5th gear has an interesting crash test tonight, surprised if it's type hasn't been done before? A Volvo 940 and a Renault Modus in an offset frontal crash at 40mph.
My money's on the Volvo physically holding up well but something nasty in the cabin harming the driver. Not sure that offset tests were really in when the 940 was designed so perhaps the test criteria is different?
Will 5th Gear go into some background and informed detail about this, or will it be a few slow-mo clips and a soundbite?
Which do you think will come off best?
|
It's got to be the Renault.
Otherwise a fifteen year old car of twenty-plus year old design will totally discredit all these NCAP ratings which the Renault.
Renault would not want to be associated with a test which destroyed their car whereas Volvo can turn around and say it's an old design and an old car.
Load of usual commercial TV hype about nothing.
|
|
|
Hmmm: Interesting.
Last time I saw anything like this was a really old clip from the States, with a couple of contemporary cars, one big, one small(er).
The small car pretty much disappeared, as I recall, in a large cloud of dust.
So, despite the age difference, my money's still on the Volvo.
|
|
Ive seen some crash test pics of an early 90's Volvo in one of my old magazines and it didnt do too badly at all. Id put my money on the Volvo.
|
It's got to be the Volvo, they've always been renowned for strong build quality, whatever the age. Renault, think your in for a bit of a battering! and I think your front crumple zones may be severely tested.
Billy
|
My money is on the Volvo.
|
HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU PUT DOWN?
opps,
as for rust and age., since when do you decide which car is going to hit you? i know a few people who think, big old cars are safer
|
|
|
|
Volvo vs BMW on youtube - ouch!
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yAt7oOuVW1U
|
Unless the Modus does spectacularly well, this test is quite pointless. Now if they took a Renault of comparable size, then it might be of value. New Laguna anyone?
Still will be worth a look though.
|
|
Provided the 940 is still rust-free, I'd go for that - the Renault will have 100 airbags going off all over the place, but the Volvo is a much more solid, substantial car. I remember watching a video at school, of a stunt driver driving a 740 saloon off a cliff edge at speed, then stopping it, getting out, and walking away. He would've run a mile if someone had given him a Modus and said "now do the same in this"!
|
|
|
Unless the Modus does spectacularly well this test is quite pointless. Now if they took a Renault of comparable size then it might be of value. New Laguna anyone? Still will be worth a look though.
So a Modus will never crash into anything bigger than itself then? Don't be silly. We have to know what happens when a small car hits a big one, whatever their age. I'm looking forward to the results.
|
Just an observation, seven years ago I was driving a Volvo 240 when we suffered a head on collison with a 940. Speed around 30mph. Both cars were written of due to age rather than being unrepairable. All those involved were shaken around a bit and the only bruising came from the seat belts.
Good strong cars and I feel they will physically come off better in this exercise.
|
|
|
"So a Modus will never crash into anything bigger than itself then?"
I didn't say or imply that.
"Don't be silly."
LOL
"We have to know what happens when a small car hits a big one, whatever their age."
I don't think a test is needed to prove that. If the Modus comes off better, then we can say is that standards have improved - and so they should in 15 years. If, on the other hand, the Volvo comes off best, what does that prove? A big old barge is safer than a small NCAP 5 car? Nothing because slamming a huge 940 into a tiny Modus is not a comparable test. Using a Laguna would be.
"I'm looking forward to the results."
So am I.
|
If on the other hand the Volvo comes off best what does that prove?
It'd prove that, in real life outside the NCAP testing labs, you'd be safer in an old Volvo than a new 5-star super-dooper Modus. After all, you can't pick what vehicle you collide with (just ask AE - I daresay he might not have been so lucky had he been driving a small car).
|
|
|
|
I'll be interested to see if they measure g-forces during deceleration, after a quick Google search the Renault is 1200kg and the Volvo is just over 1500kg so that's a lot of energy!
|
I'll step into NC's shoes, and no doubt get all my calculations wrong!
