A solid wall? Where? Small overlap test Volvo XC90

"EL_ULY" (uly)
09/17/2015 at 11:51 • Filed to: crash test

Result, Very f**king GOOD because duh, safest car ever. Volvo FTW again!

Dat construction and materials

Even in those extremely comfortable seats

DISCUSSION (64)

Twism > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 11:56

‘’ pfff... lost a wheel? who cares, got to bring my passengers to safety!’’

It’s the first time I’ve seen a car actually keep going after this test... is it some kind of deflection design built into the chassis?

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 11:57

It just sort of... kept going.

Firewrx234 > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 11:58

They see me rollin’ they hatin’

EL_ULY > Twism
09/17/2015 at 12:01

since there is a lot of RHD cars built, the integrity of the chassis is parallel to the passenger side. The only cars I’ve seen deflect have been Volvo. Clever engineering?... maybe. I’ll ask our rep next time they come

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:01

Kimi’s new family hauler?

LeaveMeAloneIHaveGroceriesToGet.

EL_ULY > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell.
09/17/2015 at 12:01

looking for more walls shouting, “get some!!!!!!”

EL_ULY > Firewrx234
09/17/2015 at 12:02

indeed. Volvo 1 Wall 0

spanfucker retire bitch > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:03

Huh. Looks like some plastic cover came off inside the cabin. Volvo might want to look into that, as it looks like their Chassis is just fine.

EL_ULY > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles
09/17/2015 at 12:04

lol!!!!! I’m sure he’ll get one because of the new baby and Because Finland

carcrasher88 > Twism
09/17/2015 at 12:04

In this case, it very well could be a combination of momentum and the strength of the chassis, but it’s not the first to keep going...

In fact, it’s the second one this year, but the Jeep’s was more spectacular.

Moves-Like-Senna > Twism
09/17/2015 at 12:04

The wrangler also keeps going

EL_ULY > spanfucker retire bitch
09/17/2015 at 12:06

yeah those clips are not that strong :]

Sam > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:11

They are probably the only manufacturer that would want to show the crash tests in their showrooms. Hell, they should crash some XC90s and send them to dealers to show how little deformation there is.

Wacko > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:13

didn’t expect to see the metal bend behind the rear windows.

spanfucker retire bitch > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:14

I’d just be worried about them being projectiles. I doubt they weigh anything, but then again, a tissue box doesn’t weigh much either.

Until it’s traveling at your head at 40mph+.

Twism > carcrasher88
09/17/2015 at 12:14

When you see it from overhead, you kind of understand why it kept going; the shape of its nose helped it, I’m sure.

But it nearly rolled over, whereas the Volvo remained perfectly level.

EL_ULY > Sam
09/17/2015 at 12:14

i’ll try to get them on my showroom. I’ll ask the sales manager after lunch. Good idea :]

EL_ULY > Wacko
09/17/2015 at 12:15

deflecting the energy I suppose

EL_ULY > spanfucker retire bitch
09/17/2015 at 12:16

if you’ve ever been punched by an airbag, the little things are the last thing on your mind lol. Those shits hurt.

spanfucker retire bitch > Wacko
09/17/2015 at 12:17

Doing a good job of redirecting all that kinetic energy around and away from the occupants.

spanfucker retire bitch > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:18

True. And I’m sure it happens in pretty much every vehicle, I just noticed it in this video because it flies right through the middle of the camera’s FoV.

Sam > spanfucker retire bitch
09/17/2015 at 12:18

They’re Volvo. They’ve probably already hot fixed the problem on the line.

Wacko > spanfucker retire bitch
09/17/2015 at 12:20

i see that. just didn’t expect it.

EL_ULY > spanfucker retire bitch
09/17/2015 at 12:22

There was one test a long while back that the door’s window (completly intact somehow) flew out of the door and hit the camera

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:22

Wow, it just keeps on going. I suppose that’s safer in the sense that it doesn't direct all the kinetic energy to the passengers by bouncing straight off the wall.

