@@ElroyMcDuff They will all veer to the left because of the type on impact on the left corner. But it is the type of side air bags that effect the placement of where you will hit the front air bag. Requirements are you have a side air bag. It is up to the manufacturer to come up with the best design for their vehicles.
I thought the ink marks on the Tesla were more centered. And the Tesla dummy looked to be the best protected and moved around the least in the tests. If I was a dummy, I would want to be in the Tesla.
I remember when the small overlap was added some years ago and all OEMs but Volvo did fail badly. Therefor: well done to all three of them. Nice to see that there is a improvement with all OEMs to that test set up!
Тоже смотрел, но Volvo даже лучше показал. В отличие от этих автомобилей, Volvo не остановился от удара, а немного заехал за перекрытие. Похоже они ставят какой-то отражатель удара, чтобы автомобиль при таком ударе проходил по касательной в скользь, а не ударялся (то есть не сопротивление удару, а отведение его энергии в сторону как в айкидо).
Wow, all these scientists here claiming best and worst performance…based on what they see in a video. Luckily the actual ratings takes a bit more comprehensive evaluation of the car and test dummy later on by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Wow, look at how much faster the Tesla air bag deployed, limiting the forward movement of the dummy in comparison. No wonder they get top safety ratings consistently.
You don't necessarily want to only limit dummy movement, you want to limit g forces the dummy experiences. The Ford had arguably less dummy movement. However, the big advantage of the Tesla is that it inflated its airbags sooner as you stated, before the dummy had even started to lean forward. Which means by the time the dummy hit the airbags, the airbags were already deflating. You want the occupants to hit a deflating airbag, not an inflating one. Hitting an inflating airbag causes bruising and burns, a deflating airbag is much softer.
The VW clearly shows the passenger hitting the A pillar with the head . That’s a fail . And also the amount of damage shows poor crash energy management
I rewatched it a few times, it does not. otherwise there would be paint on the a-pillar. IT looks like the dummies head slips off the airbag towards the steering wheel and a-pillar, but both visibly have no colour on them. What about the damaged a-pillar and the bits of broken glass flying around in the cabin M-3? Also the door handles haven't popped out. So any bystander can't help you out of the car if need be. (you won't be able to open the door from within with that deformation. This was once the reason for the nice big non hidden doorhandles on vehicles.)
The crumple zone is shorter to increase interior space and shorten the turning circle, so with the smaller crumple zone the crash looked worse on the id4
Nice to see how similar the Mach-E and Tesla react, gradually pushing the car away from the collision point. The VW also does well but you can see and edge is grabbing a bit. Nonetheless, so much progress was made, if these were cars from the 60s, the steering wheel would be resting on head rest.
@@Speedytrip Dream on, here are the scores after the NCAP crash test. Tesla: Adult occupants: 96% Children 86% Unprotected road users: 74% Safety assistants: 94% Let's compare with the VW ID4: Adult occupants: 97% Children 89% Unprotected road users: 79% Safety assistants: 91% Both vehicles scored 5 points in the NCAP crash test, yet the Tesla was below the safety points achieved by the ID4, except for active safety assistants. In addition, the door was also identified as a weak point here. At higher speeds, there is a risk that the door will detach from the hinges and tear off completely.
@@Speedytrip The Tesla fared worse in the overlap test shown here. Having the door crunch like that isn't great, since it makes the extraction of injured occupants far more difficult and thus slower.
@@splashmaster2000 fire brigades typically use the simplest way to rescue people out of cars, and I doubt any door here would open after such a crash without heavy hydraulic tools. The best way here is the undamaged passenger site, where even a first responser driving by could open the car's door.
The flex of the Ford and Tesla seems to lessen the Gs the dummy experienced. This is visual and therefore subjective - tesla and ford structures push the car more to the side. The Volvo structure acts more ridged and stops the car more abruptly in the line of travel. The Volvo dummy appears to have had the hardest impact. Ford takes the podium.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 They have an issue with the front trunk being the protection zone. That's why they do incredibly well in moderate and total front collision. It seems like in the small overlap ones, it really has a feathery structure
because model y would outperform them so heavy that video would have title: tesla outperformance everyone because they care about SAFETY and not acoomplishin SAFETY TEST 5 star
ID4 interior view showed the crash dummy's head travel left, splitting the air bags, and maybe or nearly striking the steering wheel. Mustang was much straighter. Tesla M 3 hit in the middle of the driver's air bag. Remarkable.
Tesla's airbags are next level. They have real time monitoring of the seat sensors to know your size , weight and seating position to calculate how to trigger the airbags to suite. They are constantly working on gathering data from real crashes and their own in house testing to make it better.
I noticed that the Mach-E and ID4 steering wheel airbags were barely deployed before the dummy's head impacted them. The Tesla's steering wheel airbag was fully deployed almost before the dummy's head started to move from the impact.
It's in the description. They are all rated "Good" on this test by IIHS with no further differentiation provided by the organization. Overall both the VW and Tesla got Top Safety Pick+, while the Ford got Top Safety Pick. Really they're all very safe vehicles.
HOW WELL DID THEY ACTUALLY PROTECT THE PASSENGER? These electric cars appear to have done well in this offset crash test. They also seem to protect the upper part of the driver. But the crash damage is mainly on the lower half of the car. How well did the lower half of those cars protect the occupant? What kind of interior damage in the lower half of the cabin occured? Would passengers be walking away unharmed, moderately injured, or would they have to be lifted out, and taken on a gurney because of a broken leg?
