopGear

[RiotingPacifist]

tl;dw they actually crashed. I'm no car fan but surely even you guys can't be arsed to hear about crash test dummies and specs for 4m before they actually do anything!?

Re:TopGear

[pwagland]

Arranging head on collisions sounds a lot more like 5th Gear than Top Gear.

I think that you are right, it was probably 5th gear.... the soundtrack has no Jeremy, James or Richard.

Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvoumToSP5c

Re:TopGear

[MikeBabcock]

... or depending on your car, shatter :-)

Re:TopGear

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

3 months ago, while stopped in construction traffic, my wife was rear-ended at 70MPH by an '09 Mercedes while she was in our '02 Taurus, both cars were totalled but neither car's airbags went off. 1 year ago my wife's uncle rear-ended another car (both newer '04ish vehicles) and both cars were totalled, again neither car's airbags deployed. This causes me to wonder; how reliable are airbags?

Re:TopGear

[Anonymous Coward]

Very. But the threshold for deployment is critically important, as it is the one safety feature that is guaranteed to injure the driver.

Don't try this at home, but detonating airbags is spectacular (far away from anything that burns).

Re:TopGear

[MartinSchou]

That one is from Fifth Gear. It's the same Discovery vs Espace crash that I linked to.

Re:TopGear

[RiotingPacifist]

Yeah i was just providing a link to the moment when they crash, i should probably have clarified that.

Re:TopGear

[xaxa]

"Really says to me that any speed limit over 40 mph on any single-carriage way road is just insane."

Typical nanny-state goodthink from the UK, amirite?

The default speed limit on those roads in the UK is 60mph, although there is currently a debate about whether it the default should be 50mph (with suitable roads signed for 60mph).
There's typically a limit of 40 or 30mph when the road passes through a village, depending on the situation.

Re:TopGear

[Giffut]

Espace new vs. Land Rover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKu1UDoa6s Espace old vs Espace new: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvoumToSP5c

Re:TopGear

[arethuza]

Also note that we have a fair amount of single track roads with passing places in Scotland - the speed limit on those is still 60mph. Having said that, the only real danger on these roads is caused by failure to observe proper etiquette.

Re:TopGear

[drsquare]

You know, the more you use the term nanny state, even for unarguably beneficial things such as road regulation, you devalue the whole term and end up like the boy who cried wolf.

Re:TopGear

[dbet]

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.

I saw a program once testing how much damage is caused by various SUVs backing into a concrete parking stop at 5 MPH. I was shocked, some of them had the back end completely caved in, thousands in damage. Just at 5 MPH.

Re:TopGear

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule number 1 when driving any vehicle. DON'T HIT THINGS.

*BSD is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

And some follow up comments

[TubeSteak]

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/

Re:And some follow up comments

[jcaren]

Hmm speed is pretty critical. SOmeone impacted my '86 volvo 760 some years ago in a brand new
vauxhall. I was stationary at light ne decided to try and get through the red light but did not
see me stopped in front.

He shunted my car through the lights and the imact pushed the radio console out. I turned off the engine
and had to push the console backinto place.

WHen we checked over both cars and exchanged details the front of his car to the radiator was crushed to pulp.
My volvo had a scratch on the rear bumper - he never even got *near* paintwork.

When I spoke to my mechanic he asked me to estimate the speed and I said just uunder 30MPH. He told me
the impact absorbers in the frame were rated for this and did nto have to be replaced. tests proved he
was right.

I also rememebr a photo from a news article about someone who fell asleep at the wheel and drove into
a concrete motorway bridge and 70 in a car simialr to mine (but with air bags). He walked away unscratched.

SO, crumple zones are not the only solution to low and high speed crashes - btu they are the only cheap solution
that results in very high insurance costs...

Jacqui

Re:And some follow up comments

[NIK282000]

The malibu does seem to be the better choice in this case but the instant cloud of rust around the Bel Air makes me think that it wasn't 100% mint condition for this test.

/sticks to his jeep

Re:And some follow up comments

[tinkerghost]

He shunted my car through the lights and the imact pushed the radio console out. I turned off the engine and had to push the console backinto place.

Similar story, I stopped at a red light & someone from the other direction ran it & got T-boned. She ended up on the grill of my wife's '74 Nova. When the tow truck pulled her off the grill, I had to replace the plastic grill, the headlight, and another piece of plastic trim. Her bumper and radiator literally fell off when they pulled her car back.

Based on that, I will say I was a bit surprised at the amount of damage done to the '59. I expected the steel frame to hold the car together a lot better than a bunch of sheet metal.

Re:And some follow up comments

[Joce640k]

It wasn't rust, see: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/

PS: Jeeps flip over at the slightest provocation ... and flip-overs are among the most likely-to-be-fatal type of accident.

Re:And some follow up comments

[poopdeville]

Jeeps come with roll cages... A jeep driver won't be getting crushed. At worst (and this is a very real danger), a foreign object will enter the cabin and damage the passengers.

Re:And some follow up comments

[0123456]

My volvo had a scratch on the rear bumper - he never even got *near* paintwork.

We seem to have had the opposite experience with 1980s Volvos; two of them were written off after collisions with a friend's 1970s car and van where his total repair bills were about $500.

Re:And some follow up comments

[DG]

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

Re:And some follow up comments

[ac666]

OK - I've got to ask: What the hell is the story behind TWO collisions with a "friend's" vehicles - and is he still your friend? ;)

Re:And some follow up comments

[Anonymous Coward]

... in a brand new vauxhall.

No great loss, then?

Re:And some follow up comments

[dragonturtle69]

One of the cynics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5BIQRYoC18&feature=related, and I thought that he had a good point about the engine not being visible after the crash. We can see the exhaust push downward, but no engine. But, in your NYT link, someone notes that the 6 cylinder in this crashed vehicle is in-line, not a V, which explains the lack of an engine being visible; it simply was missed in the offset collision. There is also a really good explanation of why this particular model and year failed so spectacularly:

Instead of a ladder-shaped frame as was common on earlier models and competitors, Chevys of that era had no frame rails on the side of the body. Instead the frame curved in along the sides of the transmission, met in the middle, then flared back out at the rear. This was done to allow the body to be mounted much lower on the frame, giving a much lower silhouette. Pictures of the frame and a better description can be seen at http://www.carcraft.com/junkyardcrawl/ccrp_0910_x_framed_chevys/index.html.

This is a really telling picture of the "why" of the failure, from the comment quoted above, http://www.carcraft.com/junkyardcrawl/ccrp_0910_x_framed_chevys/photo_01.html

Still, I'm not sure why so many people have a problem with understanding why a car designed to protect its occupants in an offset frontal collision came out on top of one fifty years old, and not designed to the same standards.

Re:And some follow up comments

[interkin3tic]

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.

But is much more optimal for entertainment. I might watch NASCAR if they had more hearts, brains, and guts popping out of windshields.

Re:And some follow up comments

[JerryLove]

I don't want to get hit by a steam locomotive

Re:And some follow up comments

[szyzyg]

Perhaps a badly chosen comparison, personally, If I were in a collision with another car I'd prefer to be driving a steam locomotive.

'and cars 50 years ago are, in comparison, horseless carriages'

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:And some follow up comments

[NIK282000]

Touche. Road dirt is pretty much the same colour as rust, I didn't think of that.

Jeeps only flip over if you drive them like a car. When driven like a tall truck full of heavy tools they tend to go in nice straight lines with out rotating about its z-axis (or x depending on your convention).

is there any historical data available?

[Trepidity]

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?

Re:is there any historical data available?

[fridaynightsmoke]

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?

There are details of European crash tests at http://www.euroncap.com/
As al 'almost' example of what you are looking for, please compare the results for a Ford Escort (this model introduced 1990) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_escort_1999/33.aspx vs a current model Ford Focus (introduced 2004) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

Re:is there any historical data available?

[KokorHekkus]

Nothing going that far back but http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx has some somewhat older results. For example, the 2006 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_2006/270.aspx) compares quite favourably with the 1998 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx). Looks like they changed to a new rating scheme this year though.

Re:is there any historical data available?

[Penguinoflight]

It's not a fair comparison. The 85 civic weighs considerably less, 500-1000lbs depending on the configuration. This means that while your 2005 civic may hit the barrier at 40mph, a driver with similar response time would hit the barrier at 30-35 in their 85.

Static tests aren't really a good indicator of overall safety.

Re:is there any historical data available?

[Joce640k]

The only number which counts is the number of stars. The new tests have more detail but the end result is still number of stars (from 1 to 5).

Re:is there any historical data available?

[drsmithy]

It's not a fair comparison. The 85 civic weighs considerably less, 500-1000lbs depending on the configuration. This means that while your 2005 civic may hit the barrier at 40mph, a driver with similar response time would hit the barrier at 30-35 in their 85.

That's assuming they cars have equivalent braking power, which seems rather naive. A 2005 model probably has disc brakes all around, substantially better tyres and suspension, and ABS.

Re:is there any historical data available?

[Penguinoflight]

Your point is well taken, any situation has a lot of variables and using a single metric to draw a conclusion is shortsighted at best.

Braking power and the traction to go with it are both dependent on more than suspension, ABS or the lack thereof, and tires. Four wheel discs are largely useless on FF vehicles due to the overwhelming forward weight balance; they could make a difference in a situation where the car is loaded down allowing for more rear weight, but even then most all stopping is done by the front.

ABS made a name for itself on race tracks, it's good for providing consistent quick stops, but won't allow for stops from 40-0 as quickly in optimal conditions.

Re:is there any historical data available?

[ThogScully]

You don't need the same braking power to slow a car weighing much less. The brakes in the mid-eighties Civics were plenty strong enough to lock up the tires. Once you can lock up the tires, you don't need more powerful brakes - just better driving skills.

ABS does not help you stop sooner. It helps you turn while stopping. ABS in a straight line will actually typically stop you slower, especially in slippery conditions.

A mid-late eighties Civic had double-wishbone suspension all around. They are still great-handling cars, but the mid-late eighties Civics and CRXs make great and popular race cars for a reason.

