High safety ratings for small cars mean little in real world accidents.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by TC200six

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ

Looks like most of us have already forgotten this test. The little Fiat 500 has a 5-star rating, but look how well it holds up against an Audi SUV.

I don't think it holds up very well at all, and imo it isn't deserving of a 5 star rating.
Look at 0:20, the Audi driver's head is properly cushioned by the airbag and is nowhere near making contact with the steering wheel. There is minimal movement of the dash and steering column and the occupants' movement appears to be stable and controlled.
In the Fiat on the other hand, it appears the driver makes contact with the side of the airbag instead of the middle of it, resulting in the driver's head striking the steering wheel and dashboard through the airbag. At 0:47, the drivers body,head and neck appear to be twisted sideways. There is significant A-pillar deformation and dashboard intrusion in the Fiat, both of which are not present in the Audi.
IMO, if that was a real life collision, the Audi driver would walk away, while the Fiat driver would be seriously injured at best.

[Legit290]

mental note...avoid that driving school

[prydey]

Originally Posted by stevz

I don't think it holds up very well at all, and imo it isn't deserving of a 5 star rating.

clearly you don't understand the theory behind the ratings. they can't be compared across different segments. ask ancap, they'll tell you the same thing.

smash a 5 star large car into a mack or kenworth. its all about mass.

if you are going to buy a small car, a 5 star one will perform better than a 3 or 4 star small car. if you want to buy a large car, a 5 star one will perform better etc etc.

not a difficult concept.

one thing i would like to see added to the manufacturer sticker is a disclaimer with words to that effect. it is often the manufacturer who is guilty of misleading the public. the general public are led to believe 5 star is 5 star, regardless of mass.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by prydey

clearly you don't understand the theory behind the ratings. they can't be compared across different segments. ask ancap, they'll tell you the same thing.

smash a 5 star large car into a mack or kenworth. its all about mass.

if you are going to buy a small car, a 5 star one will perform better than a 3 or 4 star small car. if you want to buy a large car, a 5 star one will perform better etc etc.

not a difficult concept.

one thing i would like to see added to the manufacturer sticker is a disclaimer with words to that effect. it is often the manufacturer who is guilty of misleading the public. the general public are led to believe 5 star is 5 star, regardless of mass.

I am well aware of this, which is why I believe that the rating system is flawed and misleading. I would like to see the testing criteria completely overhauled to take such factors into account and make it harder for such cars to score high ratings.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by stevz

I am well aware of this, which is why I believe that the rating system is flawed and misleading. I would like to see the testing criteria completely overhauled to take such factors into account and make it harder for such cars to score high ratings.

so to achieve a 5 star rating a car needs to perform well against a much larger object?? i guess they may as well throw the 5 star rating out the window then.

maybe they just need to educate the general public so the ratings are better understood.

[stevz]

Originally Posted by prydey

so to achieve a 5 star rating a car needs to perform well against a much larger object?? i guess they may as well throw the 5 star rating out the window then.

Well with the majority of new cars having 5 star ratings, it is clear that the system is outdated and due for an overhaul, so why not?

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by stevz

Well with the majority of new cars having 5 star ratings, it is clear that the system is outdated and due for an overhaul, so why not?

ANCAP are supposed to be in the process of overhauling their system. http://www.caradvice.com.au/91282/an...ess-from-2012/

This article is almost two years old. Have ANCAP taken these changes into affect yet?

[SSD-85]

Id rather be in a 1 star car with relative common sense, than a 5 star car with complacency & reliance on my cars tech to compensate for my dumb-***....

[stevz]

Originally Posted by Eagleheart

Id rather be in a 1 star car with relative common sense, than a 5 star car with complacency & reliance on my cars tech to compensate for my dumb-***....

So if you're going down the road in your 1 star car and somebody coming the other way suddenly veers into your path and hits you head on, how is common sense going to save you?

[Ben73]

I'd prefer a large car with a 5 star rating. Win win.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by TC200six

ANCAP are supposed to be in the process of overhauling their system. http://www.caradvice.com.au/91282/an...ess-from-2012/

This article is almost two years old. Have ANCAP taken these changes into affect yet?

i think that is going to create too much confusion. you will end up with pre 2012 ratings and post 2012 ratings.

i do agree that manufacturers have caught up to the minimum requirement for 5 star. whilst that is good in some respects, it doesn't defferentiate those cars that just scrape through, and those that pass at a canter.

maybe they need to just keep adding stars. go to 6 and 7 stars. otherwise you will have a situation where a 2013 4 star car will actually be safer than the same model of a previous year that was awarded 5 stars.

[SSD-85]

Originally Posted by stevz

So if you're going down the road in your 1 star car and somebody coming the other way suddenly veers into your path and hits you head on, how is common sense going to save you?

