Crash test. 1959 vs 2009

[Dave Lehnert]

Kinda interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

[Mike McCann]

I can not believe they destroyed such a great car.

[Van Huskey]

I can not believe they destroyed such a great car.

Its OK, they destroy Ferraris in the same manner a FAR bigger shame IMO but I must admit they haven't done any 250 GTOs if they do then I might never recover.

I always laugh at people that talk about how old heavy iron cars were safer, they were truely death traps, as todays cars are compared to what we will be driving 50 years from now.

[Brian Effinger]

Would have thought the '59 would do better. The modern car is so much lighter, but it sliced the Bel Air open like a can.

[Greg Peterson]

Science can do amazing things.

[Curt Harms]

Science can do amazing things.
Science or Engineering? Although there are overlaps.

[Bill Huber]

They sure don't build them like they used to......... and aren't we glad.

[Jeff Monson]

They might have been built heavy....but not smart. Its very amazing at how a lighter vehicle can be twice as safe.

[Chuck Wintle]

not to mention the steering wheel shaft that often impaled the driver during an impact....this must have killed many drivers.

[David Weaver]

.. my mother is a proponent of the safety of the "old big cars" because of how heavy (her description) they are.

A lot of them had layouts that were expansive, and suspension and tires that gave the impression that they were heavier than they are vs. current cars.

http://www.oldride.com/library/1959_chevrolet_impala.html

Check out the impala weight in the old ones - just under 2 tons.

And the current...

... just under 2 tons. Ask anyone who knows what a 1959 impala is and the immediate response would be the old one is heavier, but in reality they are about the same. I would've guessed the old one was heavier, too. I certainly would call the old one a full size car and the new one mid size (or large mid size) if I were thinking about it.

The really heavy old cars were the lincolns and cadillacs (and maybe some of the really large chryslers) - only the very biggest, but even they are lighter than the current SUVs and large crossovers (which can get to 3 tons - like the avalanche and tahoe).

Even the mid-size SUV/crossover types like the Chevy Traverse (trying to keep it in brand here) are 1000 pounds heavier than the '59 impala (about 4700 pounds) and the "mid size" minivans weigh about the same.

Though none of that weight stuff has much to do with crash test results (unless you study the result of two cars - where cars that do the single crash test well like the smart find themselves in multi-hit accidents because a bigger car bounces them into another lane in a crash), a lot of it is probably related to making the vehicle sound quiet and feel solid (when's the last time you shut a door on a vehicle and it sounded like the clank of sheet metal and stampings like you'd get on an old impala or an old truck). The crash test improvements are probably purely a result of actually trying.

My mother's old favorites, if they don't get peeled like a tin can, will deposit everything in the engine compartment right on your lap, without too much effort. She experienced that once in the '70s and nearly was killed (by the front of the car moving back, and especially the moving steering column), but I'm still not sure she believes the safety of new cars vs the old ones.

[Jeff Monson]

.. my mother is a proponent of the safety of the "old big cars" because of how heavy (her description) they are.

A lot of them had layouts that were expansive, and suspension and tires that gave the impression that they were heavier than they are vs. current cars.

http://www.oldride.com/library/1959_chevrolet_impala.html

Check out the impala weight in the old ones - just under 2 tons.

And the current...

... just under 2 tons. Ask anyone who knows what a 1959 impala is and the immediate response would be the old one is heavier, but in reality they are about the same. I would've guessed the old one was heavier, too. I certainly would call the old one a full size car and the new one mid size (or large mid size) if I were thinking about it.

The really heavy old cars were the lincolns and cadillacs (and maybe some of the really large chryslers) - only the very biggest, but even they are lighter than the current SUVs and large crossovers (which can get to 3 tons - like the avalanche and tahoe).

Even the mid-size SUV/crossover types like the Chevy Traverse (trying to keep it in brand here) are 1000 pounds heavier than the '59 impala (about 4700 pounds) and the "mid size" minivans weigh about the same.