And a mid-late eighties Civic would have come with tires far less capable than modern tires, but those tires are long gone. They've been replaced by modern tires by now and are performing plenty well.

The original poster's claim is very valid, despite your concerns. Cars have gotten better at crashing in the last few decades without a doubt, but it's still important to also recognize that smaller, lighter cars are much better at avoiding crashes in the first place do to better braking, turning, and acceleration.
-N

Re:is there any historical data available?

[drsmithy]

You don't need the same braking power to slow a car weighing much less. The brakes in the mid-eighties Civics were plenty strong enough to lock up the tires. Once you can lock up the tires, you don't need more powerful brakes - just better driving skills.

Modern brakes have a much better feel and consistency, come on quicker, and have less fade, making it easier for the driver to maximise braking power.

ABS does not help you stop sooner. It helps you turn while stopping. ABS in a straight line will actually typically stop you slower, especially in slippery conditions.

Maybe if you're Michael Schumacher, then you can stop better than ABS on tarmac (and even them, probably not consistently better). For the average driver, ABS will stop them much sooner because it means they won't lock up the wheels. To say nothing of the "into a barrier" scenario pretty much guaranteeing that the car isn't travelling in a straight line, another a situation where a human will rarely outperform ABS consistently, if at all.

A mid-late eighties Civic had double-wishbone suspension all around. They are still great-handling cars, but the mid-late eighties Civics and CRXs make great and popular race cars for a reason.

I used to own an '88 Civic, so I know how well they drive - and in context, it _is_ very well (I'm pretty sure the Civic the original poster is talking about is the model before it). However, to say that the technology and manufacturing has not improved dramatically in twenty years, is just silly.

Cars have gotten better at crashing in the last few decades without a doubt, but it's still important to also recognize that smaller, lighter cars are much better at avoiding crashes in the first place do to better braking, turning, and acceleration.

I would be jaw-droppingly astounded if a contemporary car does not do everything (with the possible exception of straight-line acceleration) substantially better (and at lower cost) than its twenty-year-old counterpart, given the same conditions.

I seem to recall a Top Gear episode where they took high performance/non-stock older vehicles, and compared them to modern stock vehicles (eg: Audio Quattro vs Subaru WRX, or something like that) and the modern vehicles won easily.

Re:is there any historical data available?

[ThogScully]

Braking feel is largely tied to brake fluid and friction materials. Cars that are 20 years old are not using the original stuff for any of that.

ABS does not help you stop sooner. It really doesn't and it's not supposed to. Seriously, it's to help you turn while stopping. In a straight line, you're often better off without it.

The current generation Civic has a torsion beam rear suspension, while the old ones like your '88 had a double-wishbone setup. It doesn't handle as well as the old ones. I wasn't making that up, believe it or not. Your '88 Civic was essentially a front-wheel drive sports car and competes on that level even today.

As for that Top Gear episode, there were a few matchups where the older car did a lot better than the modern equivalent, but yeah, as a rule, most newer cars are better than their equivalents 20 years ago.

Consider that my response was toward someone who made the flawed assumption that a car now will be less likely to hit that barrier because it will handle better, but the truth is that a modern car will not necessarily handle better and will be heavier. A heavier car inherently can't turn or stop as well as a lighter car. It's a flawed assumption.
-N

Re:is there any historical data available?

[drsmithy]

Braking feel is largely tied to brake fluid and friction materials. Cars that are 20 years old are not using the original stuff for any of that.

I think the OP was after a comparison of how newer vehicles compared to older ones, not how newer vehicles compared to older ones that have been upgraded with newer components.

ABS does not help you stop sooner. It really doesn't and it's not supposed to. Seriously, it's to help you turn while stopping. In a straight line, you're often better off without it.

I know what ABS is for, and I guarantee you that in real life it stops most people sooner than they would have without it.

Consider that my response was toward someone who made the flawed assumption that a car now will be less likely to hit that barrier because it will handle better, but the truth is that a modern car will not necessarily handle better and will be heavier. A heavier car inherently can't turn or stop as well as a lighter car. It's a flawed assumption.

My point is that there's a lot more involved in how a car handles than its weight. Unless you want to argue that, say, a SMART ForTwo drives better than, say, a Mazda MX-5. :)

Patiently waits

[fridaynightsmoke]

/patiently wates for some idiot to ignore the fact that road deaths are consistently going down in absolute terms, and in per-vehicle-mile terms; and to claim that dangerous cars/roads are 'safer', that everyone overcompansates for advances in safety, and that cars should have a spike on the steering wheel.

Re:Patiently waits

[tsm_sf]

and that cars should have a spike on the steering wheel reminded me of an old Letterman top 10... thank you, Internet!

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!"

Re:Patiently waits

[interkin3tic]

/patiently wates for some idiot to ignore the fact that road deaths are consistently going down in absolute terms, and in per-vehicle-mile terms; and to claim that dangerous cars/roads are 'safer', that everyone overcompansates for advances in safety, and that cars should have a spike on the steering wheel.

Uh... citation needed? I mean, I WANT to believe that's an established fact due to the fact that every car would be at least 20% more METAL! ...like as in heavy metal, with the throwing up the horns and such. Not actual metal, the material, although it would probably have more metal to make the spike, so...

Re:Patiently waits

[AK Marc]

My number one would be:
1) No decapitated babies from overpowered airbags and no initial warnings because they were being fraudently sold as "safe" and "pillow-like."

But that wasn't funny. But then, Nader pushing unproven fixes that killed more than they saved isn't news. He was a pioneed of legislating on feelings and not science. Ever read "unsafe at any speed"? I did. It made me cry that this was the guy setting safely policy. Yes he did good, but he also did lots of bad as well. I think he saved more lives than he took, but I object to laws that require items causing fatalities, rather than making them optional. Airbags should have been sold as the explosives aimed at someone's face, and they should have been spec'd for belted passengers, not unbelted.

Re:Patiently waits

[jamesh]

No decapitated babies from overpowered airbags

Here in Victoria, Australia (and maybe the rest of Australia too?) new laws are just about to be introduced to put kids in the back seat where they belong. And in decent restraints too. Little kids with their big heads (relative to the rest of their bodies) and little necks die very easily in very minor accidents.

because they were being fraudently sold as "safe" and "pillow-like.". Airbags should have been sold as the explosives aimed at someone's face

Tell you what, smash your head into the dashboard at 10mph, then, when you have recovered (if you ever do), smash your head into a deployed airbag at 10mph. I bet the airbag feels much safer and pillow like in comparison.

and they should have been spec'd for belted passengers, not unbelted.

I read that somewhere. Is it really true that airbags in some/most/all of the US are designed to protect unbelted passengers?

My current car is a Citroen C4 which has the center of the steering wheel fixed, allowing for a a shaped airbag. Hopefully I never get to find out if that's a good thing or not :)

Re:Patiently waits

[AK Marc]

Tell you what, smash your head into the dashboard at 10mph, then, when you have recovered (if you ever do), smash your head into a deployed airbag at 10mph. I bet the airbag feels much safer and pillow like in comparison.

That's a false dichotomy. At 10 MPH, a belted person has the choice of hitting nothing or the airbag, and the airbag is much worse than nothing. If you are the unbelted driver they were initially designed for, then yes, at 10 MPH the airbag is better than nothing. But then, I'd rather they not put in devices that reduce the safety of belted drivers to help those that have made the conscious choice to not help themselves.

Is it really true that airbags in some/most/all of the US are designed to protect unbelted passengers?

The initial ones. The ones Nader pushed. Those were designed for 185 lb 5'10" males without seatbelts. There were no warnings about small females. There were no warnings about car seats. The custom at the time was to have a car seat in the front seat so that if there was a need for attention, it could be given (i.e. a bottle nearby and if the baby cried, it was available). So, these air pillows were put in. They quickly started decapitating babies. Women were less safe, on average, than without airbags, belted or not. Unbelted males saw the greatest increase (obviously). And, at the same time these were being put in, there was a massive push for seatbelt laws (in all 50 states at the time, in some manner or another) to become primary (meaning you could pull someone over for just that and nothing else). Belted males saw very minor improvements, sometimes so low statistically to be no improvement at all. So, they were pushed initially to only help law breakers that were breaking the law to make themselves unsafe, and they were a net harm to the people that chose to protect themselves with seatbelts.

That's why I hate Nader. He should have pushed them as the "SRS" they were sold to Congress as, not sell them as supplimentary but design them as primary. He lied to Congress to harm the public. Joan Claybrooke, the head of the NHTSA was also in on the deal. If they had pushed for ones designed to save the belted people and put the proper warnings on them, then I'd have been behind them. However, that would have gotten them shot down. The US government uses a scale of cost per life. And on that scale, airbags cost too much per life saved, and should never have happened. The money wasted on them would have saved more lives if it were spent on helicopters (or many other things). Instead, the money was wasted on a safety feature that required a large percentage of people to be law breakers to meet its goal of lives saved, but it never met that goal.

Now they are all "depowered" or "Nth generation" or somesuch. The government slowly and quietly said "Nader's specifications are wrong and causing massive harm, so we'll change them and say it's because of the change in seatbelt use, though the use hasn't really changed much, it's better than saying 'oops we are baby killers and are fixing our mistake.'" So now they aren't for unbelted males of 185 lbs. But they were when Nader was pushing them, and that was the issue at hand. And that was Nader's choice.

Re:Patiently waits

[SleazyRidr]

I remember Jeremy Clarkson saying something along those lines.
 
In part I agree, the safest thing to do is not crash in the first place, but other people have already made that point more eloquently than I.

Re:Patiently waits

[jamesh]

That's a false dichotomy. At 10 MPH, a belted person has the choice of hitting nothing or the airbag, and the airbag is much worse than nothing.

That's not what I meant. The accident itself would be at a higher speed. 10mph was an example of an impact of your head with something in the car - I doubt the airbag wouldn't even deploy if the car speed at the time of impact was only 10mph.