Right.....cars are travelling at 40mph, which is about 18m/s.
Kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2
Renault therefore has 194400j of KE
Volvo has 243000j ..... so yes, lots of energy!
Cue NC to tell us the forces involved in transferring that energy over such a short space of time!
|
I think it will be the modus.
Volvo's have always been well built and strong but design and crash force dissipation has improved massively over the last 10 years.
|
...design and crash force dissipation has improved massively over the last 10 years.
The Volvo still has 50000j more kinetic energy. I'd rather be driving the Volvo in this crash.
Reminds me of an horrific accident a few years ago around here. Couple in Xantia were overtaking a lorry and had a head-on with a Volvo 740. Both occupants of Xantia killed instantly, both occupants of 740 hospitalised with cuts and bruises. That was a lot faster than 40mph as well (was on a NSL single carriageway so around 60mph).
|
Difficult one this. At a low enough speed, I'd back the Modus as the airbags and crumple zones should mean little or no injury whereas the Volvo may well bash the driver's knees or cause other minor(ish) injuries. At higher speeds my money would be on the Volvo. More metal and higher weight may overcome the crumple zones on the Modus. Minor injuries in the Volvo but serious ones or death in the Modus, much like the example above with the Xantia/Volvo head-on collision. The question is: is 40mph an example of the first or second scenario?
IIRC 5Th Gear crashed a Smart car at 60 or 70mph into a concrete block. It amost bounced off it was so rigid (the car not the block!). The doors opened ok and nothing intruded into the passenger compartment but the occupants would have died from the deceleration. A good example of the need for crumple zones to absorb the impact. Mind you, I'm not sure you'd survive in anything at that speed but the bigger the better to have the best chance.
|
The Volvo still has 50000j more kinetic energy. I'd rather be driving the Volvo in this crash.
That may be the case but if that energy is dissipated around the passenger cell rather than through it, then the modus will probably come out better. Some of this crash energy will of course be forced back into the Volvo passenger cell - it is not all one way - physics is not like that unfortunately - although I may be eating my words in an hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion was quite blatantly going to be for the Modus when the presenter was overegging it saying 'which is going to come out best: this tiny little supermini, or this hulking great Volvo"
The claim that they didn't know which was going to win was clearly garbage.
|
|
Similar result to smart v MB S class. Smart dissipated the energy of the large car then bounced off and turned on it's side. Being heavier the Modus didn't flip, but it bounced off the larger car as momentum carried it further.
|
|
|
|
Well, well well, so the tiny Modus came off better, so all the advanced technology in todays cars it proved that it really works. Even as some-one who quite admires Renault cars in general i will admit I was surprised at the result having owned a Volvo 940 in the past I will admit I thought the Modus would be trashed by the Volvo Tank.
The whole family watched this item and it certinaly made my wife and two teenage daughters think about old cars versus new cars and safety.
Good for Renault I say may be it will make some of the critics of Renault cars think again
|
>>Good for Renault I say may be it will make some of the critics of Renault cars think again <<
No it won't - you could have done that with any 5* small car.
True - Renault have focused on safety and improved their cars very well - but they are still relatively unreliable which is why people criticise them.
The Volvo is big and heavy but compared to today's cars it is made of softer steel and whilst it crumples it cannot compete with the rigidity and crash dissipation in modern design.
|
|
|
As predictable as a wet Bank holiday. The Volvo has its roots back in the early 1980s with the 700 saloon, of course a modern design would do better. I bet an 850 would have eaten the Modus for breakfast and spat it out.
Aren't side impacts more common? I would imagine the Volvo would have done better with its SIPS.
|
A more relevant test would have been the Modus vs the new S80 or V70.
See how current designs compare on impact.
This was just a headline grabing exercise using the Volvo brand as middle England thinks Volvo=safe.
|
This was just a headline grabing exercise using the Volvo brand as middle England thinks Volvo=safe.
Which of course they are and as you say put modern Volvo V modern Renault then it would have been a different story.