Dont open up that can of worms on me.

Im not afraid to die enjoying the cars I love driving. And incidentally, im not going to care much about the hypothetical morons driving skills if im dead...

Oh and if the scenario leaves me alive & in a crippled state for the rest of my life, well...theres the can of worms I wont open....

[In Focus]

Looks like we should all be riding in buses...

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Nikked

The video clearly shows that the smaller car is just as safe (if not safer) then the larger car. Obviously, its not a video comparing airbags, but the damaged sustained on impact.
....

Best to not confuse panel damage with occupant injury outcomes.

Considering the test was stacked against it the Volvo did very,very well.

My money would be on the Volvo, it's occupants would have broken legs, but the Renault passengers would have as many external injuries and probably be dying from internal injuries from the massive G force when their little car spun violently.

[Drizz06]

Originally Posted by stevz

I am well aware of this, which is why I believe that the rating system is flawed and misleading. I would like to see the testing criteria completely overhauled to take such factors into account and make it harder for such cars to score high ratings.

I think your going a bit overboard mate, A car is rated on how it performs under the same test scenario as any other car. You don't have to be a genius to realize that a 5 star BMW X5 will be better off in a head on with a 5 star fiat 500! But then you have to remember if you hit a tree going say 60km a hour in the fiat there will be considerably less force being absorbed by the little 500 compared to a big heavy X5. At the end of the day more stars is better and we can poke holes in there tests till the cows come home but not everyone wants or needs to drive a crash proof armored SUV. For city driving I have plenty of faith in my wife's 5star focus and for trips the FG serves well.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Best to not confuse panel damage with occupant injury outcomes.

Considering the test was stacked against it the Volvo did very,very well.

My money would be on the Volvo, it's occupants would have broken legs, but the Renault passengers would have as many external injuries and probably be dying from internal injuries from the massive G force when their little car spun violently.

Wow!!

You sound like an expert! You should consult for today tonight and ACA!

As usual, some people's comments and opinions on this thread absolutely beggar belief..

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Ugg

yeah...Front wheel drive car versus rear wheel drive car and a very selective offset collision to pass by the side of the volvo engine.

That is not a "very selective" offset collision test to bypass the side of the Volvo engine, you do realise the Renault has a engine too

That is a standard crash test based on how head on collisions usually occur in the real world.

Talk about a biased "grasping at straws" view

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Ugg

My money would be on the Volvo, it's occupants would have broken legs, but the Renault passengers would have as many external injuries and probably be dying from internal injuries from the massive G force when their little car spun violently.

My money would be on the Volvo driver being stone cold dead after that impact.

Just my opinion based on sixteen years of attending mva's and cutting people (dead and alive) from their vehicles.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Holy crap...that photo in the article! The Falcon looks like a "open the door, get out and walk away" proposition, but the little driving school car looks like a "have the door cut off, and get carried away (quickly) on a stretcher" accident...

The car being T-Boned is will almost always come off second best. If the little driving school car hit the falcon in the front door the falcon would not offer much resistance either as there is NO crumple zone.

Not much to do with size in the article's example picture

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Ugg

Best to not confuse panel damage with occupant injury outcomes.

Considering the test was stacked against it the Volvo did very,very well.

My money would be on the Volvo, it's occupants would have broken legs, but the Renault passengers would have as many external injuries and probably be dying from internal injuries from the massive G force when their little car spun violently.

The Volvo did well?

The whole dashboard and Steering wheel was propelled into the poor dummy's face...

I'd be thinking massive trauma to the face, internal injuries and possible neck damage

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by stevz

So if you're going down the road in your 1 star car and somebody coming the other way suddenly veers into your path and hits you head on, how is common sense going to save you?

while i have had a car coming straight at me in my 0 star car at one stage, it has only happened once
many times i have had idiots in normal traffic move over on me, pull out in front or do something else stupid

so from my reckoning, using common sense in a 1 star car is a much better idea than being a brain dead moron in a 5 star car - it is a pity others don't take this view, because the road would be much safer

[brydie76]

Meh, no two crashes are identical, there will always be a lot of luck involved at the end of the day IMO. Like others have said, you can have all the airbags and safety features in the world, but all it takes is the right size object hitting the one spot that is slightly weaker than the rest of the car and you are a goner.

For what it matters, I still feel a lot safer in my Fezza than my old '94 Swift by a mile!

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Nikked

The Volvo did well?

The whole dashboard and Steering wheel was propelled into the poor dummy's face...

I'd be thinking massive trauma to the face, internal injuries and possible neck damage

The Renault didn't come out of it squeaky clean either.

At the end of the day, most likely all passengers in both cars would be dead, it is after all a 140km/h collision....

