Split thread: Older cars and safety

[noosacuda]

Originally Posted by noosacuda

Scary crap here..... NOTHING IS SAFE!
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/...er-disables-it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmvkL...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiORh...eature=related

What i meant was "NONE of our cars are safe under a "cash-4-clunkers" scheme" check the clips above. Stupid Americans!!!!!!!

[xy500]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

That's all very well for Japan, who can dump their old cars in China or North Korea, or even vietnam. what are we going to do with our old cars?


:wft
mass has nothing to do with crash survivability. it's how your car can protect you (even at the cost of it's own existance). the car's weight has little to do with you bashing your head on the dash.

WOW you honestly believe mass has nothing to do with collision survivability?
I've already explained it, it's mostly relevant in two car collisions (not when a car hits an immovable stationary object, though still relevant for movable stationary objects like a pole or brick wall). But mass has a huge effect on the resultant force on each of the bodies - less force means less impact through a reduced change of velocity.
To put it in terms you can understand; the more your car weighs over the other object you collide with, the more gently your head will bash the dash.
If you still don't get it that's fine, but don't give me rubbish about the cars ability to protect you...

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by xy500

To put it in terms you can understand; the more your car weighs over the other object you collide with, the more gently your head will bash the dash.
If you still don't get it that's fine, but don't give me rubbish about the cars ability to protect you...

So by your theory if a car half your car's weight hits you at 300km/hr you'll be fine because yours is heavier??????????

The force of any collision depends on many factors like weight, speed, angle of impact etc. How well you survive will depend on your cars ability to protect you from the force of the impact.

To keep it simple for you, try this experiment, put a raw egg in a box and drop the box from say 1.0m. I'm hoping you don't actually need to do this to realise that the egg will break. Now try it with the box full of cotton wool and egg on top of the cotton wool. My kid did this at school years ago in year 4 or 5. Egg usually survived intact. For god sake if 9 year olds can get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AussieAV]

Sorry I got a little nasty there, had a bad day and I think safety is important.
You are right xy500, the bigger mass of your car may well mean it will survive the crash better than the hatchback, but we as humans are basically giant water bags getting thrown around inside these containers.

If the mass difference is big enough (eg goods train versus car), then the bigger mass just continues and those inside feel little, but there generally isn't enough difference even between big and small cars to make the forces we experience inside irrelevant.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Sorry I got a little nasty there, had a bad day and I think safety is important.
You are right xy500, the bigger mass of your car may well mean it will survive the crash better than the hatchback, but we as humans are basically giant water bags getting thrown around inside these containers.

If the mass difference is big enough (eg goods train versus car), then the bigger mass just continues and those inside feel little, but there generally isn't enough difference even between big and small cars to make the forces we experience inside irrelevant.

you are more than right saying that people are quite tender when it comes to impacts. And yes at 300km/h it's not going to matter the slight weight difference.
My point was that there will be a significant difference in impact force between a one tonne hatchback and a 2 tonne plus luxury vehicle.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by xy500

you are more than right saying that people are quite tender when it comes to impacts. And yes at 300km/h it's not going to matter the slight weight difference.
My point was that there will be a significant difference in impact force between a one tonne hatchback and a 2 tonne plus luxury vehicle.

Agreed, but you keep going on about the forces. At the end of the day, its the sudden stopping of your body that causes a lot of the injuries. The fact that your car might push the other car a metre or two backwards isn't going to save you. 60kph to zero in a split second is going to hurt no matter what you hit. Seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, deforming structural segments, passenger safety cells are all going to contribute a lot more to a slower, safer stopping of you and your internal organs. They also do there job no matter what you hit, you can't guarantee your car will always be the biggest in the accident.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Agreed, but you keep going on about the forces. At the end of the day, its the sudden stopping of your body that causes a lot of the injuries. The fact that your car might push the other car a metre or two backwards isn't going to save you. 60kph to zero in a split second is going to hurt no matter what you hit. Seatbelt pre-tensioners, airbags, deforming structural segments, passenger safety cells are all going to contribute a lot more to a slower, safer stopping of you and your internal organs. They also do there job no matter what you hit, you can't guarantee your car will always be the biggest in the accident.

yes, but what you are talking about is impulse, which is the force applied over the time which the force acts. Crumple zones etc. extend the time over which the force acts. Or you can reduce the force, both give reduced impulse which is the impact force you feel during collision, less impulse = safer. I'm giving the other side of the coin.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by xy500

yes, but what you are talking about is impulse, which is the force applied over the time which the force acts. Crumple zones etc. extend the time over which the force acts. Or you can reduce the force, both give reduced impulse which is the impact force you feel during collision, less impulse = safer. I'm giving the other side of the coin.

