|
I wonder if Renault gave them the car for that purpose? Wonderful sales technique, really impressed the door opened (not even a groan or creak)and the bloke just climbed out. Makes me feel even better about my 5 star Laguna.
|
|
not particularly scientific though - whilst it made the megane look very good, it was not an aggressive impact, and i would be interested to see how other models would have performed. Not saying that the megane isn't very good, just that top gear skirted over the main issues just to provide "exciting" telly.
|
Megane has very good crash test results always scoring highly.
Now if they had done in it in a mini or a 2cv then I would have been impressed. Though I doubt they would have just walked away.
|
"The Kia Sedona people carrier is named the least safe new car in an influential safety survey. The family vehicle gained just two stars for occupant safety and only one for pedestrian safety. The combined total made it the worst-performing car in the annual Euro New Car Assessment Programme (ENCAP) for two years."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3022362.stm
|
The Euroncap tests have some value but you cannot compare the results of different sizes (actually masses) of car.
Anyone volunteer to be in a 3-star MCC Smart in a head-on with a Kia Sedona?
Not me, that's for sure
Andy
|
Depends how much cash your going to offer.
|
|
|
The Euroncap tests have some value but you cannot compare the results of different sizes (actually masses) of car. Anyone volunteer to be in a 3-star MCC Smart in a head-on with a Kia Sedona?
Of course you can! No difference in size of car to its crash worthiness. They crash a car, big or small, offset into a fixed block. They then measure the ability of the car structure to keep the passenger cell in tact. So a 10 ton car has to absorb enough energy to keep the cell in place, ditto a smart. The main problem of big hitting small is that the crumple zones miss! A Range Rover will ride over a smart and dispiate enrgy into the smart where it wasnt meant to be!
But if your 2* Sedona hit a 5* Espace where would you want to be?
|
I\'d tend to agree that without understanding the size/weight etc. of a car then the figures don\'t help much.
Without knowing what the ratings are, if my Landcruiser was 1* and a Clio was a 5* I would still rather be in the Landcruiser if the two were going to collide.
Surely the ratings are only really an effective measure when comparing two or more otherwise broadly similar cars.
|
Mark
Without knowing what the ratings are if my Landcruiser was 1* and a Clio was a 5* I would still rather be in the Landcruiser if the two were going to collide.
I\'d tend to agree with you if only because the Landcruiser will go over the top and crush the Clio. Mind you, I\'d rather swerve a Clio to avoid a Landcruiser than the other way around...
Chris
|
|
|
|
>> The Euroncap tests have some value but you cannot compare >> the results of different sizes (actually masses) of car. >> >> Anyone volunteer to be in a 3-star MCC Smart in a head-on >> with a Kia Sedona? >> They crash a car, big or small, offset into a fixed block. They then measure the ability of the car structure to keep the passenger cell in tact. So a 10 ton car has to absorb enough energy to keep the cell in place, ditto a smart.
That is correct. What you miss though is that the crumple zone of a heavy car has to absorb a lot more momentum (energy) to slow the car from 40 mph(?) to standstill than the little car. In the Smart to Sedona comparison, I estimate about double.
The main problem of big hitting small is that the crumple zones miss! A Range Rover will ride over a smart and dispiate enrgy into the smart where it wasnt meant to be!
Very possibly, I don\'t have the expertise to comment
But if your 2* Sedona hit a 5* Espace where would you want to be?
In the 5 star Espace, obviously, because they have comparable masses and the Renault is far better looking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's great to see the progress the manufacturers are making and these tests are great for comparison, but I hope it doesnt make people think that they are invunerable. 40 mph is not very fast. If you hit opposing traffic the relative speed will probably be much faster. And thats before you start considering lorry chassis etc. Research shows that the safer people feel the more risks they take.The world of aviation has a saying "There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots" Sweet dreams!!!!
|
|
How did the Mondeo do?
|
All the results can be seen on www.euroncap.com/results.htm
Andy
|
|
|
Depends on the model year
check yours here www.euroncap.com
|
|
|
The mondeo was side swipped. Front, Back and B pillar very deformed. I would not have wanted to be a passenger in the car.
As for the crash "test", it was not as severe as the Euro-NCAP test, but still representative of a bozzo pulling out in front of you! The Megane actually looked like it may have been repairable after the crash.
