|
|
|
Just been watching an old 5th Gear and they were talking about the NCAP tests. On it they had a brand new Espace with an NCAP raiting of 5 and an old Espace with a lower raiting.
They had a mock headon collision with them at I think 35mph each. The driver of the old Espace would have been dead and the driver of the new one would have minor injuries. The new Espaces airbag didnt go off as the car felt it would be needed in such a minor crash!!!
The driver of the old one may have survived if hed crashed into a similar aged car. It was crashing into an NCAP 5 car that killed him.
Moral of the story if your going to crash into another car avoid tanks like the new Espace!!!
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2004 16:57:46 GMT by ImpJimbo
BS Nymph Singer Chamois Coupe Series 3 Landy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thing is, they made out that all old cars are invariably as unsafe as the old Espace, and all new cars as safe as the new one. If I was in an accident between a rear wheel drive Volvo saloon, like the 740, and similarly sized modern car like a Vectra, I know what one I'd rather be in, and it isn't made in Luton, there's a clue. Another way to put it is that I seriously beleive you're better off in a Hillman Imp in a low speed, eg rear ender in a residential area, impact than a Smart car. The Smart may be technically safe and all, but the complete lack of metal to act as a crumple zone, despite the cleverness of its safety cell, means that all the energy of the crash is transmitted straight into the driver, where it'll do some serious damage to him/her and any passenger, whearas an Imp, which has seatbelts generally despite being released in 1963, in the front in any case, also has enough metal either side of you, and it's double skin construction keeps it stiff enough, so the energy will be transmitted less into the driver. Imps are less likely to be pinged into the bushes by slightly bigger cars too since they're not so small and flimsy. There was a crashed Smart on Fifth gear lately, and they reckoned that the lack of crumple zones would make fatality more likely than it would be in a safety cell equipped car with crumple zones. My Imps going to have a rollcage in it soon too, and currently has Recaros and 4 point harnesses, so it makes me feel a little more safe too!
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
i know i would rather drive into a new car than an old one . for 2 reasons 1 it would get a new car off the road ;D and 2 the new car has my crumple zones ;D if i hit an old car that would hurt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a big fan of those smart cars. I know that they were a real curse word wagon when they first came out due to some real cringe-making marketing, but I have been ferried about quite a lot in them and I am a convert.
Clearly they are tiny, therefore there is not going to be much metal around you if a Discovery-driving curse word crashes head on into you, but overall the more of them there are on the roads, the safer the roads would be I reckon.
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
|
Another way to put it is that I seriously beleive you're better off in a Hillman Imp in a low speed, eg rear ender in a residential area, impact than a Smart car. The Smart may be technically safe and all, but the complete lack of metal to act as a crumple zone, despite the cleverness of its safety cell, means that all the energy of the crash is transmitted straight into the driver, where it'll do some serious damage to him/her and any passenger, whearas an Imp, which has seatbelts generally despite being released in 1963, in the front in any case, also has enough metal either side of you, and it's double skin construction keeps it stiff enough, so the energy will be transmitted less into the driver. My Imps going to have a rollcage in it soon too, and currently has Recaros and 4 point harnesses, so it makes me feel a little more safe too! I design cars for a living and actually if you crashed your Imp into a Smart or Vice Versa, there would be far more of an impact transmitted to you than the driver of the Smart.............precisely because of all that metal that you think is protecting you The Imp would come off better/ Smart would look worse, but in terms of energy transmission to Driver the Smart would absorb More. Oh and when you fit your Cage...................... It`ll transmit even more energy to you FWIW, I would rather be in a big heavy car and take my chances than a modern one. If you look at the crash tests they are something like 25mph head-on..... You want to see what happens at 50mph, that will really scare you regardless of what saftey rating the car has..... Its like a bomb going off Cage seats and harnesses will help to keep you alive, but it will beat you up pretty well in the process HTH Dom
|
|
|
|
|
NCAP safety tests.BenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
My own...ermm... "NCAP test" I conducted the other week kind of proves the point that bigger / older cars can withstand an impact better than newer ones - I drove home with a few bent panels but the new Corsa had a buckled floor! . Although as Dom says, newer cars are designed to shield the passengers from the impact shocks much better than old cars. That said I'd rather be a little worse for wear and have a recoverable car tha be unscathed and my car be a write-off (well, to a small extent anyway... I'm not talking about being hospitalised but my car being salvageable! ) I saw the 5th Gear Smart crash-test, but to be honest I found it a bit pointless as if you go into a concrete barrier head-on in any car (new or old) at 70 you're pretty much f*cked. I suppose it did prove that the Smart wouldn't be obliterated at that speed.... and they did kill off a Corsa! ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cage seats and harnesses will help to keep you alive, but it will beat you up pretty well in the process I'd rather survive and have a chance to recover than have a nice comfortable death, so the cage and buckets do me fine thanks.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
And if I'm wrong about crumple zones and such I can admit that.
