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

Only 1 minicar out of 11 tested achieves an acceptable rating in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small overlap front crash test, making these tiny vehicles the worst performing group of any evaluated so far.

IIHS News Release

2nd generation Honda Fit is one of the worst. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bdydHzCO5s

That is a very specific kind of collision, hitting a hard and straight edged wall at the perimeter of the car.
Which may happen if you hit a house, square pillar or shipping container or such.
In collisions with other cars the forces get distributed differently, it may yield a different result. In all likelyhood it will get pushed sideways somewhat reducing the structural damage.

It would be relatively easy to adapt for these kind of collisions, for instance by strengthening the corners as to divert the impact over a wider front section.
However that may have a negative impact on the ability to handle other types of collisions.
If this kind of collision does not occur very often, testing for it may force car manufacturers to build cars that are less safe in a general perspective.

Collision testing must be a mix of all kinds of collisions, to avoid the risk that car manufacturers build cars specifically designed to handle just the tested collisions well and fail miserably in other aspects.

Collisions with fixed objects are a bit suspect, as the presence of those is a road safety issue. You should not encounter those on a safely built road.
There will always be other road users so collision testing with other vehicles is a must.

Note: the small overlap test is relatively new, and many models tested were designed before the test was introduced.

You can bet the next generation models (e.g. 2015 Fit) will do better.

How does the group do on collision avoidance tests?

These tests are to show what happens in an offset, head on collision I believe.

Depends, were the drivers Texting?

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 believe it's intended to mimic when you run off the road and nearly but not quite miss a tree or post. I can see that happening.

Smaller cars are also much easier to avoid hitting solid objects and other vehicles while larger, wider vehicles have a much smaller margin of error.

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.

My parents had an Accord (1977) and a Mercury Montego. The day they dodged a head on (other driver drunk) they chose the Accord. I wonder if they would be here 30 years later if they had chose the Montego. The drunk was in a Cadillac, caught shortly later.
92 and 87 now thanks to that 1977 Accord that I rebuilt with 13k miles.

regards
mech

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Yes, and the more people they scare the better their job security (and the more likely the government will respond with "demands" for more safety mods at any cost).

Stupid regulators. Lets see, the manufacturers build cars that pass all safety testing, so lets just create a new test where the impact point is chosen to be right outside the frame rails and directly on the left front suspension.

In high school, senior year, I drove a 59 Austin Healey Sprite, probably one of the most dangerous cars ever sold in the US as far as crash protection. No collapsable steering column, no side guard beams, no front or rear crush zones, etc,etc, with 4000 plus pound behemoths all around me. Don't even mention the 59 Corvette with the exploding gas tank.

regards
Mech

My recollection is that offset impact tests were instituted after pretty much everyone admitted the basic flaw in the previous frontal impact test, where the car was driven straight into a wall, meeting it directly head-on with full frontal contact. That test didn't jive with what really happens in accidents. Offset impact tests do.

This is a tough, tough test no doubt, and it represents an extreme situation as regards the frontal area involved and the location of same (directly in front of the driver). But the impact absorbing structures resulting from engineering to pass this test are more likely to save lives out here in the real world. If I'm going to have to pay for cars that are built to safety standards, I want those standards to be as useful and realistic as possible.

I don't think so.

The IIHS on its own web site distinguishes between its tests and the federal front crash test requirements: Frontal crash tests .

In the links you provided, there's no direct reference to the 25% offset test as performed by the IIHS. There's no mention of it in the federal NHSTA NCAP Frontal crash test procedures:

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shop...est+Procedures

Though it's clear NHTSA is studying additional tests to improve safety, including smaller offset crashes, nothing like the IIHS 25% test is currently required.

Problem #1 is that it only looks at half the equation, looking at lives saved in crashes, but not lives lost because the the heavier car couldn't avoid the collision. And further up the line, lives lost mining the extra materials, extracting the extra oil needed to run the heavier cars, etc.

It seems all "problems" are solved by making them someone elses problem.

NHTSA has coerced the States- with boatloads of grant money- into it's draconian vision of Utopia with, among other things, it's patently ridiculous "Towards Zero Deaths" program. While working to improve safety is wonderful, I think that they called it "Towards ZERO Deaths" is revealing in a way they did not intend. We know, they know, everybody knows ZERO deaths is never going to happen, just as zero bathtub and zero stairway and zero sidewalk deaths aren't ever going to happen, but a mission statement like that pretty much guarantees the perpetuation of the organization and program to infinity, and it also gives them carte blanche to dictate pretty much as they see fit.

What? No more Automotive Darwin Award Winners?

How is mankind (civilization?) gonna "cull" the herd of low-hanging dingleberries?

With "war" of course! The military-industrial complex needs all the cannon fodder it can get. Ahhhh haaaaa... so that's why the government pays people, especially idiots, to reproduce.

Lets see the Edison2 VLC take this test!

I had the same thought. They might ace the offset crashes because the car may just deflect.

I have looked a a heck of a lot of wrecked cars, in the tens of thousands over the last several decades. At one auction there were 3 rolled Toyota Land Cruisers (newer models) and less than 3 % of the vehicle population. I personally can not remember a single car that was hit precisely the same way as that test process produces damage.
A sharp (or fairly) fixed object, that does not give a millimeter, just outside of the frame rail.
The natural reaction would be to deflect a lot of the energy to the right with the vehicle bouncing hard to the right and the other object hard to it's right. The front bumper reinforcement will just fold over and the impact then is concentrated on the suspension, driving it into the rear fender well. Even the location of the tie rod, in front or behind the lower control arm, would influence the wheel and tires position when it impacted the cowl area. The best desgin would push the rear of the front wheel outwards so it would hit the unibody broadside instead of end on.

regards
Mech

The VLC would just shear off the suspension assembly. The fixed axle support beam would bend and deflect the mostly intact body cage away from the point of impact.

regards
Mech

They actually have tested the VLC chassis in this test:

Edison2 - Very Light Blog - Edison2 on Impact Avoidance: Float like a Butterfly, Sting like a*Butterfly

The wheel structure does sheer off and the elongated diamond shaped chassis deflects away from the barrier. Oliver Kuttner said that the dummy got only about 17G's (if I recall correctly) and this would be relatively safe with just a seat belt.

I've never checked the crash test ratings before buying a car. As long as it isn't known as being a death trap, that's good enough for me. I try to drive safe and watch out for the other guy.

I think more focus should be put on making drivers safe. Seems like it would be more efficient than adding armor and 10 airbags to every car.

Can you explain this one a few times to me? Please use sock puppets.

If you want to make drives safe maybe we should make dash cams mandatory and follow up on all the, lets say 'unsafe drivers' out there...
If we ban them the roads will not only be much safer but also very quiet.

There was a wreck that very closely resembled this just yesterday outside work. Car 1 was in the left-turn lane, protected from oncoming traffic by a curb/median. Car 2 hopped the curb and hit Car 1 front corner to front corner. Car 1 was dented and scraped almost exactly the same as these tests show.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...8&d=1390574151

Attachment 14508

Was Car #2's structure made from unyielding concrete and steel? :D

Great! The next generation of SUVs, concrete and steel!