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

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

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!!!!

Mate your like arguing with an argumentative brick wall. please read and comprehend my posts. The language is sometime subtle, sometime direct to emphasise and reinforce a point or throw and idea out there! but nowhere does it make the claims you are refuting so viemently.
in your opening statement you agree with me about ANCAP placing some emphasis on crash avoidance, so in that I must be right. Secondly you declare that the car at the top of the MUARC crashworthiness study is the safest. I have not disagreed with you, actually wrote that but added that it is the safest crashing car not best at avoiding crashes. Simple concept really isn't it? Please elucidate your understanding if it is not!
I agree categorically, as I stated in my post you quoted, that some cars are much better at protecting the driver in a crash than others, sometimes up to 11 times better...but thats all the collected data can provide, that's all the MUARC report declares it is doing. It makes no representation about the likelihood of crashing in a particular car. This is what Im arguing, do you understand that.

I have also not declared the data or findings rubbish, in either the MUARC or ANCAP systems. they are both flawed but offer comparison results for consumers to base judgement on, I believe that is a worthwhile outcome. I have written that in my responses and cant see how you have missed that. Or do you go into rage when anyone counters your point and shoot first before comprehending. (perhaps my writing is difficult take in, understand or comprehend, if anyone else has significant difficulty please speak up and I will apologise for the patronising and demeaning tone)
It would seem I actually have agreed with you on many points, our biggest departure in opinion is what the reports are showing. you declare safest I declare crashworthy. Perhaps a semantics argument but in my opinion safest includes avoiding the crash in the first place, crashworthy relates to actually crashing, and as stated, relates to the very short time frame that a crash occurs over. The MUARC report makes this distinction in the use of the term crashworthiness.

I have also agreed mass wins in a crash, wrote that down in one of my earlier posts, but then added if you don't crash you don't need the mass, I then extrapolate the argument, with opinion, that the larger mass vehicle is more likely to be involved in a crash than a smaller. I have no data, couldn't find it, but I also couldn't find any data that proved me wrong and nobody has probably done the study. I base my opinion on experience and my understanding on physics as it pertains to motorcars.
I have 30 years of competitive motorsport under my belt so understand better than most the dynamics of cars, I have over 40 years of watching the world go by which reinforces my understanding of car dynamics and reinforces my opinion.

Furthermore my 75 hp small car is 10 seconds a lap faster around Mallala than my falcon on a 92 second lap. By deduction this is because it turns in, holds faster mid corner speeds and stops better than the bigger car, not because it accelerates faster or attains higher top speeds. in the real world this dynamic may have and may continue to help prevent a crash.

Finally I refute the term accident in this context, I use the term crash.
An accident is something that cannot be reasonably foreseen or predicted and cannot be avoided. It just happens. A crash, on the other hand, is the result of choices made and risks disregarded which I consider most traffic incidents to be. (this doesn't change the crux of the thread just my opinion)



JP

[Franco Cozzo]

Google has already made a self driving car prototype which is actually working, give it 15 years and we won't have to worry about ANCAP ratings because we won't be allowed to drive anymore

This is it:



And you thought Fiesta/Focus was gay.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by mik

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 ?

Jesus christ, you're right Mik. It's a jungle out there. I'm just gonna sell my cars and take public transport from now on.

[mik]

Originally Posted by mik

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 ?

seeings as no one is going to ask me, i`ll tell you anyway, i got caught behind a bus in the northern burbs of melbourne in my old mums 67/68 morris mini which i might add was just rebuilt and painted, it was a minimatic if any of you are familiar...... anyway the bus driver chucked the bus in reverse and planted it because kids threw stones at the bus, i was probably 15 feet away directly behind him so he didnt see me in the little brick, the little mini was a bit slow to select reverse so i wore a bus, severe undies staining let me tell you .

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by mik

[/COLOR]

seeings as no one is going to ask me, i`ll tell you anyway, i got caught behind a bus in the northern burbs of melbourne in my old mums 67/68 morris mini which i might add was just rebuilt and painted, it was a minimatic if any of you are familiar...... anyway the bus driver chucked the bus in reverse and planted it because kids threw stones at the bus, i was probably 15 feet away directly behind him so he didnt see me in the little brick, the little mini was a bit slow to select reverse so i wore a bus, severe undies staining let me tell you .

The old Morris, I grew up in them, my old’s had an 1100/1300 morris nomad, one was auto and the other manual.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

Jesus christ, you're right Mik. It's a jungle out there. I'm just gonna sell my cars and take public transport from now on.

