Crash Safety: Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500

JHMEG

"For a much better representation, in German, is this crash organised
by the ADAC between a Fiat 500 and an Audi Q7. Both have 5 stars in
the NCAP test. The result was that the passengers of the Fiat 500
would more than likely have been killed (speed was set at 50kmh -
impact speed for the Fiat 500 would have been 80kmh as a result). The
Audi Q7 impacted at a point on the 500 where the design of the crumble
zones was unable to absorb the impact and hence the intrusion of the
Audi into the passenger cell of the 500. More alarmingly the impact of
the Audi caused the airbag of the 500 to explode preventing its life
saving benefits from being effective"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Tmk-uufGw

Barr

The Q7 was always going to come out better ,Its higher and heavier which are an advantage in a head on.

Atlantic Dawn

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

CONM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

Is the point of the test not to demonstrate how dangerous large 4x4's are to other road users particularly those in small cars.

Eric Cartman

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Barr

I reckon if the Q7 was only a 3 star in the NCAP it would fair better than a Fiat 500 with a 5 star rating.

CONM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Have to say I agree with you, I drive a Range Rover and one of the main reasons is this

Barr

CONM wrote: »

Have to say I agree with you, I drive a Range Rover and one of the main reasons is this

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

CONM

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_range_rover_2002/126.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/audi_q7_2006/262.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_500_2007/298.aspx
The thing I find amazing is that NCAP give the 500 a higher occupant rating than either the Q7 or the RR, which clearly isn't true.

CONM

Barr wrote: »

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

Would make for good watching!

copacetic

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

how would it be more 'realistic'. Do Q7s only allow themselves to crash into Landcruisers not fiat 500s or other small cars?

With the amount of small cars on the road the chances are a Q7 will crash into one of them before it tracks down another similar sized vechile so it's a a pretty realistic test.

Shane732

copacetic wrote: »

how would it be more 'realistic'. Do Q7s only allow themselves to crash into Landcruisers not fiat 500s or other small cars?

With the amount of small cars on the road the chances are a Q7 will crash into one of them before it tracks down another similar sized vechile so it's a a pretty realistic test.

Wrong!! Think of all the SUV's on the school run in Dublin 4. It's chaos, I'm surprised there aren't numerous youtubes clips of Q7 vs RR on youtube!

Remember "She drives, the kids die".....

unkel

Goes to show the NCAP safety ratings are utterly uncomparable, or are they?

BrianD3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Not sure if this is a troll or not, I'll assume it isn't. Pretty much any large modern saloon would give excellent protection in a crash with a Fiat 500. And the Fiat occupants would be better protected in a collision with a saloon than in one with a unnecessary monstrosity such as a Q7.

Good compatibility between cars has benefits for road safety in general.

I see the new Range Rover is over 2.8 tonnes. Ridiculous. Max payload has to be <700 kg so that it can be driven on a car licence.

kasper

great and shocking vid and not trying to be pedantic ,maybe i am wrong but isnt it the drivers side fatality in the fiat ?

mickdw

5th gear did a test between a volvo 740 & a modern mid sized renault. The Renault came out much better so the modern crash science does work very effectively. There are still laws of momentum etc that will always give the advantage to the heavier car given equivalent level of built in crash safety & of course the larger the crumple zone, the safer a car will be.

Mr Benevolent

What would happen in a Q7 vs artic crash? And why did they use a 500 instead of another VAG car?

Tea 1000

Barr wrote: »

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

So would I, it'd mean there would be two less useless bags of shít off the roads. These yokes are pointless, and kill innocent people who love cars!

mickdw

Confab wrote: »

And why did they use a 500 instead of another VAG car?

ya a vw fox would have stud up well to that collision.
I dont think the fiat looks that bad. Still if its fatal, i guess its bad.

Anan1

unkel wrote: »

Goes to show the NCAP safety ratings are utterly uncomparable, or are they?

Not really, because the SUV is so much heavier it pushes the FIAT backwards and therefore decelerates less itself. Having looked at the NCAP results, i'd sooner be in the FIAT 500 than either the Q7 or the Range Rover in a same-speed crash into an immovable object. On which subject, the SUV NCAP results make a complete mockery of those who buy them for their supposed safety. Twice the weight of a FIAT 500 and they can't even match it for passive safety - that's shameful stuff.

Barr

Does the NCAP just speed crash into immovable objects ?

JHMEG

I think the point was both are NCAP 5 star cars. Clearly they're unequal.