EL_ULY > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut
09/17/2015 at 12:24

i’d think so, even if it was more centered, it will then have to deal with another set of high strength steel shown in yellow on the picture above

wiffleballtony > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:30

What real world situation is this test supposed to represent?

spanfucker retire bitch > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:32

Holy shit!

EL_ULY > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 12:33

Hardly any front end crashes are exactly head-on. Many drivers try to swerve away at the last second usually hitting in these outer sections of the front. Most cars after 2000 can easily pass a straight front end crash test but MANY cars were failing these small offset tests at first but have adapted to it now.

wiffleballtony > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:34

Are they swerving to avoid a solid wall coming at them?

EL_ULY > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 12:36

they are avoiding other cars or obstacles. Usually other cars in many situations including when they are going to rear end other cars

Rico > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:46

I can’t imagine a real world situation in which that would even happen!

BigBlock440 > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 12:52

No, they’re looking up at from their phone, seeing a wall, swerving, and not quite making it.

BigBlock440 > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 12:54

Kinja'd!!!

I’m curious what these even are. Very high strength, Extra high strength, Ultra high strength? Come on.

wiffleballtony > BigBlock440
09/17/2015 at 12:56

Lol how often does this situation happen that it’s worth a whole new test, the industry changing their cars and adding lots of weight to said car?

EL_ULY > Rico
09/17/2015 at 12:58

there are plenty. You know that everyone tries to steer away at the last second. Whether it’s rear ending someone head on. What I can’t imagine is a situation of a perfectly flat wall crash. Their research find the front end impact zone to be more towards the ends. Plus, another flaw that was discovered what the bulkhead framing/A-pillars were so weak that at the point of impact, the steering column (which is where they are bolted to) would shift on impact. That’s bad because that means the airbag moves out of the way as your head misses it completely

EL_ULY > BigBlock440
09/17/2015 at 12:59

same thing with knives and tools, some are just stronger than others

BigBlock440 > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:06

Well yeah, but they’re just different grades. I’m pretty sure “Very” and “Extra” were just made up for the graphic.

Rico > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:06

Damn I should've added /s to my post. Of course I can imagine these situations I can't imagine how anyone can't. And while yes a perfectly flat object like in the test is not likely, it is the most extreme scenario which means if it works in that scenario it will work in less extreme cases.

BigBlock440 > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 13:07

There’s also trees and poles. It happens more often then a straight head-on does.

Rico > BigBlock440
09/17/2015 at 13:07

It's for gen pop not engineers or experts. This is a diagram you'd see in a pamphlet given out to people at a car show.

BigBlock440 > Rico
09/17/2015 at 13:10

It just made me chuckle a little reading down the list.

Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:26

Wow, that’s pretty damn impressive. I wish the camera would have stayed on the car longer on the overhead shot though. I’m curious to know what happened with the hood. Did the whole front end sheer off or did the hood just peel off?

I imagine that every car will eventually do pretty good in these tests, as they will be pretty much forced to because the IIHS can damn them with shitty ratings (deservedly so). Looking at your chart of materials and where they’re used, apparently Volvo doesn’t give a shit about anything past the second row. lol

Rico > BigBlock440
09/17/2015 at 13:28

They should’ve taken it a step further “Super Mega Ultra High Strength Steel”

Alex from Toronto > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:29

Wow built 2002 - 2014 and can pass modern safty tests. GG Volvo.

facw > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:30

Not surprising given that old one aced this too, despite being ancient:

facw > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 13:31

From IIHS:

To help drive further improvements in frontal crash protection, the Institute in 2012 introduced a small overlap frontal crash test. The test is designed to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole. This crash test is a challenge for some safety belt and airbag designs because occupants move both forward and toward the side of the vehicle.

In the small overlap frontal test, a vehicle travels at 40 mph toward a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier. A Hybrid III dummy representing an average-size man is positioned in the driver seat. Twenty-five percent of the total width of the vehicle strikes the barrier on the driver side.

