https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLeP2icw-9c
Enjoy witnessing the small overlap chew through some 2016 Mustang, Camaro, & Challenger-shaped sardine cans.
[spoiler]Dodge does the worst. Again.[/spoiler]
www.autoblog.com/2016/05/24/iconic-sports-cars-fail-to-meet-top-iihs-crash-test-standards
>all fell short of both Top Safety Pick+ and Top Safety Pick status, something that 65 other 2016 models achieved in prior testing.
>On the organization's small-front overlap test, which mimics the impact of the front quarter of the car with a fixed object like a parked vehicle or tree at 40MPH, the Camaro was the only model to achieve a "good" ranking. The Mustang earned an "acceptable" mark and the Challenger had "marginal" performance. Researchers found extensive intrusion on the Challenger, and "limited survival space for the driver." Measurements taken on the crash-test dummy indicated a "high likelihood" of serious leg injuries
>The dummy's left foot was entrapped and its ankle deformed. Technicians had to unbolt the dummy's foot from its leg to free it from the wreckage. That's only happened five other times in the organization's small-overlap testing history.
>"When these vehicles go off the road in a single-car crash, it's often in a small-overlap configuration," Lund said, "so that's an important result." 43% of car-occupant deaths occurred in single-vehicle crashes in 2014, the latest year for which federal data is available.
>>15131004
>Overall, the Challenger was the worst-performing car of the group. The Mustang came closest to achieving Top Safety Pick status, Lund said. Its small-front overlap rating holds it back, but otherwise it outperforms both its competitors in roof strength. Strong roofs are especially important for sports cars, which have among the highest driver death rates in single-vehicle rollovers, IIHS says.
>IIHS doesn't typically crash-test sports cars because they comprise a small overall share of the consumer market. But insurance data shows sports cars have the highest losses among passenger vehicles for crash damage repairs under collision coverage, according to the Highway Loss Data Institute.
>>15131004
>challenger has "limited survival space for the driver."
>literally so fat that it kills the driver in an accident
>>15131004
>>15131009
We all gotta go sometime
>>15131004
>had to literally unbolt crash dummy's foot in order to remove dummy from car after small-front overlap test
kek, damn
kinda funny given how fucking pig fat these cars are.
>>15131004
>the Camaro was the only model to achieve a "good" ranking
CHEVY WINS AGAIN
>>15131037
except it sucked in other areas
>>15131004
>Dodge being a piece of shit as always
So whats new?
>>15131018
>waaah crashing isn't enjoyable so it's fatal
a broken foot in the challenger, where the average 10 year old shitbox would be putting you into a coma
>>15131037
yeah because that's the only thing they're good at lol.
>>15131045
your mum sucks in recreational areas
Here's all of the small overlaps (Challenger, then Camaro, and finally Mustang) for comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHXoxZRSv-I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xu9DoG3Gak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTj4yDKcRJk
Side impacts (same order):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jwcgP8YBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ucu4cQauJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP_zqKaBRB0
Moderate overlaps (no Mustang published):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnQirxuGh8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVh3wkuTzg4
>>15131045
>>15131061
>2 cents have been deposited to your Challenger upgrade account
Your car could cost an arm and a leg, or in this case your foot!
>>15131054
An amputated lower leg more like. Those crash test dummies are about eighty times more sturdy than the human body.
To me it looks like it was luck of the draw that the Challengers wheel stayed on and crushed the floor/firewall.
I bet if they did it again the wheel might detach like the others and the outcome might be different. Same goes for the other cars, if the wheel stayed on, the damage could be similar to the Challenger.
IIHS makes up new tests every few years to make sure most cars have poor to average test results.
By 2030 they'll be dropping main battle tanks on cars.
All so insurance companies can justify screwing you on rates and pay outs.
>>15131085
>By 2030 they'll be dropping main battle tanks on cars.
I want to see this
>>15131085
>>15131091
>New IIHS safety test for 2020, vehicle must survive a front quarter impact with a 5 ton wrecking ball
>New IIHS safety test for 2030, car must survive being doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and having a MBT dropped on it from a height of 3 stories
>New IIHS safety test for 2040, car must survive direct hit from a buried IED using 200lbs of high explosives and still be driveable for 40 miles afterwards
>/o/ complains about safety regs making cars fat
>/o/ complains if the cars under the current safety regs aren't utter perfection
>/o/
why doesn't the IIHS test crash avoidance capabilities?
>>15131190
Because that would invalidate their constant forcing cars to become bigger and heavier.
>>15131170
Safety is something I don't even bother looking at when buying cars. My current dd has its airbags disabled.
>>15131138
>New IIHS safety test for 2120, car must survive 10 feet from a nuclear detonation
Ten year old platform doesn't perform as well as two new ones. Shocked.
