|
|
|
|
 |
carcrazy84
 |
|
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/iihs-launching-first-new-frontal-crash-test-since-1995-w-video/
So the IIHS has devised one of the most demanding crash tests ever to show specific vulnerabilities in cars that apparently lead to a not-insignificant number of injuries and fatalities. Basically the test involves a 40 mph collision with a solid barrier that overlaps about 10% of width of the car, as opposed to the current 40%. This mostly deflects and bypasses the crash-absorbing structures and puts great strain on the front bulkhead (the structure on which the front doors are hinged) and safety cage. Most of the cars they tested failed, which were no little econoboxes. To their credit, the TL and Volvo passed, but I think it was more luck than anything.
Looking at crash test videos of this type on Youtube, these crashes are generally beyond what today's cars are capable of coping with. I have seen a bulkhead completely sheared in half. The video in the link shows wheels tearing off and dummies completely missing airbags.
I think this test will be a less repeatable one as well. The cars may deflect away from the barrier more or less depending on the complex interaction of the the front components of the car, mostly involving the suspension. Like maybe the wheel wont completely separate, but rather become jammed up the firewall intruding into the footwell. Or cause the car to bounce away from the barrier, protecting the safety cage more.These types of variables don't really exist in a collision with more coverage.
I have no idea how automakers are supposed to pass this test without adding hundreds of pounds of steel, and maybe an extra airbag to the left of the steering wheel.
|
carcrazy84
|
|
|
Sorry, the overlap percentage is 25%.
|
Grace141
|
|
This test makes more sense in my opinion than the previous partial offset test. The link beam idea used in the Volvo just looks like a perimeter frame which seems fairly simple. The part that I do like is the tire moving backward, striking the body structure behind it and rotating the car around the impact.
I guess we'll eventually have just one continuous airbag deploy all around us in crashes but with proper seatbelts and power seats which lock strongly into place a person should walkaway from a crash similar to the test provided the A-pillar remains mostly intact. That Lexus IS didn't look so good.
|
Chocs
|
|
|
We should all drive cement blocks propped on wheels--
|
HondaChuck
|
|
The Acura TL scored "good" along with Volvo S60.
Infiniti G was "acceptable."
3 series, TSX, Lincoln MKZ, VW CC were "marginal".
Lexus ES, IS, Audi A4, Mercedes C class were "poor.". OUCH
http://usat.ly/Pm1Owq
|
TSX69
|
|
CNN
Mercedes-Benz objected to the new test.
"As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants -- and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that," the German automaker said in a statement.
|
danielgr
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/iihs-launching-first-new-frontal-crash-test-since-1995-w-video/
So the IIHS has devised one of the most demanding crash tests ever to show specific vulnerabilities in cars that apparently lead to a not-insignificant number of injuries and fatalities. Basically the test involves a 40 mph collision with a solid barrier that overlaps about 10% of width of the car, as opposed to the current 40%. This mostly deflects and bypasses the crash-absorbing structures and puts great strain on the front bulkhead (the structure on which the front doors are hinged) and safety cage. Most of the cars they tested failed, which were no little econoboxes. To their credit, the TL and Volvo passed, but I think it was more luck than anything.
[...] |
So to me it's only natural that the TL scored well, because it's been designed to address multidirectional collisions with vehicles of all sizes. On the contrary, I'm not surprised that other cars, most of which are designed to address regulatory crash tests which emphasize full-frontal barrier crashes, scored poorly.
It is funny that every time a Honda scores well in a typical crash test people claim "thanks to the all mighty ACE" (which has really very little to do with such scenarios), and that precisely when a test highlights its benefits they call it "luck"...
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
This test makes more sense in my opinion than the previous partial offset test. The link beam idea used in the Volvo just looks like a perimeter frame which seems fairly simple. The part that I do like is the tire moving backward, striking the body structure behind it and rotating the car around the impact. |
I remember when the 06 Civic came out not long ago there were images circulating in my work email of one on that crashed into a pole and the whole side of the car broke off, looks a bit worse than the volvo in that video. The passenger cabin is intact, but the doors are basically gone. I think that driver had the same type of accident and hit a pole at around the same angle/position, he is very very lucky, and I think Honda did a good job with that one even with the older Civics keeping the compartment intact
|
VTECyo!
|
|
danielgr wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/iihs-launching-first-new-frontal-crash-test-since-1995-w-video/
So the IIHS has devised one of the most demanding crash tests ever to show specific vulnerabilities in cars that apparently lead to a not-insignificant number of injuries and fatalities. Basically the test involves a 40 mph collision with a solid barrier that overlaps about 10% of width of the car, as opposed to the current 40%. This mostly deflects and bypasses the crash-absorbing structures and puts great strain on the front bulkhead (the structure on which the front doors are hinged) and safety cage. Most of the cars they tested failed, which were no little econoboxes. To their credit, the TL and Volvo passed, but I think it was more luck than anything.