Of course next weeks exercise on 5th gear will be more scientifically relevant. The put 2 presenters in the back of a car and drive it to make them sick ?????????
Lord preserve us !!!!!!
|
|
The reality of collisions are that the cars involved are a random factor. It was a fair "headline grabber" really.
|
The reality of collisions are that the cars involved are a random factor.
The setup was anything but random though. I have no doubt that Renault's engineers know exactly how their steel will behave in a crash against a vehicles of differing structural properties.
|
|
The only credible test would be real world data from our roads...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the "Renault: killer car designers" as they take out Volvo in collision headline...
|
|
|
The reality of collisions are that the cars involved are a random factor. It was a fair "headline grabber" really.
Agreed but I'm certainly eating my words now! Really didn't think the little Renault had a chance against the Volvo tank. Shows how much all manufacturers (not just Renault) have advanced in the last 15 yrs. (Imagine a K-reg Renault 19 being put against the Volvo!).
|
Greg,
What you say is quite a feasable real world accident. After all you don't bury crash test dummies do you ! The last accident I came accross involved a MK1 Freelander and a Volvo 340, bad enough to have an air ambulance present ! How random can that be, minutes of timslipping by any participant and I would have been involved potentially - on a bike.
|
... I would have been involved potentially - on a bike.
Well PU, I wouldn't have liked to see that. I don't believe these motorcycles have many NCAP stars ;-)
|
Well PU I wouldn't have liked to see that. I don't believe these motorcycles have many NCAP stars ;-)
I was interested to see a report of a T-Shirted, Shorts-wearing, no helmet biker saved by the airbag on his bike. (USA of course).
|
I was interested to see a report of a T-Shirted Shorts-wearing no helmet biker saved by the airbag on his bike. (USA of course).
Wouldn't have liked to see the state of his arms and legs. Going out on a bike in shorts & t-shirt is sheer stupidity. I take it he was riding a Goldwing or something similarly huge?!
|
|
My age I feel very vulnerable.....Knox do a backpack with an airbag now.
|
>>My age I feel very vulnerable.....
time to retire from the bike, PU?
|
My age I feel very vulnerable.....Knox do a backpack with an airbag now.
>>
how does that work then? Surely a back pack is behind you and you'd want the airbag in front of you...
|
"T-Shirted, Shorts-wearing, no helmet biker saved by the airbag"
Pity.
|
|
|
|
|
A more relevant test would have been the Modus vs the new S80 or V70.
Both cars are 4* rated I believe.
Interesting would be old Laguna (first 5* rated car) vs. Modus. Costs would be similar for used examples.
Same manufacturer, different size.
|
Very interesting test, but once you see how the front of the Renault is designed it's fairly straightforward which would come off best. As I said in the first post (and the presenter said), the 940 was designed before offset impacts so perhaps it's a bit like wondering why an old Bakelite phone isn't very good at sending text messages.
I agree with the poster above that an 850 would come off much better. Still, both are much better than the 2 vehicles I drive so I'll have to use my brain to avoid the accidents. Damn.
|
"it's a bit like wondering why an old Bakelite phone isn't very good at sending text messages."
LOL! A good analogy, and typical of TV 'investigations' that are set up to make a sponsor look good.
|
|
|
Very interesting test but once you see how the front of the Renault is designed it's fairly straightforward which would come off best.
It wasn't that interesting. So the Modus came off better.
Why?
Was it something special with the Modus? Or are all modern cars built like this? If so, when did production practices change? What would happen if you took a big modern car and a small modern car and did this?
What happened to the kinetic energy in the Modus?
|
Why? Was it something special with the Modus? Or are all modern cars built like this?
It's because cars are now designed to survive offset impacts, that they try and spread the impact over both sides (or or both chassis rails, effectively). I don't know if all modern cars are built like this, but I'm sure that all the ones with high crash test scores are.