>>15131224
>cars in 2120 are all required to have 9000lbs of lead shielding and get over 1000mpg
>>15131190
This
Why not promote accident avoidance instead of accident safety?
>>15131229
*while producing 0 emissions
>>15131235
*while activley cleaning the environment
>>15131251
even better! how would you like a job at the EPA? I think you'd fit right in.
>>15131226
>>15131251
*while producing clean energy for the nearest 40,000 homes via cold fusion
>>15131234
They are promoting "accident avoidance" though, didn't you watch the video and hear the guy talking about "front crash prevention/alert/warning systems"?
>>15131293
Stating a fact is not "moving the goalpost". Feel free to try again though.
Who cares as long as you don't crash?
>>15131205
>Safety is something I don't even bother looking at when buying cars
Same here, most cars I buy are used models that are 7-10 years old.. even if they performed well in crash tests when they were new I know that due to constantly changing test methods they would perform poorly in current crash tests. I just figure that if I get in a bad enough wreck then I'm gonna be fucked up no matter what I'm driving so I try to be a safe driver and hope for the best. I also ride motorcycles which are hilariously dangerous when involved in a crash so the same mentality carries over there as well.
>>15131317
who do I need that? it honestly makes drivers seem okay with not paying attention in the long run, and everyone pays up for it, also why the fuck do I need a big ass infotainment lcd screen in the center? fuck that shit.
>>15131349
>it didn't perform well
>THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OLDER
Goalposts status: moved
You status: called out
Your butt status: hurt
I think more people that own these modern shitheaps need to die. So this is encouraging.
Small overlap crash test is a bull shit test anyway. What real-world accident does hitting an immobile non-deforming barrier with just the front corner of the car represent? Do we have a epidemic of people crashing into stuff like this?
>>15131448
I think it's made to simulate someone drifting over the center line and getting into a small-overlap head on collision with a driver traveling in the opposite direction in another lane.
>>15131428
Giving a reason why something failed is not moving the goalpost. Demanding that the results or the test itself be altered because of that reason is moving the goalpost. I hope you learned something today.
I dont see the problem here. I mean your stereotypical Challenger owner is probably going to lose that foot to diabetes anyway so...
>mfw Chevy BTFO Dodge and Ford
>mfw Chevy CAN turn
>>15131457
But in that instance the they'd be hitting a deforming object.
>>15131546
At a higher velocity. Energy increases with the square of velocity.
>>15131546
That's too hard for them to simulate in controlled lab conditions so they made up some bullshit test that they claim is "equivalent" to that situation.
>>15131561
says who
>>15131569
Says physics.
nothing of value lost
>>15131569
the laws of physics?
>>15131546
Worst case scenario testing. Also, you would have to DOUBLE the speed of the crash because you are both traveling at speed making it even worse.
>Dodge getting marginal crash test ratings
surprising absolutely no one
>>15131584
Not really no. Two cars crashing into each other at 50mph each suffer the effects of a 50mph collision. Its not equivalent to hitting a solid wall at 100mph. Overly simplified explanation but still.
>>15131571
laws can be changed
>>15131672
Are you implying that a car traveling at 50mph having a head on collision with a stationary car will experience the same impact and damage as two cars traveling at 50mph in opposite directions colliding head-on with each other?
>>15131699
are you retarded?
>>15131699
A car traveling 50mph and hitting a stationary vehicle suffers the effects of a 50mph collision. A car traveling 50mph and hitting another car traveling 50mph in the opposite direction will experience much more than just a 50mph collision.
>>15131802
meant for
>>15131784
>>15131699
if you dont get it, mythbusters actually tested it. go watch it
>>15131802
>A car traveling 50mph and hitting a stationary vehicle suffers the effects of a 50mph collision. A car traveling 50mph and hitting another car traveling 50mph in the opposite direction will experience much more than just a 50mph collision.
confirmed retarded
>small overlap
OF COURSE ever-fatter modern cars are going to do relatively poorly on a crash test that involves slamming a very small portion of the car into a non-deformable barrier. Pretty much any non-chinese modern car does GREAT on every other crash test, so the small overlap was created to give the crash testing guys something to do.
>>15131802
that isn't true if the cars have the same mass and both come to a stop. your velocity goes from 50mph to 0 and you stop at the impact point
now, if the oncoming car has 100x the mass, then you're correct, your velocity vector changes from 50 mph one way to roughly 50mph the other way
>>15131813
So what, if you're sitting in a stationary vehicle and someone slams into you at 50mph then you experience the effects of a 0mph collision because you weren't moving?
>>15131822
the effect of a collision is determined by your change in velocity. so if you're not moving at 0mph and someone hits you, causing you to instantly start moving at 50mph in a direction, you ate a 50mph hit
if you are moving at 50mph and you hit someone head on coming at 50mph and both of you come to a stop at the impact point, your velocity went from 50mph to 0
>>15131802
A car that impacts a non-deformable object at 50mph will suffer approximately the same damage as a car impacting an identical car in a 50mph head-on-collision.