Apologies to others for being OT (and staying OT) but think its important that correct information is being discussed.

Just did a bit of research, and seems old fairlanes are about 1500-1600kg. A current model Ford Fiesta weighs 1075kg (even a Nissan Micra is 965kg), so at best you are probably going to hit something 2/3 the weight of your car.

I really think you are WAY overestimating (not to mention misinterpreting) the benefits of a bigger car here. There have always been big and little cars, its the advent of modern safety features that have reduced the road toll as a percentage of vehicles on the road.

I'm not going on about this to try and convince you xy500. We all have our own ideas and concepts that are hard to change, me included. I just don't want someone putting thier "P" plater kids in a big old car thinking they are somehow protecting them because its got a lot of mass.

[WMD351]

A 30 year+ year old Fairlane has a great crumple zone.
It's called the passenger cell.
Back to the OP, I think it's just another attempt by our leaders to keep us all scared by the warming threat.
As long as we're living in fear of environmental amagedon it's not hard for our leaders to strip us of our rights and freedoms by telling us that it's for our own protection.
We're all so stupid that we let them legislate our lives down to the lowest common denominator so we can all be "safe", because we're obviously to stupid to take responsibility for our own actions.

Has nobody pointed out that you can have an older car in Japan, you just have to pay more for rego?

[JimNiki]

just ask any motorcycle rider if it protects them...








http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi.../91/7/1076.pdf

the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate...

[Boosh Brus]

I thought the video I posted earlier sums up the debate pretty well.
For those who care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCecdOBCFjI

[WMD351]

Got a '81 Fairlane in the drive and personally I love a big older car (I'd prefer a ZD to be honest) but I'm not sure how well a crumple zone's going to work if some peanut blows through a stop sign and t-bones me in the drivers door.
I think safety all comes down to the nut behind the wheel, but it's all relative depending on who your relatives are.

[xy500]

geez we can't stay on topic, too many people here seem to think old cars are the devil, along with benjamin franklin... and boobies.

[AussieAV]

LOVE old cars, got two Datsun 260Z clunkers I hope to one day make into 1 decent ride, I'm just under no illusions as to their shortcomings compared to todays cars.

No way I'll be handing them over for $2000 either, but then I'm fortunate enough not to have to rely on them as daily drivers.

As others have said the policy is a joke, but importantly it is not mandatory. There are a handful of people who will be moving from old bombs into new cars, but its only really only going to benefit people who have had a major change in their income (eg uni students after they get their first job). Stupid thing is, these people would probably upgrade their car anyway, the scheme is only really there to stop the car yards on selling the old cars to the used car market. Can't really believe that this incentive is going to make or break the decision to get a new car for many (if any).

They would be better off implementing some sceme whereby those in society who can only afford an old bomb are at least helped to maintain it to a roadworthy standard, (maybe get TAFE students to work on them) or open the scheme up to allow the rebate for changing to a newer, cleaner car rather than a new one. Again, voluntarily so that it doesn't effect those of us paaionate about our old classics.

[bingoTE50]

Try not to hit anything and you'll be ok ...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by WMD351

This topic was, I thought, covered quite succinctly in the "cash for clunkers downunder" thread.
Barry v is quite right in saying this is just election year crap and nothing will really come of it. As long as the government is "seen" to be doing something...
As pointed out by 302xc a couple of weeks ago, the price of scrap hitting $500 a ton a couple of years ago is what really threatens old cars and the industries and hobbies that go with them. Ultimately financial forces will dictate what happens to the oldies.
If anybody thinks all newer cars are safer, try driving one of the new Great Wall or Chery pieces of junk that failed Aussie crash standards when they first came here.
Regarding mass, a fully loaded luxo corolla weighs 1315kg.
My ZJ, which according to Vicroads has a 6cyl, weighs 1550kg, so as long as I don't hit a corolla with 5 Maori's in it I should be fine.
I'm sure Gillard's got a good policy, after all, she backed Latham and then Rudd to be our leader, so her judgment seems pretty sound.

You guys really don't get it.

How much do YOU weigh?

Your ZJ will be quite happy with minimal damage MEANWHILE you will go flying into your dash/steering wheel or have huge stresses placed on small stripes of your body (old tech seatbelts) as there is no slow release or pretensioning mechanism or airbags to spread the energy of the crash across your whole body.

You all also seem to have this fixation that every prang is your steel monster vs a 800kg plastic bubble car.

