It still amazes me how old timers still think that older cars '50-'70s are safer than these new "plastic" cars. While I believe that at anything 5mph and below, the older steel bumper cars are better, I'd MUCH rather be in one of these late model cars if in a serious accident. Thanks for posting this up and letting us see how it's done.
Sean Place Not really. But, yeah, it's true that old cars are extremely dangerous - I hate when someone ignorant person goes and says that an old car is safer because it's rock-hard. They don't know what crumple zones or air bags are. In an old car, the entire thing is the crumple zone because of the fact that the shock isn't absorbed well.
It's amazing how many decades passed with no standardized crash testing, or safety equipment being installed in cars. I'm grateful I survived my childhood being driven around in '50s and '60s cars.
I don't think people are seeing the main idea. A car's safety is designed for the human body. Car's have to have crumple, collapse, what have you, zones to absorb the impacts instead of your brain and body absorbing that impact. So a car may look scary to crash in when it's distorted and twisted but actuality, it's doing a lot of good to look that way. If they wanted cars to not have dent when crashing in a wall, they can. It's very possible but would be very stupid to do.
The bodywork in the front should collapse, but the thing to really watch for is the shell surrounding the passenger compartment--the roof, A-pillars, firewall, front doors, etc. That shell should remain as intact as possible, and not crumple up or bend in the middle. The Altima suffered structural damage to the passenger compartment, especially around the footwell, which probably cost it the Good rating.
Very good upload, I've been subscribed to there youtube channel for quite some time but this is a complete in depth tour and now I have a fair understanding of how complex and serious this business is! Thanks CARandDRIVER.
Damn, when I was a kid I used to crash small cars as an entertainment. I was always very "imaginative" as to why the little cars crashed...and now, many years later, I find out that this entertainment you have as a kid, is actually a very important research area, lol...and you get paid for it!! Very interesting video.
obmoder1 yeah im sort of a year late but in the slow mo do you ever see the dummy hitting where the headrests would be? No. it hits the airbag and that's it, it doesn't bounce back and the head doesn't go where the headrest would be
+BaldMancTwat They take the headrest out because the dummy's head isn't going to come back and hit it in this situation. Removing it gives a clear view of the dummy impacting the airbag on video which is important data.
I think it's because headrests are mainly useful for rear-end collisions...for front collisions they are more concerned with the head's forward movement (to the airbag, etc). The head rests are present during their rear-end testing.
I used to sell German cars (VW). Big difference in the 05 1/2 models and up. We also sold Volvo, so it was a common thing for someone to ask which one was safer. My answer was "generally, whoever had the newest design". Volvo and VW have very different ways of going about things, but both work great. I drove a used Volvo 850 and it had the best side impact protection for its time. When I sold VWs, the Jetta had the best side impact. German cars are not the most practical, but they are very safe.
Head rests are for a rear collision, not a frontal collision. Kinetic energy means the person in the seat travels in the direction of the collision. If you are hit from behind, your head snaps back because the car is pushed forward but your body is not.. If you hit something in front of you, the car stops (or is pushed backwards) but you keep travelling forward.
They really need to test Europe-relevant models like the Clio, Megane, Golf, A3, 1 Series, 2 Series, 3 Series, A Class, C Class, Punto, 500, i20, i30, Corsa, Astra, 208, 308, Ibiza, Leon, Yaris... I mean we have probably the most advanced crash test facility in the world (EuroNCAP) but they don't do the Small Overlap Front crash, which is quite useful.
It's pretty amazing how clear the difference is between these cars and the Volvo. Those angled beams on the Volvo work perfectly at "bouncing" away from the crash but here you can actually see how these cars are getting slightly caught when the impact reaches the firewall. Not good for load on the passengers.
The Nissan Maxima was only going 40mph? What?! I drive 90mph on long trips between KC, Saint Louis and beyond...I can only imagine how fucked up my car would be going 90 crashing head on side impact. Kind of just scared me.
Hunter Parker 40 mph implies you had time for desceleration, and these tests are also to make you think more before going nuts with the acceleration pedal.