Though none of that weight stuff has much to do with crash test results (unless you study the result of two cars - where cars that do the single crash test well like the smart find themselves in multi-hit accidents because a bigger car bounces them into another lane in a crash), a lot of it is probably related to making the vehicle sound quiet and feel solid (when's the last time you shut a door on a vehicle and it sounded like the clank of sheet metal and stampings like you'd get on an old impala or an old truck). The crash test improvements are probably purely a result of actually trying.

My mother's old favorites, if they don't get peeled like a tin can, will deposit everything in the engine compartment right on your lap, without too much effort. She experienced that once in the '70s and nearly was killed (by the front of the car moving back, and especially the moving steering column), but I'm still not sure she believes the safety of new cars vs the old ones.

Thats good info David, I would have never guessed that old impala to be in the same weight class.

[Mike Henderson]

Okay, here's a safety question for you. What's more dangerous: Crashing a car at 60 MPH head-on into a solid concrete wall, or two identical cars, each traveling at 60 MPH crashing head on into each other?

Mike

[Jeff Monson]

Okay, here's a safety question for you. What's more dangerous: Crashing a car at 60 MPH head-on into a solid concrete wall, or two identical cars, each traveling at 60 MPH crashing head on into each other?

Mike

Mike, I will go with head on into a wall.

[Van Huskey]

Okay, here's a safety question for you. What's more dangerous: Crashing a car at 60 MPH head-on into a solid concrete wall, or two identical cars, each traveling at 60 MPH crashing head on into each other?

Mike

I think I know where you are going but there are too many variables to accurately answer the question. Are you fishing for someone to answer "the wall, the other is a 120mph collision" which I am assuming you know is not correct. Picking one isn't as easy as saying the velocity of the collision is the same since the way the car interacts with the car vs the wall is a extremely complex issue.

[Andrew W. Thomas]

Okay, here's a safety question for you. What's more dangerous: Crashing a car at 60 MPH head-on into a solid concrete wall, or two identical cars, each traveling at 60 MPH crashing head on into each other?

Mike

These posts certainly peaked my attention. I just finished my 2 day exam to be certified as a crash reconstructionist. Looking at the question at face value both situations are equally dangerous. The two head on cars are not the equivalent of a 120mph single vehicle crash. Technically speaking though, as depicted in the video, most head on collisions occur with approximately 1/3 to 1/2 overlap which is much more dangerous than head-on into a wall because the entire front of the vehicle is not being used to absorb the pre-collision energy.

Woodworking and crashes. Two topics I could talk ALL day about.

[Brian Kent]

The result is the same if the car and the wall are the same shape. In both instances the car you are driving absorbs the same amount of energy is stopping. The only variation is in the shape of the oncoming car is intrudes unevenly into my car.

[Dave Lehnert]

This is almost unbelievable. Crash test of a SMART car at 70 MPH. Look at the 3:50 mark. The passenger door still opens.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGtWc4m8Z2E

[Van Huskey]

It truely is amazing. There is basically two things to thank for todays safety in cars, goverment regulations and motor sports like F1 and touring car, the latter helps develop a lot of the trickle down technology and the former ensures people can get the safety features even if they can't afford a high end German car.

[Kevin W Johnson]

It truely is amazing. There is basically two things to thank for todays safety in cars, goverment regulations and motor sports like F1 and touring car, the latter helps develop a lot of the trickle down technology and the former ensures people can get the safety features even if they can't afford a high end German car.


Are you sure it's the "goverment"? ;)

[Greg Peterson]

Are you sure it's the "goverment"? ;)

Lipton or Tazo?

[Kevin W Johnson]

Lipton or Tazo?

Sorry, never been much of a tea drinker.

[Van Huskey]

Are you sure it's the "goverment"? ;)

I am a FONETICK speller, particularly when I type...

[Kevin W Johnson]

I am a FONETICK speller, particularly when I type...

It's ok, really. All in fun, hence the wink.