>>15131822
assuming both objects weigh the same and deform in the same way it's the equivalent of a 25mph collision (with a non deformable object) each
>>15131004
Good thing my BRZ has top safety marks :^)
Godmachine indeed.
>>15131448
Veering or swerving offroad and hitting a lamp post or tree
>>15131814
Yeah, totally a conspiracy to generate more news. No way it's due to the 25% of all serious crashes being in the small overlap area.
>>15131838
spotted the guy who failed high school physics
>>15131849
>No way it's due to the 25% of all serious crashes being in the small overlap area.
[citation needed]
>implying a significant number of serious crashes involve small overlap with a non-deformable object
>>15131829
>>15131834
Ok nerds, whatever you say
>>15131004
>sports cars have bad crash ratings
>sports cars can avoid accidents better than most vehicles on the road
IIHS is just salty they don't have maneuverability tests
>>15131842
small overlap side impact test when? I want my car/tank to survive a 50MPH collision while sliding sideways into a telephone pole
Lel yesterday there was a guy on here wanting a challenger for his wife because it would be more safe than her old camaro. Think again lmao you probably got one already. Think again.
Carrera GT
leave no survivors
>>15131977
In porsches defense that was a missle that destroyed that vehicle
>>15131054
>broken foot
nope, those accidents are fatal or crippling, you aint hobbling away from that shit with a broken foot
>>15131881
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0423.pdf
It's not going to be all crashes, but 1 in 4 is still significant.
>>1513
afaik small overlap test didn't exist when the challenger was being designed.
the mustang and camaro were designed to do well at these standardised tests, but if a real life impact is 2" off you could end up much worse off.
while you have to have some standardisation or it's impossible to get any meaningful data, building to the test is a thing too.
look at emissions for example. real world driving means different things to different people and a real world crash could be completely opposite to what the crash test data tells us.
>>15131999
> results consistently indicated that about
one-quarter of all serious frontal crashes involved loading substantially less than 40% of the vehicle’s front end.
1/4 of "serious frontal crashes" =/= 1/4 of "all serious crashes"
>looking at you >>15131849
"Despite these improvements, 28,869 vehicle occupants were killed in crashes in the United States in 2007. Frontal crashes accounted for half of these deaths..."
1/4 of 1/2 = 1/8 of vehicle deaths
Additionally, It looked like the "small-overlap" test impacted only about 15% of the car's front-end (estimated from video footage) where the abstract only makes note of crashes of less than 33% in US statistics, and 30% overlap using German statistics... So what percentage of deaths are actually attributed to a "small overlap" of ~15%? It'll be less than 1/8 I'm sure.
>>15131190
They do. If a car has stuff like emergency braking and lane keep assist etc. etc then it gets better ratings
>>15132076
Would rather have the cars being designed for the crashes than not. If you really want a car that doesn't have all of the crash worthiness, you can have one.
>>15132128
I'm not gonna be buying a brand new car anytime soon so I guess I'll just have to be stuck with a car that wasn't designed with this particular test in mind.
>>15131004
Moral of the story: same as it's always been: Dont crash.
>small overlap
Why is this allowed?
>>15132202
"All these cars are starting to do really well on our frontal crash ratings, insurance companies can't justify making as much money since we keep telling everyone how safe cars are nowadays."
"I know! Lets design a test where we crash a car into an immovable object in such a way that the impact completely misses all of the major structural components in the front of the car that are designed to keep people safe, surely crash test ratings will go down if we do that!"
>>15132231
So really it makes more sense if you can't avoid something, hit it head on instead of this small overlap nonsense.
>>15132259
Seems like a 50% overlap is better than a 20%-25% overlap judging by the test results. If you watch the IIHS test video you'll see that they set the test up in such a way as to barely miss the vehicle's frame so the impact only takes out the fender / wheel well area where the only semi-structural components are the wheel/steering assemblies and related components.
>>15132294
Yea I noticed that the impact went straight through to the wheel well, where there's really nothing to stop it. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see many crashes hitting an immovable object at 90 degrees at a 25% overlap. It's an absolute worst case scenario.
Still got me thinking that it's better to aim for the object dead center if you can't wholly avoid it so you get the biggest crumple zone.
>>15132324
Well, if you moved the vehicle 4" one way then it would have the impact hitting a main beam of the frame causing less damage to the passenger compartment and 4" the other way would likely cause the vehicle to deflect off the object causing even less damage to the passenger compartment. Like you said, the test is truly a worst case scenario and you'd have to be incredibly unlucky to be involved in a crash that matches the test parameters.