Most modern cars have safety cages encapsulating the occupant compartment and built to withstand head-on collisions and moderate overlap frontal crashes with little deformation. At the same time, crush zones help manage crash energy to reduce forces on the occupant compartment. The main crush-zone structures are concentrated in the middle 50 percent of the front end. When a crash involves these structures, the occupant compartment is protected from intrusion, and front airbags and safety belts can effectively restrain and protect occupants.

Small overlap frontal crashes primarily affect a vehicle’s outer edges, which aren’t well protected by the crush-zone structures. Crash forces go directly into the front wheel, suspension system and firewall. It is not uncommon for the wheel to be forced rearward into the footwell, contributing to even more intrusion in the occupant compartment and resulting in serious leg and foot injuries. To provide effective protection in small overlap crashes, the safety cage needs to resist crash forces that aren’t tempered by crush-zone structures. Widening these front-end structures also would help.

They have crash data, so they know this scenario is causing problems. It may be moving the bar, but there’s not really any problem with making cars safer as long as the benefit exceeds the costs. Given that 30,000+ people die in car accidents every year in the US, we are likely a long way from “good enough”.

wiffleballtony > facw
09/17/2015 at 13:35

Well as far as striking another vehicle, last time I checked vehicles have crumple zones and walls dont. Also pretty sure a wall or pole has different dimensions and rigidity than a wall.

wiffleballtony > BigBlock440
09/17/2015 at 13:38

It seems to me that the corner of a wall has different structural properties than a pole or tree.

facw > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 13:38

Right, but if you’re going to do the test, it’s better to do it conservatively. If a car does a good job against a rigid object, then it will almost certainly do the same against something with some give. The reverse is not true, and given that they want to keep testing costs down, it make sense to test against the harder case.

wiffleballtony > facw
09/17/2015 at 13:42

I get that, but we are constantly railing against car bloat. This is just adding to it for the sake of being sure against a scenario I haven’t seen one car do in my 15 years of driving. Admittedly I am a sample size of one, but honestly 99% of the accidents I see involve other cars. The ones that don’t involve hitting a garage door at 5 mph.

facw > Alex from Toronto
09/17/2015 at 13:42

That’s the new 2016 model, but the old ones did very well in this test as well.

wiffleballtony > facw
09/17/2015 at 13:50

I did some quick research and it seems car on pole accidents account for only 2.6% of highway fatalities according to NHTS. Also this quote:

Mak and Mason (research company) point out, however, that “both urban and rural areas have nearly identical rates of 3.4 pole accidents per billion vehicle pole interactions.” In this case, they mean by interaction simply an opportunity to strike a pole due to a vehicle passage

That’s some low odds.

Ike > EL_ULY
09/17/2015 at 13:53

When I saw Volvo retweet iihs yesterday about the pending results I was all like

“Dis gonn be real good”

And I was correct

facw > wiffleballtony
09/17/2015 at 13:53

There’s been a lot of research, though the results are mixed. Some studies show small offset as not being much different from moderate offset, while others indicate it’s a serious issue:

Lindquist et al. [2004] investigated 91 fatal frontal crashes in Sweden involving belted occupants seated in the front row of a vehicle. In this study they defined a series of load paths, which act upon a vehicle during a collision. Evidence from real-world crash data was reviewed to establish the load paths associated with occupant fatalities in frontal collisions. For frontal crashes, Lindquist found, “…small overlap crashes account for 48% of the fatalities.” They identified that in approximately 60 percent of fatality cases, there was loading of the left side structure, left wheel, and left shotgun beam. These loading areas are essentially outside of the vehicle’s longitudinal rails, although fatalities were mainly attributable to small overlap impacts located on the driver’s side..

Here are some interesting slides regarding design of the new test, though looking quickly, I don’t see a video or transcript of the presentation they go with:

http://www.sae.org/events/gim/pre…

wiffleballtony > facw
09/17/2015 at 13:56

I’m sure that kind of impact is quite nasty, but seems like such a low probability from what I can determine from NHTS is it really a problem that companies need to spend millions on or is it just IIHS trying to justify their existence? Might as well do a small caliber overlap test to see how well vehicles respond to small arms fire.