ANCAP vs REAL world crashes. small cars not so good.

[Crazy Dazz]

Want a first-hand, no BS, example?
This is probably almost 20 years ago now (time flies) in the early nineties.
My wife and I, and 3 children were in our old XF wagon, waiting to turn right.

A teenager, driving his Mums newish small-mid sized sedan (IIRC it was a Nissan.) Overtook on a blind crest and came over the hill on the wrong side of the road. He had no time to react, and plowed into us head-on. Witnesses estimated his speed at 80kph, however he did manage to get on the brakes.

The impact shatered the front of our XF, including smashing the block of the 4.1. We wre able to open our doors, and walk away. My only injury was banging my knee on that fekkin umbrella hand-brake. My 3 kids in the back were completely unharmed (apart from being scared ****less.) My wife suffered a broken rib from the set belt.
The occupants of the Nissan had to be cut from their car, and the driver had emergency surgery to remove a ruptured spleen.
Our windscreen broke, but other than that the car performed exactly as designed, with the passenger cell remaining completely intact. The little Nissan folded like a bag of crap, and the driver got the steering wheel in his guts. I have often pondered whether an airbag would have made a difference to him.

The fundamental problem with Ancrap ratings is that they are concerned with minor (deceleration) injuries at low speeds, and they get that WRONG by using static objects. Crashing a car into a immovable wall at say 40kmh, is roughly equivalent of two identical cars crashing head on at a combined speed of 80. So as long as everyone on the road is driving the same car, that works.

Also, in severe accidents what is important is crush protection. For that you need space, a solid passenger cell, AND your crumple zones.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by JC

But in what situation are you talking? Truck vs tree? 4wd roll over? In the context of large car vs small car where safety ratings are roughly the same (say 3 v 4, or 4 v 5, etc in favour of the smaller car), surely the large car will come out better every time?

That's a good question.
And anyone prepared to claim otherwise should produce some facts of there own that COMPREHENSIVELY go along way to proving their point. Simply pointing fingers, accusing,acting like a troll and or bias is unacceptable.


This article proves that larger cars in the past but to a lesser extent newer cars, as technology improves, are the safer choice over a LARGE AVERAGE. If that's too hard to compute......let's see some FACTS

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

The fundamental problem with Ancrap ratings is that they are concerned with minor (deceleration) injuries at low speeds, and they get that WRONG by using static objects. Crashing a car into a immovable wall at say 40kmh, is roughly equivalent of two identical cars crashing head on at a combined speed of 80. So as long as everyone on the road is driving the same car, that works.

Also, in severe accidents what is important is crush protection. For that you need space, a solid passenger cell, AND your crumple zones.

Lucky and good result.

That's not the only big flaw with ancap.......the cars are not tested against other size cars.......yet in the real world.......it's deffinately hitting something either bigger or smaller. That ill garuntee.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

The fundamental problem with Ancrap ratings is that they are concerned with minor (deceleration) injuries at low speeds, and they get that WRONG by using static objects. Crashing a car into a immovable wall at say 40kmh, is roughly equivalent of two identical cars crashing head on at a combined speed of 80. So as long as everyone on the road is driving the same car, that works.

Crashing a car into an immovable object at 40km/h, is the same as two identical cars crashing head on at 40km/h. There is no combined speed, you decelerate from 40km/h - 0km/h.

[HULK_I6T]

I always knew that if a holden kingswood went head on with a hyundai getz... the getz would come off second best.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by irish2

Crashing a car into an immovable object at 40km/h, is the same as two identical cars crashing head on at 40km/h. There is no combined speed, you decelerate from 40km/h - 0km/h.

exactly the impact is divided between the two.

[turbodewd]

ANCrAP

In one of their tests they make a car crash into another object of a similar mass. This is retarded...you should assume the worst. Make every car crash into a Hilux or a Terri.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

ANCrAP

In one of their tests they make a car crash into another object of a similar mass. This is retarded...you should assume the worst. Make every car crash into a Hilux or a Terri.

so the hilux/terry is harder than a 50,000 kg solid billet block of steel?

[_Ben]

Man people here are so caught in the old 'Bigger = better' for crashes. Theres more to crashes than just mass, how well you can dissipate the force makes a HUGE deal. Also a head on with an early 90s nissan? An N14 pulsar is hardly a safe car...

Fifth gear have a nice video on this

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

ANCrAP

In one of their tests they make a car crash into another object of a similar mass. This is retarded...you should assume the worst. Make every car crash into a Hilux or a Terri.

Why not a Getz? Got just as much chance of crashing into a Getz as a Hilux don't you? Why not a tree? Guard rail? Toll booth? Wheel lying on a freeway?