Yeah, but which train is safer in the event of a head-on; the VLocity, a Sprinter or one of Metro's XTrapolis' (substitute any other train names dependent upon relevant state usage here).

Craig H

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Google has already made a self driving car prototype which is actually working, give it 15 years and we won't have to worry about ANCAP ratings because we won't be allowed to drive anymore

This is it:

image

And you thought Fiesta/Focus was gay.

Funny story, I hopped in one of these the other day to go to the strippers, left the bloody 'safe search' on didn't I...ended up at a church...


Missus wasn't happy when she saw the drive history

[zilo]

Originally Posted by _Ben

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

mate...if you believe that video you'll believe anything.

Volvo 940's have airbags, yet in spite of them sabotaging it, the Volvo driver still would have had less injury than the poor renault driver.

look at how the G-forces spin the little car around, the internal injuries would have been massive.


in any event,the video is a fake/setup/Renault promotion.

5th gear is entertainment and by their own legal admission they are not a technical review authority, they are in the business of entertainment.


So.....You got anything better than that?

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fair point......and that's why the monash test takes all those extra realities into the equation. Gender,age,location and so on.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Yeah, but which train is safer in the event of a head-on; the VLocity, a Sprinter or one of Metro's XTrapolis' (substitute any other train names dependent upon relevant state usage here).

Craig H

Mate, I might just stay home then!

[FG50T]

It's the overuse of large cars on the roads which threaten road safety.

There is also a difference between crash ratings and safety ratings.

The direction of the impact can affect whether weight does or not play a part. Side impacts depends on the structure and weight doesn't play a part. According to the Australian Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics rear end collisions only accounted for 3% of fatalities on the roads between 1994 and 2006. When getting hit from behind your car absorbs the force and pushes forward. You will survive being hit by a semi from behind unless whats in front of you is a wall.

The only time vehicle mass always wins is in a direct head on collision. That is if we only cared about what car wins and not the driver. Just because your big car smashes the little car and driver doesn't mean you still won't come out with a spinal injury.

[Crazy Dazz]

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.

Two cars, each travelling at 40kph, colliding head-on, IS a combined closing speed of 80kph.
Obviously, if the two cars are identical, then the energy & momentum is equally "absorbed" by both cars, and as you say each car will decelerate from 40 to 0. Hence why it is roughly equivalent to the single car hitting an immovable wall. (Which is what I said.)

However, if somebody in a small car travelling at 40kph, collides head on with a road-train also travelling at 40kph, they will in fact decelerate from 40 to -40, ie -80kph total.

The problem with this test, is that it assumes the test car is "average" (and obviously is being tested against an identical average car.)
What they SHOULD do, is actually create an "average" test vehicle, and stage an actual collision with both vehicles travelling at the same speed.
Not only is their test inaccurate in regards to smaller than average cars, it may well in fact be biased in favour of lightly constructed vehicles.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Mate



JP

I'd like to point out...your drowning yourself I'll make it simple for you.
The thread title is Ancap vs REAL world "CRASHES".small cars not so good.

As asked for please provide facts to back your claim small cars avoid more crashes then larger cars. Half your waffling on is not needed as the real world monash "crash" results "INCLUDE" the fact that small cars can turn,brake or stop faster. That's only 1% of a scenarios events.
If all you can do is be argumentative with zero facts.....just unfounded hypothetical results.........then the rest of us will rely on THE REAL WORLD CRASH RESULTS to help choose the safer cars.

What you fail to understand is ALL cars small and big have pros and cons for all their size, power,safety and ability levels. That's why a MASSIVE averaged out real world results crash test works better then hypotheticals!

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

However, if somebody in a small car travelling at 40kph, collides head on with a road-train also travelling at 40kph, they will in fact decelerate from 40 to -40, ie -80kph total.

What if the road train is braking slightly prior to the crash and the road train driver slams on the brakes 0.5 seconds before they make contact. How does that effect your equation?

[zilo]

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.

But that's just you...on one particular ocassion..

As they say...past results ain't necessarily a barometer for future performance.

next time you may be saying "wish I'd been in a bigger car"

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

I'd like to point out...your drowning yourself I'll make it simple for you.
The thread title is Ancap vs REAL world "CRASHES".small cars not so good.