+Hunter Parker statistics are: 50mph is the boiling point, past 50mph the danger isn't even the crash itself but the G forces in your body which multiply by quite a bit at the moment of the crash. so yeah if at 50 your chances are just about as slim as they get, at 90..... lol more likely a r.i.p situation
Instead of using dummies, why not use persons that are on "death row" in prison ? Offer them limited clemency if they volunteer for these crash tests ?
Stupid ass statement. Also, based on these tests, there's no guarantee that they'll be seriously injured, much less killed, so it's nothing more than torture. You have a sick mind.
jade smith lmao he is talking about some person WHO FUCKING KILLED OR DID SOMETHING REALLY BAD and u stand up for those criminals ? u are a special kind of stupid
I understand why they’re doing this…However the more a person’s feels safer in a car the faster and wreckless they'll liable to drive..."I'm driving the safest car on the road, ABS brakes, side and front air bags, crumbles zones, I'll never get hurt in a crash" Tell people in a collision their car might blow up...They'll drive like they got some sense.
Just a thought, why not have external airbag cushions mounted on the front and rear of each car monitored by radar sensors hooked to computer so that when a closing speed is above a certain threshold, say 20 MPH, a large front or rear airbag automatically deploys, like a parachute. That way more severe crashes would have better energy dispersion external to the frame of the vehicle. Just a thought.
in my opinion I would say a Mercedes w123.w124,w126,an s500 is one of the toughest cars to stand a good crash ive seen them over the years an they do hold up real well ;
over the course of the 5 months since i wrote said comment i have found much more research and turns out they are very strong tough cars due to the mid engine allowing for a large crumple zone in the front and rear.... as well as the car having some of the worlds greatest active safety.... buying one this winter when i can haggle a bit more with the sellers.
yeah, but they dont post the stats on the videos so what use does it serve to post the videos if you would have to do further research to find the stats on all of the cars you might consider buying...
+MPGster s It would be really sweet to see the actual analysis, as you mentioned. I wouldn't even mind if it was for a subscription fee like what they do with Consumer Reports. I'd love to see "if the dummy walked away" or how badly they'd be beat up. Maybe in the future!
Where can one find these cars after they are crashed? Since they are brand new I'm sure some of the parts can be salvaged and purchased by consumers. It would be great for someone like myself who needs a used part. Thanks. Hope to hear back from you on this question.
It wasn't what I thought either, but that's the truth. I loved my Volvo...the Jetta was a reverse engineered 850. We have owned a LOT of Volvos and Vws in the family. I have personally seen the cars we sold involved in accidents and made my own interpretations. When your car wins the Euro ncap..it does actually mean something. Keep in mind the Jetta took a few years to catch up.
Has there ever been an accident (in a job like this) where the garage door is closed but down the hall inside the car is accelerating without anyone knowing it, then BAM the car crashes through the closed door?
It's all good to look into things like this, And I mean to design cars that are safer to drive. It doesn't mean you should slack off on safe _driving_ though; Don't get stupider as cars get safer, that's not good.
Give me 100k a pop I'll narrow it down to #1 weeee #2 ouch #3 that fucking sucked #4 someone find his head. Lot easier to consumers. Nope they had to find his head on that model. Just saying beats working for 17.56 an hour in a steel mill!!!?
Yeah I get your point...However you cannot say that people don't take higher chances driving wreckless in cars they believe they're safer in...Mainly with SUV's...And the fact that your friend was driving almost 100 mph in heavy rain with very low visibility is out right negligence and careless. Nor did he consider his life or those riding along side with him.
for what i have see you are probably right... the wife of my dad boss, had a frontal crash ate 90km/h and survive because has a front to front, and has in a biger car and 10 years yougher than the other car, and shes the only one that survive her parents die... its a sad story... special because she dont have the faul, the other driver made a bad overtake...
I was kind of disappointed that the dummy didn't have anything to say either before or after the crash. Bummer. :) All kidding aside, this was pretty interesting to watch. I didn't know so much work was involved in crashing a car for safety reasons.
