Minicars fall short for small overlap frontal crash protection (IIHS)

[CFECO]

The Testing is Not about near misses, or misses in general. If smaller is Always better you should All be on motorcycles. I drove Mack trucks for years and missed everyone, if not, would I had rather been in an Micro Car or a Mack...Uh... I'd take the Bulldog thank you.

[P-hack]

The testing is flawed in that it doesn't account for avoidability (mass and size). It doesn't matter what the test is about if it is measuring how well fish can climb trees. And yes, motorcycle please.

[Thenorm]

that is such a slight offset, i wonder if you can design the front crash structure to deflect the car a few degrees so that the wall/pillar/tree does impact the occupant cell, it would just rip off the fender/corner. i would imagine the injuries would be a lot less if the car did not come to such a sudden stop.

[Cobb]

People, car manufactures started to design cars to pass the tests with flying colors by specially engineering the vehicle for the test. Some cases like for the rear 5mph test they used an additional foam block.

Now with the new offset test you cant rig the car for the testing to perform flawlessly, yet have it fail in the real world. Yes, its not likely something you encounter in the real world, but its harder for someone to design a car to pass it with flying colors by cheating the system.

[niky]

Not quite cheating, more as, the crash structures are not designed for it.

If you design a car to pass frontal and moderate overlap, it will be safe in those situations. If you design it for side impact, it'll be safe in that, too.

But if you have to design a car to be safe in front, moderate, small, diagonal, pole, pole lengthwise across the roof, pole crosswise across the roof, log-through-the-windshield, re-bar through the door, bullet through the side window and etcetera, you'll have a car that weights hundreds of pounds more, costs thousands more and has less carrying capacity for more size.

-

It's like the bicycle helmet argument. Sure, helmets are good, but full-face helmets are better. Those protect the jaw, but armor is better. Armor and helmets are good, but armor, helmet and HANS device are better. And airbags are better. And perhaps full armor with protection from joint overextension... hey, why don't we fully enclose the bike and give it a cage... at which point you've increased the cost beyond what most people are willing to pay... (and the weight beyond which most people can bike with...)

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Sad to see how my Fit did. STill, it's worth noting that it's the oldest car in the list, and the top-scoring Chevy is the newest. I expect the new Fit to do well like the recently introduced Civic and Accord have.

I think the even more pertinent data point is that Chevrolet modified the Spark for the US market. Disappointed the Mirage didn't do better, since it's a newer design... but that lightweight front end is built around just two frame rails (the fenders hang off of plastic pieces attached to the rails), no box or perimeter frame around the engine. I'm wondering what they can do to pass the test without making it another 50 kilograms heavier.

Originally Posted by P-hack

Seriously, that is at least half the missing story here. A slight offset crash on a SUV is a complete miss in a small car. Plus less mass can change directions easier.

Completely agree. The test is supposed to simulate an accident with cars driving in opposite directions on a two-way street... on the idea that small overlap hits are more common than moderate... but you've got to wonder which car is most likely to get hit in that situation, given the width differences between car classes...

[CFECO]

Blame the agency which requires the tests, the Government. Why does the government allow us as a "free" people to ride motorcycles, but not allow most of Americans to drive KEI trucks. We are still free enough in AZ to be able to register them as ATVs, which are now legal to register for use on the roads. The " modern " trucks are stupid for utility these days with the top of the bed 5' in the air. Best design had to be the FC Willys from the 50s and 60s. Add a modern power train and construction, those would be sweet.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by CFECO

Blame the agency which requires the tests, the Government.

The tests in question aren't "government" tests. The one this thread about is performed only by the IIHS.

Originally Posted by niky

Disappointed the Mirage didn't do better, since it's a newer design...

Me too. But I think the Mirage's design was locked in before the introduction of this specific test (2012).

[gone-ot]

Nope, it's a NHTSA test (from Wiki):

• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, part of the Department of Transportation. It describes its mission as “Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes.”[1]

• See these NHTSA 'offset' articles:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv16/98S1O08.PDF

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv16/98S1O01.PDF

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crashw...ique%20Testing

• See table 4 in this NHTSA document: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/C...rix9-10-13.pdf


...the IIHS is just the first to publish their results.

[niky]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Me too. But I think the Mirage's design was locked in before the introduction of this specific test (2012).

This test will require extra frontal armor for the Mirage to pass. More weight. It can probably still take it and stay one of the lightest cars on the road, but this won't be good for the retail price.

[Arragonis]

My namesake who designed the Mini believed in Primary Safety - basically not crashing in the first place.