Joe
|
|
J.B makes an interesting point, and one i generally agree with. Consider how much safer a driver one would be, if instead of being cocooned with airbags, we sat in a cage of steel spikes!
|
J.B makes an interesting point, and one i generally agree with. Consider how much safer a driver one would be, if instead of being cocooned with airbags, we sat in a cage of steel spikes!
According to Euro NCAP you can achieve a similar effect by purchasing a Rover 100.
;)
|
what, those things are still legal!? ;-)
I remember travelling as a passenger at 90mph in one many years ago. It had red seat belts. I was frightened.
|
|
|
|
yes it is nice to see that manufacturers are improving their products, but how many people buy their cars based on the NCAP results. I certainly don't or rather didn't but believe that mine is a 4 star for passengers and a 3 (?) for pedestrians.
Unless the buying public is forcably told what rating their potential purchase is, I think that most people will be oblivious to what they are about to get in.
|
Unless the buying public is forcably told what rating their potential purchase is, I think that most people will be oblivious to what they are about to get in.
They get a fair bit of publicity despite this. The NCAP result pretty much finished off the Rover 100. I think some of the most interesting results is comparing generations of cars. For example, look at the Citroen Xantia v Citroen C5 (you don't need to look at the ratings - just look at the pictures), Merc C-Class Mk1 v Mk 2 etc.
Obviously, to an extent, manufacturers are designing cars to do well in this specific test but the structures are evidently becoming much stronger (you can tell this by how the cars drive - you don't need to crash 'em).
I thought the Top Gear (for Top Gear) NCAR report moderately informative. The Freelander was interesing - a lot of people buy these as they are considered "safe" but the NCAP report paints a grim picture of an old design.
|
example, look at the Citroen Xantia v Citroen C5 (you don't need to look at the ratings - just look at the pictures
Please don't remind me :(
|
|
|
I'm afraind this winds me up. You will see some differences between what is said by EuroNCAP and its US equivalent - Highway Safety tests at www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/
On the subject of the Freelander, you have to put this into perspective. Max Moseley (FIAA chief, and as such linked in some way to F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone - however tenuous the link, its all I need to know) personally introduced and promoted laboratory EuroNCAP testing so that real people didn't have to do live crash testing - a totally laudable intention.
Fair enough. But EuroNCAP is largely imperfect - vehicles do not crash into one of the same size, weight or structure; some manufacturers which have been panned by and objected to the laboratory restrictions fo the NCAP tests feature quite strongly in real life - Mercedes, BMW and Saab spring to mind? However politically incorrect, a 4x4 shows three times the level of protection of an "average" car, even if it is more prone single occupant accidents and to roll-over (viz tall cars) (US Research) - this has to (unfortunately) depend on driver restraint and control to minimise risk.
I would strongly encourage htose concerned with safety, whether they are buying a second hand car not tested under EuroNCAP or even if it is, to doubele-check their findings in the following document:-
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/docu...p
[double-click the PDF document to open it]
The document is published by the Police following records of any 2 vehicle smash in which occupants are injured. The Thatcher adminsitration first published the information under 'freedom of information' believe it or not, available 10 years ago as a HMSO publication called "How Safe Is My Car?" This has now been withdrawn and you've no idea how long it took me to find this information buried away in the annexe to a Government annual report. Is this progress? Still the information is free - just impossible to find.
A friend of mine recently spoke to me very concerned about the reports of the 40 mph offset rash test of the Freelander .In actual fact the Freelander performs on average as an average 4x4 - most of it's equivalent sized peers do much worse because of their comparative low height and weight. Even so, the stats suggest a risk of fatal or serious injury at the same as the Vovlo V70, but with a lower minor injury risk. I had to make this comparison to the guy, because his family owns both. Only the sample size for the Freelander is very small, giving rise to a low confidence rating in the reliability of the stats - but its still 159 more ''tests'' than EuroNCAP carried out.
I know there are a host of other reasons to be concerned or hostile about 4 x 4s - but for a family man, safety talks and
1600 is a very reliable sample of the vehichle we have chosen which has a low level of risk.
The results of this research were summarised and published in Auto Express, which pointed out that the only three "1%" vehicles (i.e.1% risk of death or serious injury) based on real-life road accidents were the Land-Rover Defender(!!! 40 years old????), Land-Rover Discovery and the Jaguar XJ 1995+ -everything else varied by a factor of up to 5 - i.e. up to 5 times the risk. So, in this case, Jermey Clarkson (who has been winding people up about the Freelander) get your facts right, and if you wanted to be a safe journalist, find the Jag you sold in favour of whatever rubbish you have at the moment.
|
|
|
|
>yes it is nice to see that manufacturers are improving their products, but how many people buy their cars based on the NCAP results.
