Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-22-2014, 03:47 PM   #11 (permalink)
CFECO
 
CFECO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vail, AZ.
Posts: 552

X-Car - '11 Homemade 2+2

Velbly1 - '17 Toyota Camery XSE
90 day: 29 mpg (US)

Velbly2 - '13 Toyota Tundra
90 day: 18.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
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.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CFECO For This Useful Post:
Cobb (01-22-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-22-2014, 03:52 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 252 Times in 204 Posts
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.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to P-hack For This Useful Post:
Cobb (01-22-2014), Ryland (01-22-2014)
Old 01-22-2014, 04:49 PM   #13 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 132

The Rental - '13 Hyundai i30
90 day: 37.55 mpg (US)

Autocross - '04 Ford Focus ZX3
90 day: 24.76 mpg (US)

The Wifes - '02 Ford Focus SVT
90 day: 23.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 48 Times in 38 Posts
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.
__________________





  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2014, 06:51 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,502
Thanked 279 Times in 229 Posts
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2014, 10:06 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
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...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
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...
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to niky For This Useful Post:
jamesqf (01-23-2014), P-hack (01-23-2014)
Old 01-22-2014, 10:38 PM   #16 (permalink)
CFECO
 
CFECO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vail, AZ.
Posts: 552

X-Car - '11 Homemade 2+2

Velbly1 - '17 Toyota Camery XSE
90 day: 29 mpg (US)

Velbly2 - '13 Toyota Tundra
90 day: 18.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2014, 10:50 PM   #17 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,513

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 60.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,058
Thanked 6,957 Times in 3,602 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFECO View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
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).
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2014, 11:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
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.

Last edited by gone-ot; 01-23-2014 at 12:00 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
CFECO (01-23-2014), Cobb (01-23-2014), Xist (01-23-2014)
Old 01-23-2014, 01:26 AM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2014, 07:15 AM   #20 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
My namesake who designed the Mini believed in Primary Safety - basically not crashing in the first place.

__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com