To be honest, passive safety of all those three cars is very good. From the picutes of this crash test, I think the Ford performs a tiny little bit better than ID.4 and Model 3. But it is just this overlap crash, frontal crash or side crash should be concidered before a final winner is chosen.
@@skyfoxrinoasfr4778 I watched the video a week ago, I remember the Tesla doing great. The occupant was happy and uninjured. "The Tesla took very little damage and could probably drive away."
Notice the Tesla deflected the hit the most of the three. Tesla's A pillar took the least amount of force, and I'd rather have an pillar bend than it translate into forces going into a person's head. not sure why Ford and VW didn't plan to deflect more of this hit, the location of the barrier is a fixed spot.
There is an incredible amount of mass (weight) of the batteries underneath the floor pan of each of these cars maintaining forward momentum that the chassis have to simultaneously manage without it imparting even more damage to the structure while the front crash box is also required to manage controlled deformation at the front impact zone.
It looks like all three did pretty well! GJ Mach-E! Small overlap accidents scare me because that’s what could happen if you attempt to avoiding a head-on with a drunk driver.
wow, ID4 took like allmost all the impact and stopped, while the other two kind of slid to the side, this is not good, the passenger Inthe ID4 would get some real headaches from such accident.
It maybe be the other way a round: The VW's components absorbed the impact, such that the vehicle was not catapulted into potentially the next collision. In fact, on the Telsa, the driver is send sidewards/ backwards, along with his vehicle. You can see that the energy dispersed to the individual parts look greater in the VW, since they are spread out more. To me this makes me think that the VW is the best at handling energy dispersion.
@@NisseOhlsen the cars that after the impact still go straight, absorbed less energy, and the impact had less energy too; otherwise, the front part of the car absorbed all the energym but you still had to stop from....what was it, 50kmh? within that distance. ID4 weoghts at least 1950kg, Tesla max weight is less than 1900kg. There is more impact energy with the ID4, that is why it get's trashed so much, taht is why teh cra has to absorb more energy. Th eproblem is, that the driver in the ID4 - like i said, stopped withing that crash completely = not good.
@@krisg822 Impact should be similar if weight is approx the same and hit angle was similar. For a driver not going backwards means not having your body accelerated (decelerated) as much. From 1:00 you can see that the Tesla rebounded more than the VW, whose parts, in turn, were dispersed over a larger area. That means that in the case of the Tesla, kinetic energy was deflected back into the car more than for the VW, for which more energy was deflected into breaking off parts. The safest car would be the one that stands completely still with as many parts flying off as possible, from purely a perspective of Dynamics.
@@NisseOhlsen Tesla driver goes back an foth, bcoz the car keeps on going forward, the ID4 literally stopped so the driver could not go backwards that much....bcoz teh ID4 was no longer going forward
@@NisseOhlsen try it with your car, what happens at full stop VS what happens you you brake hard and let go of the brakes quickly......yes, in the second version you will be hitting against the seat.
The Ford looked the least violent. The VW... damn. The Tesla's cabin opened up, don't know how that got away with getting the same score as the others as even in the 90s that was a big no-no.
Can you explain what you mean by "opened up"? For me, the VW looked the worst, because here the energy is not converted a vehicle rotation, but fully into braking the vehicle.
@@mcmormus 0:58 you can see the front of the door has pretty much been ripped off the hinges, hence "opened up". Compare that to the other two which look like they had a race car roll cages installed. The worst examples I've seen of cabins opening up were KIAs of the 90s.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 The point of the test is to evaluate the injuries sustained by the driver, not how pretty the crash looks. Tesla got the highest rating
@@sergeig685 🙄 yes Tesla fanboy, in this very specific test, Tesla got away with it... but that's not too say that it couldn't open up further if the dynamics were different... and furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that if the cabin is able to open up, no amount of airbags is going help the occupants.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 shoulda, woulda, coulda, whatever. I'm not a Tesla fanboy, but you are very clearly a Tesla hater. "If dynamics were different" maybe ethe mustang would catch on fire. That's not how it works, buddy.
Yeah that's the thing that's saves lives. The door is completely deformed and probably can't be opened without any help. Also the screen been on means the Pyro-fuse likely failed, which it clearly didn't on the other two. It means that the battery is still live and can be a danger to rescuers.
@@jeffsteyn7174 Jeff - I think the screen runs off the 12 volt battery - so in that sense it is just like any other car. Of course the whole business of disconnecting the 400 volt propulsion battery is an issue for any of these cars. There is a first responders' cut loop under the cowling situated beneath the front boot cover, which is very easily to access in the Model 3. There is also an isolation switch under the rear seat but that may be harder to access after an accident.
With 50 years of experience you would think the VW would do a better job at protecting their valued customer. JMHO. If Autopilot was on the Tesla would have avoided the collision. Not having an accident is the best way to survive an accident.
Actually both of the other cars have better collision avoidance systems. Tesla got rid of the radar sensors in the newer cars. They tend to use only the cameras a lot of phantom breaking occurs. Plenty of UA-cam videos out there of Tesla's crashing into things that are plainly obvious or should be. All systems have some weakness. Getting rid of the radar sensor was a dumb move. In inclement weather that your best sensor to use
@@kens97sto171 How do you get to your conclusion? A few days ago the Autopilot system of my 2020 M3P quit working because of snow clogging up in front of the radar sensor. The cameras in contrary worked fine. So I am totally with Elon in ruling out the radar sensor.