It is actually becoming a very big sales feature. The public awareness of NCAP stars is increasing and becoming an important part of buying cars for most people. Mostly it has to be said its been brought to the fore by companies that do well.
As pointed out - a lot of people buy big off roaders because they think they are safe, and most of them (exceptions being the newer models) are not
|
I think dealers should be made to make the buyer aware. That would really sharpen up the manufacturers of inferior scoring cars.
No doubt the eurocrats will make it compulsory so that we can save ourselves from ourselves.
|
Since I now have two little sprawns, I did consider safety when buying my E-Class.
You tend to think differently when you have small children, I certainly would not have considered safety a few years ago when buying a car.
|
www.euroncap.com/results.htm (hope that I have managed to post this correctly - ####
My car is a 4 star for side & front and 1 star for pedestrians (on the old scale which is less stringent)!!
I believe that alot of the problems with cars vs pedestrians is when they hit their heads on the bonnet. Most cars do not have a gap between the bonnet (ie it is stuffed full of engine) which does not give when hit. I have heard that there is some legislation to make sure that there is a gap of a few (??) inches between bonnet and engine, which should lead to some interesting car designs!
####No, you forgot to add a space before the start of the http:// . Besides which, it\'s already been posted a couple of times previously in this thread anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 4 star small car is not safer than a 4 star large car, so don't all rush out to buy one.
As for the top gear test i thought it rather foolish to use a real person for what was a pointless test, and not real life. A head on collision or other front or rear impact is more likely.
The test impact hit the weakest point of a car, what would be the result if the car was moving? or if impact was to the corner of the vehicle?
|
Seems to me that TG have fallen into the trap set by advertisers. They want you to buy a car with the latest safety gadgets. After they've shown you how fast and powerful it is of course. What they should have mentioned is now not to get into an accident in the first place. Basic safety techniques. Not that I'm against improved vehicle safety but they could at least have mentioned advanced/defensive driving ONCE!
BTW I suspect a collision with an immobile concrete block does not tell you much about the result of a collision between a massive vehicle such as a Landy and a small car such as a Micra. Both are I think 2 stars but I suspect the Landy will crush the Micra due to basic physics i.e. the Landy has much more momentum so will tend to carry on regardless.
|
yes but
you want the car to crush
a car that crumples and disipates the energy into bent metal and heat is doing the right thing
as long as the passenger compartment stays surviable
landy that hardly crumples at all will mash the passenger up is a big smash
id rather have the ca rbody smashed up than my brain smashing against my skull taking the impact
v = u + at and all that
|
|
Miat: The Landy will be bad in a crash against a solid object. But even though the crumple zone is poor, it will do better in an impact with a small car with the same poor crumple zone. That's because it has twice the mass. Anyway, these NCAP tests are leading to safer cars which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Miat,
Please have a go at using punctuation. Firstly it is much more courteous and secondly it would probably make your notes much more readable.
Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
A 4 star small car is not safer than a 4 star large car, so don't all rush out to buy one. As for the top gear test i thought it rather foolish to use a real person for what was a pointless test, and not real life. A head on collision or other front or rear impact is more likely. The test impact hit the weakest point of a car, what would be the result if the car was moving? or if impact was to the corner of the vehicle?
Thats true, you never see a car pull out of a side road and get t-boned do you, And the passenger cell of the car being hit, just in the b post is definetly the weakest part. Yes it would have been better to hit the corner of the vehicle, spinning the other car away would not have disipated some of the crash energy.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I saw this and was impressed.
I've owned Renaults before and was amazed when the airbags actually worked on the show. Must have been specially built and not a production car.
What would have happened if the Mondeo was coming the other way at 30mph, ie closing speed 60mph?
What would Claims Direct or Accident line have said if the driver was decapitated?
Hello BBC licence fee increase?
NCAP use an offset crash at, I think, 40mph. This looked mild at a full-on 30mph into a stationary object. What exactly was the point then?
|
bring back the M4 buslane with no buses on it
much better TV
|
|
I am worried... the Alfa 156 doesn't even appear on the NCAP ratings, is that cos they were too embarrased to even have it tested in case it gets a negative score or something? Am I driving a deathtrap?
|
I can't help but think that some of the posts here are getting carried away. TG was making a feature of safety and used this accident as a backdrop to their feature. The fact that there are so many discussions here proved that it was effective.
