No surprise: "Mini" cars fail new frontal crash testing

[Meghan54]

'Worst performing': Most minicars fail new frontal crash test

Of 11 new minicars examined by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 10 failed the trade group’s challenging new small overlap front test, the sort of crash common in real-world driving. Only the Chevrolet Spark passed, and then just barely – the IIHS dubbing “these tiny vehicles the worst performing group of any evaluated so far.”


The new small overlap front test, launched in 2012, is designed to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another car or an object like a utility pole or tree.


According to the IIHS, the Honda Fit and Fiat 500 were the worst performers in the minicar group. Both saw the basic structure of the passenger compartment fold up during the crash, so much so that the test dummy’s head didn’t stay in contact with the frontal airbag, sliding off and hitting the instrument panel. The driver’s door on the 500 tore open at its hinges.


The Chevy Spark was the only vehicle to record good injury measurements for all body regions, according to the IIHS. But even though the Korean-made minicar received an "acceptable" rating, a statement from the IIHS noted it “doesn't protect as well as a larger and heavier vehicle with a comparable rating.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wor...nicars-fail-new-frontal-crash-test-2D11968197


Color me surprised.

 

[Demo24]

I wish they would have given a list with ratings in that article, it only really mentioned three vehicles in the class. Course, most cars are having trouble with this new test.

 

[iamwiz82]

Bottom of page: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/minicars-fall-short-for-small-overlap-frontal-protection

 

[Jimzz]

The iihs page shows the Spark as the only car to get the Top Safety Pick. But "For 2014, vehicles must be available with front crash prevention to qualify for the highest safety award from IIHS, TOP SAFETY PICK+." So the Spark meets its test but does not have a optional package so it does not get the +.

The Spark keeps turning out to be a much better car than I gave it credit for. Hard to not be better than the Aveo but to do better than the Fit, Prius, etc... speaks well for it.

 

[iamwiz82]

The Spark is below the Aveo. The Sonic is the second generation Aveo, the name was so tarnished they opted for a new one.

 

[Jimzz]

The Spark is below the Aveo. The Sonic is the second generation Aveo, the name was so tarnished they opted for a new one.

I lump them together since they are both built in Korea and on the same Gamma II platform as well.

The Sonic is a little bigger, weighs abut 300 pounds, so it should perform as well also.

Either way it speaks well for the Gamma II platform and lower end GM cars that use to fall to the bottom of safety test not lead.

 

[Pacfanweb]

So small cars aren't as safe as bigger cars? Who'da thunk it?

That's why my family will never drive anything other than a full-sized SUV as long as I'm around. The more metal around them, the better.

 

[Jimzz]

So small cars aren't as safe as bigger cars? Who'da thunk it?

That's why my family will never drive anything other than a full-sized SUV as long as I'm around. The more metal around them, the better.

Everything being equal maybe, but tech beats weight many times over.

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

 

[satyajitmenon]

In other news, water is wet.

 

[Topweasel]

So small cars aren't as safe as bigger cars? Who'da thunk it?

That's why my family will never drive anything other than a full-sized SUV as long as I'm around. The more metal around them, the better.

It's all about crumple zones and such. True that super sub compacts have less available room for decent crumple zones but it wasn't long ago that SUV's had some of the worst crash test ratings. Being heavier and having to thicker reinforcements meant it was harder to work in crumple zones around those reinforcements, which meant that SUV actually had a lot more accident profiles that would allow the dash or other objects to be pushed farther into the cabin then a mid sized car.

 

[iamwiz82]

So small cars aren't as safe as bigger cars? Who'da thunk it?

That's why my family will never drive anything other than a full-sized SUV as long as I'm around. The more metal around them, the better.

Large vehicles may not be safer. I recall an ambulance crash test that decimated the cabin. Granted that was a modified vehicle, but metal has to be engineered to withstand the forces.

EDIT: Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC1Z5R3iiTg

 

[nerp]

I'd much rather crash my Charger into a pole than my old Yaris. Just saying.

 

[Mermaidman]

It is interesting to compare the results for the older MAZDA 2 and the redesigned 2014 Ford Fiesta. The old Mazda scores better than the new Ford, and both cars are based on the same platform, aren't they?

Also - No results for the Mini, in a test of mini-cars?

 

[DrPizza]

So small cars aren't as safe as bigger cars? Who'da thunk it?

That's why my family will never drive anything other than a full-sized SUV as long as I'm around. The more metal around them, the better.

