After what year are cars mostly “safe” in the event of an impact? 

"MegaSuper" (megasuper) 04/20/2015 at 15:12 • Filed to: None

0

30

I think a lot of us have seen that video of the (I may have the years or make wrong) a 1957 Cadillac vs a 2007 Cadillac in a head-on collision. Utterly disproves the “They don’t build em like they used to, out of STEEL!” notion; the 1957 Cadillac was utterly obliterated.

Scariest bits were A) Steering column of doom, B) Collapsing roof, C) Collapsing seats and D) I don’t think safety glass was used back then (So you get sharp shards instead of little gravelly bits)

With that in mind, after what model year is a car’s performance in an accident more or less equivalent to modern times?

For example, what would be safer in an accident:

1997 Toyota Supra, or 2015 Alfa Romeo 4C?

1989 Mazda Miata, or 2015 Fiat 500?

1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 or 2015 Dodge Challenger?

2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R or 2015 Nissan GTR?

2001 Honda NSX vs 2015 Toyobaru?

Is there any conceivable way for the older car in these parings to fare better in an accident? (Only argument I could think of off the top of my head is that older cars tend to be smaller, so perhaps you’re less likely to be involved in one in the first place!)

dogisbadob > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:16

0

After 1990, as well before 1960 (those old cars are fucking tanks) (American cars upto 1980 are probably safe due to also being tanks)

duurtlang > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:17

0

In your comparison all the new cars are safer. The only way an old car can have an advantage on a new car is due to weight. A heavy old car will plough through a light weight new car. Physics. Weight doesn’t provide true safety though, as it provides safety to its inhabitants at the expense of the safety of everyone else. As opposed to seat belts, crumple zones and airbags, which improve safety without negative safety consequences for others.

Cé hé sin > dogisbadob 04/20/2015 at 15:19

2

“(American cars up to 1980 are probably safe due to also being tanks)“

Have you seen that famous video showing just how unsafe a car from that era is, tank or otherwise?

yamahog > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:20

0

They were 59 and 2009 Chevys for NHTSA’s 50th anniversary. Love whipping that one out whenever people complain about WAHHH BIG A PILLARS.

IMO, most cars 90s and on should be up to snuff assuming no prior accidents or previous owners doing stupid stuff. Also, replace any worn seat belts!

ttyymmnn > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:21

0

I guess I would go back and look at when major safety devices or design elements were introduced. Mercedes patented the crumple zone in 1951, but it took a while for the concept to become standard. It wasn’t until the early ‘90s that crumple zone technology really took off, interestingly, influenced by safety advances in F1. The airbag was patented in 1951, but it wasn’t until the early ‘70s that Ford and GM started offering them, and it wasn’t until 1988 that Chrysler started making driver side airbags standard. All that said, I would look at 1990 as a pivotal year for major advancements in auto crash safety.

MegaSuper > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 15:23

0

I’m no physics expert, so I’ll ask: Does that weight really provide ANY added safety to the inhabitants though? If a car weighs 3000 kilos but has weak crumple zones, doesn’t it just not matter since the G-Forces are passed on to the humans within, who then are injured by whiplash/colliding with interior elements, etc? When you say “plow through”, does that actually increase survivability?

Also, doesn’t this fly in the face of the common “Today’s cars are so heavy! Safety features! Technology!” argument that is often made on here? I don’t really know how much cars from the muscle car era weigh; is it that much more or less than a modern Challenger or something?

E92M3 > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:24

0

Crash standards have changed A LOT in the last 5 years. Especially when it comes to offset frontal impact, and roof strength. An offset head-on collision is the most fatal accident you can get in, and also more likely these days with all the distractions (like cell phones, and in car entertainment). A car from 2007 that got a 5 star rating would (9 times out of 10) fail todays tests.

MegaSuper > dogisbadob 04/20/2015 at 15:25

2

What does this mean though in practical terms? Let’s say a 57 Bel-Air collides head-on with a modern car…wouldn’t you just get the exact situation I described from the video? Doesn’t “being tanks” get negated because the person driving said tank just ends up getting sharp glass and a steering column to the face?

I hear the “tank” argument made a lot but I could have sworn people have written on here that cars are still made that way today, but people don’t think that because the metal is all covered up by plastic.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:26

0

The newer the better in the majority of cases. My current car is smaller than my previous car and only 5 years newer, however my old car had a 3/5 NCAP rating and my new one has a 5/5 NCAP rating.

MegaSuper > E92M3 04/20/2015 at 15:27

0

This is a great point, that overlap test. I don’t want to sound like a shill but this is where Volvo really impresses me. I read that the old XC90 passes the offset test…even though it had yet to even be INVENTED when the old XC90 was out! I also read that in its 12 years of production, only 1 person ever died in an XC90 (in Sweden at least; they apparently ran into a tree). Very interesting.

MegaSuper > yamahog 04/20/2015 at 15:28

0

Thanks for the correction!

Yes, it seems 1990 is the magic number. I also think 1996 or 1997 was when traction control became mandated, yes?