ANCAP use a deformable unit of similar mass to the car, this way, they can assure the frontal impact test is the same with in the classes. Its a standardized test purely to study how the car reacts in a crash, how the crumple zones deform, airbag release, where the head hits etc etc...

Basically these NCAP programs are one of the few chances outside manufacture test's that study the impact of cars and the effects on a person (well, dummy)


But I guess, short of crashing every new car into every car available and representing every possible scenario...some people are still going to call them out...

[GREGL]

It is all hypothetical , and your signature ute Is classified as one of the UNSAFEST vehicles on the road of that era , especially if you happen to run into a tree or another falcon/holden/ 4wd or truck . I can't fathom how someone so hung up on safety and the in and outs of scientific mumbo jumbo could lived so long driving it . However it appears you have survived so far along with hundreds of thousands of others in there little s/boxe so what's your agenda .

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

You are WRONG....

No Im not!.
As stated, MUARC deals with statistics derived from crashes! Not from near misses. MUARC records speed, driver gender, car type etc of incidents involving crashes. MUARC does not record data on near misses, on almost crashes on no crashes.
As a result MUARC reports on how well a car performs during a crash. It does not draw conclusions on the likelihood of being involved in a crash just the likelihood of being injured in a crash.
MUARC is about the results of the crash duration of about 0.3 of one second that is all. This is not irrelevant information or unnecessary but it says nothing about the likelihood of crashing, just the likely outcome.
ANCAP however explores active and passive systems which may contribute to avoiding a crash but should the worst happen it allows an apples vs apples comparison for consumers. for better or for worse.

Yes MUARC does indicate the Muira to be 11 times less safe than an X5 in a crash, it does not say it is 11 time less safe to drive! just 11 time less CRASHWORTHY.



JP

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by JC

But in what situation are you talking? Truck vs tree? 4wd roll over? In the context of large car vs small car where safety ratings are roughly the same (say 3 v 4, or 4 v 5, etc in favour of the smaller car), surely the large car will come out better every time?

In my experience, no!

[danzvtil]

oh, for goodness sake, ANCAP like ADR fuel consumption figures are intended to be INDICATIVE ONLY, a tool a consumer may use to COMPARE different vehicles in a controlled environment under specific circumstances.
I DONT believe larger cars are safer as a general rule, ive seen fatals at 60kph and crashes at 110kph that are survivable.
Bottom line, you don't want to be in ANY crash, in ANY car at ANY speed, so everyone take a bex and a good lie down!

[zilo]

You guys have got it all wrong.

The car with the longest bonnet always wins.

It has the longest crumple zone and longest deceleration times.

It's all about time taken to stop..

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.....

Remember F=MA or -F=M*-A

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Instead of using our cars, how about this: I will let you slap my foot as hard as you can, and I will then kick you in the nuts with my steel-caps. That will test your theory.
On the other hand, if you ACTUALLY want to test your Focus, I will happily sit in my AU, whilst you drive into it HEAD-ON.

Mate if I hit your AU it would probably fold in half because of the rust in the sills it probably has

If we all followed AFF's guide to buying a safe vehicle (heavier is safer) we would all be dropping the kids off to school in these:



That Prado that tipped over on the Calder near Macedon is a pretty heavy vehicle? Maybe its weight worked against it?

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No Im not!.
As stated, MUARC deals with statistics derived from crashes! Not from near misses. MUARC records speed, driver gender, car type etc of incidents involving crashes. MUARC does not record data on near misses, on almost crashes on no crashes.
As a result MUARC reports on how well a car performs during a crash. It does not draw conclusions on the likelihood of being involved in a crash just the likelihood of being injured in a crash.
MUARC is about the results of the crash duration of about 0.3 of one second that is all. This is not irrelevant information or unnecessary but it says nothing about the likelihood of crashing, just the likely outcome.
ANCAP however explores active and passive systems which may contribute to avoiding a crash but should the worst happen it allows an apples vs apples comparison for consumers. for better or for worse.

Yes MUARC does indicate the Muira to be 11 times less safe than an X5 in a crash, it does not say it is 11 time less safe to drive! just 11 time less CRASHWORTHY.



JP

YES your WRONG...

Ancap testing only puts a very small amount of emphasis on crash prevention. The rest is airbags, engineering and crashing into walls. You get that right???

you and your mate can't understand the very nature of an "accident". It means you don't get to choose to avoid it in most cases......that's why it's an ACCIDENT......soooo.....you want to be looking at buying cars that have stood the test of time millions of times. Hence why the monash uni test is an exceptional way to help choose a safe car. The safest car even.

That's very SIMPLE!!!!