@@kens97sto171 Disagree. Cameras seem to work fine for humans. Not sure why you think humans can't drive cars. As for the radar. Tesla proved that without it, there are fewer phantom braking issues. I suggest you don't buy a Tesla. You will never be happy with a company that does not tell you what to think through advertisements.
@@mattbrew11 hahahaha that is what the advertisements tell you. In the real world, emergency stop does not work most of the time. I doubt the Mustang or the VW would even see the obstacle.
And yet mach e got a worse rating than the model 3, I guess your keyboard warrior video analysis doesn quite stack up to the telemetry from multi million dollar sensor set up.
Why does this test include a Model 3? There are two suv/cuv's and a sedan. Wouldn't a Model Y or X be a way better comparison to show? This kinda make the Model 3 results uncomparable.
@@guilhermericco631 The IIHS crash safety rating system rates each vehicle by class (size and weight), an SUV with a 5-star rating and a Sedan with a 5-star rating are not equivalent. The SUV wins. Motorcycle riders like myself understand mass wins all battles. Price is irrelevant.
i like how the ford disintegrates , absorbs a lot and starts to move sideways in a nice easy manner .. also the tesla structure kinda pushes the car to the side when the VW hits you see it absorbs a bit but then catches , hooks and stops which is what you dont want .. that forces so much power onto the body o.O you dont want the sudden halt - every bit of structural bending and pieces flying off and squeezing of plastic delays that critical hit its getting really clear on the inside footage .. look at the VW dummy diving deep into the left front .. that hurts o.O
The Ford Mach-E clearly does the best of all three, Tesla is a clear second and my beloved VW is a very distant 3rd... Ford really did a good job though, it was outstanding. Totally incompatible to the other two.
@First Last what are you smoking? ID4 is on the EV platform, it doesn't share any components with the ICE cars. ID4 doesn't have a frunk, but it has larger interior space in the same outer dimensions and it has way smaller turning circle, because they put in larger wheel arches. Actually model 3 did the worst on this test, look at how much the door gets bent.
@@Nabeelco that is absolutely positively 100% false. ID.4 uses VW MEB platform which is 100% electric and it's not even related to MQB, it's a skateboard design. MK8 Golf uses MQBevo. ID.4 is rear-wheel drive, there are no MQB rear wheel drive cars...
Tesla Model Y, VW ID4, and Mustang Mach-E are all classified as "Compact crossover SUV" The Model 3 is classified as "Compact executive car." Apples to apples people!
The result of the Tesla is not that great: the front pilar (that holds the roof and the windscreen) is bend and the driver's door moves. This means that the driver's space is reduced and he may be trapped by a damaged door. Look carefully at 1:29 for the pilar. And 0:24 or 0:58 for the door: the left door glass explodes and the door itself is seriously damaged
Starting at 1:43. By analogy as to how fragile things are packaged for shipping - minimal movement. Least amount of movement from initial position. Would this equate to less internal (brain and other organs) damage? Think also of whiplash. Your muscles tighten to try and keep you locked in one position. 1. Model 3 - practically keeps you where you are. Tight fit foam around the product. 2. Mach-E - more movement than Model 3 but less than ID4. Head would've bounced back to the headrest. 3. ID4 - most movement. If this were champagne glass, would it still be intact? I feel like major damage to spine (champagne glass stem). As for the car itself, the more energy is used to deform it, then less energy is transferred to the occupants. It would be nice to see a chart showing how much energy was there total (each car has different weights) and how much was transferred to the occupants.
You cannot determine energy absorption/deflection solely on the basis of the deformation of the vehicle. It also depends on the rigidity of the chassis, crumple zones etc. You also notice that the Mustang and M3 are pushed off the straight line, which means energy is deflected sideways to lessen the frontal impact. The ID.4 doesn't do this, and all the energy goes into a straight line. The car deforms more, but you also see how the driver travels forward far more. Partially perhaps also because the airbag seems to deploy a fraction too late, which ironically can add to the impact on the driver's face.
The test by Euro NCAP which is similar to the US one is showing that these cars all have 5 stars with small differences in points in four categories. The most important thing would be the survival chance in these cars when you hit something with 150 km.
Generally death. Hitting anything like this crash above 80kms per hour is death everything above 100 is guaranteed death hitting a solid item like this
The ID4 impact looked way harder than both other cars. From the top angle the frame had an instant stop point while the other cars slid off to the right. Also from the inside view, the dummy in the ID4 looked like a lot more g's causing the head to bounce off the dashboard. But the ratings were all the same in the end? Bogus. Everybody gets a 5 star rating?
I'd rather have a door ripped off than a head like in the ID. The Tesla driver would have faired the best. Also, the ID and Mach-E are crossovers. The Model 3 is a small sedan.
@@kenbob1071 Dream on, here are the scores after the NCAP crash test. Tesla: Adult occupants: 96% Children 86% Unprotected road users: 74% Safety assistants: 94% Let's compare with the VW ID4: Adult occupants: 97% Children 89% Unprotected road users: 79% Safety assistants: 91% Both vehicles scored 5 points in the NCAP crash test, yet the Tesla was below the safety points achieved by the ID4, except for active safety assistants. In addition, the door was also identified as a weak point here. At higher speeds, there is a risk that the door will detach from the hinges and tear off completely.
