Classic cars vs modern crash tests the latest evidence

ohnonotgmail · 30-07-2020 11:48AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

It's hard to say - everyone would have a different take on acceptable and crash tests keep evolving. The Fiat Grande Punto was a 5 star EuroNCAP car in 2005 and looked a strong car in the frontal impact. When tested again in 2017 it still looked like a strong car but scored zero stars.

The marking systems keep changing with cars penalised for things that they would not have been previously. The tests themselves have also changed e.g. the pole and side impact tests are lot tougher than they used to be. The sled used for the side impact is heavier now and this change happened just a few years ago.

In around 2012 the US IIHS introduced its new small overlap test. At the start many cars did very badly in it, now most do very well. There has probably been a step change in frontal safety as a result of that.

To sum up, major improvements in basic structural integrity happened around 1998-2005 however there have definitely been further improvements since. A pillars are deforming less in frontal impacts than they used to. A 2020 car and a 2005 car may look to have similar body strength when they are crashed into an immovable object but in a car to car collision it may be that the 2020 is relatively "aggressive" to the 2005.

The move to electric cars may be bad news for the safety of older cars that could be be hit by them. E.g. the Volvo v70 in the video below is an early 00s design that was on sale until 2007. Check out the buckling of the passenger compartment at about 35 seconds when it is hit by a Renault Zoe

what is it about electric cars that makes them more dangerous to crash into?

Dravokivich · 30-07-2020 11:52AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

It's hard to say - everyone would have a different take on acceptable and crash tests keep evolving. The Fiat Grande Punto was a 5 star EuroNCAP car in 2005 and looked a strong car in the frontal impact. When tested again in 2017 it still looked like a strong car but scored zero stars.

The marking systems keep changing with cars penalised for things that they would not have been previously. The tests themselves have also changed e.g. the pole and side impact tests are lot tougher than they used to be. The sled used for the side impact is heavier now and this change happened just a few years ago.

In around 2012 the US IIHS introduced its new small overlap test. At the start many cars did very badly in it, now most do very well. There has probably been a step change in frontal safety as a result of that.

To sum up, major improvements in basic structural integrity happened around 1998-2005 however there have definitely been further improvements since. A pillars are deforming less in frontal impacts than they used to. A 2020 car and a 2005 car may look to have similar body strength when they are crashed into an immovable object but in a car to car collision it may be that the 2020 is relatively "aggressive" to the 2005.

The move to electric cars may be bad news for the safety of older cars that could be be hit by them. E.g. the Volvo v70 in the video below is an early 00s design that was on sale until 2007. Check out the buckling of the passenger compartment at about 35 seconds when it is hit by a Renault Zoe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts-yudn4CRQ

Well, the tests are meant to be progressive, otherwise we'd be getting cars set to the standards of a test from 30 years ago and we'll still be driving in biscuit tins.

Did they go into why they did that particular test in the clip? I don't speak German but it seems they had a particular concern they expected to see from a demonstration. Then used drag strip clips and someone mixing up a brake/accelerator.

BrianD3 · 30-07-2020 12:00PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is it about electric cars that makes them more dangerous to crash into?

Heavier than ICE cars of the same size meaning that impact absorbing structures of the EV are likely to be stiffer so that they can dissipate energy in a crash with an immovable object.

Wibbs · 30-07-2020 02:30PM

cml387 wrote: »

Would it be remiss of me to mourn the sacrifice of the Bel Air, at least?

Yeah, but it was red rotten with rust throughout the chassis. Look at the clouds of the stuff that pour out during impact.

The chan chan man wrote: »

Of course modern cars are safer. I don’t think anyone said they’re not?!

Why are insurance companies penalising cars > 10 years old though? Do they think the 2009 Mercedes E-Class will fold like a 70s Fiat in a crash?