[1TUFFUTE]

JPBLUE100 and NIKKED.......we want evidence that small cars are in less accidents, because as you say amoung other things, they avoid crashes better. Or clarify this! (Feel free to try and explain yourself)

Test results...evidence over large averages that prove the point yous are so heavily defending. I'm assuming you will start with something Ancap has up their sleeve as your claiming its a better model for car safety.

GO.....

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by zilo

You guys have got it all wrong.

The car with the longest bonnet always wins.

It has the longest crumple zone and longest deceleration times.

It's all about time taken to stop..

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.....

Remember F=MA or -F=M*-A

No, its about how well the force can be dissipated. Watch This video

[aussiblue]

Actuaries used to say that the stats suggested that your life expectancy was increased by 4years if you drove a large car but I think that has changed.

It is a complex issue; I recall in the 80's or 90's Road & Track reported that the accident statistics in the US suggested that the XJ Jaguar was the safest car when the number of road deaths and number of registered vehicle of each model was taken into account but, as some wag noted, perhaps what they didn't consider was that at that point the reliability of XJ Jags was so bad, that perhaps new Jags spent most of their time broken down or at the dealer being repaired rather than on the road. More importantly those driving XJ's were likely to be older drivers who were in any event statically less likely to be involved accidents or on the road at times (the night club DD hours ) where fatal accidents were more likely.

[aussiblue]

http://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/ar...arge-cars.html

It's a fact of physics: Larger vehicles are safer than smaller vehicles. But not everyone is cut out to drive a large car. Small cars are less expensive, easier to park and get better fuel economy than larger ones. And with gas prices on an upward creep, consumers shopping for a fuel-efficient vehicle are already gravitating toward smaller cars. But by doing so, will they put themselves at risk in an accident? There's bad news and good news on this front.

The bad news is that smaller, lighter cars are generally not as safe as larger, heavier cars. Large vehicles have longer hoods and bigger crush zones, which gives them an advantage in frontal crashes.