@@thedumbconspirator4956 exactly. The more bloated is the car the more time and distance it allows to stop, and therefore much less risk to the occupants.
In order of performance, the Mustang faired best, the cabin structure remained solid, the vehicle deflected smoothly and the driver was in perfect alignment with the airbag. The Tesla did well but the cabin structure failed halfway up the a post but like the Mustang, deflected well with only slight offset of the drivers face on the airbag. The VW I.d in my opinion wasn't a good result, there was no deflection rather a sharp jolt and then a pivotal motion resulting in the driver undergoing increased impact stress followed by twisting that caused the driver to offset the airbag completely to the left and what looks like an impact with panels. Not good
@@RogerM88 thats not what you should care about. Just how much energy gets absorbed because this energy then wont impact your body. Just take a look at the inside shots and then think about which one you would want to sit in.
@@spawndwalk so the car getting crunched as a can is better, because "it absorbed the impact". The front structure is meant to have the crumble zones, not past the A pilar. So you don't get stuck inside the car. Informe your self and stop being so biased.
@@RogerM88 you are talking nonsense now lol. where the hell did that car get crunched? the cabin was totally intact. I mean just look at the video. I wish they released the impact data on the dummy then things would maybe look clearer for you.
I’d like to see a crash test with one of these vs a standard non electric car, the extra weight of the batteries will surely mean the standard car comes off much worse.
Lots of people seem to not understand that deformation is good, falling into pieces is not. iD4 did an awful test here, also there's a huge gap between the airbags, quite bad performance overall m
Never understood why Ford, with so many car models no longer in production to choose from would have two cars with same name. Personally I would have loved to see the Corsair badge back in production. Yeah the car was blah but it's a banger of a name.
Seems to me if they made a stronger bumper it would deflect the car to the side better so the cabin doesnt hit the wall so straight. It would do better in the test anyway
@@mattbrew11 Not by the Euro NCAP ratings ... anyhow I has refering to the images ...Cleary can see the level off pressure by the paint on the air bag from the 2 cars ...and model 3 clearly has less paint/pressure ...
Interesting to note that both the Mustang and the ID-4 eject substantial items. I see the brake caliper flying off the Mustang wheel at 0:11 with half a snapped rotor in it, and the ID-4 at 0:44 throws out the whole wheel hub, brake rotor and suspension knuckles(?)! The ID-4 _somehow_ even manages to fling the headlight unit from the opposite side out. OK for the occupant, but not for everyone else.
Did you miss the bit where the majority of the wheel assembly shoots out of the video frame? Here in the UK where we have narrower roads that massive chunk would easily cross the oncoming lane, and onto the pavement/footpath. I'll be super conservative and estimate 15kg of hard, jagged metal striking at the perfect shin-shattering height. Sure the chance is small, but perhaps a better design would have not ejected parts in the first place. The point about the headlight was more about highlighting that the other two cars designs didn't eject whole components as easily as the VW. But sure... make a facetious comment.
@@DSPNWtoCali these stuff has to flex back in the case the vehicle hits pedestrians (which is tested in NCAP tests) so it's plastic and no massive metal bumper with heavy glass headlights compared to a vintage car.
@@shrekaner people like to focus on Ford and Volkswagen because they're Tesla fans. Don't pay him any attention he was just trying to find something to make himself feel better Because as I seen it, Tesla actually didn't fare too well but it did better than the Volkswagen ID 4 but not as good as the Mustang Mach E. And that also accounts for his fit and finish and build quality.
All 3 vehicles seem to do well, although the ID 4 looks like its completely disintegrating at the front, a lot messier than the other two cars. Also I like the airbag deployment on the Tesla the most, looks to be the safest of the three. Only odd thing in this comparison is the fact that Mustang and VW are 2021 versions while the Model 3 is a 2019 version - strange since Tesla does continuously work to improve their cars, almost on a yearly basis.
I wonder if this Model Y is the same test scenario. Given it doesn't stop, I guess this is the best outcome? (less g forces) ua-cam.com/video/5G1dF392iys/v-deo.html
nice vid funny to see that the Mustang MachE deflects the car away from the barrier and both Model3 and ID4 absorb the impact in there structure. If your on a highway you can land on different lane and be smashed by an other car/truck....
@@mgunn9801 like some one else said, deflecting means you might crash in to something else. I think the standard is to absorb as much energy as possible.
Two things that make me look negatively at these crash tests.- What level of charge has been given to the batteries, extremely dangerous difference.- Battery fire is a chemical reaction with extremely toxic with high temperatures so a crashed electric car is extremely dangerous after a crash until the batteries are discharged, - A serious crash test should take place with a fully charged battery and a waiting period of a few hours to see (reasonable safety management accident scene injured etc.) how batteries cope and do not react chemically
It’s not steering from anything. The kinetic forces of the impact probably damaged the steering components on the other side, or the rack and pinion. The car is not steering away with any electronic input.
@@user-ln7of9gs4s bullshit. it is steering away from the impact. watch the video again. in the frontal view of the video, you can plainly see that the remaining front wheel turned to the right away from the crash steering itself away.