Re:Patiently waits

[AK Marc]

Airbags give the best safety improvement to unbelted people. They were designed with unbelted males in mind. So yes, an unbelted person will see a huge increase in safety. However, a belted person does not see an increase in safety. Minor injuries are way up. It's rare to trigger the airbag and not break your nose. My sister was blind nearly a week from the airbag. But she was an unusual case, she had an allergy to the chemicals that coat the bag that were slammed into her face at high speed. Why they didn't bother to find a coating powder that is hypo-allergenic is beyond me. Her eyes were swollen shut and she oozed puss for that week. She said she didn't like waking up in a pile of eye puss every morning, go figure. Broken wrists from holding the wheel in a fist are common, as well as broken arms or facial bones from those that place their hand at the top of the wheel and drive one-handed. Ever have your arm thrust into your face hard enough to break both your arm and a few bones in your face? Me neither. And no, it isn't just the people driving low-rider style, but those that have airbags deploy while they are turning and their hands are out of their regular position.

But for saving the life of an unbelted male driver? They were designed to do that and nearly doubled the chances of survival. That they killed more belted women that they saved didn't matter, that wasn't a design consideration. They are a pillow like the water is soft if you jump off the Golden Gate bridge.

Re:Patiently waits

[fishbowl]

>The custom at the time was to have a car seat in the front seat so that if there was a need for attention, it could
>be given (i.e. a bottle nearby and if the baby cried, it was available).

Ummm, the custom at the time was STANDING UP either on the passenger seat, or on the hump behind the front seats, in say a Plymouth Fury or a Rambler. Another custom was sitting on the floorboard, or laying in the space between the back seat and the rear window.

that would be Fifth Gear

[YesIAmAScript]

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:that would be Fifth Gear

[fridaynightsmoke]

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.

Indeed, sir.
The last series (in the UK at least) I feel was better than last year's in that respect, I think the cheapest car they had on the show last year was a BMW M3, and that was as an example of an 'ordinary' car!
Fifth Gear, despite its problems, is carrying the baton for 'everyman' motoring.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[Joce640k]

Is *anybody* here under the illusion that watching Top Gear will help them choose their next car? Sheesh.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[fridaynightsmoke]

Is *anybody* here under the illusion that watching Top Gear will help them choose their next car? Sheesh.

Hey, I bought a Focus ST on Top Gear's (2005) recommendation.
It USED to be a 'useful' program, but has since became almost cartoonish.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[Hurricane78]

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

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

It's useful for training ROFL muscles.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[mobby_6kl]

Yes, they've successfully convinced me that my next car should be an Aston Martin. I'd say that's pretty useful.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[Hurricane78]

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:that would be Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh! Yes.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[RedWizzard]

Top Gear tries to stay away from useful facts and info as much as possible.

Yes, Top Gear is entertainment, pure and simple. If you want useful information you'll need to look elsewhere. The reason Top Gear is so popular is because the don't review cars most people are likely to buy. Those sorts of reviews are about as interesting as watching paint dry, so they don't do them. If I wanted to know how good the latest budget Toyota was I'd go down to a dealership and test drive one myself. I can't do that with a Veyron or a DB9.

And the idea of Top Gear having TWO cars that cost below $40,000 on the screen at the same is pretty far fetched.

They don't often review new cars that cheap, but they often do challenges in old cars worth less than $5k.

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[snowgirl]

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.

Perhaps you missed the series: "Destroying a Toyota Pickup"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk

Re:that would be Fifth Gear

[Anonymous Coward]

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? ;)

I think that you and I differ on the definition of women :P

Safety

[TheReb]

I'd feel much more safe driving a Chevy Bel-Air than a new Malibu, feeling you dont bump and hurt yourself is just as important as knowing you "probably wont die". Because a Bel-air you feel you are driving something, whereas in a new Malibu, you just direct it. It can be compared to flying in an airplane, if you are not in control enough, you might fear flying no matter how much you know about how safe it is, compared to driving. Today Bel-air drivers do not crash, simply because they care about driving and their car, but that is of course irrelevant to this, but i state this nevertheless.

Re:Safety

[Dr_Barnowl]

Even if you are a perfect driver, you still have to worry about the other guy.

If a Malibu did this, imagine what would happed to you if an SUV hit the Bel-Air. Ok, you'd probably suffer less, you'd be chunky salsa....

Re:Safety

[RingDev]

I've know a few folks from the classic car scene who have painstakingly restored (frame off, numbers matching) classics just to have them totaled by drunk/idiot drivers on their way to/from car shows. Loving your car does NOT make you impervious to assault. Sure, you'll be a good defensive driver, but let's face it, a 1950's Bel Air handles about as well as a brick on a unicicle. If you take a solid defensive driver, they will almost always perform better in a modern car that has a stiffer frame, better suspension, and less fatigue.

-Rick

Re:Safety

[obarthelemy]

Exactly that happened to me with my first automatic + assisted steering car (a while back). The thing was big, and heavy (as far as european cars go), and I had no "feel" for it at all. One evening, I stayed late at work to test how it really handled, did a couple of tailspins...

Still, a month later, late at night but I was not drunk nor asleep, just a bit tired, I got into a tailspin on an access ramp. I never figured out how it happened, I was not speeding, not even going fast.

Re:Safety

[Anonymous Coward]

SUV is a mis-nomer. Do you mean an SUV like a RAV-4 or an SUV like a 3/4-ton Suburban?

Just because something is an SUV doesn't automatically make it more deadly to the other car. There are quite a few sedans that weigh more than some SUVs and would do more damage.

Most of the SUVs are just cars with more ground clearance.

What's really funny is that several big SUVs get better fuel economy than some sedans!

Re:Safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite simply, you are wrong. While you might *feel* safer, every objective measure says you'd be less safe. More likely to be in an accident, more likely to be injured, more likely to die.

Re:Safety

[Skuld-Chan]

The SUV would probably roll over (seriously).

Re:Safety

[tthomas48]

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 have bad luck. But my experience is telling me your feelings are trying to get you killed. No matter how good a driver you are if someone decides to turn left at exactly the right moment or drive against the flow of traffic, there's very little you can do evasively.

I drive a 58 Chevy...

[NixieBunny]

...so this test was especially interesting for me. Remind me to keep to divided highways in the future.

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.

Re:I drive a 58 Chevy...

[poopdeville]

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.

Yeah... that just plain bull. Look up the "Budd Company".

Re:I drive a 58 Chevy...

[fishbowl]

>Yeah... that just plain bull. Look up the "Budd Company".

It's true in the case of the '59 Chevy. And it's also true about the windshield, setting aside the fact that an intact '59 windshield alone is worth about 1/4 what they paid for this car... More if you actually set out to buy one, not that you'd ever find it...

As for mechanical design, they definitely didn't think in terms of aerodynamics. I keep my foot out of mine after the first time I felt the rear end go airborne. Those four foot fins weren't effective spoilers, for sure.

Not exactly a surprise, just a wasteful PR stunt.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite right, the '59 Chevy's in particular are as strong as warm butter. The end result should come as no surprise to anybody, who has worked on or driven any of these cars.

What I hate the most about the test though, is that they bought somebody's prized classic car and crashed it. Just look at the second video with interior footage. It even has a radio and two antennas in the rear. Couldn't they at least have removed that grille before destroying the car...? (No, guess not...)

Some celebration. God, I hate American companies sometimes...

And this repels morons?

[Kupfernigk]

So "caring about driving and their car" mysteriously repels the morons who jump lights, drive too fast on wet roads, overtake on blind bends, or drive the wrong way down divided roads?

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?

[Comatose51]

They've also contributed greatly to the field of psychology and neuroscience by demonstrating what parts of the brain is responsible for what cognitive function.

Re:And this repels morons?

[KahabutDieDrake]

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. If you do this regularly, and you pay attention while driving, you can and will react properly in an emergency. Your "average" driver out there is a danger to themselves and everyone else. But there are some of us that can actually handle our cars. At the end of the day, nothing is going to solve the problem of idiots on the road, but you can go a long way towards mitigating it.

Re:And this repels morons?

[westlake]

So "caring about driving and their car" mysteriously repels the morons who jump lights, drive too fast

The classic fifties tail-fin car was massive - overweight and unresponsive. The suspension and steering were "soft," giving you little sense or feel of the road.

Re:And this repels morons?

[morari]

Actually, many motorcyclists are nothing more than yuppies nowadays. Buying a squeaky new, head-to-toe matching leather outfit from the Harley store when you go in to forfeit the down-payment on your new ride is not caring... It's not being a Biker. Jesse James and the Sons of Anarchy has done a lot to brainwash an entire group of people. Oddly enough, it seems that most of them are bald with goatees.

Re:And this repels morons?

[Stevecrox]

I'd like to mod this up but will settle with a biker side story. I ride a Suzuki 600cc GSR (think more mid-range version of the GSXR). I don't consider myself a particularly good rider and while I go fast its more because of my confidence with the bike and the fact the roads safe to do it. I ride my bike everyday since it's my only means of transport and where I'm working now I'm 1 of 2 people who do, however there is only one even adequate biker in the area other than myself. The rest are what I call "born agains", I'm sure everyone has a different name for them. They are the people who hit forty have a mid-life crisis and decide to buy a 600+cc. Or they may have owned a 600 for years which they drive 3 times a year in good weather and move up to 750's and 1100's.

I consider born agains road kill and will never race them, partly because they lose when I don't even try but mostly because they aren't aware of what the bike can do, have no idea of their bikes personnel space and have the road perception of a car driver (extremely limited).

Every weekend I spend an hour cleaning and going over my bike, checking everything is fine. When I'm on the road I've thought about recent weather and how that affects road conditions (e.g. braking distances and general road grip). I'm looking to the farthest point along the road and taking everything in between, from the state of the traffic lights, to the type of cars being driven. I'm constantly thinking about whats going on around me and don't allow distractions.

The by-products are when I approach a roundabout I'm looking at all the exits and entrances what cars are on the roundabout and what their relative speeds are. Is there a gap for me to squeeze into, should I accelerate or decelerate to fit into it. Can I just shoot across, is there traffic ahead of me can I go through the center to get to the roundabout? I know that since I moved from race track tires to a dual compound my braking distances have doubled and tripped in wet cold conditions. I know the bike can handle sharp corners at 60MPH without breaking a sweat. I know the bike can get to 70MPH in less than three seconds in 1st gear.

