britishtrident
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
Since when is the MINI a small car.
Just watch the news a lot of the reported fatal head on accidents the fatalities are nearly always in a Punto or Corsa or older Fiesta.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
Does the Smart's Tridion safety cell really work for example?
YES MY WIFE WALKED AWAY FROM TWO CRASHES WITH NO INJURIES. SHE WAS CRASHED INTO TWICE REAR AND THE WEE SMARTS CRASH CELL TOOK THE
ENERGY AWAY..... IT WAS PANELS AND A CRASH BUMPER TWICE!!!
THE TOYOTA AND THE HONDAS FRONTS WERE TOAST
|
|
|
bmseven
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 06:49 PM |
|
|
Interestingly on the safety issue last weeks fith gear were talking about how everyone publishes there 0-60 but no one there 60-0
Partly I guess because there is no standard measurement, but could be included in an ncap type test.
Which compared I believe a Suzuki and a Polo over 12 runs and the Suzuki took 8m longer to stop from 60 which could be 2 car lengths which is scarey
Still prefer my big car when it comes to crashing the crumple zone's in the smaller car 
BMW 7 Resource
Bures Pit anyone?
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
Mass will play a big part.
Look here LINKY
Just like playing snooker.
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
Depends a lot on the age of the car.
IE a big old car vs a new small car would probly fair quite well as its got limited crumple zones and a lot of weight so would just push it out the
way. But with good cumples, the new car might do ok too.
A big old car vs a big new car might not manage too well as weighs about the same but having little or no crumple zones would damage the occupants.
a new small car vs a old small car would be similar to the above but maybe not quite as bad as there would be less weight.
a big old car vs a small old car would bound to end in tears for the old car
a big new car vs and old small car would likely be better than the above for the old small car, but still pretty bad.
But its an argument that has too many varibles to give a striaght and accurate answer.
[Edited on 18/12/10 by loggyboy]
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 08:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by matt_gsxr
I think your colleague is correct.
Its your momentum argument which is always going to result in the lions share of the G forces being doled out to the lighter car.
When you say "correct" - what do you think he is correct about?
Do you mean that a Leon would come off better than an Aygo or that all small cars are death traps? The latter is what he believes is the case and this
is what I disagree about. I chose my Aygo very carefully and I believe it is a safe and strong vehicle. It certainly feels every bit as solid as a
Smart ForTwo for example.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
(sorry for repeating what others said on my initial response - slow typing)
What are you trying to achieve as whilst i can see what you're trying to do i don't think the stat's will answer your question.
I think you're trying to prove your car is as safe / safer than your collegeaues using the stats. Now generalising your toyota will be mostly
driven around town, low speed, probably by house wives / house husbands possibly with children and therefore even slower (if my friends attitude with
kids on board is anything to go by) and all reported accidents will be around town at low speed etc. Your collegeaues car will generally be driven in
a different environment, faster etc and all accidents will be different speed etc.
If you drive your small car in the large car environment, there is no guarentee it will survive the accident as well as the stat's suggest as
they're from a different type of driving. I would suggest (with no evidence) that your collegeaues car driven in the small car environment would
fair better than its stats suggest due to being lower speed etc.
(nb, i've got no engineering qualifications but have been a passenger in both a clio and avensis as they were crashed)
No I'm not trying to prove that my car is better than his in a crash, just that driving a small car isn't automatically a bad thing for
safety. If you look at my last post it shows that small cars can be better than medium cars in many cases and this data is corrected for road
speed/type and age/sex of driver etc. This is explained at the start of the DfT report. By the way, the target demographic for the Aygo is young, new
drivers because the insurance is relatively cheap. I find it a brilliant modern substitute for the old BL Mini and is great fun to chuck around on the
country roads. It's really good fun on ice and snow too as I have found in the last few weeks!
The laws of physics are one thing, the Euro NCAP tests are another but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the accident stats and this is what I
am looking for. RTA's are so complex that I think this is the only true way to measure the relative safety of each vehicle model.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by eznfrank
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by eznfrank
If he/she is not particularly interested in cars I doubt all the stats in the world will help your argument - some people just won't listen. A
girl I work with insists her Mazda RX8 will cane my ZX12 Indy because her's is a 2.6 litre and mine is only 1.2 litre!!!
Hers is officially a 1.3!
That's exactly what I said - fell on deaf ears!!
Well maybe she should put her money where her mouth is and race the biatch. Loser gets to stfu.
As for the OP, you're both kinda right.. A smaller car is probably just as safe when you understeer and hit the tree, but Mr. Range Rover Sport
isn't going to notice the bump when he ploughs over a tinbox like an Aygo. Admittedly you'd be less dead than you would be if you was in a
(real) Mini, motorbike etc, but you'd be more dead than if you had a similarly sized vehicle.
Problem is because those that just take the kids to school "need" one for the protection of their children (sic) everyone else needs one
so they don't get crushed by her
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 09:11 PM |
|
|
I'm with the OP on this one, a modern small car isn't automatically a death trap and it depends entirely on circumstances.
In a head on colsion with another car you'd perhaps come off better in the bigger car but most crashes aren't going to be two cars square
front to front.
There is another side to this aswell, if you think your safer your more likely to crash because your more likely to take more risks and pay less
attention (in much the same way you see people driving 4x4s around in snow and ice sometimes who assume they should driver exactly like normal, or
like some of the stories on here about runflats).
In a modern small car your likely to have a higher seating position so less of you will be underthings that might otherwise crush you.
I'd like to add that all the above is purely oppinion.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 09:23 PM |
|
|
^^^^^
Thanks Morcus.
According to the DfT report near the beginning of this thread, the most likely point of impact for a fatal injury type crash is nearside followed by
offside followed by front followed by back.
However for all types of injury the point of contact causing most injuries is back (whiplash) followed by offside, nearside and then front.
I should also point out that these figures are all for TWO car accidents, not single car accidents.
|
|
|
robocog
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
I work in a scrappy, been there just over a year now and my conclusion is this
DON'T crash
Seen some stomach churning stuff come through this way and can honestly say I don't think it matters /that much/ what you are in at the time of
impact...more what direction the force comes from and how hard the force gets applied
Seen some vehicles you would assume would give you a good chance of survival when needed come in to us and have obviously not quite worked out that
way
Stay safe out there
Regards
Rob
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 10:07 PM |
|
|
Had a very quick read of the document - surprised (and a little impressed) they have tried to account for what i said about different cars driven in
different environments.
One thing i did notice which i and others seem to be saying without (previously) any evidence, if you look at the average score for each section
(small, medium, large etc), the smaller the vehicle the worse the average score. Its also interesting to note how cars have improved. For example a
sierra was rated 5 and a first gen mondeo rated 4. The old rover mini really was a death trap (shame as i loved driving mine).
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Had a very quick read of the document - surprised (and a little impressed) they have tried to account for what i said about different cars driven in
different environments.
One thing i did notice which i and others seem to be saying without (previously) any evidence, if you look at the average score for each section
(small, medium, large etc), the smaller the vehicle the worse the average score. Its also interesting to note how cars have improved. For example a
sierra was rated 5 and a first gen mondeo rated 4. The old rover mini really was a death trap (shame as i loved driving mine).
Yes the larger cars on average have a better score but (and this was my point from the start) there are small cars with better, and in some cases much
better, scores than larger cars. The variation WITHIN the group is greater than the variation in average scores across the groups.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 18/12/10 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
The Sierra was rated? I thought they didn't start the safety ratings until 2001
|
|
|
.JPG)