@@dethangelishere394 no one is contesting that. What I’m saying is the impact damaged the steering components which allowed the wheel to swivel. The computer is not steering it away, that is from mechanical failure. A wheel turning during impact does not mean the car is steering away, it’s not. The wheel did turn, but it’s not the work of the car steering using electronics to avoid an accident. This is a crash test, not a collision avoidance test.
@@kronosaurelius , agreed. It all depends on your personal situation and needs. I don't even have a fast charger at home, because I very rarely come home with an almost empty battery that I need to fill up for the day after. And my nearest supercharger is only 2km from where i live. Therefore I'd rather just stop by at the supercharger once a month instead of buying a wallbox. But to each his own.
Was für ein Fortschritt in der Fahrzeug Sicherheitstechnik. Bei allen Fahrzeugen. In den Achtzigern hätte man so einen Aufprall mit einem Fahrzeug, das noch aus den Siebzigern stammt, wohl nicht überlebt.
Seems the same as the Mach E to me, with the ID.4 being third place. But it's physics and if they crashed ten of each car they would all be slightly different.
_"Tesla Model 3 has the best result in simple words...."_ Of course..... Not to mention 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E 40 mph fahrerseitiger IIHS-Crashtest mit kleiner Überlappung Gesamtbewertung: Gut 2019 Tesla Model 3 40 mph fahrerseitiger IIHS-Crashtest mit kleiner Überlappung Gesamtbewertung: Gut 2021 Volkswagen ID.4 40 mph fahrerseitige Small Overlap IIHS Crashtest Gesamtbewertung: Gut
Can't wait to plow my telsa into a wall when I get it
🤣
Let me tell you the future, the repair cost of that will be the same as buying a new gasoline car.
Please don't.
We need more drive units and battery packs for conversions. 👍
@@fynkozari9271 I'm sure under the same kind of impact, ICE car will also be totalled, so it is really not a good argument against EV.
Watch the imprints on the air bags. It is important. The crash dummy stayed more centered in the Mach-E.
They all seemed to veer a bit to the left to me. And the Tesla dummy's imprint on the airbag looked like Wilson haha!
@@ElroyMcDuff They will all veer to the left because of the type on impact on the left corner. But it is the type of side air bags that effect the placement of where you will hit the front air bag. Requirements are you have a side air bag. It is up to the manufacturer to come up with the best design for their vehicles.
I thought the ink marks on the Tesla were more centered. And the Tesla dummy looked to be the best protected and moved around the least in the tests. If I was a dummy, I would want to be in the Tesla.
It looked like the Mach e was the only one where the dummy's head hit the pillar
@@danielmartins9901 I don't think it did.
This is equal parts informative, terrifying, and…weirdly beautiful
I remember when the small overlap was added some years ago and all OEMs but Volvo did fail badly. Therefor: well done to all three of them. Nice to see that there is a improvement with all OEMs to that test set up!
Funny that they dont show how awesome the polestar 2 performs here in true volvo fashion
A friend of mine who owned and liked Volvos would compliment them thus: "If Sears made a car, it would be a Volvo."
@@saladien9987 No need to show that, Volvo probably cannot even fail in crash tests
Тоже смотрел, но Volvo даже лучше показал. В отличие от этих автомобилей, Volvo не остановился от удара, а немного заехал за перекрытие. Похоже они ставят какой-то отражатель удара, чтобы автомобиль при таком ударе проходил по касательной в скользь, а не ударялся (то есть не сопротивление удару, а отведение его энергии в сторону как в айкидо).
@@МихаилВ-е1л кому ты тут пишешь по-русски? :)
Wow, all these scientists here claiming best and worst performance…based on what they see in a video. Luckily the actual ratings takes a bit more comprehensive evaluation of the car and test dummy later on by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Ford really did a great job
Wow, look at how much faster the Tesla air bag deployed, limiting the forward movement of the dummy in comparison. No wonder they get top safety ratings consistently.
good observation. I went and watched it again after reading your comment, you're right! That's crazy
You don't necessarily want to only limit dummy movement, you want to limit g forces the dummy experiences. The Ford had arguably less dummy movement.
However, the big advantage of the Tesla is that it inflated its airbags sooner as you stated, before the dummy had even started to lean forward. Which means by the time the dummy hit the airbags, the airbags were already deflating. You want the occupants to hit a deflating airbag, not an inflating one. Hitting an inflating airbag causes bruising and burns, a deflating airbag is much softer.
@@earthwormjim good points
Too fast of an airbag can injure you.
Seems like the ford did pretty good
On par! You mean besting Tesla. Its right there for your eyes to see and I know we seen the same thing.
@@twany442 well in the test results it was the worst out of the three. (Still over 90% score though)
@@twany442 Maybe your eyes are not trained in evaluating damage to occupants.
I don't really like the looks of the Mach E but must say that I was impressed with these results.
Built Ford Tough 💪🏿
@@Gltokensp06 I hope after 100+ years they've figured out crumple zones.
@@Gltokensp06 ford seems like because of the wheel turn outward to change the force. 1'18"
Definitely the best looking and best built of the bunch. I feel the same way about the Tesla so I guess it looks are subjective.
@@twany442 assembly wise probably but design and looks tesla has my vote. The crossover vehicle looks pretty ugly to me.