Knowing this has saved me from some serious accidents. For example a while back I was traveling a dual carriage way (partly three lanes in places) in torrential rain. As I approached a bridge (which was itself a right hand bend) I could see a small fog bank over it. When I hit the fog at 70MPH in the inside lane I discovered cars in all three lanes doing approximately 40-50MPH. Knowing the capabilities of the bike meant instead of braking and going into the back of a car. I saw the second and third lane cars had a bike sized gap , I shot across three lanes and then popped through the gap. This all happened in less than 2 seconds and in my defense I hadn't seen another car on the road in ten minutes and in the UK its against the highway code to be in the outside/middle lane unless your overtaking (major pet peeve of mine).

Unfortunately the stories on how paying attention are too numerous and no where nearly as interesting. All I can say is noticing the slightly erratic driving of another vehicle (minor things from inability to use lanes to strange road position rather than the more obvious kind) or watching cars as they approach junctions has saved me no end of troubles.

Born agains do none of the above, the are commuting car drivers who treat their bikes like a car and suffer for it. Interestingly they are usually the people who goto all the clubs and own the best gear.

Re:And this repels morons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "average" driver out there is a danger to themselves and everyone else. But there are some of us that can actually handle our cars.

Most drivers overestimate their own abilities. I think you're another of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#In_driving_ability

Re:And this repels morons?

[Timothy Brownawell]

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 weren't certain you're above average, you'd pay more attention to avoiding situations where that matters?

Re:And this repels morons?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you have expert bike knowledge and handling.

But even with all that knowledge, somehow I don't think it is wise to be riding at 70 MPH in a torrential rain. And this goes doubly so when approaching a bridge (crosswinds and all that), and triply so with fog hanging over it.

Re:And this repels morons?

[Altus]

But I love those guys. Without people like that I wouldn't be able to buy a 2 year old Harley with no miles on it, practically never ridden, for far less than it cost new.

Besides, these aren't the people you see out on the street riding, most of these clowns never get out of their driveways.

Pointless Sensationalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it strange how they never mention the speeds of the vehicles?
 
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.
 
Just a waste of a good old car that would be running in 100 years, unlike the 2009 plasticized obsolescence prone electronically "enhanced" US style-over-substance car.
 
Sigh...!
   

Re:Pointless Sensationalism

[jjohnson]

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

[osu-neko]

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:Pointless Sensationalism

[styrotech]

Not only are they far more common, they are also a 'worse case' compared a straight head on. ie roughly the same amount of energy is being absorbed by a smaller portion of the cars structure.

Re:Pointless Sensationalism

[seekertom]

You are right, REAL crashes hit indeterminately, but in crashes such as these which are designed for comparison purposes, the test was a sham! To be real, both cars would have hit head-on. In this case, the new car had the full-frontal protection, smacked squarely across the front bumper, while the poor ol' timer had to put up with a car driven right into the driver's seat from the quarter. Where's the comparison to that? I wonder how the new Malibu would have fared if it had been hit by the Bel Aire at the same angles as in their test? jes' wonderin' thanks for lis'nin' seekertom ps, I DO agree that newer cars are made better and safer, btw!

STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[IHC Navistar]

So they destroyed a CLASSIC CAR THAT STOPPED BEING MAGE 50 YEARS AGO just to celebrate their 50th anniversery?

Hope the asshats who made that decision aren't around much longer.....

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[Anonymous Coward]

So they destroyed a CLASSIC CAR THAT STOPPED BEING MAGE 50 YEARS AGO just to celebrate their 50th anniversery?

Hope the asshats who made that decision aren't around much longer.....

Yes. How dare we sacrifice something in order to learn!

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[0123456]

Yes. How dare we sacrifice something in order to learn!

While this video is interesting in an abstract kind of way, I can't help but wonder what you think we really 'learn' from it? We know that 1950s cars weren't built with much attention paid to crash safety, and while it does clearly demonstrate that a modern car is much safer than a car of that era, there are so few of those cars still on the road that you can hardly argue that it will even convince drivers to switch from unsafe old cars to much safer new ones.

That said, if they did only pay $200 for it then it was probably a clunker which was not worth repairing; though then you have to wonder whether it was really a good example to use in a crash test (e.g. rotten structural members or whatever).

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[mangu]

How dare we sacrifice something in order to learn!

Yeah, let's burn the original Declaration of the Independence in order to learn if parchment burns!

Moron...

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[AigariusDebian]

All cars older than 10 years should be banned from the roads and a few best examples should be put in the museums with disabled engines - the rest should be just crushed. The impact on the society from them and the irresposible people drive these cars is way too great: more emmissions, more pollution in cities, more crashes, more maintenance costs, higher healthcare costs for all the injured people, higher insurance premiums from all the dead people, ...

BAN THE CLUNKERS!

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[tomhudson]

How dare we sacrifice something in order to learn!

Yeah, let's burn the original Declaration of the Independence in order to learn if parchment burns!

Good thing Bush isn't around any more - he'd buy into it.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[Kotoku]

You can pry the 1969 Pontiac Firebird and those beautiful classic GTO's out from under the pile of protesters. I'll be right there protecting our automotive heritage.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is the result of years of social engineering where unqualified minorities are hired into technical and scientific occupations. This sort of stupidity is the outcome of affirmative action politics. It is sad that these "scientists" would be so retarded as to destroy an irreplaceable part of our American culture. But then again that has been their game along: to destroy the real America that belongs to you and me.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[drtsystems]

It shows how far we have advanced in the past 50 years (which seeing some of the comments on here, it apparently isn't clear to everyone that a modern car is more safe than an older one).

What this does is keep advancements in safety technology at the forefront of the publics minds so that government programs and private car companies will continue to invest in advancements in crash safety.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[IHC Navistar]

"All cars older than 10 years should be banned from the roads and a few best examples should be put in the museums with disabled engines"

-Do *YOU* want to pay for my new car every 10 years?

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[ac666]

Dear God, Please let this be the scary-good sarcasm I think it is (and, if so, a big "nice one" to the parent). Your supplicant, ac666

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[Skuld-Chan]

I want to cast magic missile!

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[Isaac-1]

Do you know how idiotic this sounds when you consider many car designs work on an 8-10 year life (some much longer) with mid point cosmetic "freshenings", much the same can be said for engine designs except with an even longer time period and more small upgrades along the way.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[nOw2]

After my drive into work this morning can I also suggest all Audi, BMW and van drivers be instantly banned from driving for a period of 10 years as soon as they agree to buy one of the before mentioned vehicles.

That should cut twattish driving by >50%.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[toddestan]

Why? I saw a lot of advancement in terms of safety and emissions in the 80's and early 90's but comparatively little since. How is a well maintained 10-year-old car considerably worse than a brand a new one? Many 2009 cars are little more than the 1999 version with some changed sheetmetal and a new dashboard.

That's part of the reason why the whole cash for clunkers thing was so incredibly stupid, as lots of perfectly good late 90's and early 00's cars with functioning modern safety and emissions systems got sent to the scrapheap while most of the older unsafe pollutomobiles stayed on the road.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[fishbowl]

>All cars older than 10 years should be banned from the roads and a few best examples should be put in the museums >with disabled engines

Buy me a new Volvo wagon to replace my '91 740 then. Tell you what, I'll settle for just a 20% down payment on the new replacement, and it's a deal. My car has 245,000 miles on it and it's still doing just fine, thank you.

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[fishbowl]

>That said, if they did only pay $200 for it then it was probably a clunker which was not worth repairing;

It's a 1959 Chevy. The chrome trim alone can easily be sold for over a thousand dollars. Each taillight lens, depending on whether it has the chrome trim, would be about $400. The windshield glass is not available at any price, and so you could name your price for someone restoring an Impala. This car is rare, even if you consider its value as a parts car for better '59s...

Re:STUPID STUPID STUPID.....

[IHC Navistar]

"Yes. How dare we sacrifice something in order to learn!"

Learn what? Are you telling me that the demonstrators had to perform this test because they were to stupid to crunch the data from the decades of crash tests preceding it?

body on frame

[BobZee1]

i have long argued this with my "car friends" - a body-on-frame situation doesn't help you much.

Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[reporter]

The 2008 Vehicle Dependability Study by J. D. Powers indicates that both Buick (of GM) and Lincoln-Mercury (of Ford) have reached parity with Toyota and Honda.

Note that the scores in the chart for Lexus (at 120) and Toyota (at 159) differ by about 30% even though both brands are built by the same company and by the same process. In other words, if two brands have scores that differ by, at most 30%, then they should be considered equal in quality.

Hence, any brand with a score of 210.675 (= 159 / 120 * 159) matches the quality of the Toyota brand. In other words, both brands produced by Ford Motor Company now equal the Toyota brand in quality. Also, Chevrolet, the core brand produced by General Motors, continues to be inferior to the Toyota brand.

Best of all, the price of a Ford vehicle is less, by several thousand dollars, than the price of a Toyota vehicle. If you value your hard-earned money, then buy a Ford Fusion instead of a Toyota Camry.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[CrankyFool]

Given that the Toyota and the Lexus are, actually, materially different (different materials, different design), I'm not sure how you can claim that because their scores are 30% apart, a 30% difference is immaterial.

Worse, the logic leap from that to say that the Ford brand, at 30% higher than Toyota, is basically equivalent to Toyota is a little breathtaking. By that logic, if we agree that 30% is basically a rounding error and we can ignore it, then it's worth noting that since the Kia, at 278, is only 30% higher than the Ford, it really should be considered equal in quality. In fact, since the Land Rover, at 368, is LESS than 30% higher than the Kia, it should be considered equal in quality.

And therefore, we can easily determine that the Land Rover, at 368, is basically equal in quality to the Lexus, at 120.

Brilliant!

