The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online Forums > Today's Reading Links > > Re: IIHS devises a demanding new, small-overlap crash test

CarPhreakD wrote:
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.