[...] |
So to me it's only natural that the TL scored well, because it's been designed to address multidirectional collisions with vehicles of all sizes. On the contrary, I'm not surprised that other cars, most of which are designed to address regulatory crash tests which emphasize full-frontal barrier crashes, scored poorly.
It is funny that every time a Honda scores well in a typical crash test people claim "thanks to the all mighty ACE" (which has really very little to do with such scenarios), and that precisely when a test highlights its benefits they call it "luck"...
|
To be honest, I don't think that ACE gets enough credit much of the time. Honda loves to advertise it, and I think that's a good thing, but when IIHS and NHTSA talk about safety leaders, they rarely mention Honda. Volvo and Mercedes are still regarded as some of the safest cars, even if that's not necessarily the case. I don't mean to imply that they're unsafe, or even that they're not extremely safe, but they're not the only automakers that make very crash worthy cars anymore. Honda has made huge strides in this department over the past decade or so, and I think they are a leader in the field; IIHS' crash test results validate this claim. Yet, in the video found in the OP's link, the TL isn't even mentioned, despite the fact that it scored just as high as the Volvo.
|
tmkarab
|
|
danielgr wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/iihs-launching-first-new-frontal-crash-test-since-1995-w-video/
So the IIHS has devised one of the most demanding crash tests ever to show specific vulnerabilities in cars that apparently lead to a not-insignificant number of injuries and fatalities. Basically the test involves a 40 mph collision with a solid barrier that overlaps about 10% of width of the car, as opposed to the current 40%. This mostly deflects and bypasses the crash-absorbing structures and puts great strain on the front bulkhead (the structure on which the front doors are hinged) and safety cage. Most of the cars they tested failed, which were no little econoboxes. To their credit, the TL and Volvo passed, but I think it was more luck than anything.
[...] |
So to me it's only natural that the TL scored well, because it's been designed to address multidirectional collisions with vehicles of all sizes. On the contrary, I'm not surprised that other cars, most of which are designed to address regulatory crash tests which emphasize full-frontal barrier crashes, scored poorly.
It is funny that every time a Honda scores well in a typical crash test people claim "thanks to the all mighty ACE" (which has really very little to do with such scenarios), and that precisely when a test highlights its benefits they call it "luck"...
|
What about the TSX scoring marginal in the same test? It has ACE too no? Maybe an earlier design?
|
P54
|
|
Many years ago in Europe when crash test were full frontal impact (or maybe did not exist) VW came up with the idea of partial or offset impact. VW scored the best, however the Civic was ridiculed for its poor results. Embarrassing for Honda and magazines and news media all over Europe showed the supreme VW and the poor Honda. Honda kept a low profile in this and built their crash test centers and improved dramatically without going to the media to show off itself.
This new test looks like the same scenario and since Volvo is highlighted and not so much the TL I wonder if this test was "influenced" by Volvo as they knew its car was built to pass this particular test, just like VW did in Europe many years ago. If only Volvo passed this test it would be an advertising gem, however the unlikely happened, the Acura TL passed too, Ouch! Not any mention of it in the video though, only Volvo.
In the press release we can read:
..." although the S60's torso airbag fired too late in the crash to protect the dummy's chest from potential contact with side structures.
For example, in the Lincoln MKZ test, the dummy's head and chest completely missed the front airbag as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain airbag deployed but didn't extend far enough forward to protect the dummy's head. In comparison, the Acura TL's front and side curtain airbags worked well together to keep the head from coming close to any stiff structures or objects that could cause injury.
Why was only the Volvo's structure highlighted in the video and not the TL?
Was this a Volvo stunt or not?
|
notyper
|
|
Shorter summary - the IIHS has created another test to allow them to down rate more cars so they can jack up insurance premiums.
Just wait, 20 years from now, they'll have a crash test whereby the car and its occupants must survive a head on collision with a dump truck while simultaneously shrugging off an IED......
