Board logo

should any one of these cars really be on the road?
Mr Whippy - 5/6/09 at 12:48 PM

NCAP crash tests

don't know about you but I think you'd be dead in all these cars, so much for the modern car being safer

I wonder what’s the point of these tests, as they don't seem to prevent unsafe cars being put on the market. But I suppose it lets you see how fatal your injuries are going to be.

You Tube linky

Daddylonglegs - 5/6/09 at 01:01 PM



I guess someone here had enough of building his kit car? (Must have been the cost of the IVA!)

Not sure about the roll bar design though!

scudderfish - 5/6/09 at 01:06 PM

Better than it used to be

Linky

iank - 5/6/09 at 01:13 PM

Better than these three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt9iw1Fs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRdDssL1w&feature=related


[Edited on 5/6/09 by iank]

sebastiaan - 5/6/09 at 04:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
NCAP crash tests


I wonder what’s the point of these tests, as they don't seem to prevent unsafe cars being put on the market. But I suppose it lets you see how fatal your injuries are going to be.


What is does is allow people to make a more informed decision when buying a car and having a look at crash safety.

5 stars means that that particular car is safer in a certain crash situation then a 1-star car. It does not mean that you won't die, just that you are less likely to do so....

Anyway, all cars on the market are engineered towards the NCAP tests (for instance the frontal offset crash at just 54 km/h). Any worse a crash then those and you're screwed.

Also, a deforming body absorbs energy. Energy that could otherwise be transferred to your body (NOT GOOD!).

Jon Ison - 5/6/09 at 04:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by iank
Better than these three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt9iw1Fs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRdDssL1w&feature=related


[Edited on 5/6/09 by iank]




Ouch re the middle one.

MikeRJ - 5/6/09 at 04:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Ison
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Better than these three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt9iw1Fs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRdDssL1w&feature=related


[Edited on 5/6/09 by iank]




Ouch re the middle one.


Except it's not a Chinese van at all; it's an old VW Kombi van.

RichieW - 5/6/09 at 04:59 PM

quote:
Originally posted by iank
Better than these three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt9iw1Fs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRdDssL1w&feature=related


[Edited on 5/6/09 by iank]


Did the Chinese forget to put sills in that first car of the three???

Can't believe the way the passenger compartment concertinered

bob - 5/6/09 at 05:00 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
NCAP crash tests

don't know about you but I think you'd be dead in all these cars, so much for the modern car being safer

I wonder what’s the point of these tests, as they don't seem to prevent unsafe cars being put on the market. But I suppose it lets you see how fatal your injuries are going to be.

You Tube linky


Those cars were deemed safe when designed/built, looking through that video those cars are a 10+ year old design and none of them still in production.

matt_claydon - 5/6/09 at 05:20 PM

Crash tests as we know them now were only legislated in 1997, thus all those cars in the video were not designed to pass an offset deformable barrier impact. Different story for anything built in the last 10 years.

For info, legislative and NCAP tests are very similar, except that legislation require 56 km/h whereas NCAP is done at 64 km/h.

iank - 5/6/09 at 05:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Ison
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Better than these three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFIt9iw1Fs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D827IxEJVS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoRdDssL1w&feature=related


[Edited on 5/6/09 by iank]




Ouch re the middle one.


Except it's not a Chinese van at all; it's an old VW Kombi van.


Maybe the chinese bought up the presses and started making them locally. Wouldn't be the first time.

I think it's quite imaginative the way they've designed it to protect the load from the crash by using a long crumple zone at the front.

gottabedone - 5/6/09 at 06:47 PM

makes you wonder how a locost would react in such a test.
We joke about some of these cars but 40mph offset frontal in a locost may not be pretty when so many builders have trouble getting enough room in the footwells for pedals feet and footwear!?

mmmmmmm.....Maybe the steel floor is a good idea after all

Canada EH! - 5/6/09 at 07:20 PM

Those early US carsh tests were 1957 to 1964 Crysler products, before seatbelts.

iank - 5/6/09 at 08:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by gottabedone
makes you wonder how a locost would react in such a test.
We joke about some of these cars but 40mph offset frontal in a locost may not be pretty when so many builders have trouble getting enough room in the footwells for pedals feet and footwear!?

mmmmmmm.....Maybe the steel floor is a good idea after all


Can't remember a single accident picture of a 7 where there has been any damage that got to the footwells in a frontal impact.

The problem with spaceframes is that they are actually too strong and don't crush down in a controlled manner like a modern tintop. That means your body decelerates very quickly which if you're doing a high speed is a bad thing if you hit something hard (car hits object -> body hits harness -> internal organs hit rib-cage).

Now if you'd said the back of the car which in general is rather weak...