The VW clearly shows the passenger hitting the A pillar with the head . That’s a fail . And also the amount of damage shows poor crash energy management
I rewatched it a few times, it does not. otherwise there would be paint on the a-pillar. IT looks like the dummies head slips off the airbag towards the steering wheel and a-pillar, but both visibly have no colour on them.
What about the damaged a-pillar and the bits of broken glass flying around in the cabin M-3?
Also the door handles haven't popped out. So any bystander can't help you out of the car if need be. (you won't be able to open the door from within with that deformation. This was once the reason for the nice big non hidden doorhandles on vehicles.)
VW are the worst cars.
@@nirfz The doorhandles of the Model 3 do not pop out. You just press one side of it and open the door.
ua-cam.com/video/VXcLPs7ULw4/v-deo.html
Is it just me, or the ID looked way worse?
The crumple zone is shorter to increase interior space and shorten the turning circle, so with the smaller crumple zone the crash looked worse on the id4
@@nickbien I think the barrier hit the cabin. The other cars had better "slide zones" so the barrier just slided away.
@@NTNLabs I think the id4 hit the A pillar and stopped and rotated
The other two cars still had some crumple space
@@NTNLabs exactly. VW engineers made a mistake
Simply, ID4 is made for Euro NCAP test, US cars are made for US tests
Nice to see how similar the Mach-E and Tesla react, gradually pushing the car away from the collision point. The VW also does well but you can see and edge is grabbing a bit. Nonetheless, so much progress was made, if these were cars from the 60s, the steering wheel would be resting on head rest.
It almost rips the door off the Tesla... really bad.... the other two didn't have that problem.
@@_Briegel The sheet metal is not whats holding the car together :) Tesla gets the best safety ratings, 5 stars across the board.
@@Speedytrip Dream on, here are the scores after the NCAP crash test.
Tesla:
Adult occupants: 96%
Children 86%
Unprotected road users: 74%
Safety assistants: 94%
Let's compare with the VW ID4:
Adult occupants: 97%
Children 89%
Unprotected road users: 79%
Safety assistants: 91%
Both vehicles scored 5 points in the NCAP crash test, yet the Tesla was below the safety points achieved by the ID4, except for active safety assistants. In addition, the door was also identified as a weak point here. At higher speeds, there is a risk that the door will detach from the hinges and tear off completely.
@@Speedytrip The Tesla fared worse in the overlap test shown here. Having the door crunch like that isn't great, since it makes the extraction of injured occupants far more difficult and thus slower.
@@splashmaster2000 fire brigades typically use the simplest way to rescue people out of cars, and I doubt any door here would open after such a crash without heavy hydraulic tools.
The best way here is the undamaged passenger site, where even a first responser driving by could open the car's door.
The Tesla’s A-Pillar showed a lot of flex and the lower rocker panel showed the most damage.
🤫 shhh, I noticed that too, but you'll upset the Tesla fanboys by pointing it out.
The flex of the Ford and Tesla seems to lessen the Gs the dummy experienced. This is visual and therefore subjective - tesla and ford structures push the car more to the side. The Volvo structure acts more ridged and stops the car more abruptly in the line of travel. The Volvo dummy appears to have had the hardest impact. Ford takes the podium.
That kink in the A pillar scares me... but I can't say it surprises me.
There was also the possibility of injuries to the left lower leg
@@timhinchcliffe5372 They have an issue with the front trunk being the protection zone. That's why they do incredibly well in moderate and total front collision. It seems like in the small overlap ones, it really has a feathery structure
Wouldn‘t it make more sense to add a Model Y to the comparison?
exactly what I came to say.
I agree. All are classified as "Compact crossover SUV" The Model 3 is classified as Compact executive car. Apples to apples people!
The IIHS has not tested the Model Y yet, but they are about to get started with the Model Y.
@@idontknowwhattoputhere. IIHS has not tested a car that has been on the road for 4 years? How is that legal??
@@davidbeppler3032 First Model Ys were delivered to customers only 21 months ago (March 13, 2020).
ford looks to be better built inside for the airbag protection, and the outside, watch the drivers door, as compaiered to the other cars
Why are you comparing the Model 3 sedan against two crossover SUVs instead of using the Model Y crossover?
because model y would outperform them so heavy that video would have title: tesla outperformance everyone because they care about SAFETY and not acoomplishin SAFETY TEST 5 star
Possibly because of the price difference? A model 3 is closer in price to those 2 cars than a model Y.
@@ilin76bb fool, very easy to compare a car that costs 55 thousand dollars to cars that cost like 40 thousand
ID4 interior view showed the crash dummy's head travel left, splitting the air bags, and maybe or nearly striking the steering wheel. Mustang was much straighter. Tesla M 3 hit in the middle of the driver's air bag. Remarkable.
Tesla's airbags are next level. They have real time monitoring of the seat sensors to know your size , weight and seating position to calculate how to trigger the airbags to suite. They are constantly working on gathering data from real crashes and their own in house testing to make it better.
If you closely, the ID 4 didn't ricochet off the pillar like the Mach E and Tesla. Therefor, more kinetic energy was going into the ID 4.
@@maxkonig559 exactly shitty engineering design of vw
@@saff226 the ford has the exact same tech
I noticed that the Mach-E and ID4 steering wheel airbags were barely deployed before the dummy's head impacted them. The Tesla's steering wheel airbag was fully deployed almost before the dummy's head started to move from the impact.
Do you also say which car was the best or do you just let the UA-cam-Keyboard Warriors decide?