Who noticed the Honda CR-V at 6:17? If you look closely, it was crash tested in the new small overlap tests, so it seems like iihs is preparing a SUV series of small overlap crash tests. From the video it seems that the CR-V didnt do well, the whole A pillar almost collapsed completely.
in the most of the frontal crashes, the drivers head hits the B-pillar, hitting back of the head with that speed and force to a pillar is just extreme, why is the side-airbags dont open even in frontal crash
well both US and European crash testing authorities look at neck protection in frontal collision; any removal of the head restraint I am pretty certain would adversely affect the neck protection; after all why else is it called a head restraint.
If it hurts you to see that old floater being crashed I understand, but still there is no reason to call them idiots. And who knows perhaps it was pretty wasted all together even having a nice paint job.
does anyone know why i can not find crash test ratings for a porsche boxster........... i am in the market for one but some reinsurance on safety would be great.
My personnel opinion, I respect the I.I.H.S. over any other company in the business. They base there test on Police and Insurance adjusters reports. Thus it's more accurate of a test then the auto manufacturers telling them the bases for the testing.
US a few time ago make the test of reducing the speed limite in a few places and incrising in others and the results are very funny, were they reduce the number of acidents increase, and were the incrise the speed they have been reduce...
I belive this is because is a smaloverlap, becuase of the naturase of the crash the headrests dont are very use, most of the time they head impacts on the B pilar...
I understand the tree thing, but the small overlap barrier doesn't crumple like a car at all ; it stays rigid so that kind of crash can't be compared to a collision with another vehicle, surely. if two objects going to same speed collide there would be more carnage because both vehicles are decelerating through each other. although I understand that the vast differences in stiffness of steels in each vehicle will shape the outcome of a crash test so they wouldn't do it. it'd take too much time and too much money.
So clearly. From the testing and such. Next time you realize you're not going to be able to dodge that texting driver. Just straight up drive into them instead of dodging and being force into a situation similar to the small overlap test...
I know they gave reason's why. But I never under stood why they don't have the engine running and moving under their own power. Would like to see if it catches fire or if something weird happend.
The IIHS pays for the cars and equipment out of pocket. They buy the cars straight off dealers lots. The IIHS is funded by dozens of different insurance companies. Their goal is to make cars safer and therefore reducing insurance costs which is why insurance companies pay them to do these tests.
It still amazes me how old timers still think that older cars '50-'70s are safer than these new "plastic" cars. While I believe that at anything 5mph and below, the older steel bumper cars are better, I'd MUCH rather be in one of these late model cars if in a serious accident. Thanks for posting this up and letting us see how it's done.
Clearly you missed the point. See the Bel Air vs Impala crash test and maybe you will reconsider.
@@lucasdaignault3466you missed his point, the bel air didn’t do good and this person said they would rather be in newer cars than older ones.
It's amazing how much cars have improved over the recent years because of the IIHS.
Man i would absolutely love to work here. Crashing cars for a living? Yes, Please.
i can do that too. (well, to an extent)
no. do i need to be?
+Pandemic4444 you can work on simulations of it, just like i'm doing (check my videos ;) )
*****
ahah yea xD
I respect the IIHS, except for what they did to that 1959 Chevy.
+maccollectorZ (Commenting Account) yep
+maccollectorZ (Commenting Account) I agree the IIHS testers should use them selves as dummies
Someone had to do it. So many people say old cars did it better. The old cars sure look good but are incredibly unsafe and unreliable.
Sean Place Not really. But, yeah, it's true that old cars are extremely dangerous - I hate when someone ignorant person goes and says that an old car is safer because it's rock-hard. They don't know what crumple zones or air bags are. In an old car, the entire thing is the crumple zone because of the fact that the shock isn't absorbed well.
maccollectorZ (Commenting Account) New cars are collapsible and older cars where tanks but they lacked seatbelts and other safety features.
It's amazing how many decades passed with no standardized crash testing, or safety equipment being installed in cars. I'm grateful I survived my childhood being driven around in '50s and '60s cars.
