Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Racehorse on September 18, 2009, 06:48:23 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk
This is a 2009 Chevy Malibu being crashed head-on into a 1959 Bel-Air. The 1959 did far worse than I would have expected. I hear all these stories about the thick steel of older cars and how great it is compared to the thin, stamped steel of today.
They don't make 'em like they used to. And I'm very, very glad.
The steel may be thinner now, but the cars are far safer.
But I'm mainly posting this because I thought it was cool. :angel:
-
That test is not quite as advertised, as the two vehicles did not hit head on. They were offset almost two feet, favoring the driver's side, from the look of the video. IMO, that skews the data and the outcome of the test, and makes the claim of newer vehicles being safer invalid, as based on this test.
Also, I have never looked favorably on trashing old, antique vehicles of any kind just for publicity's sake. It just sticks in my craw when it's done to make a movie or TV show, or for something like this.
-
How does the fact that it was an offset test invalidate the results?
-
How does the fact that it was an offset test invalidate the results?
It was stated to be a head-on collision between two stock vehicles, motors still installed, etc. That implies that a fair amount of the vehicles' resistance to collision forces is because of the motor installation.
Because the collision was offset, missing off to the side of each motor installation, that inserts variables into the test that are not being accounted for. In the Bel-Air I would bet that the engine compartment is almost empty in the area where it was impacted by the Malibu. Very little resistance to collision forces there, and that is probably why the passenger compartment on the driver's side of the Bel-Air was so badly damaged.
Having said that, it's possible the offset was not intended, and was instead an accident with the test setup.
But that still invalidates the results if it was intended to be a true head-on collision.
-
Racehorse said it was head-on. The video says "offset" in the title. Why would you think it was a mistake?
-
It was stated to be a head-on collision between two stock vehicles, motors still installed, etc.
Where did you get this from? I see "Offset" in the title, but nowhere else does it say anything about what type of crash this was intended to be.
-
Also, I have never looked favorably on trashing old, antique vehicles of any kind just for publicity's sake
Ditto!
I remember taking the Universal Studios tour in LA back in 1980. The tram passed a car carrier with three nice new red Trans Ams on it. The tour guide said "These are to be used in the next Smoky and the Bandit movie. By the end of production they will all be totally destroyed." The entire tram's worth of people let out a simultaneous and collective groan. :laugh:
-
Racehorse said it was head-on. The video says "offset" in the title. Why would you think it was a mistake?
You know what? You're right. Dammit, I hate it when that happens. =D
It still is an apples to oranges test, though.
-
I see "Offset" in the title, but nowhere else does it say anything about what type of crash this was intended to be.
Sometimes, I see a pop-up at about ten or fifteen seconds in, that says the cars are intact with engines installed. I still don't see how the test is apples-to-oranges.
The Bel Air's passenger compartment appears to have gotten trashed, and has a full metal interior (so to speak). The Malibu's passenger compartment appears to remain intact, and no doubt has air bags.
-
Off set tests are the norm for head on crash testing these days. The reason is (or should be) fairly obvious. Most real world head-on collisions are "offset" becuase they are most often caused by one driver drifting over into oncoming traffic, or one drivier trying to dive to the shoulder to avoid the collision with the idiot passing on a double yellow, etc. It's fairly rare to have a collision that's essentially squarely head on.
-
sumpnz, you're killin' my contrarian groove here, man.
-
You have to look at who paid for the test.... The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.... Um, yeah, they have a little bias.
Besides, anybody knows that a 59 Chevy Bel Air has only one speed, 75mph. It would have ripped threw both cars like they were butter, killing both people.
-
Yeah, I said it was head-on, not the video. Sorry for the inaccuracy. I actually would have assumed the Bel-Air would tear through the Malibu like butter. I was pretty surprised when it didn't.
-
I actually would have assumed the Bel-Air would tear through the Malibu like butter. I was pretty surprised when it didn't.
Same here.
Interesting video for sure, but what a waste of a nice classic car. =|
-
I actually would have assumed the Bel-Air would tear through the Malibu like butter. I was pretty surprised when it didn't.
I'm not. IIRC the Bel-Air is a body on frame design, with the body being made of stamped sheet metal and so behind the pretty skin is mostly emtpy air The Malibu is a unibody design, 50 some years newer than the Bel-Air with engeneering attention paid to crumple zones that absorb and disapate the energy of a collision so the passenger cabins remains intact. You can see the difference in end results in the overhead shot of the video. The Malibu looks like it gets the worst of the collision at first, the front end folding up while the hood of the Bel-Air remins mostly intact. Then the windshield of the Bel-Air breaks and pops out of its frame as the passenger cabin is distorted and broken, while that the of Malibu ripples, but stays intact and in place.
My '72 Monte Carlo is of the same basic design as the Bel-Air in the noted video. While it is, big, heavy, fast, great fun to drive and never fails to garner attention and smiles from those who see it, given my choice in a collision or even a hairy situation I'll take my daily driver '06 Sentra. It has the above noted crumple zones, front and side air bags, better handling and suspension than the Monte.
-
As much as I hate to admit it, newer vehicles are definitely far safer due to the energy dissipation built into the chassis. I love older cars and like having a bit of mass on my side for safety's sake, but all the mass in the world is useless if the impact is delivered directly to the occupants instead of being absorbed by the vehicle.
I thought it was really interesting watching 50 years of dust poofing out of the '59. Sad though. It looked like a nice, straight Bel Air otherwise.
Brad