Crash test videos - The Good and the Bad

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

I can't remember where I first found the link to these videos, but I have to say that they certainly have helped me appreciate (1) modern car crashworthiness, and (2) what kind of forces are really at work in a 40 MPH crash.

Take a look first at the short video of the Chinese SUV for an example of what you *don't* want a car to do in a crash.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EBlQHHaszVg

Then watch this excellent compilation of several modern cars in the same test. The difference is dramatic.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk5cp93zefk

I also thought it was amazing that some cars sustained damage to the rear quarter panels due to the shockwave moving down the car. And in most cases the mirrors flip forward in a 40 MPH crash.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:37 pm

You can also tell by the gas cap covers and trunklids opening how much the body and structure deformed all the way down the car. Everyone thinks how slow 40mph is, but it is a tremendous force hitting an immovable object.

The scariest thing to me is the whiplash of the neck and head. :shock:

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:39 pm

Watching the side impacts makes me want to buy a newer car with side airbags. The full size trucks looks a bit scary.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:24 pm

Head airbags sure must be a better experience than an SUV bumper to the skull. I'm still amazed that Brian Marks survived getting t-boned by a pickup in his E36 M3 a few years ago with no side air bags: http://www.pfyc.com/m3/

Last year I watched an episode of 5th Gear, and they robotically crashed a mid-90's Volvo 740 into a mid-90's (E34) 5-series at around 50mph and offset to simulate a highway head-on. The carnage was unbelievable, and I think I would have much preferred being in the E34. Thankfully, a lot of progress on crash safety has been made since these two cars were designed in the late 1980's. I don't know what happened to 5th Gear on Speed channel -- perhaps another casualty to their new programming.

Chuck

RobLupella · **Posted:** Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:59 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Head airbags sure must be a better experience than an SUV bumper to the skull. I'm still amazed that Brian Marks survived getting t-boned by a pickup in his E36 M3 a few years ago with no side air bags: http://www.pfyc.com/m3/

Last year I watched an episode of 5th Gear, and they robotically crashed a mid-90's Volvo 740 into a mid-90's (E34) 5-series at around 50mph and offset to simulate a highway head-on. The carnage was unbelievable, and I think I would have much preferred being in the E34. Thankfully, a lot of progress on crash safety has been made since these two cars were designed in the late 1980's. I don't know what happened to 5th Gear on Speed channel -- perhaps another casualty to their new programming.

Chuck

I think it went away as a casulty so they could run more PINKS, or The life of the NASCAR Truck Driver, or Chop, Cut, Rebuild, spit out or some other piece of crap show that is more advertising and stupid than fun. Stupid SPEED channel, I wish there was more racing, I'd rather watch road race reruns or WRC than 4 hours of repeats of BJ Auction or 3 Ultimate Whips episodes or.....wait I'm ranting.....

Bernie Baake · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:51 am

Don't hold back Rob, let er rip. Who the hell cares what car sold for 2,800,000. Or what celebrity paid 200k to trick out his suv. you can always watch Pinks and try to guess who's the biggest liar and who can scream the loudest... The cars are the filler for lying loud mouths. Oh OH I guess now I'm ranting. See what you started Rob! :shock:

markodell · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:19 pm **Posts:** 65

Richard Casto wrote:

The full size trucks looks a bit scary.

If you are referring to the trucks crashing into frontal barrier, I agree, they look pretty scary. But that is why I've always had a problem with the frontal barrier tests - they leave the false impression that larger vehicles are less safe. As such, I've always felt the NHTSA does an injustice to consumers with the test as designed.

First of all, let me say one thing - I love small cars. I have a Miata, and a 3rd Gen RX-7. When I'm in the RX-7, I'm looking UP at the bumper of a Civic. I also love large vehicles like my F250 - it has its purpose. I don't want to get into a small car versus large SUV debate here. I just want to point out something that I think is misleading in the NHTSA tests.