>from the Camaro thread
>>15132349
I think a diagonal impact would be an even worse scenario
>>15131138
well with the way europe is letting the mudslimes flood their countries, i'd say they might want to push that 2040 date up a bit
>>15131004
FUCK YOU AND YOUR SMALL OVERLAP!
YOU ARE RUINING CAR DESIGN!
WHO THE FUCK HITS A BRICK WALL LIKE THAT? ITS A USELESS FUCKING TEST THAT JUST MAKES CARE MORE FUCKING PIGFAT WITH 2 FOOT FUCKING A PILLARS
FUCK YOU ASSHOLES!
>>15132085
what about being small and nimble?
>>15132889
That's shit that requires driver input for the vehicle to be safer. IIHS crash tests only looks at factors that make the car safer on its own with no driver input.
>>15132902
That's kind of an unbalaned test, as many of the same things that increase no-driver-input safety can also reduce safety based on correct driver input
>>15132924
You can't say that one vehicle is inherently safer than another when using metrics that require driver input because drivers all have different driving skill levels, reaction times, etc. An accident that one driver will easily avoid another driver might just plow into. A race-car driver might be able to whip a car around an obstacle while an average person might just spin out and crash into something else. There isn't a way to measure "how safe" a car is for EVERYONE by doing tests that are dependent on the skill of the driver so they take the driver completely out of the equation and just measure the vehicles against each other impact for impact under the exact same conditions.
What I'm trying to say is that a very nimble car with no safety features (no ABS, lane departure warnings, crash prevention systems, air bags, etc) may be perfectly safe with a F1 driver behind the wheel because he can easily avoid most accidents while it might be a deathtrap when you put an inexperienced teenage girl behind the wheel. Which crash rating do you use then? The rating showing how safe the car is with the F1 driver or the rating showing that little Stacy's teeth will likely have to be removed from the steering wheel in the event of a fender-bender?
>>15132990
I'm saying that an unbiased test should at least mention the extra weight added by features and the affect that could have on the car's nimbleness, braking ability, etc.
After all, it's much better to avoid an accident than get into one and survive.
> when you put an inexperienced teenage girl behind the wheel
Targeting the lowest common denominator in any product eventually makes all of your consumers exactly that.
>>15133003
That's literally what people who buy vehicles based on "safety ratings" are looking for though. They want a safe vehicle for hauling the kids, they want a safe vehicle for their teenage driver, they want a safe vehicle for the wife. They really don't have any confidence that their son/daughter/wife/whoever is going to be some Initial D drift king driver, they're expecting them to get into a crash at some point so they want a vehicle that handles a crash better.
desu I just don't see why new cars can't also be as unsafe in a crash as the driver wants
>>15133012
> teaching people to rely on their car, rather than their driving ability to safely get from A to B
yeah, I guess this was always the final destination for cars.
>>15132990
>>15133003
> confusing Passive Security with Active Security
Crash tests only test passive security: car features that are only active in the event of a crash.
>>15131004
itt:butthurt muscle drivers
weight reduction is the problem. not having a strong enough firewall. in order to slightly amp up the performance of the car, they allow it to cut your legs off.
B-but I thought making cars pigfat and giving them tiny windows that you can't actually see out of was supposed to make them safer!
>>15134118
No, ride height makes a car safe, I studied this!
>>15131138
And yet, the IIHS will never increase their speed above 40mph. The IIHS lives in a delusional world where everyone drives 40mph on a freeway, and is more concerned about saving someone from a knee injury at 40mph than saving someone's life at 70mph.
>>15134581
they test at 40 mph because it is belived that the average driver will be able to slow down from 70 to 40 before the average crash
read a thing or two before having an opinion about it
>>15131138
Looks like it's time to start investing in Volvo!
>>15134591
>it is belived that the average driver will be able to slow down from 70 to 40 before the average crash
Anyone who believes that is a fool.
>>15131031
This.
ironically we're reaching a point where cars are becoming unsafe again because they are just too fucking heavy.
average metal just cant hold up a 2tonne car anymore.
espeically shitty chinese metal
>>15134710
Titanium frames when?
>>15135401
You actually want the car to deform so that it absorbs impact energy and can diffuse it around the passenger compartment. The less a car deforms on impact, the more force is felt on the occupant(s). Of course you want to avoid deformation of the actual passenger compartment, but everything else is considered a crumple zone.
>>15131839
same IIHS ratings as the Mustang, it got "Acceptable" Small Overlap Front
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/subaru/brz-2-door-hatchback/2015
see >>15132682 for mustang rating
>>15131054
They had to remove the foot from the dummy just to get it out, your entire leg would be destroyed.
>>15134581
every car would look like an MRAP if you expected top marks at 70MPH
Interestingly, "Microcars" seems to be exempt from the Small Overlap test
though the only car in that class currently in the US is the Smart Fortwo