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[demonlapin]

Or, to put it bluntly, one huge difference between my Lexus ES 350 and the Toyota Camry parked next to it is that mine was built in Miyawaka, Japan, and the other was built in Georgetown, Kentucky.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[Grishnakh]

Best of all, the price of a Ford vehicle is less, by several thousand dollars, than the price of a Toyota vehicle. If you value your hard-earned money, then buy a Ford Fusion instead of a Toyota Camry.

However, if you have any appreciation for aesthetics at all, buy the Toyota. The latest crop of Fords are butt-ugly.

While quality is important, there's other factors that are important in the purchase of a car. Why spend all that money on an ugly car?

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[mobby_6kl]

> if you have any appreciation for aesthetics at all, buy the Toyota

That's probably the fist time something like this has been said, ever. The recent US Fords aren't too bad (except the "new" Focus), but when somebody really has an appreciation for aesthetics, they get an Alfa-Romeo or something else Italian which doesn't have a Fiat badge.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Camry isn't ugly? You don't really have a choice when buying new. You will spend far too much money on an ugly car.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. We're not talking about actually beautiful cars (with high price tags that normal people can't afford, and which are completely impractical for day-to-day driving), we're talking about regular cars that regular middle-class people would buy as their primary vehicle.

If you're stuck with buying a regular sedan, why would you buy the butt-ugly Ford, when you can get a plain but quite decent-looking Toyota?

Just because it isn't a work of art like a Ferrari doesn't mean it needs to be butt-ugly. Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. make loads of very decent-looking, conservatively-styled cars for regular people on a budget. For some reason, the American makers are mostly unable to make a decent-looking car. Most of them are horrendous. Only Chrysler seems to be any good at styling among the American makes. GM had a whole division whose motto was "bold styling": Pontiac. Want to see an example of their wonderful styling? Google the "Aztek". Now, GM has closed that division because it was doing so poorly. The Japanese are much smarter: they don't bother with "bold styling"; they stick to conservative styling that people don't hate, keep quality high, enjoy high resale values (because of the long legacy of the first two), and even in an economic crisis don't have to declare bankruptcy or ask for a bail-out.

Leave the beautiful cars to the makers like Aston-Martin, Ferrari, Maserati, etc. with $100k+ price tags. The rest of us want cars that look nice but not gaudy, and Ford (and GM) can't deliver that.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[Grishnakh]

Compared to a Ford? No.

Japanese makes are well-known to have very conservative styling. While it's criticized by many as "bland", it's better to be "bland" than to be "butt-ugly".

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[stewbacca]

Err....are you sure you want to stand by the claim that Lexus and Toyota are materially different? So YOU are the guy who pays an extra $25k for the Toyota with a Lexus badge!

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[stewbacca]

Did you honestly just recommend the most boring car in the world (Camry) over a Fusion, based on looks? You can keep your boring, soulless, dependable Japanese transportation. I'll take the Fusion in Casino Royale, thanks.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[Grishnakh]

Um, yes. The Fusion is butt-ugly. WTF is with that stupid-looking grille? The rest of the car looks just as boring and soulless as the Camry.

Re:Ford is at parity with Toyota and Honda.

[fishbowl]

>Err....are you sure you want to stand by the claim that Lexus and Toyota are materially different?

Ask people who have been to Toyota plants and have observed the way they transition the assembly line between models. It's a core element of the Toyota Production System that the assembly line can produce multiple products, as opposed to the American system of specializing an assembly line for a given model/type of vehicle. It's truly an amazing thing to observe. It's literally possible that a Camry rolled off the same assembly line right behind a Lexus ES.

Compensation

[michaelmalak]

Great, so now drivers, having this knowledge of crumple zones, will take more risks.

One member of the pedestrian advocacy community refers to these innovations as "safe crashing". They make drivers safer, but also encourage more risky driving, putting unprotected pedestrians at disproportionate risk.

Re:Compensation

[zoney_ie]

Except mostly people want to avoid damaging their car. And with the safety of crumple zones, you can have a *lot* of damage from a fairly slow crash (i.e. fender bender = front/back of car completely mashed up). Saw one of these just last week - doubt the cumulative speed was even 15 mph (stop/start city centre traffic) - and although the vehicle in front only had a broken bumper (or "fender"), the one behind had an entire corner mashed in (lights all smashed, bumper, bonnet and wing all scrunched). Not a big enough crash to deploy airbags or anything either - but not cheap to fix (and the guy behind was liable - you're supposed to keep sufficient distance in front to stop if the guy in front does).

Re:Compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, you would much rather be a pedestrian in front of the '09 Chevy with its plastic and styrofoam bumper, than the '59 Chevy with its massive steel bumper breaking your shins!

Re:Compensation

[Blakey Rat]

One member of the pedestrian advocacy community refers to these innovations as "safe crashing". They make drivers safer, but also encourage more risky driving, putting unprotected pedestrians at disproportionate risk.

Way to be vague.

Does this "one member" of "the pedestrian advocacy community" have any statistics to back up his beliefs, or is he just pulling it out of his ass?

Regardless of how safe cars are, people don't want to hit pedestrians because:
1) They're concerned for the safety of other human beings
2) (For the extreme cynic) They don't want to damage their car

WOWZERS!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the looks of the accident both parties would have died. Lol but no seriously I wouldnt want to be in any of those cars in that accident. But if I had to choose between those cars I would still pick the Bel Air. Honestly think about it, they made the Malibu to get in the accident for this purpose, so dont you think they would have made it a little bit stronger. I dont think that a regular 09 Malibu would stand a chance.

Re:WOWZERS!!!!

[AigariusDebian]

Actually all passengers inthe Malibu would have only minor injuries, while all Bel Air passengers would most likely be dead.

I call shenannigans!

[tomhudson]

If you look at the video, they didn't do a head-on crash - it was left-front fender against left-front fender. In a head-on, the Bel-Airs' much more massive engine block would have cut through the Malibu.

Re:I call shenannigans!

[poopdeville]

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:I call shenannigans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately partial head on collisions are far more common and as the impact zone is reduced a much harsher test of the car.

As for the engine block providing protection, realistically it would probably be sitting in the drivers lap as it may have stopped, but the rest of the car would still be moving forward rapidly.

Re:I call shenannigans!

[Jaime2]

Do you think that for the past 50 years auto engineers have forgotten to account for something hitting the engine dead on? Modern cars get run straight into metal support beams all the time and their engines manage to not intrude on the passenger compartment. How would a Bel Air engine do more damage than a nearly immovable object? The left front collision was chosen because it is the standard "very dangerous and also very likely" collision mode. If head on collisions were the cause of more traffic deaths, then it would be the standard test and would have been in the video.

I'll bet if they dropped the Bel Air directly on the roof of the Malibu (headlights first, not flat), the Malibu driver would have died. Sure, there are situations that wouldn't favor the Malibu. But, a 2009 Malibu driver is more likely to sleep in his own bed tonight then a 1957 Bel Air driver.

Re:I call shenannigans!

[KC7JHO]

OK. Having seen this posted time and again on here, I must respond. My grandmother drove an early 70's Cadillac in a head on collision with an early 90's Honda Civic. The crash was mostly head on, with the offset to the drivers side. Speed was 65-70Mph for both cars. The crash killed the driver of the Honda but My grandmother walked away with slight busing and a single scratch. However, the Cadillac V8 Engine and transmission was in the passenger seat and back seat of the Cadillac! It did NOT go through the Honda, the Honda went through the Caddy, although it did it in pieces. The fact that my grandmother was unhurt was, quite simply unbelievable! (She just said, "That is because of the hand of a REAL God, not the ones you hear about in the news, etc.)
My point is that even 15 years ago cars had progressed enough to keep the engines from coming through the colliding vehicle. The V8 Engine has much less mass and momentum than the rest of the car, when they collided the V8 was broken off it's mounts and pushed back while the rest of the cars disintegrated on each other.

If you think I am trying to say the Caddy was a safer car, you are wrong. By all rights they both should have been dead, I never argued religion with her though! Almost scary to argue against that kind of demonstration. Kind of like standing on a train track refusing to believe in the train.

How about some REAL bumpers?

[EWAdams]

My dad's got a 1946 Dodge pickup. Pickups are notoriously unsafe, but the bumpers on this thing are attached directly to the frame. Both the frame and the bumpers are made of steel about half an inch thick, and the bumpers stick out a good foot ahead of and behind the body.

It would be a lousy thing to crash in -- no seat belts, metal dashboard. But for your ordinary low-speed fender bender it would total any modern car on the road.

Why don't they make cars with REAL bumpers?

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[Rakishi]

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:How about some REAL bumpers?

[thejynxed]

To not have seatbelts installed and the dash upholstered is your dad's decision. He can have that work done anytime he decides to pony up the cash for it. While he's at it, he can also have a roll bar installed.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[spineboy]

Because all that energy is transferred to the occupants in a crash, and most people really, really don't like that. Even 10-15 MPH can hurt pretty bad, especially in an old clunker like that.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[m.ducharme]

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 energy and save money on bumper replacement), but most of us don't have that kind of foresight.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[TubeSteak]

Modern bumpers absorb more of that energy (when they get crushed), and that much less of it gets into the cockpit

Modern bumpers have a combination of an oil/gas hydraulic piston and sometimes a spring too.
Myth Busters did an episode (#120 or S07E06) about exploding bumpers.

The thing is, the standards were changed in 1983(?) to go from a 5 mph bumper to a 2.5 mph because the gas saved from the lower weight is greater than the expected difference in repair costs.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[dbet]

A better way to say it is - if you suddenly go from 30 MPH to a stop, you absorb X amount of energy in Y time. What crumple zones do is extend Y so that you absorb a smaller portion of X per unit time. You will ALWAYS absorb X. But crumple zones crush the car so that instead of a full stop instantly, you spread X over the time it takes the car to be crushed. Y goes from near zero to maybe half a second.

Similarly, jumping off a 10-story building and landing puts X energy into your body, but when stuntmen do it they land on a large air mattress. X is spread over the time it takes to first touch the mattress to when they fully stop, which again is maybe half a second instead of near zero.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[stewbacca]

...because the shock of any accident would be redirected straight through the occupants' bodies, as opposed through the crumple zones, most likely killing them. That was kind of the entire point of the article.