[zilo]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

That is not a "very selective" offset collision test to bypass the side of the Volvo engine, you do realise the Renault has a engine too

That is a standard crash test based on how head on collisions usually occur in the real world.

It's not a head on collision, its a purposeful frontal offset collision between a rear wheel drive and front wheel drive vehicle.

An FG falcon would have fared similarly.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Ugg

At the end of the day, most likely all passengers in both cars would be dead, it is after all a 140km/h collision....

if they were both doing 40mph, it was a 40mph collision, i believe. not an 80mph collision
the speed is compensated for the fact that both cars will deform and bounce off each other. it is no different to 1 car hitting a concrete wall at 40mph

Originally Posted by brydie76

For what it matters, I still feel a lot safer in my Fezza than my old '94 Swift by a mile!

i understand why people feel safer in newer cars, but in all honesty, i feel no more or less safer when driving either the 73 coupe, the 91 121 jellybean or 09 rav 4

and while i do not understand the abs, esc and the like, i would think if my almost head on accident experience had happened in the rav4, i might have been in trouble. with the coupe, from locking up the rear brakes and gently spinning 90 degrees, we avoided it. considering the 2 oncoming cars passed us just as we stopped spinning, i doubt abs would have stopped both cars before the impact. now i realise that every situation is different, but from the worst and most dangerous situation i had been in, the old school lack of safey might have saved at least 3 lives

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Stefan

The car being T-Boned is will almost always come off second best. If the little driving school car hit the falcon in the front door the falcon would not offer much resistance either as there is NO crumple zone.

Not much to do with size in the article's example picture

at least to score 5 stars the cars have to perform to a certain level in the pole test. so yes, no crumple zones but new cars do have some side impact protection.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i understand why people feel safer in newer cars, but in all honesty, i feel no more or less safer when driving either the 73 coupe, the 91 121 jellybean or 09 rav 4

and while i do not understand the abs, esc and the like, i would think if my almost head on accident experience had happened in the rav4, i might have been in trouble. with the coupe, from locking up the rear brakes and gently spinning 90 degrees, we avoided it. considering the 2 oncoming cars passed us just as we stopped spinning, i doubt abs would have stopped both cars before the impact. now i realise that every situation is different, but from the worst and most dangerous situation i had been in, the old school lack of safey might have saved at least 3 lives

generally speaking, abs will brake in less distance than a locked wheel. only on loose surfaces like gravel does abs take longer. of course, i wasn't there in your situation, so can't comment on that exact scenario, but when wheels are allowed to continue to rotate normally, steering functions are also mostly maintained.

speaking of abs/dsc/ebd etc etc, never once in all the years i've been driving have i ever had the cars electronic gizmo's cut in. sometimes the best safety is sitting behind the wheel. not saying i'm better than the electronics, i just don't drive like a tool

[zilo]

This is an example of what you can do with dramatization to suit an addenda (and a bit of a chop here and there.)

caution: not a holden friendly video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJl2aZMN4MU

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by prydey

generally speaking, abs will brake in less distance than a locked wheel. only on loose surfaces like gravel does abs take longer. of course, i wasn't there in your situation, so can't comment on that exact scenario, but when wheels are allowed to continue to rotate normally, steering functions are also mostly maintained

true, but we spun because after seeing another set of head lights suddenly appear, i went to my left (which meant i was on the dirt shoulder) and starting braking. they went to my left, so i turned back to the centre and that is when the wheels locked and put us into a graceful spin. i "assume" with the latest gizmo's i might have had more control for longer and then instead of having the rear wheels in a slight ditch that stopped us from going back into their path, i might have been on the road for longer and the impact i was waiting for might have happened

once again, every situation is different, and even if the lack of gizmo's worked for us, it was almost a one off situation, but i guess my point is, no car is safe. it is up to the people allegedly controlling them to make them safe . . . . like that will ever happen

[Road_Warrior]

People are failing to realise the devil is in the detail with these 'star' ratings issued by ANCAP and EuroNCAP and the NHTSA. Take the time to read the reports that accompany the ratings, they explain quite a bit.

Take the SYII Territory for example. Structurally, a very robust car that can hold up well in a collision and provide good protection for its passengers. But it wasnt awarded 5 stars until Ford added a seatbelt warning chime for backseat passengers and a damper plate under the steering column to provide more protection for the driver's knees. When you see the rating in the context of the fact it is already coming off a robust base to begin with, the rating system seems silly.

Holden had the same issue with the VE Commodore at launch, they were adamant it would ace ANCAP and designed and produced a very robust structure straight out of the box, but it was held back based on points because of a passive seatbelt reminder. The FG was 5 stars straight out of the box because they were aware of what they would need based on the points system.

So is the testing regime flawed? I think so. Reliance on electronic aids (whether passive or active) won't save you in a crash if the vehicle you are driving has a body structure design that is flawed.