Excellent documentary. A team of very competent individuals with solid and repeatable process and procedures. I would rate IISS Six-Sigma!
sitting here in shock due to the fact that those dummies cost 250k
It kinda gets to me whenever I see these brand spanking new cars being purposely totaled. Sometimes I think to myself, "Shoot, give me the car!" Lol.
I don't think people are seeing the main idea. A car's safety is designed for the human body. Car's have to have crumple, collapse, what have you, zones to absorb the impacts instead of your brain and body absorbing that impact. So a car may look scary to crash in when it's distorted and twisted but actuality, it's doing a lot of good to look that way. If they wanted cars to not have dent when crashing in a wall, they can. It's very possible but would be very stupid to do.
The bodywork in the front should collapse, but the thing to really watch for is the shell surrounding the passenger compartment--the roof, A-pillars, firewall, front doors, etc. That shell should remain as intact as possible, and not crumple up or bend in the middle. The Altima suffered structural damage to the passenger compartment, especially around the footwell, which probably cost it the Good rating.
You sir are very correct. It can reduce impulse from momentum to reduce forces that can harm your body.
Very good upload, I've been subscribed to there youtube channel for quite some time but this is a complete in depth tour and now I have a fair understanding of how complex and serious this business is! Thanks CARandDRIVER.
Nice and informative video. What do IIHS do with these cars after the crash I wonder?
What are you exposing?
clickbait
Damn, when I was a kid I used to crash small cars as an entertainment. I was always very "imaginative" as to why the little cars crashed...and now, many years later, I find out that this entertainment you have as a kid, is actually a very important research area, lol...and you get paid for it!! Very interesting video.
for some reason, I just love watching cars crumble like loaves of bread. Its orgasmic xD
This is cool! So where are all the other pictures and videos for the crashes on iihs website? Like ford explorer. No new videos for them...
thanks for such a great video. i always wanted to know the behind scene things of crash tests.
I think you misunderstood, the I.I.H.S. has been around for 50 years. Good day and safe driving!
All these steps to ensure it is close to a real situation and yet they remove the headrests?
obmoder1 I know right
obmoder1 the headrests and the seats are tested in another test...
obmoder1 yeah im sort of a year late but in the slow mo do you ever see the dummy hitting where the headrests would be? No. it hits the airbag and that's it, it doesn't bounce back and the head doesn't go where the headrest would be
+BaldMancTwat They take the headrest out because the dummy's head isn't going to come back and hit it in this situation. Removing it gives a clear view of the dummy impacting the airbag on video which is important data.
The_Doctors_Tardis That is true.
I think it's because headrests are mainly useful for rear-end collisions...for front collisions they are more concerned with the head's forward movement (to the airbag, etc). The head rests are present during their rear-end testing.
I used to sell German cars (VW). Big difference in the 05 1/2 models and up. We also sold Volvo, so it was a common thing for someone to ask which one was safer. My answer was "generally, whoever had the newest design". Volvo and VW have very different ways of going about things, but both work great. I drove a used Volvo 850 and it had the best side impact protection for its time. When I sold VWs, the Jetta had the best side impact. German cars are not the most practical, but they are very safe.
Never knew that dummies were that expensive and that complex to put together for the first time!
Head rests are for a rear collision, not a frontal collision. Kinetic energy means the person in the seat travels in the direction of the collision. If you are hit from behind, your head snaps back because the car is pushed forward but your body is not.. If you hit something in front of you, the car stops (or is pushed backwards) but you keep travelling forward.
Nice and Informative Vid! A Ton of planning and research goes into even crashing cars! Great!
hey .. !!! hw r u? !!
Thanks for this very comprehensive video!
They really need to test Europe-relevant models like the Clio, Megane, Golf, A3, 1 Series, 2 Series, 3 Series, A Class, C Class, Punto, 500, i20, i30, Corsa, Astra, 208, 308, Ibiza, Leon, Yaris... I mean we have probably the most advanced crash test facility in the world (EuroNCAP) but they don't do the Small Overlap Front crash, which is quite useful.