In studies conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a heavier vehicle will typically push a lighter one backward during the impact. As a result, there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on those in the lighter vehicle, according to IIHS.

~~~Snip~~~~

Crash-Test Confusion
One thing that can cloud the safety picture for car buyers is the fact that cars of various sizes can win identical safety ratings, making it seem that a small car is just as safe as a large SUV. But it's not so.

The federal government has its Five-Star Safety Ratings, which are available at the Safercar.gov site, administered by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). IIHS does its own crash tests and rates cars from "Good" to "Poor," based on the driver's ability to survive a crash.

It's important for car buyers to keep in mind that these ratings are only useful when comparing cars within the same size class. If a small car has a five-star rating from NHTSA, that doesn't mean it will protect you as well as five-star-rated large sedan. The same holds true for an IIHS "Good" rating.

"The ratings are meant to be used to compare crashes with vehicles of similar size," says Adrian Lund, president of the IIHS. "You can't really go between the segments with these ratings."

IIHS produced this video in 2009 to illustrate the differences in what happens to different-size cars in a crash: The smaller car loses. As Lund says in the video, "While all cars have gotten safer in recent years, you can't repeal the laws of physics."

No crash-test program can cover every car accident scenario, but if you buy a car that scores well in the IIHS and NHTSA tests, your chances for avoiding serious injury or death significantly improve, regardless of the vehicle's size. This is good news for the small-car buyer who is looking for good fuel mileage as well as safety.

To recap: All cars are getting safer, but bigger cars still are safer than small cars. That applies even in a matchup between a new small car and a 5-year-old larger car.

"The bottom line is that bigger and heavier is still better," Rader says. "A heavy, large car from five years ago, given similar safety equipment like side airbags, will be more protective than a 2013 model that is small and lightweight." Because of the tendency to roll over, a 5-year-old SUV would probably trump a new small car only if the SUV had electronic stability control.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by _Ben

No, its about how well the force can be dissipated. Watch This video

What do you mean "No" ?

That's exactly how you dissipate it.. gradually, from the incidence of the first contact point.
The best way to do that is with the longest bonnet and placing passengers as far from point of initial contact as possible.

That's where the buzz boxes fail....they have no bonnets at the front and rear passengers are sitting on the axles at back.

If you stop from 20 metres a second in the length of a 1 metre bonnet instead of a 2 metre bonnet mathematically you absorb twice the force.

Simple really.

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by zilo

What do you mean "No" ?

That's exactly how you dissipate it.. gradually, from the incidence of the first contact point.
The best way to do that is with the longest bonnet and placing passengers as far from point of initial contact as possible.

That's where the buzz boxes fail....they have no bonnets at the front and rear passengers are sitting on the axles at back.

If you stop from 20 metres a second in the length of a 1 metre bonnet instead of a 2 metre bonnet mathematically you absorb twice the force.

Simple really.

I agree with it for the most part, but if you can spread this force out, rather than having it come through the cabin, you'll do better. If you look at the video, you'll see the volvo becomes considerably shorter on one side, whereas the other little 'buzz box' gets compressed pretty evenly on the front, resulting in a safer crash. In theory if there were two cars exactly the same construction, but one with a larger 'compression' area up front, obviously the one with a larger compression area will come off better.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by zilo

What do you mean "No" ?

That's exactly how you dissipate it.. gradually, from the incidence of the first contact point.
The best way to do that is with the longest bonnet and placing passengers as far from point of initial contact as possible.

That's where the buzz boxes fail....they have no bonnets at the front and rear passengers are sitting on the axles at back.

If you stop from 20 metres a second in the length of a 1 metre bonnet instead of a 2 metre bonnet mathematically you absorb twice the force.

Simple really.

But what about the fact that the smaller, lighter hatch back can pull up faster than a larger vehicle? (Negating the need for a longer front end to crumple) Or that the smaller, lighter hatch is more nimble and could swerve around obstacles better?

These threads always revolve around straight up crashing into something, rather than taking into account that no two (possible) accidents are exactly the same.

I've avoided an accident in a Fiesta that I never could've in a Falcon.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

I've avoided an accident in a Fiesta that I never could've in a Falcon.

I agree. I have a 1.4L auto Fiesta and I think that's because the Fiesta almost never gets to the speed limit, so the stopping distance is always less. But I also worry that because of how slow it is I've probably caused a lot of crashes due to frustrating a number of people into driving eratically.

[2011G6E]

I'm reasonably sure that if we ran into something like a Ford Focus in our Triton the outcome wouldn't be pretty. I also know which vehicle I would rather be in.
Now, my '82 Celica and a Ford Focus? Yep...I'd probably prefer to be in the Focus...

[tut0r]

Size doesn't always matter, we've seen how badly the hummer H2 is when it has a bingle. But the general rule on this thread is most crashes happen head on? Watch some dashcams Australia, most crashes on there are rear ends or T-Bones due to some Mc Tard running a red.

I'd rather be in my 07 falcon right now than my old 91 corolla for a crash...No airbags, no abs....Sure it might stop quicker than the mighty Ford but its gonna hurt if I get a hilux in my grill regardless of what I'm driving.

[mik]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

oh, for goodness sake, ANCAP like ADR fuel consumption figures are intended to be INDICATIVE ONLY, a tool a consumer may use to COMPARE different vehicles in a controlled environment under specific circumstances.
I DONT believe larger cars are safer as a general rule, ive seen fatals at 60kph and crashes at 110kph that are survivable.
Bottom line, you don't want to be in ANY crash, in ANY car at ANY speed, so everyone take a bex and a good lie down!

I`ll keep my big cars thanks:yel rotflm:yel rotflm:yel rotflm.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Mate if I hit your AU it would probably fold in half because of the rust in the sills it probably has

If we all followed AFF's guide to buying a safe vehicle (heavier is safer) we would all be dropping the kids off to school in these:

image

Only to the point where over half the population also drove the same weight tank as me, then I would need to 'upgrade' to something like this...



Then, when more than half the population also drove the same dozer as me I would then have to upgrade to.....and on it goes.....and goes...and goes

Craig H

[mik]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

But what about the fact that the smaller, lighter hatch back can pull up faster than a larger vehicle? (Negating the need for a longer front end to crumple) Or that the smaller, lighter hatch is more nimble and could swerve around obstacles better?

These threads always revolve around straight up crashing into something, rather than taking into account that no two (possible) accidents are exactly the same.

I've avoided an accident in a Fiesta that I never could've in a Falcon.

what about the fact that smaller cars dont always handle irregularities on the road that big cars generally glide over ?
what about when a heavy vehicle or a light vehicle hits a large puddle on road at speed ..... which one is more likely to aquaplane ?
what about when a vehicle slams into the back of your short light car at 60 kph ? which vehicle would you rather not be in ..... the large car with a lot of sheetmetal/crumple zone or the light shorter vehicle with almost no rear crumple zone? ........ i know which one i would rather be in

when you pull up behind a bus and he inexplicably plants the throttle in reverse and you have no where to go which car would you rather be in .... a big car or a small car?
one might think ..............oh that would never happen , but it happened to me many years ago, let me tell you when the bumper of a full size bus bounces over the bonnet of your small car and stops one inch from your windscreen it gives you some food for thought.
someone ask me why did the bus driver slam his automatic bus into reverse and go full throttle ?