As asked for please provide facts to back your claim small cars avoid more crashes then larger cars. Half your waffling on is not needed as the real world monash "crash" results "INCLUDE" the fact that small cars can turn,brake or stop faster. That's only 1% of a scenarios events.
If all you can do is be argumentative with zero facts.....just unfounded hypothetical results.........then the rest of us will rely on THE REAL WORLD CRASH RESULTS to help choose the safer cars.

Oh you got me, champ, I was addressing issues raised within the body of the thread not necessarily the direct topic of the original post. My apologies Ill stick to only addressing the OP and thread title. But so should you.
As for unfounded. You still cant read or comprehend, read again, I describe in plain english my 'opinion' and what its based on. I declared I have no 'statistics or proof' read it and understand and we wont waste time round and round and round.
Please show me where the Monash study includes the small cars dynamic supremacy I am referuing to, the ability to avoid the crash! if it avoided the crash it wasn't counted in the results...it didn't crash!
I have never had a significant crash but avoided many, thats 100% bias towards the avoidance scenario you attribute to 1%
This is fun inst it

JP

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by FG50T

It's the overuse of large cars on the roads which threaten road safety.

Pig's armpit.
Yes, if EVERYTHING on the road was a Jazz, things would be different, but for the foreseeable future we're always going to have trucks & buses. Not to mention the issues with single car accidents involving trees, power poles, etc.

Originally Posted by FG50T

The direction of the impact can affect whether weight does or not play a part. Side impacts depends on the structure and weight doesn't play a part.

Incorrect actually.

Let me explain it:

The mass of your car effects momentum and therefore acceleration/ deceleration. Up to a point, these are the primary causes of injury. Eg, you hit a tree, your head hits the steering wheel, your head decelerates from 60kph to 0 in a fraction of a second, and your brain splats against the inside of your skull. Alternatively, you are stationary and get hit head on by a truck, and the exact same thing happens.

Structure effects two things. Firstly, you WANT any structure outside the passenger cell to crumple, this absorbs energy and spreads the deceleration over a greater time period. So in a T-bone situation you want a car with thick doors and space between the passengers & doors.
The 2nd aspect is that structure protects the occupants from crush injury, which is where you don't want the passenger cell to crumple. So in a T-bone you want solid pillars and intrusion bars.

It should also be explained that when we talk about "heavier" cars, we mean heavier as a result of being larger and stronger.
If two identical Hynudai Getz collide head-on, and one happens to have 500kg of cement in the boot, the results would be interesting. The heavier car would have less deceleration injuries, but a greater chance of crush injuries.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

What if the road train is braking slightly prior to the crash and the road train driver slams on the brakes 0.5 seconds before they make contact. How does that effect your equation?

It doesn't.
Each vehicle will be travelling at a given speed at the time of the accident, whether that is exactly 40kph, or 35kph, the math is the same.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

What you fail to understand is ALL cars small and big have pros and cons for all their size, power,safety and ability levels. That's why a MASSIVE averaged out real world results crash test works better then hypotheticals!

**** me dead!. I have now agreed, 3 times, with this concept.
to use your turn of phrase i'll make this simple for you through a question!

whats the difference between crashworthiness and safety of a car?

JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Oh you got me, champ, I was addressing issues raised within the body of the thread not necessarily the direct topic of the original post. My apologies Ill stick to only addressing the OP and thread title.

Please show me where the Monash study includes the small cars dynamic supremacy I am referuing to, the ability to avoid the crash! if it avoided the crash it wasn't counted in the results...it didn't crash!
I have never had a significant crash but avoided many, thats 100% bias towards the avoidance scenario you attribute to 1%
This is fun inst it

JP

OMG......the small car dynamic supremacy you think is so final.....is in the RESULTS with every single crash that had an injury or fatality. Any small car that is in these results.......well, their supremacy failed that time didn't it. And that's what it's about.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

T-bone you want solid pillars and intrusion bars.

Not arguing for the sake of it but to clear up some definitions

You dont want solid pillars and door bars you want appropriately designed pillars and door bars as illustrated in the following. solid wouldn't work as well as whats designed in the falcon and many other modern cars. Particular attention to where I have highlighted in RED

