Mini cars don't fare well in collisions with mid sized cars!
Steve W.
a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they do not fare
well in collisions with larger vehicles.
In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda
Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in
severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.
"There are good reasons people buy mini cars. They're more affordable,
and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new
tests," said Adrian Lund, the institute's president.
Automakers who manufacture the small cars said the tests simulated a
high-speed crash that rarely happens on the road. They also said the
tests rehashed past insurance industry arguments against tougher fuel
efficiency requirements. The institute has raised questions about
whether stricter gas mileage rules, which are being developed by the
government, might lead to smaller, lighter vehicles that could be less safe.
"If you were to take that argument to the nth degree, we should all be
driving 18-wheelers. And the trend in society today is just the
opposite," said Dave Schembri, president of Smart USA.
Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon ($1.05
per liter) last year but have fallen off as gasoline has retreated to
about $2 a gallon ($0.53 per liter) and the economic downturn has slowed
car sales. The small cars are affordable — prices of the three cars
tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 — and typically achieve 30
miles per gallon (13 kilometers per liter) or more.
The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009
Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the
2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour (17
kilometers per liter), representing a severe crash.
In the fortwo collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs
1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking
the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive
damage to the fortwo's interior and the Smart driver could have faced
extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the
front seat area of the C Class.
Schembri said the test simulated a "rare and extreme scenario" and noted
that the fortwo had received solid ratings from the government's crash
test program. The fortwo has received top scores from the Insurance
Institute in front-end and side crash tests against comparably sized
vehicles, but in the front-end tests against the C Class, the institute
gave the minicar poor marks.
In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through
the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the
vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor while the Accord's
structure held up well.
Honda spokesman Todd Mittleman said the tests involved "unusual and
extreme conditions" and noted that all 2009 Honda vehicles had received
top scores from the Insurance Institute.
In the Yaris test, the institute said the mini car sustained damage to
the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head
injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck
and right leg.
The Yaris has received good ratings in past front and side testing but
received a poor rating in the crash with the Camry. Toyota spokesman
John Hanson said the car-to-car test had little relevance to consumers
because of its severity.
"It's fairly obvious that they have an agenda here with regard to how
smaller cars are going to be entering the North American market in
larger numbers," Hanson said.
--
Steve W.
fred
news:gs2rve$1he$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> WASHINGTON — Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at
> a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they do not fare
> well in collisions with larger vehicles.
>
Hardly ground-breaking news that is. However the bigger you get, the worse
they are at handling. So if you buy an suv and drive at the speed limit,
you'll have more accidents. Without paying for it in injuries. Nice.
Don Stauffer
> On 2009-04-14, fred <fr...@bedrock.rock> wrote:
>> Hardly ground-breaking news that is. However the bigger you get, the worse
>> they are at handling. So if you buy an suv and drive at the speed limit,
>> you'll have more accidents. Without paying for it in injuries. Nice.
>
> can be safe in our large, heavy vehicles while the stoopid hippies
> in their ludicrous "green" cars (aka "tin cans") pay the price for
> their foolishness.
>
> I don't see the problem.
>
Well, I have had small cars all my life, and I am 71 already. So if I
am so stupid I must be quite lucky. I also just bought a green car. It
is larger and heavier than many of the cars I have already owned.
BTW, as someone else said, those small cars of mine have definitely been
the best handling.
Nate Nagel
yup, the way I look at is the smart people can get away with driving
small, fun cars and the incompetent drivers have to drive the big barges
to keep from meeting an untimely death. That said I do have an F-150
for dump runs, but 99.44% of the time it is sitting in my driveway
collecting holly berries on the hood.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Steve
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2009-04-14, fred <fr...@bedrock.rock> wrote:
>>>> Hardly ground-breaking news that is. However the bigger you get, the
>>>> worse
>>>> they are at handling. So if you buy an suv and drive at the speed
>>>> limit,
>>>> you'll have more accidents. Without paying for it in injuries. Nice.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. Those of us who have some sense
>>> can be safe in our large, heavy vehicles while the stoopid hippies
>>> in their ludicrous "green" cars (aka "tin cans") pay the price for
>>> their foolishness.
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem.
>>>
>> Well, I have had small cars all my life, and I am 71 already. So if I
>> am so stupid I must be quite lucky. I also just bought a green car.
>> It is larger and heavier than many of the cars I have already owned.
>>
>> BTW, as someone else said, those small cars of mine have definitely
>> been the best handling.
>
> yup, the way I look at is the smart people can get away with driving
> small, fun cars and the incompetent drivers have to drive the big barges
> to keep from meeting an untimely death.