OK. I WAS WRONG
But I still resent the implication by car manufacturers and motor journalists alike that all new cars are a sure way to be safe and stay alive and all older cars are a sure way to die a grisly death. It's dangerous to do anything at all when you get down to it. It's possible to die from walking down the stairs, you might fall, that doesn't mean that we should all move into bungalows at once. If you go outside there's a greater chance you'll be mugged, but I wouldn't spend the whole day hiding in my bed. Safety is important and gives you piece of mind but it doesn't make older cars inherently useless and they're not instantly made certain deathtraps by a new model with a safety cell. And it wont save you in every case in an accident. Have you ever seen a car run uner an articulated lorry and get torn apart? Devastating no matter what the car, and 5 stars won't help to protect your head when it's torn off by a Scania's differential. If more people drove carefully there would be less deaths than if more people bought Renault Espaces.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
Calm down rev!!! I think its safe to say that everyone on this forum is happy enough driving round in old clunkers, thus they have done their own calculations about how much of a risk this is to their own life expectancy, and come to the same conclusion as you. I have anyway, i'd be happy to drive round in an imp, and if I had some kids I would be happy to put them in it as well. They could help me push it when the head warped!!! Joke at least you can see out of the f**king things, which i find increasingly difficult with modern tin.
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
|
Volvo 240 estate. He he ;D
The bumpers have hydraulic rams in them. Not for crumpling are they!
|
|
Peugeot 307sw - Suzuki SV650S - MX5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that people are feeling ever increasingly cacooned in their modern cars and inert from whats happening around them - what with increased sound deadening (even double glazing in some cases) Climate control, over assisted power steering, powerful ABS brakes and accelerator pedals which seem to be connected to the engine via an elastic band. Though I'm certain that you are less likely to be injured or killed in an accident in a modern car - i'm pretty sure people take more risks unknowingly and have more accidents as a result
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in complete agreement with DerbyDan on this one! I'm sure we've all witnessed pricks in their "safe" repmobiles and mummy wagons still nose to tail in the outside lane at 95mph in torrential rain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with that, when some people feel safe they become complacent, they think there's no longer any need to slow down in the wet or the dark, or increase their braking distances, the more they feel like they're driving in a living room, with double glazing, total sound deadening, and some onboard computer system with more intelligence than the driver controlling everything so that they can sit back and relax, people forget that they need to control the car, and end up smashing into stuff. In an old car you can feel what the car is doing, so you know if it's getting skittish and is about to go over the edge and become uncontrollable, so you don't let it happen, whearas in a newer car you feel the car go over the limits less, so numpties lose control totally by surprise, then no win no fee culture demands that they sue someone else for it and say it wasn't their fault, but that's another rant.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
Shortcut
Posted a lot
I won't be there when you cross the road, so always use the Green Cross Code.
Posts: 3,037
|
|
|
Remove all airbags and seat belts. Fit foot long spikes to steering wheel bosses. Fit baby seats to the front bumper of cars BY LAW! See how carefully everyone would drive THEN!
Since CR500 designs cars for a living I'm damn well hoping he's right about the crumple zones!! Actually I know he is. The Corsa than Benz hit bent its floorpan precisely because it was designed to. The energy had to go somewhere. I guess as modern cars are designed to be throw away consumer items it makes sense to design them to destruct in crashes. I'd rather be sitting amid the wreckage of my modern car listening to the cries of my still living children than in a barely dented but silent tank.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 5, 2004 16:27:40 GMT by Shortcut
This space available to rent. Reach literally dozens of people. Cheap rates!
|
|
|
|
|
I think the most effective way to reduce car accident deaths would be to actually do something about the huge numbers of incompetant drivers on the road, regular re-testing to refresh memories, and genuine punishments for driving irresponsibly fast and close to the car in front in the rain, for example, in my opinion the government/press's policy of only catching drivers who happen to be speeding or driving an old car (without doing anything wrong normally) and claiming all classic cars are an unsafe surefire way to die a horrible death that would have been a mere nasty headache if you were driving a new Scenic or Renault Laguna, regardless of what speed the crash is. RUBBISH! Regardless of how much development car companies do, you can't beat physics, no car is absolutely safe. As I said, when you get down to it, it's unsafe to leave the house when you think of all the things that might happen to you, and it's unsafe to stay in the house too if you add up all the possible risks. In a sense, NOTHING IS SAFE!