MegaSuper > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 15:30

0

Yeah, part of what inspired me to write this post is the fact that I have some friends from both sides of the pond, and my American ones say “The Fiat 500 and Smart car look so weak! How can you guys handle all the little city cars?” And I think “Wait, doesn’t the Smart car have an F1-style reinforced safety cell? And the Fiat 500 got 5 stars in US crash tests?” Appearances aren’t always everything

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:36

0

Size doesn’t have a lot of effect really. A modern Smart is much much safer than something like an old F150.

This is a good example of my point.

yamahog > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:36

0

No, I believe that was mandated much later (2012?), but it was available before that. I’ve never had traction control and I’ve also never owned a car <10 years old before getting this Camaro.

duurtlang > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:38

0

In a perfect head on crash with two identical vehicles with identical speed the cars stop right where they collide. They just crumple, and this is where a good crumple zone will soften the blow. In a perfect head on crash with a very light and a very heavy vehicle moving at the same speed, the light vehicle will move backwards, the heavy vehicle will continue moving forward (but slower, obviously). Imagine the G forces on the inhabitants. The forces on the inhabitants of the heavier vehicle will be reduced, as they don’t stop (almost) instantly, they continue moving forward. The inhabitants of the lighter vehicle will almost immediately start to move backwards, which is a huge force.

Yes, modern cars are heavy. Relatively heavy. Modern cars are safer than older cars. When you crash a modern Fiat 500 and a 1971 Cadillac De Ville into a wall or (strong) tree, you’ve got a far greater chance of surviving in the Fiat 500. But in a head on between the two? I’m not so sure.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 15:41

0

The Fiat driver would be vastly better off than the Cadillac driver in that crash.

Smoggi - powered by 3 cylinders > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:43

0

Well the Physics somes down to: Force = mass * accelearation. (talking about the person here)
Now if your vehicle is heavier it might be able to plow through a barrier for example instead of stopping dead on the spot which would decrease the acceleration on the person inside the car.
That’s what makes sense to me. Not sure if it’s 100% accurate.

Pixel > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 15:43

0

You are correct. The video you are thinking of was a ‘59 bel air vs a ‘09 Malibu. The Malibu weighed only about 220lbs less than the ‘59. Which makes the “Tank” argument go right out the window.

Check out the weights on modern cars, they aren’t lightweights, even compared to the “big” cars from a while back.

MegaSuper > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 15:43

0

Ahh, gotcha. So it has to do with the fact that a 2-car accident means both cars are generating force in their respective directions of travel. So unlike a head-on into a wall, a head-on into another car is worse. Thanks, that makes sense.

duurtlang > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 15:44

0

Really? The Cadillac weighs twice as much. The Fiat will bounce away like a rubber ball while the Cadillac won’t stop moving forward. Not saying you’re wrong, but I would be very interested in a real expert chiming in. Maybe see a video. And no, the Renault Modus-Volvo wagon video doesn’t count as there isn’t much weight difference between the two stock. That’s ignoring the stories about tampering with the Volvo.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 15:50

0

It’s all about dissipating energy evenly, which a modern car like the Fiat does very well. The Caddy would just crumple.

duurtlang > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 15:52

0

An early Modus diesel is a 11xx kg car, the Volvo a 13xx kg car. There’s only a 200 kg difference. Ignoring the stories that fifth gear tampered with the Volvo, it was logical from the start that the Renault would win. Now try a 2500 kg old car versus a 900 kg new car.

duurtlang > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 15:55

0

Agreed. But that’s against a fixed barrier. When crashing two vehicles of very different weights into each other there are other forces that need to be taking into the equation as well.

Video: start at 0:53

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 15:59

0

Does this display my point a little better? Yes the Mercedes comes off better but it’s still a very survivable crash in the Smart, plus the Merc is equally modern. Swap that Mercedes for an old american barge and the Smart would destroy it. There are a lot more factors in play than just mass, momentum and impulse.

duurtlang > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 16:02

0

If the S-Class would’ve been an old barge with the same weight as the S-Class, the result for the Smart would’ve been the same. For the inhabitants of the barge, not so much. Also note that this is a commercial. I posted another video with a Smart and an S-Class a few minutes ago. One with very different results.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 16:04

0

The smart does pretty well there, the deceleration would be more violent since the small crumple zone and very stiff safety cell mean a much more elastic collision, but it seemed survivable. The bigger car does better but that’s more to do with it’s larger crumple zones than it’s mass.

duurtlang > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 04/20/2015 at 16:06

0

Well, the inhabitants of the Smart would be relatively safe from external wounds. Their organs and brains would be scrambled eggs.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 16:07

0

Wrong, the lower strength of the older car would mean more of the energy of the impact would be dissipated through it. Think hitting a solid wall against hitting a pile of sand.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > duurtlang 04/20/2015 at 16:09

0

You’re not wrong they’d be at much higher risk of internal injuries, but this is largely due to lack of size than lack of mass.

Sweet Trav > MegaSuper 04/20/2015 at 16:14

1

ABS was 1997 IIRC, traction control and esp was 2008 I think.