Not sure I believe the 'high tensile steel' safety cage that they talked about. Do they really use a much stiffer grade of steel than in olden days? Generally you get more strength from the geometry of the shape than a small increase in stiffer material. Does anyone know for certain, or have Youngs Modulus figures?
|
High tensile steels are typically used in springs and wire for cables. High tensile means that the metal will stand a much higher load before it deforms plastically...exactly the opposite of what is required in the crumple zone. The use of high tensile steels in the body panels may be of some use as they will then absorb more energy before deformation and even then they will deform relatively easily.
If anything, you want to design the front end of the car with softer materials that will dissipate the crash energy such that the passenger cell will deform as little as possible. This is the area that needs to be strong.
The Volvo did badly in the test because the strong 'girder-like' construction did not dissipate the crash energy and simply transferred a lot of this to the passenger cell.
|
|
I think stronger steels are now used and can be much thinner and thus lighter. Some makers (Subaru for one) use panels and chassis members that vary in thickness (within the same panel) in order to save weight and build in predictable deformability. The modern car shell is a very complex and well-designed structure, it's much more than 'soft' or 'hard' materials.
|
Some makers (Subaru for one) use panels and chassis members that vary in thickness (within the same panel) in order to save weight and build in predictable deformability.
Isn't this just done by the material being stretched when it's pressed? Nothing new there, or is it something fiendish when the steel is rolled?
|
Isn't this just done by the material being stretched when it's pressed? Nothing new there or is it something fiendish when the steel is rolled?
Not sure. I did read somewhere it's an expensive and quite complex thing to do.
|
|
High tensile steels are typically used in springs
I think we all know what it is ;-) but it was mentioned that the safety cage of the modern car is made of it. Just wondering if it's true or not.
The Volvo did badly in the test because the strong 'girder-like' construction did not dissipate the crash energy and simply transferred a lot of this to the passenger cell.
I don't agree. It did badly because it had all the force just down one side of the car, the Modus spread the load down both sides.
|
No matter which car - I wouldn't expect to survive an 40+40mph head-on crash anyway.
|
|
I would rather be killed outright than to survive but consigned to a wheel chair for the rest of my life.
|
I'm sorry buit all the comparison MAY show is that an 18 year old car may be weakened by rust.
If you want real comparisons of design strength take one new Volvo 740 against a Renault Modus..
Any 18 year old car is BOUND to have some weakening of its structure within box sections due to rust...
which is one reason I would not drive one:-)))
madf
|
Although it was an interesting test - for all the good reasons given above; the sheer superficiality of it ruined it for me.
Yes; the Volvo performed badly in a modern offset impact - exactly the test that the Modus was designed to pass. The Volvo's safety concept was set 30-odd years ago when full-frontal impact tests were the requirement.
The stiffer Modus seemed to rotate in two axes on contact with the Volvo's soft crumple zone and bypass quite a lot of it's substantial frontal protection - most of the impact seemed to have been absorbed by the A-pillar.
Although the dash moved considerably; anyone who's had a Volvo lower dash panel off, knows that there's a huge void under there and, although it looked bad, even a brief expert description of the exact injuries suffered by those telemetry-packed dummies would have been preferrable to a talking mop prattling on about it "looking nasty."
There is then the matter of FWD versus RWD. The massively greater weight of the Volvo behind the B-pillar must be a significant factor in the passenger-compartment deformation. Most of the weight of a Modus is packed in the front and would be slowed by very little opposing mass against a RWD car.
|
>>preferrable to a talking mop prattling on about it "looking nasty."
LOL
The real tragedy is that there is one less of these great Volvos on the road. I am however happy to see as many of these horrid Modus things written off as possible.
|
|
|
"cars are now designed to survive offset impacts"
I'd still feel safer in the Volvo. Especially if the other vehicle was a truck.
I appreciate that computer-aided design and finite element analysis allows more controlled deformation in specific areas, but manufacturers (especially Renault) seem to be designing cars to pass tests that may or may not represent a real accident. Law of unintended consequences and all that...
|
|
If you are in a small car about to crash into a truck, do your utmost to bounce off it rather than being run over by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