The test is supposed to simulate a head on collision. However hitting a stationary immovable object is equivalent to colliding head on with an equivalent sized mass coming from the opposite direction moving at the same speed. In other words, the 5800 lb truck is colliding with an equivalent sized 5800 lb truck. A 3000 lb sedan is colliding with a 3000 lb sedan. So the biggest discrepancy of the test is that all cars DO NOT EXPERIENCE AN EQUAL TEST. Sure, it simulates crashing into a brick building well, but that isn't the real world. As scary as the full size truck tests look, keep in mind that the "frontal crash into stationary barrier" test for them is MUCH, MUCH more severe than it is for the smaller vehicles.

As a result, people are left with the impression that the truck is less safe if it gets 3 or 4 stars in the frontal collision test, while the smaller sedan gets 5 stars. The frontal test can actually make small cars look relatively good as compared to larger cars.

My point is, in the case of a head-on collision, a larger vehicle that gets only 3 or 4 stars is possibly more safe than a smaller vehicle getting 5 stars. We can't objectively compare, because the test doesn't compare apples-to-apples. You can only compare these tests relative to other vehicles in the same size/class.

If the NHSTA changed the test to whereby they selected a vehicle of the statistical mean size (3400lbs for example), and slammed it into the front of the test vehicle at 40 mph, then you would get a head-on collision test which could be compared across all vehicles. It would then likely show some smaller vehicles looking "scary" and more larger vehicles breezing through the test.

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:52 am

markodell wrote:

The test is supposed to simulate a head on collision. However hitting a stationary immovable object is equivalent to colliding head on with an equivalent sized mass coming from the opposite direction moving at the same speed. In other words, the 5800 lb truck is colliding with an equivalent sized 5800 lb truck. A 3000 lb sedan is colliding with a 3000 lb sedan. So the biggest discrepancy of the test is that all cars DO NOT EXPERIENCE AN EQUAL TEST. Sure, it simulates crashing into a brick building well, but that isn't the real world. As scary as the full size truck tests look, keep in mind that the "frontal crash into stationary barrier" test for them is MUCH, MUCH more severe than it is for the smaller vehicles.

Mark, I know you didn't want to get into a small vs. big car debate, so I will stay away from that as much as I can

I totally understand and agree with you regarding the physics behind a large vs. small car head on. But I wouldn't totally discount the crash into a non-moving object. I don't have any statistics to back me up, but my gut tells me it is just as important as vehical vs. vehical head on collisions. Speaking of statistics, can anyone point us to some real ones that talk about full size truck vs. other cars? Both survivability as well as injury statistics? It would be interesting to see the real numbers.

I need to rewatch those videos, but I was thinking that the dummy in the truck seems to not stay in place as well. Maybe that is a fault with the interior design. I also wonder if the issue is body on frame design of full size trucks. That it is harder for the front frame section to act as a crumple zone. I think some of the smaller trucks looked to do better and I suspect those are uni-body designs. It would be interesting to watch a Honda Ridgeline test as it is a larger vehical, but uni-body design.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:59 am

Richard Casto wrote:

I also wonder if the issue is body on frame design of full size trucks. That it is harder for the front frame section to act as a crumple zone. I think some of the smaller trucks looked to do better and I suspect those are uni-body designs. It would be interesting to watch a Honda Ridgeline test as it is a larger vehical, but uni-body design.

Most likely...the 5000+lb BMW X5 does very nicely in the barrier crash. It is interesting to examine the offset barrier crash X5 they have at the museum in Spartanburg -- it appeared to have performed very well.

Also, if one was to venture into using a given mass car/object as opposed to a barrier, now you also have to work extremely carefully on the deformation properties in addition to its mass.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:14 pm

markodell wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

The full size trucks looks a bit scary.

If you are referring to the trucks crashing into frontal barrier, I agree, they look pretty scary. But that is why I've always had a problem with the frontal barrier tests - they leave the false impression that larger vehicles are less safe. As such, I've always felt the NHTSA does an injustice to consumers with the test as designed.