Yes, they could have tried all the other tests being suggested but is that not what the NCAP do? I would have thought that 2 of the most common accidents would be shunting into the back of someone, and getting hit side on pulling out a side road.
I would think that hitting a solid block as per the NCAP might be less reflective of todays roads, yeah if you hit the side of a house or something but, more than likely, that would be your fault. Surely as a driver, you first assume that you won't be the cause of the accident, and then you look to see how you will survive through someone else's bad driving?
It certainly made me think of safety, but one question I need help with. I have a Scenic with side airbags, do they really come out the side of the seats? Do they always go off with the front ones? What if my kids are asleep with their head resting against the window?
|
I think the barrier used in NCAP is actually semi-deformable, to represnt smacking another car just off centre. A *very* common accident, especially on the Tunstall Hope road near me, where drivers take the bends too fast and stray into the oncoming traffic that is also doing in the region of 40mph, giving a closing speed of about 60 - 80 mph. It makes for some quite horrific smashes on a fairly regular basis, I was nearly victim to one of these myself when driving my MK3 Fiesta, having just checked NCAP I'm so pleased that I'm in a MK6 now :-)
The airbags in many cars really are positioned in the seat itself, however, I think in the situation you describe that the force of the side impact would propel the child out off the window and the airbag shouldn't cause any injury. But that's just my uneducated guess!
Blue
|
|
Do you mean "out of" as in away from the window or literally through it? Would have though that difficult whilst wearing seatbelt?
|
Hmmm... That was badly typed, I shouldn't have included the word "Out" at all.
I meant it would propel them away from the window, but I suppose that depends on which side gets hit.
I suppose technically from a safety point of view it isn't a good idea to fall asleep against the window, but it's not long since I spent journeys falling asleep against windows and been carsick myself, so I'm well aware that no children think about side impacts when making themselves comfortable! :-)
Blue
|
I winced while watching that Megane pile broadside into the other car....it was good TV.
|
I didn't get to see the programme, but was wondering if any of the airbags in the Megane operated?
If so, did the drivers face look marked at all, could he still hear?
I witnessed an airbag being deployed once as a test, they go off with a terrific bang and not a little heat.
|
Yep they both deployed.
No 'damage' to the driver - just a little 'heat' in the car apparently.
|
|
Make that a lot of heat. The bloke looked like he was ready for basting and serving. It looked HOT in there. Has to be said however (and I note he was careful to keep his arms covered up and in the corect position) that he suffered no airbag grazes or burns to arms or face.
|
"A pointless test and not real life"?
"you never see a car pull out of a side road and get t-boned do you"?
I saw a car pull out of a side road on the left, heading for the central refuge. I may, at the time, have SEEN it get t-boned, but I have never remembered doing so. The only thing I remember is my foot heading for the brake pedal, and the ambulance man's attentions about 10 minutes later. I don't think I did manage much braking, and I'd been doing 50mph, not 30. Fortunately for the other driver, 1) I hit her Escort mainly across the rear door/B to C pillar rather than straight into her door, and 2) I was driving a Citroen AX.
"I can't help but think that some of the posts here are getting carried away"
- I agree. The TG thing was fair enough. Doesn't stand for anything more than what it did. Cars are indeed all different shapes and sizes - the NCAP test really just attempts to provide a repeatable, standardised test of the behaviour of that individual car. It's not perfect, but it's a start.
If all cars were made extremely rigid rather than having crumple zones, I'd like to think that an AX would just get knocked aside by a Land Rover, rather than crushed. But then the sudden acceleration in another direction would no doubt kill us by mashing our brains or snapping our necks.
Did you see the channel 4 or 5 programme where Tiff Needell (remotely) crashed a not-that-ancient BMW 5 and a Volvo 740 head on, each at 50? (IIRC)
I'd be interested to see how the occupants (dummies!) fared in two Espaces colliding head on, each doing 59mph. Then we'd see just *how much* safer the technological advances have things so far. Overall, things can only ever get a certain amount better until we all drive AXs OR we all drive Range Rovers.
Since some people still buy themselves say a Peugeot 406, and therefore didn't buy say a Discovery, it looks like we're still shrugging a bit about fate and accidents.
In that case, why NOT buy a Kia Sedona instead of an Espace?
|
|
|