It's cool to see my car being shown here. Awesome!
Hey! What about the headrest? It would certainly be a factor in the rebound phase of the crash.
The remove the headrest so they can get a full view of the dummy's head. They do not usually use rebound data.
It's pretty amazing how clear the difference is between these cars and the Volvo. Those angled beams on the Volvo work perfectly at "bouncing" away from the crash but here you can actually see how these cars are getting slightly caught when the impact reaches the firewall. Not good for load on the passengers.
The Nissan Maxima was only going 40mph? What?! I drive 90mph on long trips between KC, Saint Louis and beyond...I can only imagine how fucked up my car would be going 90 crashing head on side impact. Kind of just scared me.
Hunter Parker 40 mph implies you had time for desceleration, and these tests are also to make you think more before going nuts with the acceleration pedal.
+Hunter Parker statistics are: 50mph is the boiling point, past 50mph the danger isn't even the crash itself but the G forces in your body which multiply by quite a bit at the moment of the crash. so yeah if at 50 your chances are just about as slim as they get, at 90..... lol more likely a r.i.p situation
if it was head on the car would absorb more of the empack but they are hitting the car in just the corner so I guess it takes more damage
+Hunter Parker at 90mph it doesn't matter how good the car is, the deceleration forces alone can and probably will kill you.
It seems like they should also do tests with the headrests in place as they provide a secondary impact and pivot source for the neck and head.
I hope the Model S electric car does well in this test, it scored 5.4 stars overall in the NHTSA tests.
Instead of using dummies, why not use persons that are on "death row" in prison ? Offer them limited clemency if they volunteer for these crash tests ?
Stupid ass statement. Also, based on these tests, there's no guarantee that they'll be seriously injured, much less killed, so it's nothing more than torture. You have a sick mind.
Wilbur Snaffel That is torture, and in no way could they collect data such as forces applied to the body.
jade smith lmao he is talking about some person WHO FUCKING KILLED OR DID SOMETHING REALLY BAD and u stand up for those criminals ? u are a special kind of stupid
Who made your dumb ass the king of morals? I don't even need to argue with you, clearly your IQ is below 0.
jade smith yeah this IQ insult its getting old now ...its 2015 ,at least come with something new
I understand why they’re doing this…However the more a person’s feels safer in a car the faster and wreckless they'll liable to drive..."I'm driving the safest car on the road, ABS brakes, side and front air bags, crumbles zones, I'll never get hurt in a crash" Tell people in a collision their car might blow up...They'll drive like they got some sense.
It's interesting to see the comparison at 9:47 between the crash dummies from the early days of crash testing with the modern crash dummies.
Just a thought, why not have external airbag cushions mounted on the front and rear of each car monitored by radar sensors hooked to computer so that when a closing speed is above a certain threshold, say 20 MPH, a large front or rear airbag automatically deploys, like a parachute. That way more severe crashes would have better energy dispersion external to the frame of the vehicle. Just a thought.
in my opinion I would say a Mercedes w123.w124,w126,an s500 is one of the toughest cars to stand a good crash ive seen them over the years an they do hold up real well ;
Well they might be solid but the point of a modern car is to crumple up enough to absorb some energy from the crash while keeping the passengers safe
yes that what Mercedes have been doing for years now just that
I think I just watched the same footage of that same car crashing like 30 times
classic bel air getting smashed just breaks my heart :(
Travisfromoregon that classic one was smashed badly,I bet if it had an engine was probally a 283 that gets lost in that compartment
+Travisfromoregon They crash tested the bel air years before it was a "classic". That crash test was done at the time the car was manufactured.
They had to do it,
over the course of the 5 months since i wrote said comment i have found much more research and turns out they are very strong tough cars due to the mid engine allowing for a large crumple zone in the front and rear.... as well as the car having some of the worlds greatest active safety.... buying one this winter when i can haggle a bit more with the sellers.
yeah, but they dont post the stats on the videos so what use does it serve to post the videos if you would have to do further research to find the stats on all of the cars you might consider buying...