Though it's trotted out as a reason/excuse the safety aspect is a minuscule part of it IMHO and just another excuse to get more people buying new cars. It's far more about financial services across the board trying to get people into the new car every 4/5 years on finance angle. It looks good for the accountants, it looks good for the banks and it looks good for the economic markers the government like to tout and of course there's the tax coming in. It also keeps the new thing dopamine hit going and compared to other European nations we seem to need that fix more than most. You see far more older cars driving as dailies in places like say France than you do here.

The other difference between older and new cars is weight. Cars have become much heavier. The current VW Golf is not far off double the weight of the original. EV's tend to be heavier again. That's a lot of extra energy to dissipate.

Wibbs · 30-07-2020 02:34PM

I'm off to do a run to the shops and a delivery in my 90's wheeled coffin.

no ABS, pretensioners, or traction control either...

Stallingrad · 30-07-2020 02:36PM

Old cars were much safer.

They may have crumpled like a tin can but there wasn't a gob****e at the wheel checking their Facebook page.

BrianD3 · 30-07-2020 03:28PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

id love to see an 87 Mercedes 500 SEL against a new Dacia duster.

My money would still be on the merc.

The post facelift Duster had decent structrual integrity in its EuroNCAP frontal test. Better than the pre facelift and better than the Sandero.

Even though I think Dacias are the least safe new cars on sale in Europe etc., my money still would be on the Duster in a car vs car test with a W126.

I posted the below link before, if you scroll down through the link there is a report of a real life collision involving E38 7 series. It looks like it was in a small overlap collision with a few years newer Opel Corsa. The E38 has clearly fared worse in the frontal crash and then got a secondary impact in the side from a Peugeot 307.
http://kilroynews.net/arch2013/april2013-04.htm

BrianD3 · 30-07-2020 07:41PM

For fans of the W126, anyone see Reeling In The Years this evening. Larry Goodman in his 560 SEL, 90 LH 1704. Not sure how much that would have cost back then, 80-90 grand? Punts. In 1990 money.

Probably the safest car you could buy in 1990 but today it would be 0 NCAP stars and be unacceptably poor for new car buyers. I miss the old days in many ways but I don't miss the days of 450+ people per year being killed on our roads. It's no coincidence that there has been a huge decline in road deaths throughout Europe post EuroNCAP.

TrailerBob · 30-07-2020 10:27PM

It's a myth that keeps perpetuating in some quarters that a big sturdy car will be better if it collides with a light, newer car. In a lot of cases that's simply not accurate. A big ladder frame 4x4 will transfer most of an major impact right through the length of the vehicle, which is bad news for the occupants, versus a modern design with crumple zones etc, which prevent such forces getting into the passenger compartment. Fifth gear did a test a long while back with a Land Rover Discovery and a newer Ford I think.

Turbulent Bill · 30-07-2020 11:19PM

TrailerBob wrote: »

It's a myth that keeps perpetuating in some quarters that a big sturdy car will be better if it collides with a light, newer car. In a lot of cases that's simply not accurate. A big ladder frame 4x4 will transfer most of an major impact right through the length of the vehicle, which is bad news for the occupants, versus a modern design with crumple zones etc, which prevent such forces getting into the passenger compartment. Fifth gear did a test a long while back with a Land Rover Discovery and a newer Ford I think.

But it does hold if the cars have similar construction, just conservation of momentum in action. The heavier vehicle (and everything in it) decelerates less, and hence like-for-like safety systems have less to do.

Turbulent Bill · 30-07-2020 11:25PM

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I think you missed my point, I am aware of those things but they are isolated. Its done on a car by car basis, the idea is to use that information and send it nearby cars. So you dont end up with multiple cars having incidents.

A long time ago there was work done on ad-hoc networking between vehicles, essentially making and breaking networks with nearby vehicles to coordinate road usage etc. With self-driving cars this will probably be more important, e. g., cars simultaneously braking if they sense a collision is going to occur.

I Was VB · 31-07-2020 01:30AM

Comparing classic cars to modern cars in a crash is like complaining that a Nokia 6310i dosent have a camera.

It was modern and cutting edge at the time.