Closer to "A Nice Morning Drive" with each passing year.
SC
|
Dren
|
|
|
The only issue here is that drivers are forced by the government to have car insurance. Otherwise, this is ok with me. It's a non-government entity making the test. Cars have certainly become a lot safer than they used to be.
|
A77
|
|
|
Strange for Mercedes not to do well. If I had to give a car safety pecking order it would be 1 Volvo, 2 Mercedes 3 Honda. Which is pretty amazing considering price. Toyota is not in the same league and test after test proves this.
|
gofast182
|
|
FiSH-Chan wrote:
Grace141 wrote:
This test makes more sense in my opinion than the previous partial offset test. The link beam idea used in the Volvo just looks like a perimeter frame which seems fairly simple. The part that I do like is the tire moving backward, striking the body structure behind it and rotating the car around the impact. |
I remember when the 06 Civic came out not long ago there were images circulating in my work email of one on that crashed into a pole and the whole side of the car broke off, looks a bit worse than the volvo in that video. The passenger cabin is intact, but the doors are basically gone. I think that driver had the same type of accident and hit a pole at around the same angle/position, he is very very lucky, and I think Honda did a good job with that one even with the older Civics keeping the compartment intact
|
That Civic struck a tree with great momentum, hit it sideways just at the base of the A pillar. The entire front separated from the body and more importantly, the driver lived.
FWIW I've never seen a wreck with this 25% offset damage scenario before. Usually they hit other cars which aren't immovable so there's some forgiveness with the crash energy. The wrecks I've seen involving trees have all been 50% or sideways.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
A77 wrote:
Strange for Mercedes not to do well. If I had to give a car safety pecking order it would be 1 Volvo, 2 Mercedes 3 Honda. Which is pretty amazing considering price. Toyota is not in the same league and test after test proves this.
|
I would suggest Subaru as the #4 among the current manufacturers.
Sadly, Saab is no more but when I started driving the top three were Volvo, Saab & Mercedes by a long shot over anyone else. IMO it was those 3 manufacturers promoting safety (especially Volvo) in the 80s & 90s that led to greater safety standards in cars more so than NHTSA or IIHS. I had a 82 Saab 900 turbo without any airbags that would have provided more crash protection than my first Civic or Accord that had airbags. I was one ugly son of a b!tch, but the body was well constructed - the rest of the car not so much.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Thing is IIHS test result is nothing to do with Government's mandates nor regulations. It's just their ratings are so powerful/influencial it matters.
Automanufacturers have to lose the weights to meet Gov's mpg requirments yet still have to satisfy IIHS's whim. As I always say, this is not 'pimp your ride'. It ain't easy being an automanufacturer nowdays in NA.
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
gofast182 wrote:
FiSH-Chan wrote:
I remember when the 06 Civic came out not long ago there were images circulating in my work email of one on that crashed into a pole and the whole side of the car broke off, looks a bit worse than the volvo in that video. The passenger cabin is intact, but the doors are basically gone. I think that driver had the same type of accident and hit a pole at around the same angle/position, he is very very lucky, and I think Honda did a good job with that one even with the older Civics keeping the compartment intact
|
That Civic struck a tree with great momentum, hit it sideways just at the base of the A pillar. The entire front separated from the body and more importantly, the driver lived.
FWIW I've never seen a wreck with this 25% offset damage scenario before. Usually they hit other cars which aren't immovable so there's some forgiveness with the crash energy. The wrecks I've seen involving trees have all been 50% or sideways.
|
Hmmmm, I don't think we are talking about the same accident. Basically that one I am talking about, the Civic doors (front and rear) was pulled off, almost like the Volvo in that video. And you are right, a lot of the crash with trees or pole are almost always sideways.
|
danielgr
|
|
tmkarab wrote:
danielgr wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/14/iihs-launching-first-new-frontal-crash-test-since-1995-w-video/
So the IIHS has devised one of the most demanding crash tests ever to show specific vulnerabilities in cars that apparently lead to a not-insignificant number of injuries and fatalities. Basically the test involves a 40 mph collision with a solid barrier that overlaps about 10% of width of the car, as opposed to the current 40%. This mostly deflects and bypasses the crash-absorbing structures and puts great strain on the front bulkhead (the structure on which the front doors are hinged) and safety cage. Most of the cars they tested failed, which were no little econoboxes. To their credit, the TL and Volvo passed, but I think it was more luck than anything.