[mike holden]

People forget that it is NOT the car that should survive a crash, it the PASSENGERS!
If the chassis does not absorb the momentum, then the people do - and we break very easily.
The whole purpose of seatbelts is to hold you in one place, so the car can be designed to break apart around you, absorbing momentum.

[Steve Griffin]

It truely is amazing. There is basically two things to thank for todays safety in cars, goverment regulations and motor sports like F1 and touring car, the latter helps develop a lot of the trickle down technology and the former ensures people can get the safety features even if they can't afford a high end German car.

I also think there are basically two reasons for safer cars--the insurance industry and the free market.

[Greg Peterson]

The insurance industry is a contradiction to the free market (if such a thing really existed). The free market isn't really very effective at establishing a set of ground rules that everyone has to play by. Do we really want to leave safety to the whims of an entity whose value for human life is calculated by actuary tables?

[Bill Edwards(2)]

I think the '59 Chevy is an infamous "X" frame.

About as rigid as a pair of open scissors.

[Greg Peterson]

X frame or not, I'll take my chances in a modern automobile. In 59, safety was an afterthought or an option at best. Safety is in the DNA of a the modern automobile.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

X frame or not, I'll take my chances in a modern automobile. In 59, safety was an afterthought or an option at best. Safety is in the DNA of a the modern automobile.

Actually after about 6 years (I think) and numerous accidents, they quit building the
"X" frame.

DNA huh?:D

[Greg Peterson]

DNA huh?:D

Yep. ;)

Heck, I'd take any 2012 vehicle over my ABS, air bag equipped 97 Camry.

[David Weaver]

Do we really want to leave safety to the whims of an entity whose value for human life is calculated by actuary tables?

It seems clear that you have no idea what an actuarial table is used for, or what the calculated value from one represents.

[Greg Peterson]

It seems clear that you have no idea what an actuarial table is used for, or what the calculated value from one represents.

I apologize since I clearly confused you. That was not my intention.

Please, for our edification, please tell us what you think an actuarial table is.

But for your benefit, I have rephrased the thought:

"Do we really want to leave safety to the whims of an entity whose value for human life is based solely on the results of a cost/benefit analysis (which relies in large part on acturial tables)?"

[David Weaver]

What part of your car insurance rate calculation puts a value on a human life?

You can humor me with this one.

I gathered quite well what you were trying to say, I've seen it before - it's the kind of thing that journalists and other folks of similar analytical training like to kick around. You just stuck your neck out too far when you attached calculation of financial values in car insurance to "actuarial tables". No such thing is done that I'm aware of. Calculation of medical payments and liability, maybe, but that's quite different.

(and no, I don't work for an insurance company)

[Van Huskey]

I also think there are basically two reasons for safer cars--the insurance industry and the free market.

The insurance industry does have influence of safety in cars but is more an impetus to regulation than a independant driving force, their agenda (nothing perjorative meant) is always balancing PD and PI (property damage vs personal injury). The free market hasn't been remotely free in the automotive industry for quite a while and if you take even a cursory look at the industry prior to serious regulation there was very little emphasis on safety by designers or engineers. If the car industry had stayed free market cars would be significantly less safe than they are today, this is particularly true in the US. Safety is pretty far down on the priority list of the average US consumer and 90+% of those consumers couldn't begin to explain the difference between passive and active safety features of a car.

[David Weaver]

I'd imagine that the biggest contribution the insurance industry can make toward safety is the provision of data to the government. i don't know how much that occurs, but it's likely that they don't just hoard the data and never use it to improve safety and decrease the cost of losses (ultimately decreasing coverage costs).

They do exactly what an insurance company would be expected to do - they pool risk efficiently and allow individuals to take on risks (driving a car that they would not be able to afford to replace if they got in an accident) that they would otherwise not be able to afford to take. To my knowledge, the margin on p&C coverage isn't particularly large when the dust settles, and if the losses as a percentage of premiums (on an incurred basis) were not that large, the rates charged probably wouldn't be approved by state insurance commissioners. That's an entirely different thing than a lot of what's perceived by individuals ("I paid $10,000 in my life for insurance and never cost the insurance company anything, I did something bad, and now I'm getting dropped....i'm entitled to something!")

