NPR Cartalk - Suziki Swift deathtrap

[gascort]

Originally Posted by whatthe

Mass is very important. A friend of mine was a forensic engineer in accident reconstruction and went through some of the physics of why a well designed crumpled up Smart car still can't cut it against a large mass vehicle. The light car experiences just most of the acceleration change which those crumple zones are designed to try and spread out over more time to help prevent the small car guys heart from detaching when his body stops from 60-0 instantly and his heart wants to keep going.

Without getting into the math, you can crumple an entire smart car at 60km/h (front to back as they are designed) and still not have had a big enough change in acceleration to set off the air bags off in the 7000lb. F150 that it hit. The better designed vehicle will not always win.

Think train vs. Mercedes... the change in acceleration of the train when it hits that Mercedes is next to nothing.

Whoa.... I said mass is important in a vehicle-vehicle crash. (I agree with your point here) I also said that mass doesn't mean a thing when colliding with an immovable object. Your freight train example is like running into an immovable object. I can re-phrase this... in a ridiculous scenario! Who hits a freight train head on? My hypothetical people!
Driver of a Mack Truck being hit by freight train at 40 mph head on
vs.
Driver of midsize car being hit by freight train at 40 mph head on

The midsize car will end up way better off (at least more likely to live), even though the mack truck outweighs them by a factor of 10. (I'm assuming the Mack truck has no crumple zones)

I never mentioned the SMART car - I would not criticize its mass, but I would criticize its size. The whole "absorb other vehicle's crumple zone" thing is B.S. It's just a small car with a rigid shell and no room to crumple. Probably hardly enough crumple zone to justify wearing a seat belt in one if you were in a collision with an immovable object. Your seat belt in the SMART car will help if you hit something with a crumple zone, and Yes, you will experience more acceleration than the more massive car's passengers.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SuperTrooper

Almost the same number of people died on America's highways EVERY YEAR during the Vietnam era.

I guess I could have written that more clearly: I meant deaths among the people my age or older that I knew while I was growing up (in a town small enough that everyone knew everyone else), more died in Vietnam (and also by suicide) than in auto accidents.

As far as the safety of larger vehicles, the stats don't lie. Physics doesn't lie. Based on IIHS stats (Number of deaths per million vehicles registered) you ar twice as likely to die in a small car than a large car, truck, or SUV.

Maybe so. I won't get into debating the accuracy of those statistics, or the misuse of physics. But the fact that you can be killed in an auto accident, or even that it's more likely in a smaller car, doesn't make ANY car a "death trap". The plain fact is that 10 times as many people die from smoking, almost as many from couch-potatoitis. Auto accidents cause only a small fraction of deaths. See here: DCCPS: OD: Actual Causes of Death

Vehicles don't go off the road all by themselves...

Nor do they ordinarily hit other vehicles, or stationary objects, all by themselves.

There's a real irony here, for those who'll allow themselves to see it. You have the auto safety nuts intent on making people safer by making vehicles ever larger & heavier, which means that they use more oid, which in turn greatly decreases overall safety because of the economic, geopolitical, and environmental effects of oil addiction. Does having to choose between filling the gas tank and say a medical checkup make us safer? Does enriching the jihadists with an ever-increasing flood of petro-dollars make us safer? How about changing, possibly even destroying, the planetary ecosystem?

[bennelson]

On one of my web pages, somebody commented that my motorcycle must be a "deathtrap". Somebody else corrected them, saying that you can onlny get pinned inside a car, a cycle would be a "death-launcher".

Seriously though, one of the reasons I am converting a 96 Geo Metro to electric is because it was slightly ahead of it's time for safety features. Has the side impact standards AND dual-airbags. I will really have to do my research to find out what I need to do to make sure the airbags still function after the conversion.

I like CARTALK quite a bit, but they are still mainstream car guys for the most part. They have a little bit of info on alternative fuels, which does have some good information, but they still poo-poo it in general and don't include electric.
Car Talk

[MazdaMatt]

Okay, since clearly nobody clicked the link to read the information. LARGE CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN SMALL CARS. Both for people in the car and the cars they hit. Look at the chart. The lower half of the chart (more deaths) is ruled by large vehicles. They are not safer.


“The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit.”