They do add the rating
+MPGster s It would be really sweet to see the actual analysis, as you mentioned. I wouldn't even mind if it was for a subscription fee like what they do with Consumer Reports.
I'd love to see "if the dummy walked away" or how badly they'd be beat up. Maybe in the future!
Where can one find these cars after they are crashed? Since they are brand new I'm sure some of the parts can be salvaged and purchased by consumers. It would be great for someone like myself who needs a used part. Thanks. Hope to hear back from you on this question.
Fantastic and informative video.
It wasn't what I thought either, but that's the truth. I loved my Volvo...the Jetta was a reverse engineered 850. We have owned a LOT of Volvos and Vws in the family. I have personally seen the cars we sold involved in accidents and made my own interpretations. When your car wins the Euro ncap..it does actually mean something. Keep in mind the Jetta took a few years to catch up.
Has there ever been an accident (in a job like this) where the garage door is closed but down the hall inside the car is accelerating without anyone knowing it, then BAM the car crashes through the closed door?
Yeah, the car running the red light sets the tone perfectly for "there are stupid drivers out there", so, safer cars are needed. LOL.
Even in front of 4 wreck car , the only thing we see is , why the hell your clothes are XXL MAN ...... XD
My friend has this car, good to know its rating isn't too bad since I commute with him sometimes lol
It's all good to look into things like this, And I mean to design cars that are safer to drive. It doesn't mean you should slack off on safe _driving_ though; Don't get stupider as cars get safer, that's not good.
unrealistic, some drivers do have hair you know?!
This made my day.
Peter Gizmos you stupid I ask you how to make a dummy with hairs
Not everyone is mr.clean ya know?
Give me 100k a pop I'll narrow it down to #1 weeee #2 ouch #3 that fucking sucked #4 someone find his head. Lot easier to consumers. Nope they had to find his head on that model. Just saying beats working for 17.56 an hour in a steel mill!!!?
While these tests are important, its also important to remember test vs real life is VERY DIFFERENT. braking vs no braking, swerving, etc.
That's why we invented the *air bag!*
Mercedes invented airbags.
I think it's because they primarily focus on the forward momentum of the dummy. So they remove the head restraint to better position their cameras.
Do you have the Renault Megane in this garage ?
I think head restraints are more so for rear-impacts. Probably for a frontal one, it is not necessary for their rubric
Yeah I get your point...However you cannot say that people don't take higher chances driving wreckless in cars they believe they're safer in...Mainly with SUV's...And the fact that your friend was driving almost 100 mph in heavy rain with very low visibility is out right negligence and careless. Nor did he consider his life or those riding along side with him.
That was a really good video!
for what i have see you are probably right... the wife of my dad boss, had a frontal crash ate 90km/h and survive because has a front to front, and has in a biger car and 10 years yougher than the other car, and shes the only one that survive her parents die...
its a sad story... special because she dont have the faul, the other driver made a bad overtake...
I was kind of disappointed that the dummy didn't have anything to say either before or after the crash. Bummer. :) All kidding aside, this was pretty interesting to watch. I didn't know so much work was involved in crashing a car for safety reasons.
they should digitize/upload all their OLD footage to youtube. now that would be cool
Who noticed the Honda CR-V at 6:17?
If you look closely, it was crash tested in the new small overlap tests, so it seems like iihs is preparing a SUV series of small overlap crash tests. From the video it seems that the CR-V didnt do well, the whole A pillar almost collapsed completely.
thanks to upload this video
Just one note they no longer use film cameras. They use high frame rate video cameras.
Do those cars have engines in them? I can't see that older car taking that much damage from a head on collision.
+Tug Life Of course. Older cars aren't built as well as you think they are.