Rate classes and premiums in P&C insurance are somewhat difficult to criticize (they are meat and potatoes kind of stuff, not secret agenda driven smoke and mirrors calculations), and are miles different than mortality tables that are used to price life insurance or annuities (which are generally also meat and potatoes type stuff). Maybe what's less than desirable to a lot of people is the way that annuities and life insurance has historically been sold. I can't find fault with that.

But if you're going to pay someone something based on premiums they submit, it's awfully hard to not calculate the value of the life of an individual in a group calculation.

[Bill Edwards(2)]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the complaint was:

The Giant Motor Company's willingness to pay for wrongful deaths,
rather then "fix" the car.

And I'm sure people will disagree but this attitude doesn't just show up
with American car companies.

They seem to have the statistics that show x number of people's lives
is still cheaper then replacing that faulty brake (or whatever)

The same applies to what they perceive as un-needed improvements
i.e. seatbelts and such.

Sadly, their reasoning was probably true. Car buyers didn't want to pay
for that safety. But as we all know, we will anyway. Pay me now or
pay me later.

[Mike Henderson]

I think I know where you are going but there are too many variables to accurately answer the question. Are you fishing for someone to answer "the wall, the other is a 120mph collision" which I am assuming you know is not correct. Picking one isn't as easy as saying the velocity of the collision is the same since the way the car interacts with the car vs the wall is a extremely complex issue.
Sorry I didn't come back to this thread earlier. The answer is that under ideal conditions, the two crashes are identical (one car, 60MPH into a brick wall, or two identical cars, each 60 MPH head on). Imagine a brick wall appearing between the two cars. Same result.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the complaint was:

The Giant Motor Company's willingness to pay for wrongful deaths,
rather then "fix" the car.

And I'm sure people will disagree but this attitude doesn't just show up
with American car companies.

They seem to have the statistics that show x number of people's lives
is still cheaper then replacing that faulty brake (or whatever)

The same applies to what they perceive as un-needed improvements
i.e. seatbelts and such.

Sadly, their reasoning was probably true. Car buyers didn't want to pay
for that safety. But as we all know, we will anyway. Pay me now or
pay me later.

The market is incapable of placing a value on a human life. While someone may get within a gnats hair of calculating the earning potential of a person, based on how long that person may have lived and so on, the value of a father/mother/son/daughter is incalculable.

Some things you just can not buy your way out of.

[Jamie Buxton]

Here's another surprising old car / new car comparison. Which do you think is wider, a Corvette Stingray or a new Mini Cooper? If you're my age, the Stingray was a big brawny supercar. The Mini is, well, mini. Right? However, the Mini is the wider of the two. It is 75.3" wide, and the Stingray is 69.7" wide.

[David Weaver]

The market is incapable of placing a value on a human life. While someone may get within a gnats hair of calculating the earning potential of a person, based on how long that person may have lived and so on, the value of a father/mother/son/daughter is incalculable.

Some things you just can not buy your way out of.

So, then the answer is that someone who has the potential to expose their father/mother/daugher/son to lots of debt and no income shouldn't even attempt to buy life insurance (even cheap term life insurance) to cover the risk efficiently?

The reality is, insurance is extremely valuable to someone who doesn't have enough cash to cover their own risks (or the exposure of their spouse and children), and there is no way around applying analytical rigor to pricing it, unless you want to be really inefficient and use rules of thumb (which would lead to higher prices for purchasers).

People who despise insurance usually offer an emotional explanation about why something that is analytically appropriate or efficient isn't OK. When you repeatedly apply an emotional answer to a quantitative question, you're going to lose in the end.

If I croak tomorrow (and I am not uninsured, so my household would be covered), I can't imagine them facing a mortgage and college expenses without my income because I said "well, you can't put a price on my life, so I'm not dealing with those evil insurers".

