IIHS starts testing new frontal crash tests. Surprising results inside.

[busydude]

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr122012.html

Click link for video.

ARLINGTON, Va. — A group of moderately priced midsize cars outperformed most of their luxury counterparts in a challenging new frontal crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) on 2013 models. Of the 18 midsize family cars evaluated in the small overlap test, two earn the top rating of good, 11 earn acceptable, three earn marginal, and two are poor.


In contrast, just 3 of 11 midsize luxury and near-luxury cars evaluated in the inaugural round of small overlap tests earned good or acceptable ratings. Midsize moderately priced cars are the second group to be tested. The best performers in this group are the Honda Accord 4-door and Suzuki Kizashi. Both earn a good rating.


Building on its long-running vehicle ratings program for consumer information, IIHS introduced the small overlap test in 2012 to further improve occupant protection in frontal crashes. Most automakers design their vehicles for good performance in the IIHS moderate overlap frontal test and the federal government's full-width frontal test, but many haven't addressed the problem of small overlap crashes. In a 2009 IIHS study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants.


The small overlap test replicates what happens when the front corner of a car collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole. In the test, 25 percent of a car's front end on the driver side strikes a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 mph. A 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy is belted in the driver seat.


"It's remarkable that this group of midsize family cars did so much better than the midsize luxury car group," says Adrian Lund, IIHS president. "The difference is stunning. Thirteen of these midsize cars offer better crash protection than all but three of their luxury counterparts, and at a price that's easier on the wallet."

Keep in mind that only 13 cars have been tested.

 

[Saylick]

Interesting, indeed.

I guess this means if you know you're gonna be in an accident, it might be advantageous (for your own safety, at least) to purposely force the car out of a small overlap condition and into a full frontal impact condition. :hmm:

 

[Howard]

Interesting, indeed.

I guess this means if you know you're gonna be in an accident, it might be advantageous (for your own safety, at least) to purposely force the car out of a small overlap condition and into a full frontal impact condition. :hmm:

Not intuitive, but makes sense if you think about it.

 

[videogames101]

why is small overlap more damaging?

 

[Howard]

why is small overlap more damaging?

My guess would be that there is less crumple zone to reduce the acceleration of the two colliding bodies.

 

[Ferzerp]

why is small overlap more damaging?

It is because of much higher pressure (same force, less area). This is hard for the vehicle to properly absorb. If you get hit with 30 lbs of force with a hardcover book, how will that feel vs getting hit with 30 lbs of force with a knife or a screwdriver for example? It's the same thing to the car.


Also the oblique path the vehicle takes makes many of the airbags nearly worthless as the occupant ends up sliding off to the side (just watch the videos out there).

 

[wirednuts]

i like how those side airbags really dont do anything but sell more cars

 

[sjwaste]

I guess it's good that I have an Outback?

 

[fbrdphreak]

i like how those side airbags really dont do anything but sell more cars

In a front impact situation? Why would they?

But get in a side impact situation and the story is different. At a minimum they will stop you from cracking your skull on the car from the whiplash.

 

[Jeff7]

i like how those side airbags really dont do anything but sell more cars

In a front impact situation? Why would they?

But get in a side impact situation and the story is different. At a minimum they will stop you from cracking your skull on the car from the whiplash.

And with the Honda at about 48 seconds into the video, it shows some of the benefit of the side airbag in this case, though the dummy didn't really give it a direct hit. It does still add a layer of buffering though.

 

[Kelvrick]

And with the Honda at about 48 seconds into the video, it shows some of the benefit of the side airbag in this case, though the dummy didn't really give it a direct hit. It does still add a layer of buffering though.

I saw that it sometimes helped prevent the head from sliding off the steering wheel airbag and just slamming into the left side of the dash.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I guess it's a good thing I ride a motorcycle.

 

[LTC8K6]

i like how those side airbags really dont do anything but sell more cars

Also the number of folks who don't realize that their side airbag is in the seat, and they have a plain seat cover obstructing it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Also the number of folks who don't realize that their side airbag is in the seat, and they have a plain seat cover obstructing it.

My Trailblazer has an airbag in the side of the seat. Sucks because that spot on the pillar would be perfect to mount my maglite holder.

 

[Saylick]

Hm... An easy solution would be to install airbags into the A pillar to help with these small overlap collisions, as the force of the impact forces the head towards the A pillar (the front and side air bags do not adequately cover the A pillar direction, as shown in the video).

EDIT: Rewatching the video seems to indicate that some vehicles simply do not have enough material to adequately protect the driver's cabin in a small overlap collision even if an A pillar airbag were installed; in the failing cases, the A pillar crushed as part of the crumple process.

An alternative would be for auto makers to reinforce the heck out of each vehicle to ensure that no matter how the car collides, it will be safe from impact from all directions. This would suck for consumers because it would mean more expensive cars both from a manufacturing perspective and from a fuel consumption perspective. Take a look at the trend in weight of vehicles over time as an example. If I recall correctly, a significant reason why MPG ratings haven't improved dramatically over the years in light of engine combustion advancements is due to increasing vehicle curb weight, which in itself is a direct consequence of the increasingly stringent safety regulation.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Hm... An easy solution would be to install airbags into the A pillar to help with these small overlap collisions, as the force of the impact forces the head towards the A pillar (the front and side air bags do not adequately cover the A pillar direction, as shown in the video).