+Tug Life well you would be wrong. Old cars are TERRIBLE in crash's. Nearly 100% of the collision energy goes into the occupants, and that is bad
i like this informative video. i wonder what vehicles do these employees own. Maybe a Volvo??:P
I wish they would test them with the nose diving down like what actually happens when someone slams on the brakes at the last second
in the most of the frontal crashes, the drivers head hits the B-pillar, hitting back of the head with that speed and force to a pillar is just extreme, why is the side-airbags dont open even in frontal crash
lol until 0:55 I thought this was an iihs upload
I'd like to see tests done with a manikin roughly my size, which is 6'4 / 250+lbs. I can't even fit comfortably in many cars.
Idk about you but it'd hurt to watch cars I like getting destroyed... Then again cars I hate would be super satisfying to watch.
well both US and European crash testing authorities look at neck protection in frontal collision; any removal of the head restraint I am pretty certain would adversely affect the neck protection; after all why else is it called a head restraint.
3:00 Damn that impact would be horrendous in a real situation.
what car do the people who work there have?
car ran a red light at 1:20 lol
great video
Still millions of people disobeying speed limits and texting while driving.
Sounded like he very suddenly got pissed about his job. "We started with FUCKING CRASHTESTS"
If it hurts you to see that old floater being crashed I understand, but still there is no reason to call them idiots. And who knows perhaps it was pretty wasted all together even having a nice paint job.
good point
What does it take to work for the IIHS and do this?
.кккп
does anyone know why i can not find crash test ratings for a porsche boxster........... i am in the market for one but some reinsurance on safety would be great.
Really cool video
My personnel opinion, I respect the I.I.H.S. over any other company in the business. They base there test on Police and Insurance adjusters reports. Thus it's more accurate of a test then the auto manufacturers telling them the bases for the testing.
US a few time ago make the test of reducing the speed limite in a few places and incrising in others and the results are very funny, were they reduce the number of acidents increase, and were the incrise the speed they have been reduce...
I belive this is because is a smaloverlap, becuase of the naturase of the crash the headrests dont are very use, most of the time they head impacts on the B pilar...
Why did they remove the head restraints? Aren't they supposed to reduce the risk of neck injuries? :S
I understand the tree thing, but the small overlap barrier doesn't crumple like a car at all ; it stays rigid so that kind of crash can't be compared to a collision with another vehicle, surely. if two objects going to same speed collide there would be more carnage because both vehicles are decelerating through each other. although I understand that the vast differences in stiffness of steels in each vehicle will shape the outcome of a crash test so they wouldn't do it. it'd take too much time and too much money.
So clearly. From the testing and such. Next time you realize you're not going to be able to dodge that texting driver. Just straight up drive into them instead of dodging and being force into a situation similar to the small overlap test...
I know they gave reason's why. But I never under stood why they don't have the engine running and moving under their own power. Would like to see if it catches fire or if something weird happend.
Good video
If you're in a dodge then you'll most likely break your legs
I would NEVER buy a car that failed a crash test. It must have the highest safety rating all around. TOP SAFETY PICK+ is 100% necessary!
Same. I will take a shitty car any day of the week over say a really good one if it had a good safety rating.
***** Vw Up! is 5 star rated XD
Well Done.
They didn't have to crash a classic car. Especially in that great of condition. It even had its original radio!
Who pays for the cars? Do the manufacturers have a certain number of cars they need to provide for test?
The IIHS pays for the cars and equipment out of pocket. They buy the cars straight off dealers lots. The IIHS is funded by dozens of different insurance companies. Their goal is to make cars safer and therefore reducing insurance costs which is why insurance companies pay them to do these tests.
thats why i always stick with 90's Honda Accord.. you get hit by another car ? fine your car does the job because is WAY tougher than you think...
do crash tests on sports cars
OMG I live in Charlottesville Virginia and Ruckersville is just outside of where I live I
At 1:20 the car passed the red light. No wonder they call the crash test doll "Dummy".
1:45 did he say fucking??
It does sound like it. But I believe it's frontal lol
TJC450 "We started with fucking crash tests."
GeddyMX Maybe he was being philosophical..."we all started with fucking (our parents did it to create us, that is). Then...crash tests", lol
+GeddyMX watching this at 3AM fucking giggling in bed