Shocking 60 mph Crash Test

BrianD3

Was watching the motoring programme "5th gear" on Discovery channel today. This is the motoring programme that's also on Channel 5 and is presented by former Top Gear presenters Quentin Wilson and Tiff Needell.

Anyhow, one of the things they did was do an offset head on crash test between two cars each travelling at 60 mph. Far faster than Euro NCAP or any other crash tests. The cars were controlled by remote and it was filmed on an empty drag strip. One car was a BMW 5-series E34 the other was a Volvo 900 series. Two big solid cars with very good reputations for safety. I expected it to be a devastating impact but was still a bit shocked at the violence of it.

The noise on impact was like an explosion, both cars flipped over after the impact and both had horrendously crushed passenger compartments. The front seat of the BMW ended up crushed up against the back seats, and the front wheel of the Volvo was embedded in the doors. It was utter devastation and had there been anyone in the cars the chances of anyone surviving (even back seat passengers) would have been virtually nil.

I have an interest in engineering and car safety so am pretty used to seeing cars getting wrecked, but as I said other crash tests are done at much lower speeds. I find that most people who are not into cars are very surprised at the damage that occurs even in seemingly low speed impacts. Take the average person, show them a car that has undergone the Euro NCAP test and ask them to estimate what speed the test was done at. Most will say 60 mph+ when the answer is actually 40 mph. Also people have this idea that because they have their seatbelt on and their car has 8 airbags that they'll be as safe as houses in a high speed impact.

Never mind penalty points, I reckon if every driver in Ireland was forced to watch the footage of that crash test shown on 5th gear I think it could have a drastic effect on some people's driving. Seriously. There was also a chilling message at the end of the programme. The presenter said something like "next time you're driving on a country road or in a contraflow or about to overtake......remember this" and cuts to footage of the Volvo and BMW demolishing each other.

So, did anyone else see the programme or have any comments?

BrianD3

Lafortezza

So both cars were travelling at 60mph, so it was similar to 1 car travelling at 120mph crashing into a stationary object?
Aren't the NCAP test done on cars travelling at 40mph crashing into a stationary 'wall'? So its 3 times the speed of the BMW and Volvo 900 really...

Still, something to think about.

leeroybrown

I saw it and it was quite a wreck.

It was an excellent demonstration of what would happen in a head on accident where neither driver had sufficient chance to slow down.

bizmark

Anyone else though it was really really cool

and some what scary

raphaelS

Have you seen this ad with a guy playing soccer and having after a session in a pub, then a young kid playing soccer in her back garden, the driver lost the control of his car (presumably because of the alcohol) crash a fence and kill the boy...
It is fiction but it looks real and might have happened already somewhere.
How many people, who've seen this ad, still drink and drive?

A crash test on a show about nice and fast cars will have little if any impact on drivers behaviour...

Raphael

Doctor J

Watching things like that should be part of learning to drive, and definitely part of the test. IMO anyone who getspoints for speeding, dangerous driving, stupid overtaking, etc etc should be brought to a pound ful of crashed cars to see how dangerous driving really is.

For example, the crash in Monaghan recently, one of the cars collapsed in on itself like a concertina. It was pretty much half its former size and killed both passengers. Take reckless drivers to see things like that and maybe we'd see a bit of sanity on the roads.

Nuttzz

Originally posted by raphaelS
Have you seen this ad with a guy playing soccer and having after a session in a pub, then a young kid playing soccer in her back garden, the driver lost the control of his car (presumably because of the alcohol) crash a fence and kill the boy...
It is fiction but it looks real and might have happened already somewhere.
How many people, who've seen this ad, still drink and drive?

The problem with this ad is that it is unrealistic. Cars very very very rarely go spinning thru fences and little kids, (with the advent of remote control most people I know just flick when it starts) how many people comming out of a pub think about TV never mind DD ads when they have a few on them? The primary concern is can I get from here to home without meeting a checkpoint.

Genghis

In Australia they place car wrecks on the side of roads, in shopping centres, and in other high profile places to bring home to people just how horrific car crashes can be. Certainly had an effect on me, anyway.

Andrew Duffy

That was done here a while ago. There was a bit of publicity at the time, but not much.

Seth Brundle

It is known that as you get more safety aids you become more complacent about driving safely.
There was a series on a while back called crash and at the very end of the series a leading expert in crash investigation said that the best device to prevent accidents would be a big spike coming out from the steering wheel.

BrianD3

So both cars were travelling at 60mph, so it was similar to 1 car travelling at 120mph crashing into a stationary object?

First let me say that I'm not an engineer so I'm no expert and may be wrong. But from what I know crashing one car head-on into another, each going 60 mph, is the same as crashing one car going 120 mph into a stationary car. It is different if you crash into something solid like a motorway bridge support at 120 mph because the bridge support will not move when you hit it nor will it deform. So this would be a much worse accident.

AFAIK two similar size cars colliding at a closing speed of 120 mph would be similar to hitting an immovable object at 60 mph. This is where the Euro NCAP comes in. It's 40 mph test into an immovable object would be like two similar size cars hitting each other both going 40 mph (closing speed of 80 mph). To make it more representative, EuroNCAP uses a deformable box structure in front of the immovable object, which attempts to simulate the crumple zone of another vehicle.

Aren't the NCAP test done on cars travelling at 40mph crashing into a stationary 'wall'? So its 3 times the speed of the BMW and Volvo 900 really...