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
I agree about new cars feeling so safe that the drivers drive worse. I like old cars and realise that in a crash I may be a greater risk then the guy in the "moderrn".
But on the other hand a mate of mines life was saved because the corsa he was driving had crumple zones. The Sierra Sapphire he had a headon crash with didnt and the other guy lost his life.
But prevention is better then cure so like Rev says it would be better to stop the crashes in the first place. There are far to many bad drivers on the road. People who drive to fast or to slow, have bad eyesite or a just not fit to be behind the wheel of a lethal weapon.
|
|
BS Nymph Singer Chamois Coupe Series 3 Landy
|
|
|
NCAP safety tests.BenzBoy
@benzboy
Club Retro Rides Member 7
|
|
I wonder how our old cars would fare in an NCAP test? I think it's wrong to assume that all classics would be zero- or one-star rating (I'm not saying that anyone here is assuming that I know that my car is designed with crumple zones - all be it very crude ones and quite a bit less prone to crumple than modern ones! I saw photos of crash tests Mercedes carried out on my model using water jet-propelled sleds and concrete blocks. In one test the water jet stuck on and the car went into the wall at 100mph. The passenger cell was still more or less intact (although it's academic really as the occupants would surely have died). I think the Rover P6 too was designed to dissipate energy in a crash by way of crumple zones. I know what you mean about not being able to feel anything driving moderns - you're kind of anaesthetised as there is no feedback from the road whatsoever. The only time you know you've exceeded the cars capabilities is when its squirming all over the shop and it's too late to get it back. I've found some moderns are so neurotic too! That bloody woman behind the dash of the Renault Laguna nagging you constantly... "Please fasten seatbelts," "Coolant level low" and "please don't fart into the seats". I drove a Ford Explorer that locks all the doors when going over 20... it's no wonder some people are souch bad drivers - everything is done for them by some dumb-ass chunk of silicone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, drivers of modern cars are so used to the car controlling itself and them not having to guage feedback or judge their input, so when everything isn't going exactly to plan and working for them they get lost and panic, and can't control the car properly, that's part of the reason so many people lose it in the wet and hit stuff. Plus, as I said, they drive to close to other cars, and fail to read the road, or to remember that their braking distance is longer in the wet and they shouldn't drive so close to other cars, so pile ups etc occur whenever the weather gets bad. I know 5 NCAP stars mean they have a better chance of escaping, but I still think more competant driving would reduce the local casualty ward's workload a lot more than extra airbags.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|
|
|
It's true that new cars cosset you too much so you can't react when it really does go wrong! A good friend of mine has written off about five brand new Astra's and Vectra's, almost all in either rain or snow, cos it all suddenly "went wobbly"! As for older stuff not being able to withstand impacts, check out this picture: Here we see an Avenger that's been stuffed into a concrete block at 30mph. Note how just like modern "crumple-zone technology", the engine compartment is absolutely f*cked, but there's hardly any deformation to the passenger "cell". The avenger apparently also didn't send the steering wheel into the drivers chest or twist up the pedals and footwell too badly. Don't forget the Avenger was introduced nearly 35 years ago!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hillman Imp was released even longer ago, and I've seen pictures of their crash testing, they were the exact same way. Rootes also developed an earlier version of a 'collapsable' steering column for the Imp, I'm told, where it apparently twists up the way and away from the driver, towards the windscreen, instead of straight into his chest. The petrol tank, in front of the bulkhead, is also shaped in such a way that it couldn't be a danger in such crashes as it is quite unable to move around, and I've been in a crash into a quite solid wall at about 30 mph in a not in any way structurally strengthened Hillman Imp saloon, (actually it wasn't MOT'd, the rollcage was removed at the time, and the floor was in quite bad shape so the strength was actually down more than likely) following a brake failure, and I can assure you, there is not a steering wheel sticking out of my chest, I have not been hurt by the pedal box, and I am not at this time decapitated, dead, or mortally wounded, so I can't really agree that it is a structurally unsound, inherently dangerous car. No doubt an Espace is safer, but an Imp isn't a guaranteed coffin either.
|
|
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
|
|
|