Make/Model Type Driver Deaths Other Deaths Total
Toyota Avalon large 40 20 60
Chrysler Town & Country minivan 31 36 67
Toyota Camry mid-size 41 29 70
Volkswagen Jetta subcompact 47 23 70
Ford Windstar minivan 37 35 72
Nissan Maxima mid-size 53 26 79
Honda Accord mid-size 54 27 82
Chevrolet Venture minivan 51 34 85
Buick Century mid-size 70 23 93
Subaru Legacy/Outback compact 74 24 98
Mazda 626 compact 70 29 99
Chevrolet Malibu mid-size 71 34 105
Chevrolet Suburban S.U.V. 46 59 105
Jeep Grand Cherokee S.U.V. 61 44 106
Honda Civic subcompact 84 25 109
Toyota Corolla subcompact 81 29 110
Ford Expedition S.U.V. 55 57 112
GMC Jimmy S.U.V. 76 39 114
Ford Taurus mid-size 78 39 117
Nissan Altima compact 72 49 121
Mercury Marquis large 80 43 123
Nissan Sentra subcompact 95 34 129
Toyota 4Runner S.U.V. 94 43 137
Chevrolet Tahoe S.U.V. 68 74 141
Dodge Stratus mid-size 103 40 143
Lincoln Town Car large 100 47 147
Ford Explorer S.U.V. 88 60 148
Pontiac Grand Am compact 118 39 157
Toyota Tacoma pickup 111 59 171
Chevrolet Cavalier subcompact 146 41 186
Dodge Neon subcompact 161 39 199
Pontiac Sunfire subcompact 158 44 202
Ford F-Series pickup 110 128 238

[whatthe]

A corvette stops quicker, and corners better than a Volvo... is the Volvo really more safe or is it the driver?

Maybe people in large vehicles pay less attention... or their so heavy they are crap for accident avoidance and thus have to plow through the accident ahead. By those stats, it looks like driving bigger trucks insures that you will kill the other person on your way out.

[MazdaMatt]

Exactly... many factors come in to play for "safety". Safety is not simply the ability to smash the s#!t out of another car. Safety is a combination of ability see and avoid accidents, disperse the energy of an accident, stay right-side-up either in a collision or a blow-out or a drifting off-road, ability to get out of the vehicle when things go wrong, fire prevention, etc.

I saw a "test" of the Yaris on Fifth Gear where they got a giant soccer ball and a dozen yarises and they played soccer. When they smash into eachother, they just bounced off and kept going for the ball. Little damage, no injuries, not even a disabled car! If we all drove around in small cars, we'd all be safe.

As for corvette vs volvo... I see both on the race track regularly... corvettes don't turn any better than volvos do, they only go in a straight line better. It all depends on tires, too. (don't make me reference the other thread where I'm saying you shouldn't be putting 55psi in your tires!)

[gascort]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

I saw a "test" of the Yaris on Fifth Gear where they got a giant soccer ball and a dozen yarises and they played soccer. When they smash into eachother, they just bounced off and kept going for the ball. Little damage, no injuries, not even a disabled car! If we all drove around in small cars, we'd all be safe.

This sounds FUN! Where do I sign up?

[whatthe]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

As for corvette vs volvo... I see both on the race track regularly... corvettes don't turn any better than volvos do, they only go in a straight line better. It all depends on tires, too. (don't make me reference the other thread where I'm saying you shouldn't be putting 55psi in your tires!)

Guessing solo II, with r compounds and not a day at the Ring

2008 Volvo xc70 -
Braking, 60-0 mph 121 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.8 g (avg)
MT Figure Eight 28.5 sec @ 0.58 g

2006 Z06 -
Braking, 60-0 mph 104 ft
Lateral Acceleration 1.05 g avg
MT Figure Eight 24.9 sec - 0.79 g avg

2006 Z51
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 110
600-ft slalom, mph 66.2
300-ft skidpad, avg g 0.95

My Swift is capable of over 1.0G corners, and amazing stopping distances... with R compounds at the track.

But since we are talking about factory cars, looks to me like the Corvette can stop quicker, and will transition better and hold more lateral grip than the Volvo.

[MazdaMatt]

Maybe the corvettes that I go lapping with are driven by people that buy them so they can put their foot to the floor but don't have the cahones to barrel into a turn. My protege can catch every corvette I've ever shared track with IN THE CORNERS.

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Maybe the corvettes that I go lapping with are driven by people that buy them so they can put their foot to the floor but don't have the cahones to barrel into a turn. My protege can catch every corvette I've ever shared track with IN THE CORNERS.

Ok Matt, let's be real here. Under RACING conditions your Mazda stands no chance. Lets look at controlled conditions on a racetrack like Laguna Seca: Laguna Seca lap records - FastestLaps.com

The Corvette Z06 laps 15 seconds quicker than a Mazda 3 MPS.