If my previous statements are right, the Volvo/BMW test is 1.5 times faster than the EuroNCAP test (80 mph closing speed vs 120 mph) However here's where it get a bit interesting. Because if you increase the speed by 1.5 times, you increase the energy that needs to be dissipated by the square of that i.e. 2.25 times because energy = mass x velocitysquared. So you can see from this that the BMW/Volvo test is a helluva lot tougher than the EuroNCAP - 2.25 times tougher - which is a lot considering that EuroNCAP is already a very stringent test which many cars have done very badly in (things have improved a lot in the last year or so though)

IMO anyone who getspoints for speeding, dangerous driving, stupid overtaking, etc etc should be brought to a pound ful of crashed cars to see how dangerous driving really is

I agree, but as I said earlier people always overestimate the speed that collisions happen at. Someone sees a wrecked car and assumes that the accident happened at 100 mph plus when it may have happend at half that speed. So they think to themselves hey I never drive at 100 mph so I'm OK! For this reason I think actually showing footage of collisions and making clear what speed the vehicles are travelling at would be more hard hitting.

Take the Princess Diana crash. Merc S-Class into a concrete pillar. Now looking at the damage I'd say it happened at around 45 mph. A major accident alright, but survivable if she had been wearing her seatbelt. But to read the tabloid newpapers afterwards you'd swear the impact speed had been 120 mph plus if you didn't know any better.

BrianD3

unkel

Originally posted by BrianD3
Now looking at the damage I'd say it happened at around 45 mph. A major accident alright, but survivable if she had been wearing her seatbelt. But to read the tabloid newpapers afterwards you'd swear the impact speed had been 120 mph plus if you didn't know any better.

I vaguely remember that at the time it was reported that the speedometer was actually stuck at about 120 mph, suggesting that was the speed at the moment of impact

BrianD3

I vaguely remember that at the time it was reported that the speedometer was actually stuck at about 120 mph, suggesting that was the speed at the moment of impact

I remember that too - but it was probably just the usual tabloid sensationalism. I am absolutely certain that the impact speed was not 120 mph. Perhaps the car was travelling at 120 mph before the impact and braked. But no way did it hit that narrow, solid concrete pillar head-on at 120. If it did, the pillar would probably have cut the car down the middle into two halves. Seriously - I'm not exaggerating.

BrianD3

unkel

This is from the official final report on the crash:

"
Mr NIBODEAU-FRINDEL and Mr AMOUROUX estimated the speed of the Mercedes, before the collision at a total of between a maximum of 155 km/hour and a minimum of 118 km/hour and the speed, at the moment of the crash on the thirteenth pillar of the Alma tunnel was between 95 and 109 km/hour with a margin of error of more or less 10%.....
....They finally stated that Emad AL FAYED and Lady Diana SPENCER would have survived if they had fastened their safety belts.

"

So that's roughly 60 - 70 mph at point of final impact

The Merc was a standard (non-armoured) S280. The French investigation found nothing wrong with it.

According to an official statement from Mercedes Benz, the speedometer should be at zero after a crash like that. The speedometer stuck at 120 mph remains unexplained.

The Times reported last month that UK police investigators might request the car to be shipped to the UK. It is currently sealed and in storage in a Paris police compound

BrianD3

So that's roughly 60 - 70 mph at point of final impact

I'm sure the investigators know their stuff and the car was travelling at that speed on impact. But an interesting question would be: what speed was it travelling at AFTER the major impact with the pillar. If you hit a narrow concrete pillar at 60-70 mph "dead straight" (i.e. no sideways movement whatsoever) three things will happen
a) the car will stop very quickly
b) the car will not change direction after impact, will not spin etc.
c) the pillar will do horrendous damage to the car, intruding well into the passenger compartment and will start to split the car in two.

In the Diana crash, from what I've seen, the car had some sideways movement before impact. Maybe the driver had lost control and was starting to spin. Result would be that while the car might have been travelling at 45-50 mph directly towards the pillar, it may have been travelling a good 20-30 mph sideways. On impact, the first of these speeds would go to zero but the second would remain much the same and would only go to zero after the car had spun to a stop in the middle of the road.

A bit like when Nelson Piquet crashed at the Indy 500 he hit a wall head on at what was calculated at 211 mph but still survived (albeit with major leg injuries). He survived because he was spinning when he hit. Maybe 70-80 mph of that speed was directly into the wall - the rest was sideways movement. In contrast, when Martin Donnelly crashed in Formula 1 he hit a barrier at around 150 mph but the majority of that was straight into the barrier and the car came to a halt relatively quickly after the impact. Car was torn to pieces and Donnelly was ejected but miraculously survived (with horrendous injuries) But really he should have been dead.

Quite interesting. I'm sure if there are any engineers here they will be able to explain the above better than me and will use proper terms such as "vectors" to describe the direction of a cars movement.

BrianD3

unkel

Originally posted by BrianD3
In the Diana crash, from what I've seen, the car had some sideways movement before impact. Maybe the driver had lost control and was starting to spin.

From what I've been reading tonight, you're right there. The car was already out of control crashing all over the shop. The investigation should have resulted in a published 3d animation of the crash - it's a shame it didn't

Horrendous as the crash undoubtedly was, the common feeling is that all four people in the car would probably have survived had they been wearing a seat belt. The only survivor was the only person wearing a seat belt. Airbags are of added benefit, even full size (American) airbags cannot replace the seatbelt

Originally posted by BrianD3
Quite interesting. I'm sure if there are any engineers here they will be able to explain the above better than me and will use proper terms such as "vectors" to describe the direction of a cars movement.

I can see the logic behind your reasoning. Could have done up a vector or two many moons ago. Bring on the V-men