Here is a bit of a newsflash. The majority of vehicles on the road weigh MORE than your ZJ and trees/walls/rocks/posts do not care how much you weigh.

You are going the same speed as your car before the crash, you are also going the same speed at the car after the crash. It is made of stronger material than you.

The car will be in better condition but your body will be in worse.

You can always buy a new car..........

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by WMD351

Regarding mass, a fully loaded luxo corolla weighs 1315kg.
My ZJ, which according to Vicroads has a 6cyl, weighs 1550kg, so as long as I don't hit a corolla with 5 Maori's in it I should be fine.

Oh dear, my poor attempt at sarcasm appears to have been taken literally.

[ZDI-970]

Originally Posted by WMD351

Oh dear, my poor attempt at sarcasm appears to have been taken literally.

imo id rather be in a crash in a classic because at least then il be doing it in style!
but in all seriousness any car can be safe and reliable and good on emissions but its the people behind the wheel or the people looking after the vehicle that determine weather it will be safe/ reliable etc

[xy500]

Originally Posted by flappist

You guys really don't get it.

How much do YOU weigh?

Your ZJ will be quite happy with minimal damage MEANWHILE you will go flying into your dash/steering wheel or have huge stresses placed on small stripes of your body (old tech seatbelts) as there is no slow release or pretensioning mechanism or airbags to spread the energy of the crash across your whole body.

You all also seem to have this fixation that every prang is your steel monster vs a 800kg plastic bubble car.

Here is a bit of a newsflash. The majority of vehicles on the road weigh MORE than your ZJ and trees/walls/rocks/posts do not care how much you weigh.

You are going the same speed as your car before the crash, you are also going the same speed at the car after the crash. It is made of stronger material than you.

The car will be in better condition but your body will be in worse.

You can always buy a new car..........

mate, you seem to be the one who doesn't get it,
re-read this:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...t/91/7/1076.pdf

the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate...
And now tell us all again how mass difference has no effect!
We're not talking about damage to cars AT ALL, we're talking about forces and impact on passengers.
All vehicles will crumple, older or newer. Obviously newer cars crumple more effectively, but not in such a dramatic way that they make all old cars completely unsafe. The biggest factor is the speed of collision, go fast enough and you won't survive in any vehicle, hence the major issue is the driver not the age of the car.
Coming from the biggest old car hater on the forum I'm not surprised.

Flappist; it's pretty obvious from this thread there are more old car haters than turbo haters on the forum, what the heck is your point with this?
Do the thread a favour and check what has already been said before you start another of your tirades against old cars. I tire of your demonising of old cars.

[pottery beige]

we are bags of meat and water.........

[burnz]

Originally Posted by xy500

mate, you seem to be the one who doesn't get it,
re-read this:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...t/91/7/1076.pdf

the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate...
And now tell us all again how mass difference has no effect!
We're not talking about damage to cars AT ALL, we're talking about forces and impact on passengers.
All vehicles will crumple, older or newer. Obviously newer cars crumple more effectively, but not in such a dramatic way that they make all old cars completely unsafe. The biggest factor is the speed of collision, go fast enough and you won't survive in any vehicle, hence the major issue is the driver not the age of the car.
Coming from the biggest old car hater on the forum I'm not surprised.

Flappist; it's pretty obvious from this thread there are more old car haters than turbo haters on the forum, what the heck is your point with this?
Do the thread a favour and check what has already been said before you start another of your tirades against old cars. I tire of your demonising of old cars.

and their lie's the problem your falcon is a paper weight, lighter than a camry, cruze, commo, FG falc, vw,,, just about 80% of cars on the road are heavier than an XY..

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xy500

mate, you seem to be the one who doesn't get it,
re-read this:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cg...t/91/7/1076.pdf

the first graph in the pdf listed above states clearly that the higher the difference in mass of 2 colliding vehicles, the higher the fatality rate...
And now tell us all again how mass difference has no effect!
We're not talking about damage to cars AT ALL, we're talking about forces and impact on passengers.
All vehicles will crumple, older or newer. Obviously newer cars crumple more effectively, but not in such a dramatic way that they make all old cars completely unsafe. The biggest factor is the speed of collision, go fast enough and you won't survive in any vehicle, hence the major issue is the driver not the age of the car.
Coming from the biggest old car hater on the forum I'm not surprised.

Flappist; it's pretty obvious from this thread there are more old car haters than turbo haters on the forum, what the heck is your point with this?
Do the thread a favour and check what has already been said before you start another of your tirades against old cars. I tire of your demonising of old cars.