Re:How about some REAL bumpers?

[stewbacca]

Holy dangling modifier, batman. I suck and didn't proof read. Of course the occupants would be killed, not the crumple zones...and I'm pretty sure I forgot the word "to". Oh well, back to drinking.

Re:Crumple zones

[Joce640k]

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 fuel economy. I realize a light car is unpatriotic in the USA but the savings in fuel, tires and insurance (light car=smaller engine) will more than offset the slightly higher number of dents from not lugging 2000 pounds of useless steel with you everywhere you go.

Moral of the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

A tank will trample a tin can?

So drive a tank, you know it makes sense

Re:Moral of the story?

[fishbowl]

M1A1 at Three Gallons Per Mile.

How would you like to be the guy who has to drive the fuel truck for the tank?

Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surgery

[spineboy]

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?

Fuzzy

[inject_hotmail.com]

Fuzzy dice, on the Bel Air's dashboard at 1:04...who else noticed?

Meanwhile in real life ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crash an 09 Malibu travelling at 40mph into another 09 travelling at 40mph - or to be even more realaistic, both should be travelling at 50-60 mph. I bet the drivers will suffer more than a bruised knee or whatever. This is a pointless test

Re:Meanwhile in real life ...

[phrostie]

also in real life the 59 chevy weighed almost twice what the 09 does.

in the video they both had equal recoil.

Re:Meanwhile in real life ...

[shaped.dither]

[citation needed]

The manufacturer's curb weight of the Bel Air was 3,615. The published curb weight of the Malibu was 3,436. A mere 179 lbs is probably not the weight differential you were expecting.

link shamelessly stolen from up this page

Re:Meanwhile in real life ...

[phrostie]

wouldn't have guessed it.

Re:Crumple zones

[Anonymous Coward]

You may find this somewhat surprising, but the weight differential between older cars and newer cars really isn't all that much:

The manufacturer's curb weight of the Bel Air was 3,615. The published curb weight of the Malibu was 3,436. A mere 179 lbs is probably not the weight differential you were expecting.

link

What's really happened is newer cars have their weight distributed in different patterns than older cars. Whatever we're saving on uni-body vs. a body on frame construction we're putting right back in with a dozen airbags, miles of wiring, power windows in each door, sound deadening, etc.

Holly Hunter

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow
Watching that crash porn really got my engine revved.
For some reason I feel compelled to have sex with Holly Hunter now.

Let's Land on him, we'll cripple his car

[s73v3r]

Marty, he's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean. He'd rip through us like we were tin foil.

Fuzzy Dice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks the fuzzy dice in the Bel Air contributed to the impact in a nontrivial way? Imagine all that foam bouncing around on the dash - that has to be part of what caused that Bel Air to sustain such major damage.

Re:Fuzzy Dice?

[KC7JHO]

Hanging those on the mirror just made the car loose its will to survive! It just gave up and cashed in it's chips. ;)

Now if the modern cars could handle low speed

[sjames]

Clearly newer cars win hands down and save lives in a high speed collision.

The opposite perception is probably based on low speed fender benders. These days, you can do thousands in damage backing your SUV into a pole at 5 mph, an incident that wouldn't even leave visible damage on the older cars. In those situations, the older cars were clearly superior.

What we need is a modern design, crumple zones and all, but designed so they only come in to play when actually useful.

What I'd really like to see is a comparison between a '70s era car and a new one. Safety engineering was being done then (unlike the '50s where tempered glass and seat belts were both considered optional). While a single incident is hardly a study, I was once rear-ended while driving a 77 Olds. The other car (a no longer recognizable late '80s something) was a total loss, radiator driven back into the fan, front end crumpled with tires burst by the fenders, hood bent 90 degrees, etc. I had a little dent in my bumper. The next day, I picked the fragments of the other guy's grill and parking lights out of my license plate frame.

I suspect that at some point in the '80s we went right past the optimal design point until today where even so-called off road vehicles are fragile.

As a comparison, 2 model Ts could collide head on at full speed with no significant damage. Of course both drivers would likely be dead.

Re:Now if the modern cars could handle low speed

[uncqual]

As a comparison, 2 model Ts could collide head on at full speed with no significant damage.

That seems unlikely if Wikipedia is to be believed. At a top speed of 40-45 MPH and a weight of 1200 pounds it seems unlikely to me that the body and frame would fare well.

However, perhaps they should have done a 2009 Ford $Something crash into a 1909 Model T to show the improvements over the past 100 years.

Re:Now if the modern cars could handle low speed

[dunkelfalke]

There is a video on youtube with a crash test of some nineties Renault Espace and a modern one.
Same outcome as with this crash test. Modern cars are much safer.

Re:Now if the modern cars could handle low speed

[tehcyder]

As a comparison, 2 model Ts could collide head on at full speed with no significant damage. Of course both drivers would likely be dead.

I believe that's called progress.

Chevrolet Bel Air

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now this is a story all about how my chevy got crushed, turned inside out..."

The crash video is a bit misleading

[Joe Branya]

Modern cars are much more crashworthy and safer than old cars. But this video is a bit of an intentional misrepresentation of reality. Starting with the 1959 models, GM went to a modified unit body construction, eliminating the two, heavy, car-length frame rails that ran the length of the car, and instead mounting a small front frame to attach the engine and transmission to a newly designed unit-body passenger compartment. The aim was to lower the car's profile and to improve head-on collision crash survivability. In the new design the front end was designed as a crush zone- no more instant stop for the passengers when two rigid-frame cars collided head on. Also the engine would no longer end up in the passenger compartment when it broke loose from the frame in a bad accident; instead the engine would absorb much of the front end impact and then slid slide harmlessly underneath the passenger compartment when the subframe collapsed (that was what the wide "hump" in the middle of the floor of the 1959 car was all about). One result of this new design was to make the 1959 cars more dangerous in one type of accident, a "corner to corner" collision, one where the impact was head on but the two cars overlapped a bit but not enough so that the engines absorbed the impact- it was a design tradeoff. The Insurance Institute, which is, after all, a self-congratulatory lobbying group, reproduced that one type of accident here on purpose to showcase the results it wanted you to see. The Institute moved the impact point so that only 40-45% of the cars would overlap (see the overhead view at 1:16-18 in the shockwave flash cited- http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/ ). This is enough overlap to make full use of the new car's unit front end, roll cage and air bags (note even the windshield stays in and absorbs energy), but the overlap is small enough that the old car's engine and transmission, designed to absorb energy in a head on collision, were just outside the accident zone and did not absorb any of the impact energy. If the institute had shown a real head on collision the results would have been very, very different, with the damage much more equal. And a 1958 Chevy in a corner-to-corner would have performed much better. New cars are nifty, but this is a piece of propaganda designed to "educate the masses".

Re:The crash video is a bit misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a perfectly legitimate test. The two standards for front-end crash testing are full-frontal, which simulates a 35mph crash into a wall, and 40% offset, which simulates drifting over the centerline and hitting oncoming traffic at 40mph. It wouldn't make sense to simulate a crash into a brick wall by substituting a car for the wall. Even if it did make sense, it doesn't make sense to cherry-pick the one situation where your car doesn't crumble like a cookie. In fact, the reason they do an offset test is because it's the one that cars traditionally do worse on.

Of course, even if they had done a full-frontal crash with a '57 Chevy, the results wouldn't have been much different. The front bumper attached to the Bel Air's frame rails would have uniformly crumpled the Malibu's front end, allowing the Malibu's driver to walk away. And the Bel Air's driver, instead of being crushed by the encroaching engine compartment, would have died by becoming a 170-pound missile flying through one or both of the cars' windshields.

Re:The crash video is a bit misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

This poster is correct. This wasn't a "cherry picked" test, this crash test is the "gold standard" for auto safety and has been for some time. Unfortunately I have no mod points.

Re:The crash video is a bit misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment may be informative with regard to some of the engineering choices made in the late 50s, but your conclusion that the test was biased is just daft.

You're basically saying that, when evaluating a suit of 15th century armor for use by the troops in Iraq, it wouldn't be fair to shoot at it with a rifle as it was only designed to protect against swords and arrows. It's pretty obvious where that logic falls apart.

Yes, the '59 Chevy wasn't designed to provide added protection in an offset crash, but that doesn't change the fact that an offset crash is far more common than full head-on, thus why offset crashes are part of the standard testing methodology.

"If they had done fuel economy testing against a Prius, the results would have been quite different!" Duh!

And what's with the "educate the masses" jab? You think there's a big conspiracy to... what? Make more people buy new cars rather than demand the '59 models be reintroduced?

Re:The crash video is a bit misleading

[EmagGeek]

How is it a legitimate test when one of the cars doesn't even have an engine in it?

Re:The crash video is a bit misleading

[Alioth]

But the type of crash they showed is precisely the sort of crash a typical "head on" crash is. Head on crashes are rarely full front to full front, but usually less than 40% of the offside of each car colliding with each other, as one of the drivers drifted over the centreline. This is why the insurance industry uses this kind of crash - they have no axe to grind, they want to simulate the most common type of "head on" crash so they can accurately make their actuary tables. If they didn't, they would end up making the wrong risk assessments, and they wouldn't maximise their profits.

Elastinc vs. Inelastic?

[Schmorgluck]

Just one week ago, I was having lunch at my brother's girlfriend's, who is a teacher in history of sciences, and at a moment said how puzzled she was by a physicist she knows who does't like his cars not to have a tough hull.

A physicist, dammit! She opposed him arguments about elastic and inelastic collisions, but nope, to him a car with a deformable hull is shitty. Go figure.

Green cars

[GrBear]

I'd be more interested in seeing a SUV like a Hummer verses a car like a Honda Fit. Andï people wonder why there isn't a higher adoption of green vehicles.

