This is why newer cars are getting bigger

"Blondude" (Blondude) 10/29/2014 at 17:55 • Filed to: None

6

31

So they don't end up like this in a crash.

Before (and yes, the driver was okay):

jsn081 > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 17:58

2

owner should have kept the shaker hood and rim blow steering wheel. Combined probably worth more than the car was when that before pic was taken.

Cherry_man1 > jsn081 10/29/2014 at 18:03

0

Being a 1969 Mach 1 with a Shaker to begin with....that makes it HYPER valuable.

CRider > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:04

2

If you say so.

Tohru > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:04

1

Psh, I can show you lots of wrecks of modern cars that look like that.

MultiplaOrgasms > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:08

0

A 69 Mustang is probably not the best example for an old, small car. A 2015 'Stang is pretty much exactly the same size. And no, cars are not getting bigger than they were 40 years ago. Just heavier.

Sportwägen, Driver Of The Red Sportwagen > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:08

0

Holy shit... HOW?!

KirkyV > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:08

1

They've actually started getting smaller and lighter again, at long last. I drive a nineties supermini that weighs 800-ish kg right now, and it has just as much crash protection as you'd expect. Fun, though!

Opposite Locksmith > jsn081 10/29/2014 at 18:13

0

literally only things I came to say

Racescort666 > CRider 10/29/2014 at 18:14

2

Smart cars do well against partial overlap tests but they do not do well when crashed into other vehicles.

jsn081 > Cherry_man1 10/29/2014 at 18:17

0

not in the 1980s when that pic looks to be taken.

jsn081 > MultiplaOrgasms 10/29/2014 at 18:20

0

1969 Mustang Mach 1: Length 187.4" and 3185lbs

2015 Mustang GT: Length 188.3" and 3729lbs

Blondude > Sportwägen, Driver Of The Red Sportwagen 10/29/2014 at 18:23

0

Old school cable-style guardrail that didn't really do that much in terms of safely stopping a car.

Derp Herpington > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:24

0

All I took away from this is: "Don't crash, you retard."

The car involved is kind of irrelevant.

offroadkarter > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:27

2

no, this is why cars have crumple zones

Blondude > MultiplaOrgasms 10/29/2014 at 18:31

2

WAT

MultiplaOrgasms > jsn081 10/29/2014 at 18:31

0

As I said, same size, only heavier.

Blondude > Tohru 10/29/2014 at 18:32

0

From hitting a guardrail?

jsn081 > MultiplaOrgasms 10/29/2014 at 18:33

0

yes, i was just backing your statement up

Manuél Ferrari > Racescort666 10/29/2014 at 18:39

0

They also don't handle the drunk frat bro test. They tend to get flipped over a lot.

Manuél Ferrari > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 18:42

0

also

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/…

Mercedes Streeter > Racescort666 10/29/2014 at 18:44

0

I'd clarify that as "...do not do well against significantly heavier vehicles".

For the record, that was a 50% offset at 40 MPH against a vehicle weighing exactly twice the weight of a smart. That C300 is just a driver shy of being equal weight of the average Crossover.

Check out real world crashes, kinda makes these lab tests look silly.

CRider > Racescort666 10/29/2014 at 18:47

1

Sure the Smart gets tossed around, but the passenger cell remains intact and the people inside will survive. That's not so true with old cars of any size, let alone small cars from the 80s and earlier. It's not as safe as a larger modern car, but my point is that modern cars don't have to be bigger to be safer.

Racescort666 > Mercedes Streeter 10/29/2014 at 18:49

1

IIHS thinks that this is a realistic situation. Their partial overlap test is supposed to replicate hitting another vehicle head on at 40 mph. The nature of the test represents hitting a vehicle of the same mass. However, when you have a vehicle that is half the mass of a typical car, then the test isn't going to be representative of when you crash it into a typical car at the same speed.

Racescort666 > CRider 10/29/2014 at 18:58

0

You are correct, that modern cars don't have to be bigger to be safer than older cars. However, the mass helps in this situation. The crash was likely survivable but there were also probably a lot of injuries. You can see the dummy's head hit it's forearm and almost come out the window.

My take away is that modern cars are safe-ish* but saying that smart cars are as safe as everything else out there because they do well in the partial overlap tests is a false equivalency.

*safe requires definition in this case. Safer than what came before it, absolutely. Survivable? Yes. Survivable without injury? I can't say that.

Mercedes Streeter > Racescort666 10/29/2014 at 18:59

1

Agreed, all of that is true. Though, the IIHS didn't give the full disclosure to their testing, which is just a tad misleading. Like how head-on crashes are actually the minority of crashes, and just how different do the two vehicles weigh. Also, as well as how the test was conducted 5 MPH higher than their official tests and higher than the national average for frontal collisions. In essence, this crash should be considered as a "worst case scenario" rather than what any crash in a smart will look like.

I'm just nitpicking really, there's real science in there and there's truth (and you can't replicate everything in a lab), but they could've presented the information better.

Now, I'm not going to say that smarts are like driving around in a tank, but for their size , they do very well. What they lack in passive safety, they make up for in active safety.

Sure, not as safe as that Mercedes, but also definitely not "a rolling coffin" as idiots often warn me when I'm pumping petrol.

Tohru > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 19:00

1

Well, it depends on how fast the car is going. Ryan Dunn only hit a tree.

Blondude > Manuél Ferrari 10/29/2014 at 19:00

1

Dammit McDonalds!

MultiplaOrgasms > Blondude 10/29/2014 at 19:01

0

The MINI and 500 are about the worst examples you could have brought up. The originals had a massively different purpose than their modern counterparts. The originals were supposed to be tiny. The new ones are just trendy retro bullshit supposed to be all form over function. I stand by my words. Using a 1969 Ford Mustang as an example for how much cars have grown in the name of safety is not the greatest of ideas. The 2015 Mustang is ONE inch longer, ONE inch taller and four inches wider, yet much safer. The S-Class Mercedes too isn't that much larger than it was 50 years ago. Ok, maybe the W222 is ten inches longer than a W108, still not that enormous. And your picture of the E-Type and F-Type together doesn't tell the whole story. That the E and F are virtually identical in length for instance. The E is just dangerously narrow.

MultiplaOrgasms > jsn081 10/29/2014 at 19:02

0

Rory > MultiplaOrgasms 10/30/2014 at 09:36

0

I worked in a classic car restoration shop a few years ago and I can assure you that modern cars are massive compared to their previous models. Interior dimensions , body size , ride height, sill height have vastly changed. They are quite big now. Sure even my Civic is tiny compared to a newer model.
Most superminis, hatches and sedans are much larger compared to the older versions. Not all cars have suffered from government regulated elephantiasis, but a lot have.

MultiplaOrgasms > Rory 10/30/2014 at 10:06

0

I guess the smaller cars are more affected by the safety related growth, for a good reason. There is no way something the size of the original Mini can seat four people comfortablish and meet even the strictest current safety standards. Large cars don't need that growth to accomodate safety features.