Video: Fiat 500 vs Audi Q7 in a crash test

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not, I'm saying that you can't see if there were or not.

I've nothing to "give up". The airbags didn't malfunction, didn't do anything they weren't meant to do, and wouldn't have changed what happened had they done anything else.

Now, are you going to 'give up' insisting that the dummy hit the door when its absolutely impossible to tell if it did or not?

the only impossible thing is... for you to admit you're wrong!!

L1011

Clare_Guy wrote: »

the only impossible thing is... for you to admit you're wrong!!

Except I'm not. If I was, the car would never have had 5 NCAP stars, simple as. The airbags have to work to design and requirements, which they did.

peasant

MYOB ..shush now ...look at the diagrams

Clare Guy ...yes, you're right ...now stop arguing


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

L1011

peasant wrote: »

MYOB ..shush now ...look at the diagrams

I'm not denying the driver was seriously injured - which is what the diagrams show, I'm denying slig's claim the driver missed the airbags (when its obvious it didn't from all the video footage) - and Clare Guy's attempts to modify the laws of physics and assert things happened. Neither of which he can be "right" on.

Anan1

Clare_Guy wrote: »

The German ADAC conducted a crash test that involved a large SUV, the Audi Q7 and a mini, the Fiat 500. The results of the test say that, even if the small car has a very good safety rating, there are very little chances of survival for the passengers of the small car.

Very true, weight counts. That said, it's clear that, in terms of crashworthiness, the FIAT was far better designed (within the constraints of its size & weight) than the Audi.

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

Except I'm not. If I was, the car would never have had 5 NCAP stars, simple as. The airbags have to work to design and requirements, which they did.

Riiiiiiight, the NCAP rating is based on the NCAP test which involve hitting a stationary deformable object, not a moving Audi Q7... you're either a troll or you've crashed a Fiat 500 into an Audi Q7 and banged your head.

peasant

NCAP and a real world crash are two different things.

You can design a car to do well in NCAP as the parameters are known ...you can't design equally well for every other possible eventuality as your dealing with lots of unknowns.

L1011

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Riiiiiiight, the NCAP rating is based on the NCAP test which involve hitting a stationary deformable object, not a moving Audi Q7... you're either a troll or you've crashed a Fiat 500 into an Audi Q7 and banged your head.

Neither.

The NCAP rating is based on specified circumstances, but still - if the airbag timings were incorrect to protect a driver to the best of the airbags abilities in a front quarter impact (which is done in the NCAP, albeit in to a stationary object), it would not have got 5 stars - it would likely have got a slashed star and thats it.

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

Neither.

The NCAP rating is based on specified circumstances, but still - if the airbag timings were incorrect to protect a driver to the best of the airbags abilities in a front quarter impact (which is done in the NCAP, albeit in to a stationary object), it would not have got 5 stars - it would likely have got a slashed star and thats it.

obviously the timings are correct for NCAP tests!...

L1011

Clare_Guy wrote: »

obviously the timings are correct for NCAP tests!...

They're correct for any instance in which they're going to be able to protect you - hence something saying they're incorrect is... incorrect. Pedantic as hell, but thats the way it is.

Basically, all this test showed is that big car > small car for safety, which is something fairly blatantly obvious. The 500 is one of the safest cars in its size and nothing which was demonstrated in that test realistically could have been protected against better with current technology.

Clare_Guy

see if you can see a difference here. try opening your eyes this time...

L1011

Theres a difference because its a different crash scenario.

What relevance does that have to my point? There was no way a car of that size was going to offer any more protection to the driver.

Vertakill

Wtf is the arguement here?

The Fiat is well designed, we know that. However, hitting a stationary object (NCAP) is an awful lot different than hitting an object bombing towards you (Q7).

We know that the Fiat is very good at the NCAP, even better than the Q7. But, the Fiat clearly fails to protect to the same degree as the NCAP test when an increased amount of energy is exerted onto it (Q7). So this is why a car can have a 5 star rating on the NCAP, yet fail miserably on some of the most basic things (like the driver airbag)* when hitting something at greater force.

So no matter how great your car is at running into a concrete wall, if you run into a bigger/heavier vehicle on the road that goes out the window.



* That driver side airbag seriously didn't work properly. It actually burst/ripped and you can see that at 1:04 of that video. Then the driver's head veered off to the door, which in a real life situation, would cause some serious neck/back problems.

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

Theres a difference because its a different crash scenario.

What relevance does that have to my point? There was no way a car of that size was going to offer any more protection to the driver.

jesus, if you can't see the relevance then i can't help you. you've changed your argument 3 or 4 times.

i give up, you're right buddy, the head didn't hit the door or pillar, there are side windows, the airbags worked perfectly, the 5 stars ncap rating proves this test is irrelevant...

L1011

You didn't prove that the head hit the door or pillar - you posted an article saying it "could" hit the pillar, not that it "did".

I said you can't tell if there are side windows, probably aren't although I believe NCAP tests do have them - this wasn't NCAP.