First of all, let me say one thing - I love small cars. I have a Miata, and a 3rd Gen RX-7. When I'm in the RX-7, I'm looking UP at the bumper of a Civic. I also love large vehicles like my F250 - it has its purpose. I don't want to get into a small car versus large SUV debate here. I just want to point out something that I think is misleading in the NHTSA tests.

The test is supposed to simulate a head on collision. However hitting a stationary immovable object is equivalent to colliding head on with an equivalent sized mass coming from the opposite direction moving at the same speed. In other words, the 5800 lb truck is colliding with an equivalent sized 5800 lb truck. A 3000 lb sedan is colliding with a 3000 lb sedan. So the biggest discrepancy of the test is that all cars DO NOT EXPERIENCE AN EQUAL TEST. Sure, it simulates crashing into a brick building well, but that isn't the real world. As scary as the full size truck tests look, keep in mind that the "frontal crash into stationary barrier" test for them is MUCH, MUCH more severe than it is for the smaller vehicles.

As a result, people are left with the impression that the truck is less safe if it gets 3 or 4 stars in the frontal collision test, while the smaller sedan gets 5 stars. The frontal test can actually make small cars look relatively good as compared to larger cars.

My point is, in the case of a head-on collision, a larger vehicle that gets only 3 or 4 stars is possibly more safe than a smaller vehicle getting 5 stars. We can't objectively compare, because the test doesn't compare apples-to-apples. You can only compare these tests relative to other vehicles in the same size/class.

If the NHSTA changed the test to whereby they selected a vehicle of the statistical mean size (3400lbs for example), and slammed it into the front of the test vehicle at 40 mph, then you would get a head-on collision test which could be compared across all vehicles. It would then likely show some smaller vehicles looking "scary" and more larger vehicles breezing through the test.

Bottom Line here is that size matters. If you crash your 6000lb+ truck into a 2200lb car, the truck wins - every time. Since I too am a small car guy, I think we ought to outlaw every vehicle over 3500lbs or alternatively, build a whole new highway system made just for them. This would protect all of our small cars.

markodell · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:19 pm **Posts:** 65

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

I also wonder if the issue is body on frame design of full size trucks. That it is harder for the front frame section to act as a crumple zone. I think some of the smaller trucks looked to do better and I suspect those are uni-body designs. It would be interesting to watch a Honda Ridgeline test as it is a larger vehical, but uni-body design.

Most likely...the 5000+lb BMW X5 does very nicely in the barrier crash. It is interesting to examine the offset barrier crash X5 they have at the museum in Spartanburg -- it appeared to have performed very well.

Also, if one was to venture into using a given mass car/object as opposed to a barrier, now you also have to work extremely carefully on the deformation properties in addition to its mass.

I did some online research on this a couple of years ago, looking for raw accident statistics. What I found was that the safest vehicles (fewest fatalities per mile mile driven), were the larger vehicles - SUV's and trucks. Light Trucks were safest, followed by SUV's. This despite the greater tendency of SUV's and trucks to rollover.

I can no longer find the raw data on the NHTSA website, but here's a good link on another site that shows the fatality rate for a 5000lb+ SUV is 1/2 that for a 3000lb automobile. Per Mile Driven fatality rate is the best overall measure of vehicle safety.

http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/weight/index.htm

(you have to find the almost invisible scroll bar on the page to see the charts).

Here is what the NHTSA says about their own frontal test:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/reg ... 08061.html

You can see that NHTSA is concerned about head-on collisions, not hitting immovable objects. As far as the importance of hitting immovable objects, I have to differ with you on that. Most fatalities occur in multivehicle accidents (about 58%). Of the 42% which are single car collision, I'd say that very few are hitting truly immovable objects, like the flat side of a building. Its hard to know exactly how many though, because the raw data isn't out there. But I'd say that most things that you hit, give in some way - even the guardrails and tirewalls at VIR give, and believe me I know! And if something gives, mass matters.

