New IIHS Crash Test - Most Cars Perform Poorly

[Champ]

^ but why a non-deformable object? Most the objects most cars will hit are all going to be deformable.

Why not? If you can pass the non-deformable I would imagine your car is safer for deformable.

It's probably a lot easier to administer and give consistent results when you are dealing with a large block of concrete vs. a object that has to move or crush in some way every time they run a car into it.

[SLK]

Why not? If you can pass the non-deformable I would imagine your car is safer for deformable.

Because if every manufacturer on the road does poorly then maybe the test is a bit extreme at that point. And where does the line get drawn? Do we not stop until every new vehicle can handle a head on collision with a semi truck at 50mph?

Driving is risky, but creating tests that too extreme are doing nothing but making the vehicles more complicated, and more expensive.

Maybe I am just sour because I would rather see a larger public transportation movement across the nation rather than harsher safety regulations in passenger vehicles. You want safer road ways? Remove more drivers from the roads by offering more ways to travel. That's my opinion.

[euro]

meanwhile the Volvo engineers are cheering.

lol

regarding their personal crash test facility, the company that built it for them is located in Eden Prairie (http://www.mts.com/ )

[SLK]

lol

regarding their personal crash test facility, the company that built it for them is located in Eden Prairie (http://www.mts.com/ )

MTS is awesome. I have tried getting a job there on several occasions. My wife's grandpa was an engineer there for like 35 years, but unluckily for me, he passed away before I met him so I would feel like a cock if I tried to use his name to get a job. My class toured their facility in college. It is pretty amazing.

[toasted]

I say the next test they should come up with is the log through the windshield test. I know I am worried every day that I might end up with a log through my windshield so I want my car to be able to prevent that.

[1FastB5]

wow thats a brutal crash test.

i don't see the point a whole lot though, i'd be shocked to see if this becomes the new norm. the offset test though was pretty important in new car design in all new cars, and its done a lot. so who knows perhaps this is the next chapter.

but about the only thing i could think off the top of my head that would be common to have a crash like that would be a tree, or an unprotected concrete barrier.

[Champ]

but about the only thing i could think off the top of my head that would be common to have a crash like that would be a tree, or an unprotected concrete barrier.

Don't forget other cars.

[Audiphile]

They should just fit cars with diving board bumpers again. I hit a solid concrete wall doing 45 in my 82 Audi with DB bumps and the paint didnt even get scrached.

[sprstu]

People die. Thats what happens. It will happen to us all no matter how safe our cars are. Why must we try to protect everyone from everythingpossibleunderthesun.

[derp]

Hey, they just started another new impact test, most cars perform poorly.

I think it's bullshit, and that all cars need to add safety features in order to prevent these kinds of impacts. How hard is it these days for people to build cars that can stand up to a simple impact test?

It's not a complicated new test, either. 50 meters away, armor piercing .50BMG rounds. Most cars are perforated like tin cans. Absolutely unacceptable.

I volunteer to be the .50 operator for all future tests.


oh, and make sure that all new cars not only stop everything ever so no one ever gets hurt even if they're drunk texting behind the nerf wheel, they can't hurt anyone else. and i'll be damned if i'll accept anything less than 167 miles per ounce of fuel that only emits fairy dust.

[flippinvw]

I can't understand why people are getting all bent out of shape over this. It's tests like this that provide some level of motivation to car manufacturers to improve the safety of their cars, as the results of these tests are published and made public to everyone. Otherwise, what is their motivation?

Remember when the IIHS started showing crash test results on 20/20 back in the 90s? Do you really think it's a coincidence that cars are leaps-and-bounds safer than they were 15 years ago, when those results started being broadcast on national television?

Car makers don't just make their cars safer because they can. They are out to make money, just like every other business. To think that manufacturers will make your car safer, more fuel efficient, etc. without some incentive to do so (i.e. to avoid negative press), you're sorely mistaken.

[toasted]

I can't understand why people are getting all bent out of shape over this. It's tests like this that provide some level of motivation to car manufacturers to improve the safety of their cars, as the results of these tests are published and made public to everyone. Otherwise, what is their motivation?

Remember when the IIHS started showing crash test results on 20/20 back in the 90s? Do you really think it's a coincidence that cars are leaps-and-bounds safer than they were 15 years ago, when those results started being broadcast on national television?

Car makers don't just make their cars safer because they can. They are out to make money, just like every other business. To think that manufacturers will make your car safer, more fuel efficient, etc. without some incentive to do so (i.e. to avoid negative press), you're sorely mistaken.

I'm not mad at crash tests in general. I'm mad at this silly new crash test. This new test is useless because the cause of crashes like this is likely texting or doing anything behind the wheel besudes paying attention.

Make people stay off their phones.
Make people actually have to pass a driving test that requires some skill.
Just put more effort into finding ways to make it so people pay more attention to driving and then you won't need silly new crash tests like this.


New crash test 2.0.

Two dirt ramps with old baracades at the end of them. The car has to jump across the ramps while you shout yeehaw and blare a silly horn, and drive away.

Hell, an old Charger could do it.

[Sven7]

Hey, they just started another new impact test, most cars perform poorly.

I think it's bullshit, and that all cars need to add safety features in order to prevent these kinds of impacts. How hard is it these days for people to build cars that can stand up to a simple impact test?

It's not a complicated new test, either. 50 meters away, armor piercing .50BMG rounds. Most cars are perforated like tin cans. Absolutely unacceptable.

I volunteer to be the .50 operator for all future tests.


oh, and make sure that all new cars not only stop everything ever so no one ever gets hurt even if they're drunk texting behind the nerf wheel, they can't hurt anyone else. and i'll be damned if i'll accept anything less than 167 miles per ounce of fuel that only emits fairy dust.

Fairy dust is harmful to elk.

[KOOTER]

So what is the next foolish test they have to pass? The car bomb test? Is everyone going to panic if the new car they just bought failed the tank squash test? You could die is a giant beanstalk grew up instantly out of the road, maybe we should give them a test for that?

[derp]

Fairy dust is harmful to elk.

haha, that had me laughing for a solid minute.