[...] |
So to me it's only natural that the TL scored well, because it's been designed to address multidirectional collisions with vehicles of all sizes. On the contrary, I'm not surprised that other cars, most of which are designed to address regulatory crash tests which emphasize full-frontal barrier crashes, scored poorly.
It is funny that every time a Honda scores well in a typical crash test people claim "thanks to the all mighty ACE" (which has really very little to do with such scenarios), and that precisely when a test highlights its benefits they call it "luck"...
|
|
ACE was not designed to ace that particular test, but with vehicle to vehicle considerations in mind.
I did not mean to say "every car with an ACE structure will ace the test", but simply that "I'm not surprised an ACE car scores well" and don't think it's "out of luck".
Where ACE trully shines is in real life.
Example: As I wrote on my 1st year CR-Z review, I could have killed someone driving a diminutive kei-car not so long ago, yet both of us came unhurt as my CR-Z safety cage did not cut through the mini-car when I impacted him. Had I been driving a different car (like a large non-ACE SUV) I may have had to regret it for the rest of my life. So thanks Honda for thinking beyond !
|
nyt_reader
|
|
From Motor Trend. Good news for Acura..
[URL]http://wot.motortrend.com/acura-tl-aces-stricter-iihs-frontal-crash-test-vw-cc-loses-a-door-246439.html[\URL]
|
eneka
|
|
|
I'm no expert by any means, but if you compared each individual video, you'll notice the S60 and TL "slide" past the barrier (hence the door panel ripping off on the TL. While the IS seems to get "stuck" and bounce back..just something I noticed..
|
Chocs
|
|
Good stuff.
The existing criteria will continue on for 2013, but vehicles that pass the small overlap test with flying colors will be recognized. Midsize cars, such as the top-selling Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Ford Fusion will make up the next round of small frontal crash testing. Will they test the new Accord, I wonder?
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
Chocs wrote:
Will they test the new Accord, I wonder? |
Well we can only wait. But I think they will test this gen first. It would be awkward if this current gen passes the test and the new gen fail it..
|
JP
|
|
eneka wrote:
I'm no expert by any means, but if you compared each individual video, you'll notice the S60 and TL "slide" past the barrier (hence the door panel ripping off on the TL. While the IS seems to get "stuck" and bounce back..just something I noticed..
|
I've noticed the same, but I would say is far from being matter of luck that behavior, that movement is the result of the ACE before hitting the safety cage...
|
Phil17
|
|
to be honest, i do'nt even think the can get the same result twice with a test like this. Its got more to do with where the "wheel" is than anything.
all the automakers need to do is design the suspension geometry to "push out" so the car slides by the barrier. doesn't make the cars any safer in "real life". it would just be to satisfy this test. If you happen to have the wheel turned a degree wrong in real life you're screwed. Agree with Mercedes response to this but that probably should have been made in private. lol
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Not a matter of only suspension geometry. Actually in some cars, like the SMART ForTwo, the wheels and axles are supposed to be part of the safety structure of cars. As we can see, this only works if the wheels aren't pushed into the firewall... and the driver's feet.
Notice what's different in these tests with the Volvo. They have a slight diagonal brace that runs from the A-pillar to the front bumper support structure. That way, when you're in this situation, the blow glances off the car's substructure rather than crashing directly into it, sparing the passenger cell from any actual intrusion. The Acura had a similar side displacement.
And yeah, ACE wasn't really meant for this test, but it's possible that the design sort of "caught" this scenario as well. The beefy A-pillars and reinforcements with the bumper structure were meant to deal with body compatibility with large SUVs and trucks.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
eneka wrote:
I'm no expert by any means, but if you compared each individual video, you'll notice the S60 and TL "slide" past the barrier (hence the door panel ripping off on the TL. While the IS seems to get "stuck" and bounce back..just something I noticed..
|
If I was not mistaken, it looked like the outer door skin was rip off.
|
_Alex_
|
|
Here's TSX test results, look closely as it reveals very interesting bits of information http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1671&seriesId=460
Two tests of the TSX were conducted because the onboard (car interior) cameras failed during the first test. Also in the first test, the driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed, but they did not in the second test. Honda subsequently provided data showing that the side airbags are close to their deployment threshold under the small overlap test conditions. The restraints and dummy kinematics rating is based on the second test. Injury and structural ratings are based on both tests.