The airbags did work perfectly to design, don't see how you can contradict this. The airbags would have counteracted all the forces they could

And common knowledge and experience would show that this test just proved common knowledge and experience.

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

You didn't prove that the head hit the door or pillar - you posted an article saying it "could" hit the pillar, not that it "did".

I said you can't tell if there are side windows, probably aren't although I believe NCAP tests do have them - this wasn't NCAP.

The airbags did work perfectly to design, don't see how you can contradict this. The airbags would have counteracted all the forces they could

And common knowledge and experience would show that this test just proved common knowledge and experience.

i tried saying you're right to shut you up and even that didn't work!!!

L1011

Clare_Guy wrote: »

i tried saying you're right to shut you up and even that didn't work!!!

Because its not that hard to determine sarcasm on the internet?

Clare_Guy

MYOB wrote: »

Because its not that hard to determine sarcasm on the internet?

your "knowledge of physics" is second only to your "psychic ability"!!

Clare_Guy

could a mod lock this with myob in it?? please!?!

peasant

Stop it , you two ...now!

This is getting very tedious and spoils the thread for everybody else

Tails142

Even if the EuroNCAP results for the Fiat 500 were confirmed, ADAC measured very high stresses on the passenger during the crash. The head and knee airbags were overwhelmed. The airbag for the driver can cause an impact with the A-pillar and it doesn't offer protection for the chest impact. This is due to the fact the it fires too late to prevent injury.

Reads to me as if the airbags werent good enough.

And also states that the drivers head can hit the A-pillar as contested!

Clare_Guy

Tails142 wrote: »

Reads to me as if the airbags werent good enough.

And also states that the drivers head can hit the A-pillar as contested!

you and every other sensible person...

nevermind the bloody video!!! :rolleyes:

egan007

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Er...that wasn't a NCAP test, genius! it was a german ADAC test.

NCAP test involves hitting a stationary deformable test rig, not a moving Audi Q7.

NCAP result has nothing to do with the test shown in the video...

Wow do I have to spell it out....

The 500 has a 5 star NCAP rating, i did not say that this was an NCAP video.

And dude - quit being so anal to everyone.

Vertakill

Read 4 posts above this egan. We've moved on, several days ago!

scab-e

What happens when 2 Q7s collide? There will be an awful lot more force to dissipate (5 tonnes of vehicle weight).

does the ncap rating indicate that you are safer hitting a wall in a fiat 500 than a q7?

Slig

Look everyone, the important thing here is that we have learned that a small car will not stand up to an suv in a head on colision (we shall dismiss the fact that the suv, had the driver reacted, would probably have flipped and rolled before the colision occured).
But most importantly the German ACDC (or whatever) test has rid the world of one more Q7.

BrianD3

THE ADAC did a similar test a couple of years ago with VW Golf vs Volvo C90 and VW Golf vs Kia Sorento. Golf was 1480 kg, SUVs were approx 2300 kg. In these tests the Golf fared better vs the Sorento than vs the Volvo. Also the Volvo protected its own occupants better than the Sorento did

Golf occupants vs Sorento

Golf occupants vs XC90

Sorento occupants vs Golf

XC90 occupants vs Golf

superjosh9

As far as I remember, the Euro NCAP tests are carried out by bodies such as ADAC and others around the world, all to the specifications given by Euro NCAP that is.

As a consequence, since ADAC also carry out NCAP tests, these tests are as relevant as the NCAP tests themselves.

Demonstrates the importance of height and weight, even in a collision involving two 5 Star cars. The American Highway Institute or whatever they are called, i.e, they that do the the American crash tests, have mentioned this a number of times over the years also.

I think I'm going to start giving those XC90s a looooooooot of room from now on..!

Zube

superjosh9 wrote: »

Demonstrates the importance of height and weight, even in a collision involving two 5 Star cars.

This has to be balanced against the high, heavy cars greater tendency to roll over in other crash scenarios.

Biro

Vertakill wrote: »

Wtf is the arguement here?

The Fiat is well designed, we know that. However, hitting a stationary object (NCAP) is an awful lot different than hitting an object bombing towards you (Q7).

We know that the Fiat is very good at the NCAP, even better than the Q7. But, the Fiat clearly fails to protect to the same degree as the NCAP test when an increased amount of energy is exerted onto it (Q7). So this is why a car can have a 5 star rating on the NCAP, yet fail miserably on some of the most basic things (like the driver airbag)* when hitting something at greater force.

So no matter how great your car is at running into a concrete wall, if you run into a bigger/heavier vehicle on the road that goes out the window.



* That driver side airbag seriously didn't work properly. It actually burst/ripped and you can see that at 1:04 of that video. Then the driver's head veered off to the door, which in a real life situation, would cause some serious neck/back problems.

Maybe the question should be asked why isn't the Audi designed to have a crumple zone that's compatible with that of a small car so as to reduce the chance of it killing people when it crashes into city cars? Volvo worked extensively on this aspect when designing the XC90. They wanted to make sure that if it crashed into an S60 that the crumple zones would be in the same area, equalising the chances of survival for both parties, and preventing the chance of the XC90 riding over the S60.