I daily drive a Volvo 740 from 1986, it was a safe car in its day not so much now. I’m a capable driver, but there’s always the great unknown.. the other guy.

Like most things in life ya have to take risks, always remember the only thing on the road keeping you from smashing head on with another car is a painted white line.

kirving · 31-07-2020 09:54PM

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I think you missed my point, I am aware of those things but they are isolated. Its done on a car by car basis, the idea is to use that information and send it nearby cars. So you dont end up with multiple cars having incidents.

No I understand alright, was really just backing it up to say that your idea isn't unrealistic at all, as the basis of the technology is already in use by many manufacturers, and wouldn't be too hard to add networking capabilities if a standardised approach was taken.

MrCostington · 05-03-2021 09:04AM

Hope thread is not too old to add to mods?

Just seen this, modern BMW vs old (looks 80's to me, but not well up on them, even worse if newer) Porsche 911, who had a broken femur accorting to the report.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-frozen-windscreen-crash-153041408.html

2fef8040-7cfc-11eb-9f9a-ffbb5fac8406

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 05-03-2021 09:22AM

I do agree with what's been said here and this is a great topic , so hats off to that, we were over due something like this !

I fully agree with newer cars being a lot safer to be in even if it is a smaller car. I think the misconception is with if your in a big car then it's safer because more/stronger metal, and maybe at one point in the past this was true. But now it may be more about how the metal is designed to collapse and hold up in certain places to better protect the occupants.

An older smaller car however does indeed worry me and I recall some years ago watching a TV show on uk paramedics. They attended a scene of an accident involving a nissan micra (1998-2004 era) . And there was a child in the back seat and whatever way the accident happened either front or rear end, the car essentially crumpled and the kids foot got stuck under the front seat and frame of the car. It was cutting blood flow etc and he was very lucky the car was cut around him freeing him.

And that image is stuck with me. Maybe it is on YouTube to watch. But it really made me think that it the day ever came and there was a kid or partner in a car, I'd want them to be in something very safe and not an old crumple can like that.

But on the other side, I agree with the posters about taking risk. We take risks just by being on the road, we never know what other people will do, so on that side I don't mind personally going around in say a classic mini. For a while the last 2 summers I was on motorbikes regularly which are right up there with risk. But we have to live a life too and not be in fear. Yes we'll reduce chance of death / injury but I wouldn't sacrifice something I'd enjoy altogether either

Bigus · 05-03-2021 09:36AM

MrCostington wrote: »

Hope thread is not too old to add to mods?

Just seen this, modern BMW vs old (looks 80's to me, but not well up on them, even worse if newer) Porsche 911, who had a broken femur accorting to the report.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-frozen-windscreen-crash-153041408.html

Good post,
And apparently that model e46 was not the safest in its class , contrary to my original understanding.

Maxface · 05-03-2021 09:38AM

I work for the fire service for last 20 years. The decrease in RTCs that we would attend has been very noticeable. What is even more striking is the sheer amount of accidents these days that when we do attend, the occupant is already out and in the ambulance. There has been a protocol change within NAS but to be able to walk out of some of them is incredible. I remember when I joined and up until roughly 8 years ago, every accident we attended we had to get the tools out to rescue someone. These days our attendance is rarely required and when it is we rarely have to get the tools out. One of the main differences is intrusion in to the cab especially around the feet. Happens a lot less. Really incredible to see. While deaths in accidents will still happen, I would say there has to be a massive reduction in life changing injuries.

Bigus · 05-03-2021 09:39AM

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I do agree with what's been said here and this is a great topic , so hats off to that, we were over due something like this !

I fully agree with newer cars being a lot safer to be in even if it is a smaller car. I think the misconception is with if your in a big car then it's safer because more/stronger metal, and maybe at one point in the past this was true. But now it may be more about how the metal is designed to collapse and hold up in certain places to better protect the occupants.