EDIT: Rewatching the video seems to indicate that some vehicles simply do not have enough material to adequately protect the driver's cabin in a small overlap collision even if an A pillar airbag were installed; in the failing cases, the A pillar crushed as part of the crumple process.

An alternative would be for auto makers to reinforce the heck out of each vehicle to ensure that no matter how the car collides, it will be safe from impact from all directions. This would suck for consumers because it would mean more expensive cars both from a manufacturing perspective and from a fuel consumption perspective. Take a look at the trend in weight of vehicles over time as an example. If I recall correctly, a significant reason why MPG ratings haven't improved dramatically over the years in light of engine combustion advancements is due to increasing vehicle curb weight, which in itself is a direct consequence of the increasingly stringent safety regulation.

That and most models of cars have increased their horsepower ratings over time instead of making engines that keep the same HP numbers but increase fuel efficiency.

 

[JTsyo]

It is because of much higher pressure (same force, less area). This is hard for the vehicle to properly absorb. If you get hit with 30 lbs of force with a hardcover book, how will that feel vs getting hit with 30 lbs of force with a knife or a screwdriver for example? It's the same thing to the car.


Also the oblique path the vehicle takes makes many of the airbags nearly worthless as the occupant ends up sliding off to the side (just watch the videos out there).

Knife might hurt less since it'll just cut you. Text book vs fist would be a better analogy.

 

[LTC8K6]

That and most models of cars have increased their horsepower ratings over time instead of making engines that keep the same HP numbers but increase fuel efficiency.

I would say the increased efficiency brought more power and better fuel economy.

Direct Injection tends to do that, for example.

 

[KentState]

The 2013 Accord is going to be our next family car. Glad is fared well in the test.

 

[Jeff7]

Knife might hurt less since it'll just cut you. Text book vs fist would be a better analogy.

Or just stick with the text book:
Get hit with the flat side, or get hit with the spine.
Same mass, same speed; it's still all about force versus area.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Hm... An easy solution would be to install airbags into the A pillar to help with these small overlap collisions, as the force of the impact forces the head towards the A pillar (the front and side air bags do not adequately cover the A pillar direction, as shown in the video).

The problem with this is that you'd have to make the A-pillar thick enough to house an airbag, which would further reduce visibility out of the vehicle. It's bad enough with the rollover requirements now. Trying to look out of a modern car, with the absurdly high beltlines and thick roof pillars, is like trying to look out of a sealed bunker. I hate it.

Any time vehicles start performing uniformly well on a crash test, they come out with another crash test that is intentionally designed for the vehicles to do poorly on. Part of this is a genuine interest in trying to make everything even safer, but I'm increasingly convinced that an ever-larger part of that is a desire for the testing agencies to maintain some form of relevance so their employees can keep getting paid.

I know that a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, but there comes a point when something is "safe enough" and the law of diminishing returns starts really making itself known. Frankly, I think we've been there with cars for a while now.

ZV

 

[KentState]

The problem with this is that you'd have to make the A-pillar thick enough to house an airbag, which would further reduce visibility out of the vehicle. It's bad enough with the rollover requirements now. Trying to look out of a modern car, with the absurdly high beltlines and thick roof pillars, is like trying to look out of a sealed bunker. I hate it.

Any time vehicles start performing uniformly well on a crash test, they come out with another crash test that is intentionally designed for the vehicles to do poorly on. Part of this is a genuine interest in trying to make everything even safer, but I'm increasingly convinced that an ever-larger part of that is a desire for the testing agencies to maintain some form of relevance so their employees can keep getting paid.

I know that a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, but there comes a point when something is "safe enough" and the law of diminishing returns starts really making itself known. Frankly, I think we've been there with cars for a while now.

ZV

My wife made the comment that the new Fusion is like driving down a hall way. The A-pillars are so thick that it make it difficult to see.

 

[Saylick]

My wife made the comment that the new Fusion is like driving down a hall way. The A-pillars are so thick that it make it difficult to see.

Interesting... I recall driving a Focus as a Zipcar and having to shift my head back and forth just to be able to see behind the A pillar. I'm not sure if this was due to a thick A pillar however, as adjusting the seating position helped a bit to alleviate the problem.

 

[Throckmorton]

My wife made the comment that the new Fusion is like driving down a hall way. The A-pillars are so thick that it make it difficult to see.

You'll appreciate the thick A pillars if you get T boned or rollover

 

[Throckmorton]

The problem with this is that you'd have to make the A-pillar thick enough to house an airbag, which would further reduce visibility out of the vehicle. It's bad enough with the rollover requirements now. Trying to look out of a modern car, with the absurdly high beltlines and thick roof pillars, is like trying to look out of a sealed bunker. I hate it.

Any time vehicles start performing uniformly well on a crash test, they come out with another crash test that is intentionally designed for the vehicles to do poorly on. Part of this is a genuine interest in trying to make everything even safer, but I'm increasingly convinced that an ever-larger part of that is a desire for the testing agencies to maintain some form of relevance so their employees can keep getting paid.

I know that a lot of people are going to disagree with me here, but there comes a point when something is "safe enough" and the law of diminishing returns starts really making itself known. Frankly, I think we've been there with cars for a while now.

ZV

The problem is that carmakers design their cars specifically to do well in the tests. They don't care about actual safety.