😂😂😂😂
I was thinking the same how can we know which one has a good results ?!!
It's in the description. They are all rated "Good" on this test by IIHS with no further differentiation provided by the organization. Overall both the VW and Tesla got Top Safety Pick+, while the Ford got Top Safety Pick.
Really they're all very safe vehicles.
@@Narcissist86 thanks for the info 👌🏾👌🏾
HOW WELL DID THEY ACTUALLY PROTECT THE PASSENGER? These electric cars appear to have done well in this offset crash test. They also seem to protect the upper part of the driver. But the crash damage is mainly on the lower half of the car.
How well did the lower half of those cars protect the occupant? What kind of interior damage in the lower half of the cabin occured?
Would passengers be walking away unharmed, moderately injured, or would they have to be lifted out, and taken on a gurney because of a broken leg?
exactly.. no expert here. can I have some numbers?
from what i see following mannequin closely in slomo i'd say id4 was the weakest
Maybe go look up the ratings? We know the chances of you looking it up are as good as you purchasing any of these vehicles.
Passengers would be much better off then with a full ICE crushing there legs
I want to see a real life crash, like frontal crashing into a truck at 120-130km/h
If I had to be inside one, I would definetly choose Ford
Hopefully it's a Pinto
To be honest, passive safety of all those three cars is very good. From the picutes of this crash test, I think the Ford performs a tiny little bit better than ID.4 and Model 3. But it is just this overlap crash, frontal crash or side crash should be concidered before a final winner is chosen.
Also the Front Nose clip test. The test Ford and VW do not do. Tesla does.
Guys you are blind? or teslas fun boys? you have see the pilar in the tesla car have be compromise and have bean bend?.
@@skyfoxrinoasfr4778 I watched the video a week ago, I remember the Tesla doing great. The occupant was happy and uninjured.
"The Tesla took very little damage and could probably drive away."
Notice the Tesla deflected the hit the most of the three. Tesla's A pillar took the least amount of force, and I'd rather have an pillar bend than it translate into forces going into a person's head. not sure why Ford and VW didn't plan to deflect more of this hit, the location of the barrier is a fixed spot.
answer: because it still test within acceptable regulations
There is an incredible amount of mass (weight) of the batteries underneath the floor pan of each of these cars maintaining forward momentum that the chassis have to simultaneously manage without it imparting even more damage to the structure while the front crash box is also required to manage controlled deformation at the front impact zone.
well its 60 km/h
I was wondering if they had removed the battery in the tests actually, since they did not seem concered about fire in the vehicle.
There is also an incredible amount of mass in between your capital letter and your period.
It looks like all three did pretty well! GJ Mach-E! Small overlap accidents scare me because that’s what could happen if you attempt to avoiding a head-on with a drunk driver.
That’s when you go head on instead of small overlapping them. Regardless you die if you hit a truck with a car.
Or someone texting and crossing into your lane.
Air bags, absolutely amazing.
Excellent vídeo.
The name of music is....?????
Thanks!
wow, ID4 took like allmost all the impact and stopped, while the other two kind of slid to the side, this is not good, the passenger Inthe ID4 would get some real headaches from such accident.
It maybe be the other way a round: The VW's components absorbed the impact, such that the vehicle was not catapulted into potentially the next collision. In fact, on the Telsa, the driver is send sidewards/ backwards, along with his vehicle.
You can see that the energy dispersed to the individual parts look greater in the VW, since they are spread out more. To me this makes me think that the VW is the best at handling energy dispersion.
@@NisseOhlsen the cars that after the impact still go straight, absorbed less energy, and the impact had less energy too; otherwise, the front part of the car absorbed all the energym but you still had to stop from....what was it, 50kmh? within that distance. ID4 weoghts at least 1950kg, Tesla max weight is less than 1900kg. There is more impact energy with the ID4, that is why it get's trashed so much, taht is why teh cra has to absorb more energy. Th eproblem is, that the driver in the ID4 - like i said, stopped withing that crash completely = not good.
@@krisg822 Impact should be similar if weight is approx the same and hit angle was similar.
For a driver not going backwards means not having your body accelerated (decelerated) as much.
From 1:00 you can see that the Tesla rebounded more than the VW, whose parts, in turn, were dispersed over a larger area. That means that in the case of the Tesla, kinetic energy was deflected back into the car more than for the VW, for which more energy was deflected into breaking off parts. The safest car would be the one that stands completely still with as many parts flying off as possible, from purely a perspective of Dynamics.
@@NisseOhlsen Tesla driver goes back an foth, bcoz the car keeps on going forward, the ID4 literally stopped so the driver could not go backwards that much....bcoz teh ID4 was no longer going forward
@@NisseOhlsen try it with your car, what happens at full stop VS what happens you you brake hard and let go of the brakes quickly......yes, in the second version you will be hitting against the seat.
The VW logo at 1:36 : "well imma head out"
Tesla’s A pillar bends the most
The Ford looked the least violent. The VW... damn.
The Tesla's cabin opened up, don't know how that got away with getting the same score as the others as even in the 90s that was a big no-no.
Can you explain what you mean by "opened up"? For me, the VW looked the worst, because here the energy is not converted a vehicle rotation, but fully into braking the vehicle.
@@mcmormus 0:58 you can see the front of the door has pretty much been ripped off the hinges, hence "opened up". Compare that to the other two which look like they had a race car roll cages installed.
