|
A Saxo, driven by a youngster, going at walking pace around a roundabout. She did not notice the 4x4 in front slow for schoolkids - she ran into the back -100% the Saxo driver's fault - the front disintegrated -- it was a 51 Reg so not that old - What would a real bump have done?
|
So the front has done it's job - absorbed the energy of the impact. A guess in a "real bump" it would crumble a little more.
Years ago my brother had a bump in the company car part in his Golf GTi (K Plate). Don't know what the other car was. Impact at the front of both vehicles and they seriously crumpled too. A bit of a bill for his boss because I think the other car was a colleague and both in company vehicles.
|
|
Ah, company car park dodgems... a new feature for Top Gear perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Did the 4x4 have a spare wheel on the back? they bake a mess of bonnets even at parking pace!
|
Did the 4x4 have a spare wheel on the back? they bake a mess of bonnets even at parking pace!
they had a bump mate they werent 'baking' cakes ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
It was 2mph and old fashioned Steel bumpers would have met and not shown any deformation - the whole front of the car just fell apart like Lego when it is dropped by a child
|
|
|
|
1. The Saxo like all modern cars is designed to crumple to absorb impact rather than transferring it directly to the cabin and its contents (the driver!!)
2. Depending on the type of 4X4 it may well have been on an old fashioned ladder chassis which has negligible give in an impact thus maximising the effect on the Saxo.
Conclusion - drive a modern car they are safer - BUT dont hit anything big and old fashioned!
|
|
Didn't the Saxo/Pug 106 come near the bottom in the ncap list of safest cars?
|
It may have been a "51" reg, but the underpinning design is quite a lot older. I wouldn't want to crash a Saxo*
* Or anything, come to think about it!
|
|
Saxo is derived from the 106, which dates from 1990/91. No way will it have the safety of a modern car, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise.
|
|
Lucky for the Saxo driver and the schoolkids that the 4x4 was there otherwise one shudders to think.
|
I think as people say above the crumple zones are doing what they are designed to do. If the car was going any faster it would have crumpled some more and then hit the safety cell that is the passenger comaprtment.
Cars are made from different grade steels in different parts of the car with some area's designed to crumple and some not.
In an all fight though the 4X4 is always going to win I suppose - unless it is a Freelander - did you see how that crumpled on Top Gear some time ago - passeneger cell and all. I think it is about 2 stars in Euroncap - so it is not always a given that 4X4's are stronger.
|
so it is not always a given that 4X4's are stronger.
I meant those that are based on older more agricultural vehicles - the original Landy, the Toyota Hi Lux and its passenger carrying derivatives spring to mind. They definitely sit on an old fashioned ladder chassis and any crumplezone is purely in the bumper itself as on most old vehicles in which the bumper was a sacrificial part designed to protect the expensive bodywork.
|
|
Absolutely agree with you nick - my post was a little simplistic for what is a complex subject based on design, age of car etc.
|
|
|
|