Re:Green cars

[trouser]

Crash test results for the Hummer H3 and the Honda Fit suggest that the driver and passengers of both vehicles would fare well in such a collision.

http://www.carseverything.com/257/2009-honda-fit-crash-test-ratings.html
http://www.carseverything.com/257/2009-hummer-h3-crash-tests.html

Incidentally my mother in law recently bought a car. She wanted a big car as they are safer. I assured her crash test results were a better indicator of fitness in an accident than size. She revised her opinion. She now believes that a big car with a good safety rating is safer than a small car with the same rating.

Never let evidence based science stand in the way of folk wisdom and intuition.

Re:Green cars

[tthomas48]

Not to mention that if you accidentally do a bit of swerving in that Hummer you might be upside down quickly. It would be rather difficult to flip a Fit. Most of the bad accidents I see these days involve rollovers.

Guess we need better roofs. Or people could just stop buying SUVs since as this article points out there is little safety in weight.

This test is unfair!

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a re-test! The engineers had no way to know that their work would be destroyed against such advanced technology. Think of the poor engineers reputation!

Let's take the 09 Malibu, and crash it with the 2059 Malibu... I bet that would be a fair comparison!

Re:I drive a 69 Chevy...

[elpostino]

... and the test was interesting (and a little sad) to me too. The one thing that I have noticed in the last 10 years is new cars now have REALLY great brakes when compared to mine and most drivers have adapted their driving habits (i.e. braking later) to them.

How about a different test?

[edxwelch]

Drive a Malibu and a Belair into a lake and see who gets out before drowning.
Chances are the Belair driver will survive, because it doesn't have electric windows. The electrics go almost imediately underwater and you can't roll down the windows and with the windows closed you can't open the doors because of the pressure.

Re:How about a different test?

[kegger64]

Sorry, but your wrong. Mythbusters debunked the power windows vs. manual windows in a submersion test a long time ago. The pressure of the water prevents rolling down the windows with a manual crank just like an electric. But the question I have to ask is why does this scenario concern anyone? How many people really get trapped underwater in their cars and drown?

Re:How about a different test?

[Namlak]

Drive a Malibu and a Belair into a lake and see who gets out before drowning.
Chances are the Belair driver will survive, because it doesn't have electric windows. The electrics go almost imediately underwater and you can't roll down the windows and with the windows closed you can't open the doors because of the pressure.

1) And you think the electrics will go out "almost immediately" why? Can you provide any basis for your statement? I believe Mythbusters tested this an found that the electric windows will operate submerged for over an hour. Electricity would much rather travel through wires than water. Fresh water is a rather poor conductor by comparison. OK, salt water will conduct much better than fresh water so don't crash into the Dead Sea.

2) The newer car may be more airtight, lengthening the time for someone to gather their wits after impact and take some good breaths of air before they...

3) ..break out a window and get virtually sucked out of the car along with the air or at least allow the car to fill so they can simply swim out. Newer cars have much thinner glass than older cars. Plus, auto glass is designed to be very strong against impacts from the outside but trades that for weakness in the other direction. Go to a junk yard sometime and wrap your knuckles solidly against the inside of a windshield and watch it crack easily. You won't be able to do that from the outside - maybe even with a rock.

Re:How about a different test?

[edxwelch]

Top gear did a test to see how fast you could get out, submerging a Vauxhall Belmont in water and the electrics did give out immediately
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/car-underwater-1
And I'm sorry but the rest of your speculations sound pretty unlikely to me.

Re:How about a different test?

[KC7JHO]

I bet the Malibu windows are easier to kick out than the Belair, just because they are thinner and designed to burst on impact. What kind of side windows did the Belair have in it? Was it safety glass like what is in the Malibu?

Re:How about a different test?

[fishbowl]

>How many people really get trapped underwater in their cars and drown?

I don't know how common it is, but it has happened to two people in my family, there are plenty of current-event reports on this type of accident, and there are a few really famous incidents.

Well, if they were dead anyway...

[Chas]

Then they wouldn't mind being killed a little more would they?

Two (well 3 really) things I like

[thewils]

One was the comment on the video, "clearly the malibu driver was at fault - he should have given way" and also, did anyone else notice the Nissan Commercial in the videos to the right? The one about Front independent suspension?

other angles

[bmorency]

If anyone is interested here is another video of the same crash but this one shows different angles including what is going on inside the cars and what the drivers are going through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I

They used the wrong classic car

[theGhostPony]

If they'd of used Christine, the outcome may have been a lot different.

And I'm not saying that cause I own one. ;)

Re:They used the wrong classic car

[Cassini2]

If they'd of used Christine, the outcome may have been a lot different.

They cut self-repairing feature from the video. Apparently, the IIHS isn't ready to accept that cars kill people, people kill people.

Re:I drive a 69 Chevy...

[bar-agent]

The one thing that I have noticed in the last 10 years is new cars now have REALLY great brakes when compared to mine and most drivers have adapted their driving habits (i.e. braking later) to them.

Might want to get your brakes looked at, maybe replace the pads. I expect it's possible to replace the brakes altogether with more modern brake actuators and materials, but I don't know if you can get the latest in ABS if your car doesn't have the capability to begin with.

The Next Step

[kilodelta]

I'm going to start with trains. Trains in the U.S. practice collision survival whereas trains in Europe and Asia use collision avoidance.

The same principle applies to automobiles, collision survival vs. avoidance. We're starting to see a little feature creep in that respect but it won't come soon enough for my tastes. Right now the collision avoidance is a passive device, it warns if you're getting too close. Instead the car should simply take over to preserve itself.

Pads? Try shoes.

[NixieBunny]

Old cars used drum brakes front and rear. They really suck compared to disc brakes. I leave a LOT of space in front of me when driving the old boat, for this reason.

There was no engine in the Bel Air

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a close look. The Malibu crumpled, but the Bel Air flattened. The cars of the 50's had a ridged frames and most likely would slice through a modern car like a knife through butter. Didn't GM also rig SUVs with rockets and such in demo videos. Looks like they are at it again.

The '59 chevy nearly got her revenge...

[Anne Honime]

The bonnet didn't show any sign of crumpling / bending, and could very well have intruded the '09 interior through the windshield, neatly decapitating the driver. Sadly, it happened historically. That would have avenged the old lady.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Have a look at race cars

[Sycraft-fu]

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

[squizzar]

There was a program on Dave in the UK about world rally car crashes, it might be on youtube somewhere. The amount of damage those cars can take without compromising the safe zone inside for the drivers is phenomenal. You see the cars hit hinkelsteins (the tank traps) at ludicrous speeds and get ripped to shreds. The navigator and driver tend to swear a bit and then get out of the car.

Re:Have a look at race cars

[snowgirl]

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:Have a look at race cars

[maxume]

The persons body has a certain amount of energy. Half of what the crumple zones do is keep parts of the car from intruding into the passenger compartment. The other half of what they do is extend the amount of time taken to dissipate the energy in the body.

Off-center impact makes the Malibu look good

[Anonymous Coward]

The video shows us the left side of the Bel Air (closer to the centerline of impact, gets crushed) and the right side of the Malibu (farther from centerline of impact, not directly opposite the mass of the Bel Air). This makes the Malibu come off better in the video than it probably would if the impact had been filmed from the opposite side, or if the impact had been dead center.
That said, I don't doubt that the Malibu's modern safety features would have made it a better place to sit in this crash - but I hate it when video gimmickry is added to enhance the argument. Doesn't help credibility.

Combined speed?

[BigBuckHunter]

Hi there, The youtube video contains the qualifier "2: Both cars were moving at 40mph for a combined speed of 80mph". This is not correct. Both cars were moving at 40mph for a combined speed of 40mph. Whether you're hitting an immovable brick wall at 40mph, or an object of equal mass and velocity moving at the opposite direction, you're still accelerating from 40mph to 0mph (a 40mph crash).

BBH

Re:Combined speed?

[thebigmacd]

You are partially correct, but the equivalent speed is not 80 mph or 40 mph, it is 56.7 mph

The total kinetic energy absorbed in a collision is equal to the sums of the kinetic energies of the objects involved

Assuming a 1500 kg car travelling 18 m/s (40 mph):
E_k = 1500kg * (18 m/s)^2 = 486 kJ

Two 1500kg vehicles travelling 40 mph: total energy = 486 + 486 = 972 kJ
Assuming one vehicle hitting a stationary vehicle with same total energy, solve for velocity
v = SQRT(972kJ/1500kg) = 25.515 m/s (56.7 mph)
Each vehicle absorbs 486 kJ of energy

If you replace one vehicle with a "brick wall", yes everything changes again because the "brick wall" absorbs very little energy
In this case, the vehicle can be assumed to absorb all of the energy of the collision, and the equivalent speed is 40 mph

So these are all equivalent:
1 vehicle @ 40 + 1 vehicle @ 40
1 vehicle @ 56.7 + 1 vehicle @ 0
1 vehicle @ 40 + brick wall

You made the false assumption that if a car doing 40 mph hit a stationary car, the stationary car wouldn't move. This is only the case if the stationary car it itself butted up against a brick wall.

Re:Combined speed?

[MartinSchou]

Isn't it simply 40 * sqrt(2) = 56.57?

Actually your numbers don't match up at all.

sqrt(972 000 / 1 500) = 25.4558441 m/s
25.51500 (meters / second) = 57.0754295 mph

If we just do sqrt(972 000 / 1500) * (m / s) = 56.9431016 mph, we come up with a result that doesn't match mine either.

Re:Combined speed?

[hackerjoe]

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!)

Re:Combined speed?

[jamesh]

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.

Well put. I think where people get mixed up is that it's also equivalent to the same car travelling at 40MPH and hitting a brick wall, provided that the brick wall is a classic 'unmovable object' and doesn't deform or anything.

A really simple way to demonstrate crumple zones

[beefnog]

My favorite way to demonstrate crumple zone effectiveness (I have that kind of life, what can I say) is to have a friend that doesn't see the point put on a hard hat and headbutt the wall. Next, I duct tape a few pop cans to the hard hat and have them try again. Guess which one hurts less? It usually gets the point across.

Re:Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surger

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, whiplash is REAL?

