Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Steveieb

Speaking to an ex fireman he gave me the impression that drivers and passengers in German Rear Wheel drive cars survive severe crashes better than any other vehicles.

Obviously a subjective view but one gained from a lifetime at the sharp end of accidents and no reference to the EU Crash ratings.

Interestingly he drives a Saab saloon but years ago many of his colleagues drove Lada Riva , again rear wheel drive cars which have the longitudal strength needed to to align the gearbox with the rear axle.

He remembers vividly a MB slicing through a peugeot 405 with the worst outcome for all except the MB occupants.

Another hazard is modern A/C refridgerant which is flammable,petrol cars as opposed to diesel and hybrid cars which cause problems when they catch fire?

May i have your views please ?

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - nick62

Try not to crash?

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet

Depends what you're going to hit or be hit and where the impact happens on the vehicle.

Heavier cars should come off better, and it must help to be as far away from the impact point as possible if the crash is severe, so if shunted up the back a decent boot must help and decent bonnet area.

I suspect those fast German RWD cars may feature in more serious accidents due to high speeds, it would be interesting to know if those same cars had mainly frontal damage, where they might have hit less substantial cars amidships or up the back where there isn't the same strength as in the front end of said German battle cruiser, one fleet sales chap i knew had a saying, ''yet to see a dead man's 7 series'', my neighbour lost control of his square 3 series, left the road ended up airborn and into a wood, car had not a single straight panel on it but the passenger cell was undamaged as was he, impressed.

The rear collision protection of many common or garden cars is abysmal, with hatchback rear passengers especially being inches from an impact from behind, also the typical hatch is a low car so maybe lots of impacts come in above the strong sections these days, a hit above the rear bumper of a hatch will be met with little resistance.

I learned a lot about crashing on the banger racing track, though we are talking cars made 50 years ago, always the biggest heaviest cars came off best, Rover P4's especially solid followed by Westminsters then Zodiacs/Cambridges, if you had a serious crash with one of those in a light car it was only going to end up one way, though we nearly all lived to tell the tale due to the scaffolding home made cages we fitted inside plus a steel plate bolted to the entire offside against side intrusion...the smallest car i raced was a Corsair, usually drove bigger cars, still here.

Sister was badly hurt in a Landcrab, head one smash with a Rover 2000, Rover very strong front bulkhead (front springs mounted horizontal on that bulkhead), engine entered cabin on Landcrab causing serious leg injuries, Rover driver stepped out without a scratch.

Whilst crash tests are revealing they don't reflect what happens out on the road, yes avoidance is best but if some half wit in a fast moving larger vehicle has your name decreed by fate there isn't always a lot you can do, would i buy a car because it has the highest NCAP ratings, no.

What would i avoid hitting at all costs, lorries and trees.

Speaking of Saab's, i remember seeing a picture of a Saab 99 which hat been on the top deck of a car transporter which had hit a bridge, the RSJ cut through the A Pillar which proved so strong that the car was held in place solidly just by that shape of the RSJ wedged into the screen pillars.

I also saw two cars with the roofs cut off by the fire service following accidents, a Volvo 240 and Pug 206, C pillars cut through, Pug was an inner and outer skin, Volvo had multiple folds of steel inside the inner and outer skin, make of that what you iwll.

Edited by gordonbennet on 24/10/2019 at 21:43

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Andrew-T

<< Heavier cars should come off better, >>

That takes me back over 50 years to 1967, when I lived in Canada and was derided for driving a Morris 1100, amusingly described as a 'p***-p*t' on the grounds that it might be pulverised by the Chevies and Buicks which most other rational people drove. I suggested that a smaller object might have a better chance of avoiding a collision ....

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - SLO76
Interesting post. Got me thinking and a quick look shows that rear crash testing is not a requirement at all and seemingly not taken very seriously by manufacturers as a result. NCAP don’t test them and I find this surprising considering how common an accident like this is.

Makes sense that a car with either 4wd or rwd with a rear diff and prop shaft plus additional metalwork to support it all would survive better too. Makes me think I’ll be heading back to a large SUV when swmbo gets her first teacher paycheque. Won’t be new though, most likely a good used automatic Volvo XC60 or Honda CRV lazy mobile.
Winners and Losers - Crash protection - bathtub tom

I prefer a small/light car on the basis that if I can see an accident looming I (may) be able to avoid it. I refuse to wear a seat belt in an open top car for the reason I'd rather be ejected than crushed in a rollover, unless of course that car's got a rollover bar.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Bolt

I prefer a small/light car on the basis that if I can see an accident looming I (may) be able to avoid it. I refuse to wear a seat belt in an open top car for the reason I'd rather be ejected than crushed in a rollover, unless of course that car's got a rollover bar.