Size is more or less irrelevant in these tests. When size matters: collisions between two different sized vehicles, say a 6000 pound SUV and one of these mini-cars. That's because of simple conservation of momentum: The SUV merely slows down during the impact, while the minicar is going to go from a positive speed to a negative speed - a much greater change in momentum for the passengers, which translates to a greater force acting on the passengers in as much time (or even less time.)

This video makes it pretty clear the fallacy of more metal = necessarily safer. It's not the metal that makes one safer, it's the engineering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY


Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's video on the mini car collisions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bdydHzCO5s
(in case it's not in the original link.)

For what it's worth, in a perfect head on collision with a wall, these vehicles are far safer than, say, most cars from the 70's or 80's, including big cars like 8 cylinder Cadillacs.

 

[JCH13]

The key to crash safety is, similar to DrPizza says, the size of the crumple zone (i.e. the size of the car, roughly equivalent to weight) and how efficiently its volume is used (i.e. the quality of engineering in the crumple zone).

Small cars are inherently at a disadvantage not because of their weight, which is a little simplistic. They're at a disadvantage because of the shorter length of their crumple zone. That shorter length results in a higher acceleration to bring the car to a stop, or it results in the car not stopping before it hits the main protective structure and thus a huge acceleration spike.

The quality of engineering determines how much peak force and how much average force is required to deform the crumple zone. This is critical in preventing brain damage and internal injuries from seat belts, or worse.

I'd be happy to dive into some of the details on either topic if anyone is interested.

 

[Fritzo]

Gave my daughter my Scion xA when I bought my BMW. That Scion was one of the best cars I've ever owned and it scored 4/5 on all crash tests. So, it's possible to make a safe small car.

 

[Viper GTS]

It is interesting to compare the results for the older MAZDA 2 and the redesigned 2014 Ford Fiesta. The old Mazda scores better than the new Ford, and both cars are based on the same platform, aren't they?

Also - No results for the Mini, in a test of mini-cars?

And

Gave my daughter my Scion xA when I bought my BMW. That Scion was one of the best cars I've ever owned and it scored 4/5 on all crash tests. So, it's possible to make a safe small car.

It wouldn't score that high on the new small offset tests.

This is a prime example of why you can't compare crash tests across years, the small offset tests really destroyed the test scores of cars designed before the tests were implemented.

Viper GTS

 

[The Boston Dangler]

no, here's the best video disproving the bigger = better/safer fallacy

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS 2009 Chevrolet Malibu

 

[Fritzo]

And



It wouldn't score that high on the new small offset tests.

This is a prime example of why you can't compare crash tests across years, the small offset tests really destroyed the test scores of cars designed before the tests were implemented.

Viper GTS

She has an 06. Frontal offset tests were started in 1995.

http://www.crashtest.org/history-car-safety

 

[Fritzo]

no, here's the best video disproving the bigger = better/safer fallacy

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS 2009 Chevrolet Malibu

50's and 60's cars were death traps. Sammy Davis Jr. lost his eye when his Cadillac, featuring a "spear-like chrome ornament" in the middle of the steering wheel, pierced his eye in a crash in 1954. They were quickly replaced, but it looked like this (except more pointy)

 

[Viper GTS]

She has an 06. Frontal offset tests were started in 1995.

http://www.crashtest.org/history-car-safety

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

Small offset started in 2012.

Viper GTS

 

[iamwiz82]

She has an 06. Frontal offset tests were started in 1995.

http://www.crashtest.org/history-car-safety

The small offset is a new test, previously they were all moderate offset.

Moderate on left, small on right.

 

[Fritzo]

The small offset is a new test, previously they were all moderate offset.

Moderate on left, small on right.

Ah, didn't know it changed.

 

[mmntech]

Large vehicles may not be safer. I recall an ambulance crash test that decimated the cabin. Granted that was a modified vehicle, but metal has to be engineered to withstand the forces.

EDIT: Found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC1Z5R3iiTg

Yep. They're built on the same platform as most light commercial vehicles. Drove a lot of 10ft cargo vans in my time. Those were downright scary in the winter. SUVs though, yeah, they're safe, if they don't roll due to the high centre of gravity.

Of course the key to crash safety isn't crumple zones, air bags, or even seat belts. It's what's sitting between the chair and the steering wheel. Any car is safe as long as you don't drive it like an asshat.

 

[Leyawiin]

Only three of the small SUVs passed that small front overlap test (Subaru Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander and Outlander Sport). Its such a new test it almost seems that those vehicles that do pass it do so as the result of some lucky design decision.