And smart people can also drive big powerful cars or SUVs with limited
handling capabilities because they don't put themselves in all the
stupid situations that the people who drive annoying little red
roller-skates put themselves in. Such as decapitated under an
18-wheeler after trying to zig-zag through traffic to get somewhere 30
seconds sooner than just staying in a lane.
The key in any event is driving intelligently.
cuh...@webtv.net
was back in the 1970s.He used to have three Vespa mini cars (I think
they were Vespas) sitting in his yard.I used to think someday I would
ask him if one of the cars was for sale.The cars aren't there anymore.I
have lost interest in them anyway.About fifteen miles further South, I
used to see one of those first models of a Suzuki car sitting in front
of an old abandoned house.It looked like it had been sitting up for
quite a few years.Little bitty Suzuki car, I think it had a two cylinder
engine, but I didn't stop to look closely at that car.
cuhulin
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> WASHINGTON - Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at
> a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they do not fare
> well in collisions with larger vehicles.
So, if you drive a small car, don't go around hitting big ones.
Actually, don't go around hitting anything. I recall reading some
statistics that stated more accidents are single car rather than
multi-car. So, how well do small cars hold up when hitting 'terrain'?
Anecdotally, I'd say, "Not well".
Back when I worked for the local power company, I went out on a call
involving a pickup truck running off the road and hitting one of our
poles. When I arrived on the scene, they were pulling a 3/4 ton GMC back
onto the roadway. Before I could get around to look at its front end,
someone got into it and drove it off. The pole was sheared off at the
base.
A week or two later, one of my co-workers returned from a 'similar'
accident, where a compact car left the road and hit a similar sized
pole, traveling at a similar speed. They didn't know how many bodies
were in the car until they peeled it off the pole (I was glad I wasn't
called out on that one). The pole survived.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to
handle.
z
> On 2009-04-14, fred <f...@bedrock.rock> wrote:
>
> > Hardly ground-breaking news that is. However the bigger you get, the worse
> > they are at handling. So if you buy an suv and drive at the speed limit,
> > you'll have more accidents. Without paying for it in injuries. Nice.
>
> can be safe in our large, heavy vehicles while the stoopid hippies
> in their ludicrous "green" cars (aka "tin cans") pay the price for
> their foolishness.
>
> I don't see the problem.
>
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
> "Obama dozed while people froze."
High speed head on or near head on collisions are very rare,
particularly in the US where divided highways are the norm. More
likely are side swipes by cars running parallel, or sideswipes with
cars in the opposite direction on undivided roads. In these cases, the
transfer of momentum depends on the angle more than on the difference
in mass, along with other factors like slippage of the tire on the
road depending on how the impact angle lines up with the direction of
the wheels. In any event, those are not the major source of deaths,
fatalities are commonly when a vehicle leaves the road and impacts a
stationary object; a tree, wall, light pole, building, abutment,
ditch, etc. etc. etc. And if you've studied freshman physics, you'll
remember that this type of collision is equivalent to striking a car
of equivalent mass and velocity so there's no advantage to being in a
heavy car, you're better off in a car with better designed crumple
zones, etc. whatever the weight is.
z
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Don Stauffer wrote:
> >> Roger Blake wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey, if people want to drive a big truck for whatever reason, with the
handling of a big truck, then it stands to reason they ought to take
the truck driving test to get a truck driving license and follow truck
speed limits, etc.
z
> "Steve W." wrote:
>
> > WASHINGTON - Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at
> > a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they do not fare
> > well in collisions with larger vehicles.
>
> So, if you drive a small car, don't go around hitting big ones.
>
> Actually, don't go around hitting anything. I recall reading some
> statistics that stated more accidents are single car rather than
> multi-car. So, how well do small cars hold up when hitting 'terrain'?
> Anecdotally, I'd say, "Not well".
>
> Back when I worked for the local power company, I went out on a call
> involving a pickup truck running off the road and hitting one of our
> poles. When I arrived on the scene, they were pulling a 3/4 ton GMC back
> onto the roadway. Before I could get around to look at its front end,
> someone got into it and drove it off. The pole was sheared off at the
> base.
>
> A week or two later, one of my co-workers returned from a 'similar'
> accident, where a compact car left the road and hit a similar sized
> pole, traveling at a similar speed. They didn't know how many bodies
> were in the car until they peeled it off the pole (I was glad I wasn't
> called out on that one). The pole survived.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming
> Never test for an error condition you don't know how to
> handle.
i did a project on car crashes, fatalities, etc. once; the crash
record the police filled out has space for "first object struck" and
"second object struck" but the geniuses only kept the entries for
"first object struck" in the database. well, imagine my surprise when
the most deadly object struck turns out to be the curb (first object
only, of course).