I remember the snow of feb 91, and just got through the first few smashed cars in the snow on the M25 J5 and they were small cars but you should have seen the state of them after vans had hit them, I discovered after I got back it was a 28 car pile up which I luckily just missed

but after seeing those cars and how bad they crumpled up I wouldn't buy a small car and I try to advise people against them, even though safety is better now I still remember those cars and cringe

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - tourantass
I am sure I read somewhere that small lighter cars can have an advantage in some accidents, as they are deflected off the other vehicle, then its pretty much down to where all that kinetic energy gets absorbed...hopefully the modern airbag systems do there job.
Winners and Losers - Crash protection - tourantass
Just on a separate note....how can I edit my reply if I spot an error after posting....for example...correcting the spelling of....there...for their..? Ta
Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet
Just on a separate note....how can I edit my reply if I spot an error after posting....for example...correcting the spelling of....there...for their..? Ta

If the edit button is still visible under your posted message, you can click that and alter whatever you need to, yes i do it times when i spot glaring mistakes.

If someone answers your post before you can get the edit in, then you lose the chance to do so, if you have edit link available but they answer it before you actually post the edit a message saying something didn't work or words to that effect will come up, you can always post another message if you feel the need to correcting the mistake, but there's no grammar police jobsworths here and no one is going to be assuming anything detrimental, we all drop a grammar clanger now and again.

edit, good job my edit button was still valid, i'd typed postage instead of posted, for some reason you see what you want to when checking.

Edited by gordonbennet on 25/10/2019 at 12:52

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Bolt
sorry double post

Edited by bolt on 25/10/2019 at 10:44

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Bolt
I am sure I read somewhere that small lighter cars can have an advantage in some accidents, as they are deflected off the other vehicle, then its pretty much down to where all that kinetic energy gets absorbed...hopefully the modern airbag systems do there job.

I think I would prefer accident avoidance systems but that depends on speed for some cars, though a lot of people think its being lazy and letting the car do the work rather than you concentrating on what your doing.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Andrew-T

I still believe it would be better for overall driving behaviour if drivers thought 'I'll drive carefully in case this fragile box hits something' rather than 'I'm OK inside this armour-plating'. It may be subconscious but I suspect some of that thinking occurs. Just like the old suggestion that a spike in the steering-wheel boss would be more effective than an airbag.

But there is probably little hope. Some drivers see driving as a confrontational contest, hence the steady progress towards unnecessarily bright headlamps, until very few drivers can see properly.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Bolt

I still believe it would be better for overall driving behaviour if drivers thought 'I'll drive carefully in case this fragile box hits something' rather than 'I'm OK inside this armour-plating'. It may be subconscious but I suspect some of that thinking occurs. Just like the old suggestion that a spike in the steering-wheel boss would be more effective than an airbag.

But there is probably little hope. Some drivers see driving as a confrontational contest, hence the steady progress towards unnecessarily bright headlamps, until very few drivers can see properly.

True life is not as simple as one would believe so I will stick with accident avoidance, it works quicker than any one person can.

like some people moan about brake assist, but I think they really dont know how it works and when, some cars call it other names but still the same thing and it helps the car brake faster with more force than you can put on the pedal in a short space of time

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet

But there is probably little hope. Some drivers see driving as a confrontational contest, hence the steady progress towards unnecessarily bright headlamps, until very few drivers can see properly.

Tell me about it, i'm using SWMBO Forester at the moment where one sits maybe 2 ft lower than in my Toyota 4x4, but the difference in blinding as oncoming cars go over road bumps is surprising, i really do not like driving cars any more for this very reason during these light wars, up high in the lorry is better for this, but following a line of cars which then brake you get the full force of dozens of stupidly bright brake lights, can't win...brake lights are another that has to be brighter than anyone else's in this idiotic war.

What happens with too bright, especially led, brake lights, is not only do they flicker at a fast rate which reduces the following driver's ability to judge rate of deceleration (i'm not referring to flashing brake lights under hard braking, but the standard led flicker), they are so bright on some cars that you lose sight of anything but those lights in your face, i think you are more likely to be hit up the back by having too bright brake lights which are pointlessly just as bright even when all you've done is press the brake pedal hard enough to trigger the light switch.

So much of modern cars is getting out of hand and IMHO counter productive.

Edited by gordonbennet on 25/10/2019 at 13:02

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet
I think I would prefer accident avoidance systems but that depends on speed for some cars, though a lot of people think its being lazy and letting the car do the work rather than you concentrating on what your doing.

In practice much praised auto braking isn't as wonderful as people think, the number of auto brakes not needed is quite unnerving, not going to be much fun when the roads get icy and the very last thing you need is the brakes to be applied.

Some vehicles, ie my work lorry the driver has no input capability with auto braking, whether on/off or varying sensitivity, i do however get on really well with the dealership and when it was in for inspection they connected up their all seeing 'puter and wound it back some, better now.

Thankfully i'll be retired before the next generation of vehicles come out, which are going to start interfering with the steering when lane departure system triggers, what could possibly go wrong.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Bolt

not going to be much fun when the roads get icy and the very last thing you need is the brakes to be applied.

No reason why they should unless the ghost effect causes them to, but some drivers who get too close in a hurry do make the light come on without actually operating the brakes, ie, the wallie driver cleared the front before the sensors operated the brakes

not had any snow or ice to know how it will react so look forward to that experience lol

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet
I am sure I read somewhere that small lighter cars can have an advantage in some accidents, as they are deflected off the other vehicle, then its pretty much down to where all that kinetic energy gets absorbed...hopefully the modern airbag systems do there job.