...
In the second test, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then slid off the left side as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain and side torso airbags did not deploy. |
I would say that:
- test results are not repeatable
- test results may/will vary a lot
In this case if IIHS would sample only single TSX it would post better overall score.
I wonder how repeatable "regular" crash tests are comparing to this newly added "small overlap".
|
TonyEX
|
|
_Alex_ wrote:
Here's TSX test results, look closely as it reveals very interesting bits of information http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1671&seriesId=460
Two tests of the TSX were conducted because the onboard (car interior) cameras failed during the first test. Also in the first test, the driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed, but they did not in the second test. Honda subsequently provided data showing that the side airbags are close to their deployment threshold under the small overlap test conditions. The restraints and dummy kinematics rating is based on the second test. Injury and structural ratings are based on both tests.
...
In the second test, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then slid off the left side as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain and side torso airbags did not deploy. |
I would say that:
- test results are not repeatable
- test results may/will vary a lot
In this case if IIHS would sample only single TSX it would post better overall score.
I wonder how repeatable "regular" crash tests are comparing to this newly added "small overlap".
|
At the risk of sounding political.. these tests are all political.
We have a nanny state.
On the one hand they want completely non polluting cars that run on fairy dust...
On the other hand they want the occupants not to run any risks.
So, to get over the fact that fairy dust does not exit, the manufacturers build light cars that can be powered by light, efficient engines.
But, to satisfy ever more stringent crash tests, the manufacturers will need to build tanks.
The truth is that this is impossible. Like the periodic California mandates to build cars that might be built with the physics of 300 years hence.. perhaps. But since these folks never took any Science (*) in High School or College, they think that just by legislating their wishes, the physics will appear out of nowhere.
If you build it, they might come.
But if you legislate it, you're just pissing into the wind.
At some point reality will intrude... hopefully in a few months.
(*) Political "Science" and Economics are most definitely NOT Science.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
TonyE wrote:
_Alex_ wrote:
Here's TSX test results, look closely as it reveals very interesting bits of information http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1671&seriesId=460
Two tests of the TSX were conducted because the onboard (car interior) cameras failed during the first test. Also in the first test, the driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed, but they did not in the second test. Honda subsequently provided data showing that the side airbags are close to their deployment threshold under the small overlap test conditions. The restraints and dummy kinematics rating is based on the second test. Injury and structural ratings are based on both tests.
...
In the second test, the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then slid off the left side as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain and side torso airbags did not deploy. |
I would say that:
- test results are not repeatable
- test results may/will vary a lot
In this case if IIHS would sample only single TSX it would post better overall score.
I wonder how repeatable "regular" crash tests are comparing to this newly added "small overlap".
|
At the risk of sounding political.. these tests are all political.
We have a nanny state.
On the one hand they want completely non polluting cars that run on fairy dust...
On the other hand they want the occupants not to run any risks.
So, to get over the fact that fairy dust does not exit, the manufacturers build light cars that can be powered by light, efficient engines.
But, to satisfy ever more stringent crash tests, the manufacturers will need to build tanks.
The truth is that this is impossible. Like the periodic California mandates to build cars that might be built with the physics of 300 years hence.. perhaps. But since these folks never took any Science (*) in High School or College, they think that just by legislating their wishes, the physics will appear out of nowhere.
If you build it, they might come.
But if you legislate it, you're just pissing into the wind.
At some point reality will intrude... hopefully in a few months.
(*) Political "Science" and Economics are most definitely NOT Science.
|
Every other week at work our bosses reads and posts photos from Thank You letters forwarded to us from top management, from families that walked away from severe collisions with minimal to no injuries. I can only imagine how incredibly motivating it must be for the chassis guys to understand how their work literally saves lives.
I can also imagine how it must feel to know that while these families escaped with their lives, several more were not so lucky.
NHTSA and IIHS can be rightfully criticized for much of their policies, but by the same token these standardized tests are one of the few yardsticks we have to ensure that cars can protect its occupants in the worst case scenarios. In the interest of progress, safety measures SHOULD be made ever more stringent. People always complain, but whenever new crash test scenarios are created, automakers always end up meeting them. These test results are what motivates (not just regulate) automakers to create the highest quality and safest vehicles they can while also going for seemingly the opposite goal of lighter and more fuel efficient cars.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