....though i don't know what any of this stuff has to do with who determines car safety standards, and where actuarial tables fit into car safety standards. Those tables are the territory of life insurance.

[David Weaver]

Here's another surprising old car / new car comparison. Which do you think is wider, a Corvette Stingray or a new Mini Cooper? If you're my age, the Stingray was a big brawny supercar. The Mini is, well, mini. Right? However, the Mini is the wider of the two. It is 75.3" wide, and the Stingray is 69.7" wide.

Everything is big and heavy these days, huh! I would've guessed that they were the same width, but they're not even close!

Even compared to 25 years ago. Try finding what seems like a car that can reasonably haul four people. My first car (mid 80s car) weighed just over 2000 pounds and could fit four people (well, so long as I didn't try to make it a car full of fat people).

It didn't have much power, but it didn't need that much because it hardly weighed anything. It got great mileage, too. Probably wasn't safe, though.

[Van Huskey]

Everything is big and heavy these days, huh! My first car (mid 80s car) weighed just over 2000 pounds and could fit four people (well, so long as I didn't try to make it a car full of fat people).
.

Consider now the Lotus Elise is about 1,990 pounds is a tiny two seater and one of the lightest cars sold in the US today, built by a company legendary for light cars. Even the Smart car weighs over 1,600!

[Steve Griffin]

Putting a price on life isn't fun, but it's unavoidable.

Years ago my dad did his thesis on the 55 mph speed limit vs 65mph. Basically a giant cost benefit formula which factored in implications of gas millage, labor, accidents and yes, human life. I believe at the time the VSL (value of statistical life) was 6 million. If human life is so special there is no price on it, we would need to drive 10 mph on the interstates. (BTW, his conclusion was there was more benefits to the lower speed limit).

The market can absolutely place a value on safety, and does so all the time. Ask a sawstop owner why he bought his saw. Or ask my wife if it would be ok if her next car doesn't have side airbags.....

[David Weaver]

Consider now the Lotus Elise is about 1,990 pounds is a tiny two seater and one of the lightest cars sold in the US today, built by a company legendary for light cars. Even the Smart car weighs over 1,600!

My first car was a "lovely" 1987 nissan sentra - only had about 70 horsepower and a stick. It as sort of like a tin box with few features (no power steering, etc) on wheels, but it sure was easy on gas. The generation before mine was 100 pounds or 200 pounds lighter than the elise. I wonder if all that weight on the smaller new cars really is due to safety features, or if some of it is an attempt to get the small cars to feel like bigger cars in terms of noise level and driving calmness.

I've seen an elise before. I sure wouldn't want to have that as a daily driver!

I just can't figure out why NHTSA won't allow small light cars for commuting, but it's OK to have just about anything less safe than such a thing as long as it has two wheels. Even if they'd do something like require a motorcycle license as a signal that the individual driving them recognizes there is a safety compromise.

[lawrence dosson]

they say that it is not the fall that kills you but the sudden stop and in this case all things are equal car one stops in o feet cars two asuming equal weights and straight on stop also stops o feet so the answer should be each is the same the g force is identical knowing in the real world it would not be so just in are theritical what ifs

[Van Huskey]

The market can absolutely place a value on safety, and does so all the time. Ask a sawstop owner why he bought his saw. Or ask my wife if it would be ok if her next car doesn't have side airbags.....

Absoultely, the car market does drive safety but in a very secondary way to regulation and safety does sell but is several notches down the priority chain for the vast majority of drivers. Most buyers don't even begin to understand active safety, it is the most important part of a cars safety system. My daily driver will out handle and out brake 90% of the cars on the road, maybe more and as long as I pay attention can help me avid many accidents I couldn't avoid in less capable cars. I would rather have the tires I have on my car than side impact airbags. In the end safety just isn't a primary motivator in car sales, if it were Volvo would have been able to become what Toyota is today and very few US built cars would have been sold in the 80s. The majority of major passive safety features are in the cars we drive because of regulation not because the market demanded it.