Two weeks ago I drove over 4,000km on mostly dirt roads and tracks in a 1966 XP falcon along with well over 100 other more than 30 year old vehicles raising money for disabled children.

http://www.varietyqld.org.au/bash

I personally saw what happens when they hit each other, hit trees, run off the road into a creek or down the side of a hill.

The point is that I don't hate old cars (I had several of them new) but I also do not look at them with rose coloured glasses and see them for what they are.

All the fantasy and wishing in the world will not make and old car safer, faster or more economical than a new one anymore than a Commodore 64
can be used as an iPhone.

[russellw]

I've split this thread from the cash for clunkers thread.

Please try and remain civil while discussing your opposing views or this one will end up closed.

Cheers
Russ

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

You guys really don't get it.

How much do YOU weigh?

Your ZJ will be quite happy with minimal damage MEANWHILE you will go flying into your dash/steering wheel or have huge stresses placed on small stripes of your body (old tech seatbelts) as there is no slow release or pretensioning mechanism or airbags to spread the energy of the crash across your whole body.

You all also seem to have this fixation that every prang is your steel monster vs a 800kg plastic bubble car.

Here is a bit of a newsflash. The majority of vehicles on the road weigh MORE than your ZJ and trees/walls/rocks/posts do not care how much you weigh.

You are going the same speed as your car before the crash, you are also going the same speed at the car after the crash. It is made of stronger material than you.

The car will be in better condition but your body will be in worse.

You can always buy a new car..........

Flappist, I assure you they will never get it, I have been trying to dispel this myth that older, bigger and stronger cars are safer than newer cars with more advanced safety features for a long time.

Well here is some food for thought for all those that believe stronger is better. It is not the force of the car hitting the other car that kills occupants, it is the force transmitted to the occupants that kills them. By having the car crumple it reduces the force on the occupants and therefore increases the chance of survival.

Second thought for you all, I have peeled more dead bodies out of pre 1990's cars than any post 1990's cars. In the older cars we normally see the car and think that it does not look too bad, but the occupants are either dead or seriously injured. In new cars, the car is normally a write off and looks spectacular, and then we find the occupants sitting on the curb thanking their lucky "5 stars". By the way, that is not theory or opinion, that is experience at a lot of crashes.

Personally I have nothing against old cars, quite the opposite actually as I want to find an old classic to do up. When I do and I drive it, I will certainly have it in the back of my mind that I am more likely to die in it in a crash, as well as more likely to be in a crash in the first place. That thought will probably cause me to be a bit more cautious with my driving and avoid the crash.

[Yellow_Festiva]

I think we can link as many youtube clips and try to explain it in as many different ways with as many different scenarios as possible. Some people are just set in their ways, as well as in their thinking.

Any older car is built solid, granted. I remember as a lad running on the roof and bonnet of dads XA. Never had a fear of denting that old tank.

But that's what it was, a tank. There was minimal consideration to safety, so it was perceived that the stronger it was built the better.

Newer cars are designed to crumple and give way. They are not 'weak' or 'inferior', rather a sacrificial item designed to decelerate your body in a somewhat orderly and metered manner.

I would be an a newer car any day if I knew I was to have an accident. The forces at play on the body when you decelerate from 100-0 in a few metres / milliseconds are deadly. Anything that can soften the final blow is worth it. If it happens to be the car you are in then all the better for your body.

I remember being shown an 'after accident' video in high school. Designed to scare the tripe out of us young kids who were all just starting to drive.

I think it was an old falcon sedan? 60's-70's model perhaps. Anyway, the car slammed into tree with such force that some loose coins on the parcel tray became projectiles within the cabin. One embedding itself into the head of one of the passengers. All of which died instantly.

When you abruptly stop in a collision, then you become the flying projectile. The less give in the steel around you, the faster you get catapulted.

What was that saying? They don't build them like they used to? Well thank God for that!

[WMD351]

LMAO. I was going to suggest this thread this afternoon, but seriously, the title says it all.
The jacking of the last thread was more to do with big vs. small.
If anybody really believes older is safer then new, well, Darwin's natural selection should take care of that way of thinking.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

Here is another new vs old crash test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs with an "old" car newer then yours.


back on topic: IMO the cash for clunkers things is just a poorly thought out waste of money though there is merit in getting the some of the older cars off the road.

Everyone that thinks their old tank is safer should watch this. When you do just remember that the Volvo 940 achieved world wide acclaim for reaching safety levels that older cars could not.

I have watched the impact and the scenes of the passenger cells a number of times and some things need to be pointed out.