An older smaller car however does indeed worry me and I recall some years ago watching a TV show on uk paramedics. They attended a scene of an accident involving a nissan micra (1998-2004 era) . And there was a child in the back seat and whatever way the accident happened either front or rear end, the car essentially crumpled and the kids foot got stuck under the front seat and frame of the car. It was cutting blood flow etc and he was very lucky the car was cut around him freeing him.

And that image is stuck with me. Maybe it is on YouTube to watch. But it really made me think that it the day ever came and there was a kid or partner in a car, I'd want them to be in something very safe and not an old crumple can like that.

But on the other side, I agree with the posters about taking risk. We take risks just by being on the road, we never know what other people will do, so on that side I don't mind personally going around in say a classic mini. For a while the last 2 summers I was on motorbikes regularly which are right up there with risk. But we have to live a life too and not be in fear. Yes we'll reduce chance of death / injury but I wouldn't sacrifice something I'd enjoy altogether either

When I was younger I always had the wife and Family in the good big expensive latest car and I drove the banger , contrary to fashion at the golf club for men.
Paid off once too in a head on that wrote off the other car that hit her and our family car.

Panrich · 05-03-2021 09:46AM

I remember watching a documentary about advances in car safety down through the years. An example of how little thought went in to car safety back in the day was given as the original mini. It went to market with seats that tipped forward to allow access to the back seats and had no holding mechanism.

Basically they installed a catapult for front seat passengers.

loyatemu · 05-03-2021 09:55AM

Panrich wrote: »

I remember watching a documentary about advances in car safety down through the years. An example of how little thought went in to car safety back in the day was given as the original mini. It went to market with seats that tipped forward to allow access to the back seats and had no holding mechanism.

Basically they installed a catapult for front seat passengers.

I remember that from my mum's Mini estate. The seat wasn't adjustable in any way, so she had a plank of wood stuck under the back of it to prop her forward! We'd often have 4 kids in the back and another 2 in the boot.

banie01 · 05-03-2021 09:56AM

Bigus wrote: »

Good post,
And apparently that model e46 was not the safest in its class, contrary to my original understanding.

In fairness, the Porsche is a convertible. An awful lot of impact is absorbed and channelled in a crash by the cabin's box structure.
That Porsche, no matter how heavy the doors, is missing a significant portion of cabin reinforcement.
In a head-on impact, the cabin will be deformed upwards and rearwards with near zero mitigation as the shell is incomplete.
the forces will follow the line of least resistance and the meatbag in the drivers seat is collateral damage.

Miscreant · 05-03-2021 10:11AM

banie01 wrote: »

In fairness, the Porsche is a convertible. An awful lot of impact is absorbed and channelled in a crash by the cabin's box structure.
That Porsche, no matter how heavy the doors, is missing a significant portion of cabin reinforcement.
In a head-on impact, the cabin will be deformed upwards and rearwards with near zero mitigation as the shell is incomplete.
the forces will follow the line of least resistance and the meatbag in the drivers seat is collateral damage.

Looks to me like a fixed roof coupé. If you look towards the front, the A pillars have been completely removed. You can also see the cut marks on the C pillars are not the same (driver's side is a horizontal cut while the passenger side is more vertical). I think the emergency services cut the roof off to get access to the injured driver.
Not knowing the force of the impact, I think the 911 held up about as I would expect for a car designed in the 60s and updated through the decades.

ohnonotgmail · 05-03-2021 10:15AM

Miscreant wrote: »

Looks to me like a fixed roof coupé. If you look towards the front, the A pillars have been completely removed. You can also see the cut marks on the C pillars are not the same (driver's side is a horizontal cut while the passenger side is more vertical). I think the emergency services cut the roof off to get access to the injured driver.
Not knowing the force of the impact, I think the 911 held up about as I would expect for a car designed in the 60s and updated through the decades.

the windows on the doors have a frame around them. a convertible wouldn't have that.

BrianD3 · 05-03-2021 10:20AM

MrCostington wrote: »

Hope thread is not too old to add to mods?