Steve
>
> High speed head on or near head on collisions are very rare,
> particularly in the US where divided highways are the norm.
Uhh... "rare" is a relative term. They're not particularly rare among
all accidents with fatalities. And they're not particularly rare in a
huge area of the country outside the east- and west-coast urban sprawls
which are completely non-representative driving conditions compared to
the bulk of the roads in the country. There are between 5 and 10
sufficiently specatcular head-ons to make the local news within a
100-mile radius of my city every year.
Steve
>
> hey, if people want to drive a big truck for whatever reason, with the
> handling of a big truck, then it stands to reason they ought to take
> the truck driving test to get a truck driving license and follow truck
> speed limits, etc.
Every driver on the road should be capable of handling an F-350, and if
they're not they shouldn't be on the road in ANYTHING. We're not talking
about Freightliners, twin-stick transmissions, or air brakes here.
z
tis true; one part of being a good driver is understanding the
behavior of your vehicle, including how it varies with conditions, and
driving appropriately.
z
interesting. my experience is definitely limited to the northeast,
where the headons with fatalities get a lot of print, but are way
outnumbered by the folks running off the road, usually at 2:15 am
(local bars close at 2)
Steve
>
> interesting. my experience is definitely limited to the northeast,
> where the headons with fatalities get a lot of print, but are way
> outnumbered by the folks running off the road, usually at 2:15 am
> (local bars close at 2)
The one-car accidents do outnumber them, but they're less often fatal
than when the combined closing speed is up near triple digits.
Unfortunately a lot of the head-ons around here are ALSO correlated with
the bars closing :-( One car with an idiot behind the wheel and one car
with someone who just happened to be in the idiot's path.
cuh...@webtv.net
Man passes out from coughing, causes NH crash.
cuhulin
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> i did a project on car crashes, fatalities, etc. once; the crash
> record the police filled out has space for "first object struck" and
> "second object struck" but the geniuses only kept the entries for
> "first object struck" in the database. well, imagine my surprise when
> the most deadly object struck turns out to be the curb (first object
> only, of course).
I'd like to know which object the vehicle struck that changed its
momentum the most.
But, 'hit the curb first' is useful information in that it indicates
where control was probably lost. After that, the concrete bridge
supports are just icing on the cake, so to speak.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are so many towns named after water towers?
jtc...@gmail.com
captions on page 3 of
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf
seems to imply that they were testing a 40-on-40 offset collision, not
the 40-on-barrier collision used in the earlier ratings. Not that the
latter is an experience to look forward to, but the former entails a
serious risk of ruining my entire day no matter what I'm driving.
Rather than simply "don't drive small cars," the conclusion I take
away from this is "microcar manufacturers could improve protections
against passenger-compartment intrusion."
The most basic physics can't be helped, of course -- the little car is
still going to decelerate fast and end up going backward when the
bigger car hits it -- but there are bigger things out there than
anything I might reasonably use as a daily driver, and I really am
much much better off seeing and avoiding them than getting into an
arms race that from some perspectives actually turns me into one of
the threats.
What I'd like to see is some statistics-based (plus or minus the data
integrity problems someone else summed as "the deadliest thing to hit
is the curb") operations research that looks at both severity and
likelihood of various kinds of crashes. This might be a bit more
rational even if it is not able to include the likelihood of
successful evasive action in various kinds of vehicles. Yes, if
some nutball crosses the center line on me and I can't take any
effective action before we hit at a vector sum speed of 80 mph, I'd
rather be in a Suburban than a Smart -- but does it make sense
(individually or societally) to highly optimize everything for one low
probability scenario?
In other words, as in all economic decisions, we have to ask not only
where are the maxima, but where's the sweet spot?
--Joe
z
> On Apr 15, 1:55 pm, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Roger Blake wrote:
> > > On 2009-04-14, fred <f...@bedrock.rock> wrote:
> > >> Hardly ground-breaking news that is. However the bigger you get, the worse
> > >> they are at handling. So if you buy an suv and drive at the speed limit,
> > >> you'll have more accidents. Without paying for it in injuries. Nice.
>
> > > Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. Those of us who have some sense
> > > can be safe in our large, heavy vehicles while the stoopid hippies
> > > in their ludicrous "green" cars (aka "tin cans") pay the price for
> > > their foolishness.
>
> > > I don't see the problem.
>
> > Well, I have had small cars all my life, and I am 71 already. So if I
> > am so stupid I must be quite lucky. I also just bought a green car. It
> > is larger and heavier than many of the cars I have already owned.
>
> > BTW, as someone else said, those small cars of mine have definitely been
> > the best handling.