I prefer the best of both, Airbags & solid fr

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in stacks in classic car's & modern car's with crumple zones & air bags. One of the sedans so classic it had a front bench seat & manual seat belts you adjusted to perfectly fit you. I was hit in the rear @ 60kph, i think that's about 40 mph while i was stationary. Big steel bumpers that absorbed a lot of the impact. I didn't even get a concussion or headache, no whiplash. Car was very repairable. Around the bumper crumpled a bit. A 1970's Aussie Holden Torana.

You know what i want in a car? The best of both worlds. How's about a car frame that is solid enough to be repairable, external hanging panels that can crumple & absorb impact, airbags & abs brakes, hi tech seat belts and seats designed to hold you in place?

Crumple zones may reduce injuries, but i bet the car companies like them more because they help destroy car's so we have to buy new ones. Car's should be built so that if the occupant area doesn't suffer too much damage, the rest of the car can be rebuilt around it, not thrown away like currently.

Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone use an analogy to explain this to me? Preferably one using cars.

Bad comparison...

[Leuf]

4-8-4 vs 2009 Civic, put me in the locomotive please.

Fuzzy Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody else spot the rear-view mirror decorations in the Bel Air?

New tech wins

[Hamsterdan]

That's about a month old. New car wins, thanks to crumple zones. I hate that they destroyed a classic car... New style-less car wins against a classic.

No engine.

[scott_karana]

Careful viewers will notice that there is no engine installed in the Bel Air.
I don't think the test is particularly enlightening, based on this fact. Sure, the engine block would still end up in the cabin, but its mass would have helped slow the crumpling of the hood.

All in all, an underwhelming "experiment".

Re:No engine.

[nOw2]

Careful viewers will notice that there is no engine installed in the Bel Air.

Why do you think they would be trying to mislead you?
I'm not up on current conspiracy theories but surely this isn't one?

Re:No engine.

[stewbacca]

Guess I'm not a careful viewer...otherwise I'm just imagining the engine parts that are flying of the Chevy in all directions.

Re:No engine.

[fishbowl]

>Careful viewers will notice that there is no engine installed in the Bel Air.

An inline six. The oncoming car missed the engine.

The same phenomenon happens in old Straight-8 Buicks too. Those cars are unbelievably heavy and have a lot of steel and stuff -- and guess where all that steel goes, the fender, hood, firewall, front axle, steering column, floor pan, etc?

A different Chevy of the same year might have had a 283 or a 350 V8, and this crash might have been different.

Re:YouTube Commenters strike again || XKCD Obliq

[n1ckml007]

http://xkcd.com/202/

Re:Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surger

[amplt1337]

Wow. I'm surprised you have time for this slashdot claptrap. Maybe medicine doesn't have to eat your whole life after all... maybe there's time yet...

Re:Crumple zones

[Civil_Disobedient]

lugging 2000 pounds of useless steel with you

Hey, now. The only reason we even have classic cars is because they have so much steel that they can sit rotting in barns or fields for decades and still be restored. Modern cars won't last half as long with all the plastic and thinner sheet metal.

The "bigger picture," however, is that you will last longer in a modern car.

You can see the difference even in newer cars

[mdarksbane]

One car show did a similar test with a new compact versus a car with a huge reputation for safety - a 1990-ish Volvo stationwagon. I have personally had my mother in law talk about how she didn't want her daughter driving an unsafe small car, so she should take the old volvo. The volvo crushed the passenger compartment, the new compact was fine.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a 4 door anyway!

Ouch

[spaceyhackerlady]

This reminds me of a question my Dad used to rant about: why can't they make cars that will withstand crashes? The answer, as I know know, is they can, but if the car doesn't absorb the energy of the impact, the occupants will.

I'd like to see an underside view of the wreck of the '59 Bel Air. I suspect the frame is bent like a parallelogram, and the front end sheet metal that intruded in to the driver's compartment all broke off its mounts in the impact. No structure, no protection of any kind. The only question for front seat passengers would be whether they went though the windshield or did a faceplant on the dash.

Some years ago I saw footage of a crash test of a 1929 Chevrolet under modern IIHS/NCAP conditions. It disintegrated on impact and was not recognizable as a car afterwards. No, I've never seen the video on line, anywhere.

...laura

Re:Ouch

[fishbowl]

>The only question for front seat passengers would be whether they went though the windshield or did a faceplant on >the dash.

Oh come now, there's also the question of whether the buckling floor pan severed any legs, and whether the driver's side instrument bezels decapitated the driver, or if the glove box door decapitated the passenger or merely took off an arm at the shoulder. And don't forget the back seat passenger, who surely had heart and head trauma upon impacting the back of the front seat, with its steel springs and frame and all.

This vision isn't new, mind you -- I drove this very car for YEARS, and this scenario was definitely something I thought about often.

Only slow mo?

[Ninjaspork19]

Where's the full speed crash? I mean slow motion is great, from several angles, but it would be nice to see them racing at each other with a nice full speed, loud crash.

stop spreading fud

[BlackSnake112]

No SUV is four feet off the ground from the factory. People who mod their car or truck do so at their own risk

SUV != sports car hence driving at normal speeds they are fine. The same moron that speeds in an SUV would also speed in any other car.

SUVs roll over when put into situations where they should not be. i.e. a SUV will roll if driven off road along a steep hill. News flash: 99.999% of SUVs were not designed to be driven off road. They were designed for a paved road. Look at the ones that were designed to be driven off road. Those models do not roll over.

With backing over a child. You might want to drive some new cars. They have put backup cameras into them for the very reason that you cannot see directly behind you. I saw more behind me in the explorer I had then the altima I have now. That reason goes both ways.

Any car can be safe or unsafe. It depends on the driver of said car. Blanket statements about one class of car is wrong. And BTW, why is it that in some states the insurance rates for SUVs are higher? Because SUVs have a higher chance or surviving an accident. But that survivability comes at the cost of damaging the other car more. That is a quote from 5 different insurance companies.

I will be flamed for this, but the small car rules all thinking is wrong. Some people have a reason for that SUV. I needed a SUV to haul stuff (either the doors, sheet rock, other large things to fix up my place or a friends. The coolers, fishing rods, other fishing or camping stuff for trips). Renting a SUV/truck every weekend did not make sense over owning it and not having to pay the fee every weekend.

I was in 3 accidents while I had the car (12 years). I was rear ended 3 times. So much for the big SUV not seeing other cars, they couldn't see me. Yes my lights were working before and after the accidents, I was stopped at a traffic light for each one. I drove away from each one as well. Not so much for the cars that hit me though.

Re:stop spreading fud

[Rei]

SUVs roll over when put into situations where they should not be. i.e. a SUV will roll if driven off road along a steep hill.

Or into a ditch. Or when trying to swerve at highway speeds. SUVs roll over all the time in the real world. Congratulations to lucky you that you haven't rolled yours yet.

With backing over a child. You might want to drive some new cars.

I'm just quoting accident statistics. And while you perceive you have better visibility in an SUV due to the height, in general, you can't see as close to the front bumper in an SUV compared to a sedan, either.

And BTW, why is it that in some states the insurance rates for SUVs are higher?

Wait, are you defending or attacking SUVs? High insurance rates are good in your book?

Because SUVs have a higher chance or surviving an accident

No, it means that they expect them to get into accidents more and expect to have to pay larger claims. Obviously.

But that survivability comes at the cost of damaging the other car more.

Gee, thanks for supporting the worst solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma concerning auto fatalities.

I needed a SUV to haul stuff (either the doors, sheet rock, other large things to fix up my place or a friends. The coolers, fishing rods, other fishing or camping stuff for trips)

And that makes up what percent of your total trips? And a pickup wouldn't have been better why? Furthermore, you assume "size = weight". While they're certainly correlated, it's not a 1:1 correlation. Design also plays a major role.

Re:Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surger

[Anonymous Coward]

Car repairs are much, much cheaper than hospital bills

Only in America. Much of the rest of the world has socialized medicine so the hospital doesn't cost you anything.

Boyd Coddington is Rolling over in his grave

[Virtucon]

Why couldn't they have crashed a Yugo or something instead of the old Chev? Sad...

Body Coddington is rolling over in his grave!

I did my own side-impact crash test.

[fishbowl]

Some idiot in a late 80s Firebird decided to T-Bone my 1959 Impala.

The results were pretty much the opposite of what's in TFA.

There wasn't much left of the front of the Firebird. The side of my Impala was dented pretty badly, but smooth enough to be recoverable.
It screwed up my transmission mounts which turned out to be *very* expensive, but otherwise ok.

What stopped me from driving that 59 Chevy was the cost of gasoline. I stopped being able to afford it at about $1.17/gal I think, and I bought a Hyundai. I don't know who has my old Chevy today, but I think it's still in the family, so to speak.

Re:Crumple zones

[DMUTPeregrine]

Lighter also means lower kinetic energy, and thus less to dissipate upon crashing. That makes things a bit safer (though, of course, since kinetic energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2 the velocity is a much larger component of the kinetic energy which must be dissipated.)

Re:Car repairs are cheaper than orthopaedic surger

[fishbowl]

>Only in America. Much of the rest of the world has socialized medicine so the hospital doesn't cost you anything.

You mean to say that the cost of providing medical service is amortized centrally and distributed among taxpayers, right?

Metal age

[bruceslog]

Ok, the older car has a whole lot more metal than the newer car.
If the newer car had hit a tractor trailer, which is made with more metal, the newer car would have been smished.
If the newer car had hit a train, which is made with even more metal, the newer car would have been pulverized.
Suggesting that more metal would equate to more protection. Certainly more protection than what I saw in this video.
So why is the newer car, with less metal, looking better than the older car, which has more steel in it's front bumper the the newer car has throughout it's entire body.

Could it be that the 50 year old metal in the older car was just plain OLD ? Fatigued ? weakened ? not necessarily rusted, but just weaker than it was in 1959.

A possibility ?

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? I'd rather die in an iconic car that represents American ingenuity in pushing the design envelope
from 1959 than "survive" in some lame dime-a-dozen-rental-fleet-piece-of-junk that won't last 20 years any
day of the week.

Big deal. Sure, I want safety, but geeze, why not smash some lame-o 1960s Datsun or Honda??

That would be funny!