In some cases battering ram design, as my first Landcruiser was, pays off too, as SWMBO would testify and i'm eternally grateful she was in that tough old beast and not in her Punto when she had a bad crash, the Punto would have stopped quickly at the Armco, the Toyota took the lot out and carried on through with only superficial body damage (most damage was underneath where the ripped out concrete foundations scraped the axles and chassis), so slower deceleration on her body overall, its the forces the body is put through not just crush damage that hurts people during collisions.

One size does not fit all....had her crash been staged at a test facility with a bolted down steel block no doubt a different result would have been seen.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - oldroverboy.

When my friendly body shop man did my door ding, he had another ZS in with front right damage, bumper and offside wing, (headlight not damaged) Wasn't written off as headlight not broken and airbags hadn't gone off.

Said there was Nothing at the front by the way of strengthening just a light cross member to support the bumper/grille etc.

https://mg.co.uk/files/2017-10-43/MG_ZS_Brochure_A5_2.pdf

Scroll down to see the body frame construction. not much of anything.

Edited by oldroverboy. on 25/10/2019 at 09:49

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - gordonbennet

MG is brave to show such revealing cutaways of the body frame and sections, it would be interesting to compare with other modern cars.

It's all about crumple zones anyway to slow the impact down before the hopefully impregnable safety cell is reached (at least in the standard crash tests)*, that MG cutaway looks like a more protected rear end than many cars out there, i don't however see any reinforcing bars inside the doors, which is surprising, have they been done away with now?

* i wonder in the understandable need to pass with flying colours the standard crash tests, other areas are being neglected, ie the rear strength.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - sandy56

There is a good video on YTube of a LR Discovery 1 on a offset crash with a Renault Espace. The occupants of the older Disco did not do well.

SUV's are not always the best place to be in some accidents.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Glaikit Wee Scunner {P}

The minimising of pedestrian injuries relies on "softer" front ends , which goes against the strength of the front end. My Mk3 Octavia has little in the way of steel until the suspension and has a large black block of expanded polystyrene as a buffer. Most of the occupant protection strength and safety is concentrated in the central area. Side impact injuries are largely protected against by airbags. The energy needs to be absorbed more gently than having heavily reinforced doors. The current Picanto needed the side airbags to get its higher safety rating . Seatbelts are the biggest life saver, regardless of your personal opinions.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Brit_in_Germany

The NCAP crash ratings are based on simulating crashing into a similar size car, not an absolute measure of protection. A 5-star small car will offer less protection than a 5-star mega-SUV.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Avant

"Nothing at the front by the way of strengthening just a light cross member to support the bumper/grille etc."

The MG ZS has only a 3-star NCAP rating. I suppose this must be why.

Edited by Avant on 25/10/2019 at 12:40

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - oldroverboy.

"Nothing at the front by the way of strengthening just a light cross member to support the bumper/grille etc."

The MG ZS has only a 3-star NCAP rating. I suppose this must be why.

And I consciously try to keep myself away from "situations"

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - CHarkin

There is a good video on YTube of a LR Discovery 1 on a offset crash with a Renault Espace. The occupants of the older Disco did not do well.

Many years ago, mid 90s I think, one of the motoring TV programs did a feature on the Renault Espace regarding crash safety. The Espace broke new ground at the time in crash safety. They did a couple of front 3/4 head on collisions with your average type of family car. As expected Espace occupants were OK but occupant in the other car would likely have been killed. For comparison they repeated the test using two average family cars and in that case all occupants survived. The conclusion was that while the Space was good for its occupants it was a threat to any normal car it collided with.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - Engineer Andy

An ex-colleague of mine found out the hard way why Jags with aluminium and magnesium parts are not great if an engine fire starts. His car was toast in under 10 minutes. I'd also be more worried about cars with either big (hot) turbos or DPFs under the car that can trap dirt and dry grass and catch fire (apparently a Ford/Mazda pickup has had that problem, and some others, more in dry regions like Oz or parts of the US).

As regards old Pugs from the 1980s - they weren't exactly renowned for safety re: the thickness of their body panels, if I recall correctly. The difference in crash protection generally between the 1980s to 1990s to 2000s owards is stark.

What was often seen, and tragically for two former pupils (one I knew personally) at my school was that the most at risk person in older cars from before the 2000s was the front passenger. In the accidents, both of them were killed.

Winners and Losers - Crash protection - expat

I'd also be more worried about cars with either big (hot) turbos or DPFs under the car that can trap dirt and dry grass and catch fire (apparently a Ford/Mazda pickup has had that problem, and some others, more in dry regions like Oz or parts of the US).

Not just those pickups that have that problem. All vehicles do. Long dry grass can get caught up in the exhaust pipe and catch fire. The standard advice when going bush is to carry a pair of welder's gloves, a long wire hook such as a hanging basket hook, and a spray bottle full of water.