Notice the door of the volvo, that passenger cell is now considerably shorter than it used to be as evidenced by the crumpling of the door skin and the kink in the roof behind the B pillar. That driver now has both of his femurs shattered as his knees got punched into the dash (you can see this as his knees are still inside the dash). The femur is capable of loosing up to 2L of blood into the tissues around it, break both and you may have 2/3 of your blood volume missing, a fatal injury. The renault door is intact and the roof line is not kinked showing there has been minimal shortening of the passenger cell. When you look at the foot well and dash there is almost no evidence of impact from the drivers knees.

In the video of the crash you will notice the driver of the volvo moves forward a considerable amount even though they are restrained, resulting in an impact with the steering wheel. The renault does not do this as it is highly likely it is fitted with seat belt pre-tensioners, more effectively holding the occupant in the seat. Evidence of this can be seen in the interiors of both cars, the volvo has a deformed lower section of the steering wheel as a result of the driver hitting it with great force on their chest. This driver would without doubt have a collapsed lung or two and most likely a tension pneumothorax (a severe increase in pressure in the chest that leads to cardiac arrest in seconds). The driver of the volvo may also have suffered an aortic transection, which is a deceleration injury where the aorta rips off the top of the heart which always leads to death (yes always, no one has survived this injury to my knowledge or in any of the literature I have studied). This is all without considering you can bet that the liver, pancreas and spleen have all been damaged, leading to massive internal haemorrhage, there goes the remaining 2L of blood. The impact on the wheel would also have caused enough force on the neck and head to result in a significant neck injury. If you watch the driver of the volvo, the face hits the steering wheel top, result of that would be massive brain injuries as well as facial fractures that in themselves can give life threatening airway obstructions. The renault driver will have considerable bruising from the seat belt but because there was no impact with the steering wheel (no deformation of the wheel), they will be sore but alive.

Extrication of the two drivers will be vastly different. The volvo will require a A and B pillar cut and roof peel with a dash roll, which all takes time (about 5 minutes with a good fire crew, try holding your breath for 5 minutes). This driver does not have time and would likely be in cardiac arrest as emergency crews arrive. Due to the time to remove the patient and delay to resuscitation, the chance of survival would be less than 1% (we could not apply any worthwhile resuscitation in the vehicle). The renault passenger would require no vehicle cutting to remove, we could slide them out with full spinal precautions just bending that door back. The renault drivers chance of survival is excellent, I highly doubt they would even get a hospital stay overnight, just a few hours observation in the ED.

The end result of that crash would without doubt be a dead volvo driver and a renault driver with minor to moderate injuries. Trust me, I have a lot of training and real life experience in assessing vehicle damage and calculating what the likely occupant injury patterns are.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xy500

All vehicles will crumple, older or newer. Obviously newer cars crumple more effectively, but not in such a dramatic way that they make all old cars completely unsafe. The biggest factor is the speed of collision, go fast enough and you won't survive in any vehicle, hence the major issue is the driver not the age of the car.
Coming from the biggest old car hater on the forum I'm not surprised.

Very true, both old and new cars will crumple. The difference is older cars will continue the crumple into the passenger cell, shortening the passenger cell and injuring passengers as I discussed earlier. Newer cars are designed to crumple in front of the passenger cell to dissipate energy but maintain passenger cell structure to provide safety.

Bringing unequal mass into the discussion is muddying the water and preventing effective discussion. If you really want to compare new with old in terms of safety and crash survivability, keep it to equivalent vehicles. I would suggest something like a XC falcon compared to a FG, which do you think you would have a greater chance of surviving a 80 km/h head on crash in? I know which one I would prefer to be in.

[xc4me]

I cannot believe what i am reading! Some of the opinions in here are so ridiculously ignorant. Yes, in collisions a vehicle of bigger mass experiences less change in momentum but the forces experienced by both vehicles IS IDENTICAL (Newtons 3rd Law). As seen in the Chevy impala crash test it's all about where the energy goes. In the new car its directed around the passenger cell and in the old it goes right through collapsing the pillar (I know which car I'd rather be in). In the crash test with the smart car v wall the drivers cell STAYED IN TACT and it would've been the G-forces that killed the person. I'm an automotive engineering student and if someone TRY say this to a lecturer they'd be kicked out of the course - yes, in LOW speed collisions new cars come of second best but this thread is unbelievable!

[Iggypoppin']

I hope you all read and respect gecko's comments. As an ambo driver gecko has the most accurate point of view on this subject. Not only this but maybe if some of our younger users here on AFF read his posts above, they might live out their lives accident free on our roads...