[Greg Peterson]

The majority of major passive safety features are in the cars we drive because of regulation not because the market demanded it.

Is there anyone who regrets any of these safety devices after they have done their job? I'm sure there are consumers that would prefer the choice of what, if any safety devices they want. But I hardly believe for a moment that anyone would regret their ABS system allowing them to decelerate in a controlled manner or a side air bag saving them from serious head injuries or not sliding out of control because of the electronic stability control system.


Were safety features optional I'm sure the insurance market would provide an incentive for consumers to choose air bags, ABS, electronic stability control, traction control.

[Van Huskey]

Is there anyone who regrets any of these safety devices after they have done their job? I'm sure there are consumers that would prefer the choice of what, if any safety devices they want. But I hardly believe for a moment that anyone would regret their ABS system allowing them to decelerate in a controlled manner or a side air bag saving them from serious head injuries or not sliding out of control because of the electronic stability control system.


Were safety features optional I'm sure the insurance market would provide an incentive for consumers to choose air bags, ABS, electronic stability control, traction control.

I agree 100%, I for one think the US, UK and European governments have done an excellent job mandating the proper safety features and waiting for a time to mandate them when the lower end of the market can sustain them.

When all those safety features were optional most if not all insurance companies did indeed offer discounts, though they didn't result in big savings. As always the really amazing new safety features are found in the German luxury big three and to a lesser extent the Japanese luxury brands. The ones that prove themselves as more than gimmicks will trickle down to the mid-line cars and finally be mandated.

[Brian Kent]

Since 1982 I have used the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission crash test report as one of the major criteria for choosing a car to buy. If I remember right the best (frontal) crash test ratings went to Honda Accord, Camaro, and a Volvo. I wanted a sedan and the Volvo was too expensive so I bought the Accord.

Later on I started adding in the information from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The NHTSA crash tests show test results against a fixed object. The IIHS results show what happens when you add in real world factors like who buys what kind of car, how they drive, and what happens in accidents with all kinds of other vehicles and objects.

I am thankful for the government insisting on seat belts and airbags, and for the information from the government and insurance companies to show me how to choose the maximum safety instead of minimum.

As a real-world added benefit, when my brother in law crashed my Honda Accord on a date - flew it 120 feet, rolled it, took out a tree and hit several parked cars, nobody was hurt. His date got one stitch on her leg from a glass cut.

I was glad because if he got hurt I would have to feel sorry for him instead of being angry.

2 years later the girl blew out her knee skiing and sued me for $35,000, because if I hadn't loaned my car to them, she wouldn't have gotten the stitch and therefore would not have blown out her knee in the ski accident. AAA paid her off and did not increase my rates. I'm glad for the research that helped her to survive the accident so that she could sue me when she fell down a slippery slope.

[Larry Edgerton]

Most buyers don't even begin to understand active safety, it is the most important part of a cars safety system. My daily driver will out handle and out brake 90% of the cars on the road, maybe more and as long as I pay attention can help me avid many accidents I couldn't avoid in less capable cars. I would rather have the tires I have on my car than side impact airbags. .

Agreed. I drove Miata's for about twenty years and often heard the comment that " I wouldn't want to be in an accident in that thing."

But the truth was that the cars saved my skin several times by being so limber. An old lady blew a red light and totaled out my Bronco and broke my back. If I had been in a Miata I would have been able to avoid that accident.

My brother just wrecked his BMW M5, put it in the trees. Car was a mess, way totaled, and he walked away. Air bags and crumple zones saved his life.

The first gen air bags were given to blowing with deer hits and did cause a lot of wrecks, but that has improved through recalibration. I have wrecked some of the older cars, and I am here to tell you that it was not pretty. I rolled a 63 Chevy and how that cab came apart was amazing. My head got caught between the door and the pillar, and the seam in the back of the cab folded up and became a knife that ripped my back open. Na, if I have to be in an accident, I want it to be in a new car.

Larry