>
> I don't see a clear explanation in the text, but the diagram and
>
> - Show quoted text -
also, weight vs size class is a variable thing. the Fit they tested
weighs 2400 lbs. so does my 92 civic.
fred
news:c796b6ee-d781-47cf...@d14g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
And a Corvette weights in about 300 lbs more. Power to weight and lateral
G. Therein lies the key.
Kevin
> z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in
> news:c796b6ee-d781-47cf-96e9-e169036d47a5
@d14g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Apr 21, 3:43 pm, jtch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 1:55 pm, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> also, weight vs size class is a variable thing. the Fit they tested
>> weighs 2400 lbs. so does my 92 civic.
>>
>
> And a Corvette weights in about 300 lbs more. Power to weight and
lateral
> G. Therein lies the key.
>
>
Ha ha ha where you going to find that light a corvette????????? They
start at about 3400 in a older one and go up to 3800 for a newer one.
KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
fred
news:Xns9BF5890428DA6k...@167.142.225.136:
> fred <fr...@bedrock.rock> wrote in news:Xns9BF4EB5...@127.0.0.1:
>
>> z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote in
>> news:c796b6ee-d781-47cf-96e9-e169036d47a5
> @d14g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 3:43 pm, jtch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Apr 15, 1:55 pm, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> also, weight vs size class is a variable thing. the Fit they tested
>>> weighs 2400 lbs. so does my 92 civic.
>>>
>>
>> And a Corvette weights in about 300 lbs more. Power to weight and
> lateral
>> G. Therein lies the key.
>>
>>
>
> Ha ha ha where you going to find that light a corvette????????? They
> start at about 3400 in a older one and go up to 3800 for a newer one.
The ZR1.
z
> >>> also, weight vs size class is a variable thing. the Fit they tested
> >>> weighs 2400 lbs. so does my 92 civic.
>
> >> And a Corvette weights in about 300 lbs more. Power to weight and
> > lateral
> >> G. Therein lies the key.
>
> > Ha ha ha where you going to find that light a corvette????????? They
> > start at about 3400 in a older one and go up to 3800 for a newer one.
>
> The ZR1.- Hide quoted text -
"Chevy estimates the ZR1's weight at 3350 pounds."
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=125924
And that 2400 lbs of the 92 civic includes all fluids as well as me
and a trunkful of quite a lot of assorted crap, as it was determined
during an attack of why-the-hell-not while passing a truckstop with
weigh scale last summer, whereas the 2400 lbs of the Fit and the 3340
of the ZR1 are undoubtedly minimal to the point of having empty gas
tanks.
fred
news:ca89d7f4-22ab-4fc5...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
Chevy *estimates*? they don't know? Besides, isn't that the number I was
given for a stock Corvette? surely *that* numbers going to be higher. BTW
2009 models came out last *fall*, which means they're bulding 2010 ones
now. Although to be fair, that story is a year old.
Well, hell. I guess they better fire the local paper's journalist that I
got that number from (less than 2 months ago). Assuming anyone ever finds
out for sure how much it *does* weigh LOL.
z
>
> - Show quoted text -
well, as i'm sure you know, auto manufacturers' PR departments aren't
above massaging a car's stats in whatever direction they think would
look better in press.
fred
news:5c9443a3-3782-424d...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 23, 11:07 pm, fred <f...@bedrock.rock> wrote:
>> z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>> innews:ca89d7f4-22ab-4fc5-baf5-32de62c9
> ea...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> Chevy *estimates*? they don't know? Besides, isn't that the number I
>> was given for a stock Corvette? surely *that* numbers going to be
>> higher. BTW 2009 models came out last *fall*, which means they're
>> bulding 2010 ones now. Although to be fair, that story is a year old.
>>
>> Well, hell. I guess they better fire the local paper's journalist that
>> I got that number from (less than 2 months ago). Assuming anyone ever
>> finds out for sure how much it *does* weigh LOL.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> well, as i'm sure you know, auto manufacturers' PR departments aren't
> above massaging a car's stats in whatever direction they think would
> look better in press.
>
I don't think that it's that complicated. I think as I alluded to that
it's just the weight of normal Corvette.
cuh...@webtv.net
built into the floor or outside somewhere so they can check the weight
of whichever vehicles they manufacture.But, what do I know?
cuhulin
fred
news:22351-49F...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
> I would think auto factories (some of them anyway) have weigh scales
> built into the floor or outside somewhere so they can check the weight
> of whichever vehicles they manufacture.But, what do I know?
Ah, but would they bother to find out the information for journalists who
can't be bothered to on their own?
Scott Dorsey
Problem is that the weight depends on the option packages you get. Also,
the standard approximated weight includes a standard driver as well, and
these days drivers are getting bigger and bigger....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."