Just seen this, modern BMW vs old (looks 80's to me, but not well up on them, even worse if newer) Porsche 911, who had a broken femur accorting to the report.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-frozen-windscreen-crash-153041408.html

E46 is far safer than an old 911 but an E46 would also be considerably less safe than a new 3 series.

Also, the angle may have favoured the E46 a little there, looks somewhat oblique. In general, if you see a frontal crash where the LHS of one car impacts the RHS of the other, it will often be a less favourable angle for one or other of them. Also the case if one is hit in the grille/numberplate area while the other is hit in the headlamp/wing area.

banie01 · 05-03-2021 10:23AM

Miscreant wrote: »

Looks to me like a fixed roof coupé. If you look towards the front, the A pillars have been completely removed.

Apologies, you are right and the doors are also framed.
My own fault for a cursory 1st look and a leap to a conclusion

kirving · 05-03-2021 12:22PM

If the Porsche hit another Porsche, the damage would be better shared between the two cars.

While in general the roads have become safer over time, if you do happen to end up in a crash in an older car, you are more likely to be injured than in the past. The stiffer crash structures in the newer car will effectively punch through the less stiff older car.

BrianD3 · 05-03-2021 01:26PM

kirving wrote: »

If the Porsche hit another Porsche, the damage would be better shared between the two cars.

While in general the roads have become safer over time, if you do happen to end up in a crash in an older car, you are more likely to be injured than in the past. The stiffer crash structures in the newer car will effectively punch through the less stiff older car.

Stiffer, higher and heavier plus the older car will also likely have at least some rust. It's at least a triple whammy for the older car. It's even apparent in rear end collisions like the one below. If the year was 1995 with a non rusty Uno rear ending an E28 instead of an E60, things would be much better for the Uno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jous9u7-AmE

CiniO · 05-03-2021 01:57PM

The hypothesis that older cars are much less safe than modern ones is obviously true. There was never a doubt about it.

However most tests/articles/etc seem to omit few important facts.
1. Biggest advances in passive vehicle safety (so how it will become in crash and protect occupants) happened around 1995-2005. Most cars before 1995 didn't have airbags, crush zones, etc..) If you compare 2008 car to 1993 car (15 years apart) difference is enormous.
If you compare 2006 car vs 2021 car there is not so much difference in crash result.

2. It's never really mentioned, that size of a car really matters.
It's a simple physics, but most people don't really understand it.
A small car hitting a wall at 50km/h might protect occupants as well as big car hitting a wall at 50km/h. That's what crash tests show. And that's why makes many people think that small cars are as safe as big ones.

However in real life, big car which is heavy collides with small light car, then momentum transmitted will cause so much more effect on small car.

Example
Car A weights 1000kg.
Car B weights 2000kg.
Both travel at 50km/h in opposite directions and collide head on.

What will happen according to theory of momentum conservation, will be that heavy car B will slow down from 50 to 16km/h so forces which will affect occupants will be similar to hitting the wall at 33km/h. Lighter car A however, will not only be stopped to 0, but also pushed backwards to 16km/h, so its total sudden change of speed will be 66km/h. That's again forces on occupants similar to hitting the wall at 66km/h.

Effect is that occupants of smaller car will be liable to forces like hitting the wall at 66km/h while bigger car only 33km/h. And obvously forces at 66km/h are 4x higher than at 33km/h (kinetic energy depends on square of speed).

In other words, occupants of small car in simple equal speed head on collision, could be liable to forces 4x higher than occupants of big car, and that is very likely difference between being OK and dead.

ELM327 · 05-03-2021 02:00PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

id love to see an 87 Mercedes 500 SEL against a new Dacia duster.

My money would still be on the merc.

I wouldnt. What a waste of a good merc.

ohnonotgmail · 05-03-2021 02:01PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

id love to see an 87 Mercedes 500 SEL against a new Dacia duster.

My money would still be on the merc.

everything else being equal I would rather be in the duster.

Classic cars vs modern crash tests the latest evidence

Comments