All over in the blink of an eye This is a reconstruction of a crash involving a stationary Ford Falcon XT sedan being struck in the driver's door by another vehicle travelling at 50 km/h.
One millisecond equals 1/1000th of a second.
0 milliseconds - An external object touches the driver's door.
1 ms - The car's door pressure sensor detects a pressure wave.
2 ms - An acceleration sensor in the C-pillar behind the rear door also detects a crash event.
2.5 ms - A sensor in the car's centre detects crash vibrations.
5 ms - Car's crash computer checks for insignificant crash events, such as a shopping trolley impact or incidental contact. It is still working out the severity of the crash. Door intrusion structure begins to absorb energy.
6.5 ms - Door pressure sensor registers peak pressures.
7 ms - Crash computer confirms a serious crash and calculates its actions.
8 ms - Computer sends a "fire" signal to side airbag. Meanwhile, B-pillar begins to crumple inwards and energy begins to transfer into cross-car load path beneath the occupant.
8.5 ms - Side airbag system fires.
15 ms - Roof begins to absorb part of the impact. Airbag bursts through seat foam and begins to fill.
17 ms - Cross-car load path and structure under rear seat reach maximum load.
Airbag covers occupant's chest and begins to push the shoulder away from impact zone.
20 ms - Door and B-pillar begin to push on front seat. Airbag begins to push occupant's chest away from the impact.
27 ms - Impact velocity has halved from 50 km/h to 23.5 km/h. A "pusher block" in the seat moves occupant's pelvis away from impact zone. Airbag starts controlled deflation.
30 ms - The Falcon has absorbed all crash energy. Airbag remains in place. For a brief moment, occupant experiences maximum force equal to 12 times the force of gravity.
45 ms - Occupant and airbag move together with deforming side structure.
50 ms - Crash computer unlocks car's doors. Passenger safety cell begins to rebound, pushing doors away from occupant.
70 ms - Airbag continues to deflate. Occupant moves back towards middle of car.
Engineers classify crash as "complete".
150-300 ms - Occupant becomes aware of collision


very interesting and relevant stuff for AFF


Sorry 1tufute not on topic.


JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

OMG......the small car dynamic supremacy you think is so final.....is in the RESULTS with every single crash that had an injury or fatality. Any small car that is in these results.......well, their supremacy failed that time didn't it. And that's what it's about.

yeah but for every crash there would have been 1167 times more crashes avoided in a small car but only 73 in a large car. according to the Canadian Road And Pedestrian Authority (CRAP-A)


JP

[Crazy Dazz]

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

Wrong on so many levels.
Your ability to pull up is a factor of two things: Your momentum AND your ability to apply (braking) friction to the road via your tyres, which is directly related to your mass. So your stopping distance will come down to a combination of factors such as tyres, surface, brakes, weight-balance, etc. Mass actually cancels itself out.

The ability to "swerve around obstacles" is again not dependent on mass, but IS dependent on CoG, so a wide Saloon is better than a narrow Hatchback.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Not arguing for the sake of it but to clear up some definitions

You dont want solid pillars and door bars you want appropriately designed pillars and door bars

Sorry, poor choice of words. I should have said something like "Beefy."
If we interpret "solid" literally to mean that it is completely unyielding then yes that would maximise deceleration. My point is that you want them large, thick, well-made, and as illustrated able to spread the impact.
The impression your illustration conveys is that of a survivable collision. Unfortunately in some cars, the result would be the remains of the driver occupy the space previously reserved for the passenger seat.

[2011G6E]

Self driving cars?
I'll make a firm rock solid prediction that they will NEVER be a common...or even relatively common...part of our roadways. Possibly in some carefully defined inner-city areas and thoroughfares, but not anywhere outside those strongly defined and restricted zones.

Why? Simple. I'm reminded of what Clarkson said on Top Gear about a proposal for such a car. He said that it was a fine idea...but you just know that one day you'll be driving along and coming the other way will be one owned by someone called Reg, who will think he knows better than the factory and decide to try and service it or "improve" it himself...

You'd never have a moments peace while letting your car drive for fear of what might be coming the other way...

[TheInterceptor]

How rusty does a car have to be before it crumples like a tin can? Ive seen some real nasty big aussie Fords...especially AU Falcons and Fairlanes where theres not much metal left behind the rear plastic bumper...

[DJM83]

Bugger, better sell my ST and buy a Fairlane.
I get both side, but IMO there is too many variables in each crash to say which is best. Im not gonna change my car buying decision.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

Jesus christ, you're right Mik. It's a jungle out there. I'm just gonna sell my cars and take public transport from now on.

You'd also be safer in a big massive bus if it crashed into small 5 star ANCRAP car

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

But what about the fact that the smaller, lighter hatch back can pull up faster than a larger vehicle?

But some larger vehicle's (Trucks) can stop really really quick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

But some larger vehicle's (Trucks) can stop really really quick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

I was waiting for the tango and cash scene.