I want the NHTSA to continue testing cars. Its great the changes that have occured in cars and trucks over the last couple decades. I just wish some of their tests weren't so slanted so you can ascertain the truth about the relative safety of vehicles. Statistics show the fatality rate PER MILE in a 3000lb car is TWICE the fatality rate of a large pickup or SUV. Does the NHTSA tell you that? No, they scare you to death about SUV rollover. Anecdotally, we used to have a large SUV (recently sold it for a more practical minivan), and my Mother In-Law was scared to death about it, because of the roll-over risk. When I tried to explain to her that despite the rollover risk, it was the safest vehicle on the road, she wouldn't believe me. She was convinced it was a deathtrap. Who put that misguided idea in her head? Go check the NHTSA homepage...

The nut of it is, the NHTSA could change their test - there are no insurmountable technical reasons why they can't. The question is why don't they?

Again, I LOVE small cars. I'll continue to drive them because I enjoy them, and because they are more efficient for many things. But people ought to know the truth about automotive safety so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their families.

markodell · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:19 pm **Posts:** 65

RobLupella wrote:

Bottom Line here is that size matters. If you crash your 6000lb+ truck into a 2200lb car, the truck wins - every time. Since I too am a small car guy, I think we ought to outlaw every vehicle over 3500lbs or alternatively, build a whole new highway system made just for them. This would protect all of our small cars.

But then how I would I get my racecar to the track!!!

The good news is that despite the proliferation of large vehicles AND the more crowded roads we drive on, deaths per mile continues to drop across the board. I think this means all vehicles are getting safer.

Chuck Frank · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 pm

actually the stationary frontal crash test @ 40mph simulates two cars hitting head on with each traveling at just 20 MPH! Both traveling at 40mph would generate the force of hitting a stationary object at 80 MPH! :shock:

If facing the situation, avoiding the head-on at any cost is the safer option.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:52 pm

markodell wrote:

RobLupella wrote:

Bottom Line here is that size matters. If you crash your 6000lb+ truck into a 2200lb car, the truck wins - every time. Since I too am a small car guy, I think we ought to outlaw every vehicle over 3500lbs or alternatively, build a whole new highway system made just for them. This would protect all of our small cars.

But then how I would I get my racecar to the track!!!

The good news is that despite the proliferation of large vehicles AND the more crowded roads we drive on, deaths per mile continues to drop across the board. I think this means all vehicles are getting safer.

You would use the special lane. :lol:

I think each vehicle carries it own risks, to me for a lot of reasons there are way too many big vehicles on the road where people could be driving something smaller. Getting rid of them would solve a bunch of problems. When I am king, I will be willing to make exceptions for tow vehicles, school buses, trucks used for commercial purposes, but not for SUV Soccer moms :twisted:

markodell · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:19 pm **Posts:** 65

Chuck Frank wrote:

actually the stationary frontal crash test @ 40mph simulates two cars hitting head on with each traveling at just 20 MPH! Both traveling at 40mph would generate the force of hitting a stationary object at 80 MPH! :shock:

If facing the situation, avoiding the head-on at any cost is the safer option.

Chuck, what you said is absolutely true when the object being struck is movable and deformable. For example if you struck a stationary car sitting by the road, both your vehicle and the vehicle you struck would absorb the energy of the crash. If the NHTSA crashed a Ford Explorer into another Ford Explorer that is just sitting there, your scenario would indeed be correct.

But the frontal test performed by the NHTSA is against an immovable and undeformable barrier. This means the crashing vehicle absorbs all the energy of the crash. Because of this, the physics dictate that this does simulate two identical vehicles BOTH traveling at 40mph head-on into each other.

THSCC Forums

Crash test videos - The Good and the Bad

Who is online