I'm not sure which should be banned, large SUVs or silly toy cars. Maybe both.

Mr Benevolent

Anan1 wrote: »

Twice the weight of a FIAT 500 and they can't even match it for passive safety - that's shameful stuff.

Twice the weight = Double the energy to dissipate for the same speed. That's twice as difficult.

BrianD3

Barr wrote: »

Does the NCAP just speed crash into immovable objects ?

Frontal impact is into an immovable object with a deformable face. Whereas the side impact test uses a moving sled with a deformable face. As a result side impact results from different weight classes are comparable while the frontal impact tests are not.

EuroNCAP has always stressed this from when the test started in 1997. I think it is in the faq on the website.

Anan1

BrianD3 wrote: »

Frontal impact is into an immovable object with a deformable face. Whereas the side impact test uses a moving sled with a deformable face. As a result side impact results from different weight classes are comparable while the frontal impact tests are not.

EuroNCAP has always stressed this from when the test started in 1997. I think it is in the faq on the website.

My understanding is that frontal impacts are comparable if the cars hit immovable objects, but not otherwise - ie a heavier car will be more able than a lighter one to push a given obstacle backwards?

BrianD3

Anan1 wrote: »

My understanding is that frontal impacts are comparable if the cars hit immovable objects, but not otherwise - ie a heavier car will be more able than a lighter one to push a given obstacle backwards?

Correct A possible complication is that objects which are "immovable" for a light vehicle may be "movable" for a heavy vehcile.

As the side impact uses a a moving sled, it is probably the opposite scenario to what you described i.e. valid comparsions possible across weight categories for car to car impacts but not if, say, a car goes sideways into an immovable wall. The latter scenario is unlikely anyway

The pole test involves a moving car going sideways into a stationary immovable object so that is different again.

Redderneck

He buys, she dies?

Joe 90

CONM wrote: »

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_range_rover_2002/126.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/audi_q7_2006/262.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_500_2007/298.aspx
The thing I find amazing is that NCAP give the 500 a higher occupant rating than either the Q7 or the RR, which clearly isn't true.

It could well be true. The point is that when the 500 and the Q7 collide each suffers a totaly different collision from that which would have happened if it had hit the prverbial immovable object.

My own objection to NCAP is that while it gives some indication of secondary safety it ignores primary safety. It is concerened about how well you survive the crash in a given vehical, not how well you can avoid the crash in the first place in a given vehical.

Dartz

It really illustrates the fallibility of the NCAP system... there are far more variables at play in a crash than Car-V-Block. Never mind that manufacturers can design their cars to do well in NCAP, while still offering poor protection in a real world accident.

Real world accidents are dynamic, especially car-on-car. Different cars have their crash protection at different heights. A car of the same model, lightly loaded and riding even just a little higher than the one it hits, will tend to ride up on top of the car it it's, bypassing the crash protection which is designed around a lower, static concrete block.

bijapos

What the ADAC man explains from 2:20 on is that they would like to see cars like the Q7 developed in such a way that the longitudal beams in the car (the red frame) are constructed differently to make them higher, spread over more levels, and wider so that the impact is spread over a greater area.

Along with this they want the beams to be more deformable to absorb some of the impact for the Fiat.

At the end he says they want the manufacturers to make the cars more "partner friendly" * and that they would have a possibility to test this on new cars.



* Meaning here that when something like the Q7 hits the 500 it should not wreck it. ADAC have done a number of tests like this over the years.

Eric Cartman

BrianD3 wrote: »

Not sure if this is a troll or not, I'll assume it isn't. Pretty much any large modern saloon would give excellent protection in a crash with a Fiat 500. And the Fiat occupants would be better protected in a collision with a saloon than in one with a unnecessary monstrosity such as a Q7.

its not, I drive a 4x4 because i need a vehicle which can carry a lot of tools, get commercial tax, but i dont want something as uncomfortable as a van , also 4wd is needed as i end up down muddy lanes and on building sites. another advantage is that 8/10 if i was in a crash the other vehicle would be smaller and lighter than mine, which means because my car would decelerate less and because the bumper support is higher in mine that my jeep would simply roll over a smaller car injuring me far less, to give the fiat 500 a 5 star rating is ludacris , its one of the smallest production cars you can buy , id need to hit a RR or an artic to come off worse, a fiat 500 would come off worse with almost anything except another super micro hairdresser mobile ,