The worst examples I've seen of cabins opening up were KIAs of the 90s.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 The point of the test is to evaluate the injuries sustained by the driver, not how pretty the crash looks. Tesla got the highest rating
@@sergeig685 🙄 yes Tesla fanboy, in this very specific test, Tesla got away with it... but that's not too say that it couldn't open up further if the dynamics were different... and furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that if the cabin is able to open up, no amount of airbags is going help the occupants.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 shoulda, woulda, coulda, whatever. I'm not a Tesla fanboy, but you are very clearly a Tesla hater. "If dynamics were different" maybe ethe mustang would catch on fire. That's not how it works, buddy.
Pretty impressive that the Tesla screen stays on even after impact.
Wow it does not even flicker, even pops up a message about how shit sucks.
@@AdamC5013 "Why did they pick ME for this test?!?"
Yeah that's the thing that's saves lives. The door is completely deformed and probably can't be opened without any help. Also the screen been on means the Pyro-fuse likely failed, which it clearly didn't on the other two. It means that the battery is still live and can be a danger to rescuers.
@@jeffsteyn7174 Jeff - I think the screen runs off the 12 volt battery - so in that sense it is just like any other car. Of course the whole business of disconnecting the 400 volt propulsion battery is an issue for any of these cars. There is a first responders' cut loop under the cowling situated beneath the front boot cover, which is very easily to access in the Model 3. There is also an isolation switch under the rear seat but that may be harder to access after an accident.
@@jeffsteyn7174 That screen is not 400v, FYI.
The pain of seeing this🥺🥺 been trying to save for my first car for the past 4yrs 😭😭
Invest in stocks.
Don't worry, they are only electric cars
Much better to watch this from the outside than from the inside ;) These tests are what ensures your car will be safe.
@@Speedytrip Very true, accidents are never much fun when they happen to you lol
@@kronosaurelius If I had £29k to spend on an electric car I definitely wouldn't be short of cash lol
Probably improved the panel gaps on the Tesla.
Its almost like Ford has been making cars forever and they know what they are doing, its apparent in this video.
Could you enlighten us who see no difference?
They got the worst rating out of these three though
@@MrSchwabentier this is why you never trust ratings . Tesla did the worst The A pillar bent so bad that it sent plastic pieces everywhere in the car
@@waterloo123100 Tesla got the highest safety rating. Nice, try though
With 50 years of experience you would think the VW would do a better job at protecting their valued customer. JMHO.
If Autopilot was on the Tesla would have avoided the collision. Not having an accident is the best way to survive an accident.
All three of these vehicles have emergency stop. Don’t be a simpleton fanboi
Actually both of the other cars have better collision avoidance systems. Tesla got rid of the radar sensors in the newer cars. They tend to use only the cameras a lot of phantom breaking occurs. Plenty of UA-cam videos out there of Tesla's crashing into things that are plainly obvious or should be. All systems have some weakness. Getting rid of the radar sensor was a dumb move. In inclement weather that your best sensor to use
@@kens97sto171
How do you get to your conclusion?
A few days ago the Autopilot system of my 2020 M3P quit working because of snow clogging up in front of the radar sensor.
The cameras in contrary worked fine.
So I am totally with Elon in ruling out the radar sensor.
@@kens97sto171 Disagree. Cameras seem to work fine for humans. Not sure why you think humans can't drive cars. As for the radar. Tesla proved that without it, there are fewer phantom braking issues. I suggest you don't buy a Tesla. You will never be happy with a company that does not tell you what to think through advertisements.
@@mattbrew11 hahahaha that is what the advertisements tell you. In the real world, emergency stop does not work most of the time. I doubt the Mustang or the VW would even see the obstacle.
Look at the A pillars, Fords hardly flexes, Tesla looks ready to crumble, VW flexed a bit.
And yet mach e got a worse rating than the model 3, I guess your keyboard warrior video analysis doesn quite stack up to the telemetry from multi million dollar sensor set up.
@@Dexter_Solid It was just an observation, perhaps the buckling of the A pillar absorbed more shock.
you could use some manors.
@@jbonet4750 imagine manners in the comment section of youtube.
What’s the soundtrack behind?
Why does this test include a Model 3?
There are two suv/cuv's and a sedan.
Wouldn't a Model Y or X be a way better comparison to show?
This kinda make the Model 3 results uncomparable.
Maybe because they are similar in price
It would be unfair to the other cars, because the models you said are more expensive than the other cars.
@@guilhermericco631 The IIHS crash safety rating system rates each vehicle by class (size and weight), an SUV with a 5-star rating and a Sedan with a 5-star rating are not equivalent. The SUV wins. Motorcycle riders like myself understand mass wins all battles. Price is irrelevant.
i like how the ford disintegrates , absorbs a lot and starts to move sideways in a nice easy manner ..
also the tesla structure kinda pushes the car to the side
when the VW hits you see it absorbs a bit but then catches , hooks and stops which is what you dont want .. that forces so much power onto the body o.O
you dont want the sudden halt - every bit of structural bending and pieces flying off and squeezing of plastic delays that critical hit
its getting really clear on the inside footage .. look at the VW dummy diving deep into the left front .. that hurts o.O
The Ford Mach-E clearly does the best of all three, Tesla is a clear second and my beloved VW is a very distant 3rd...
Ford really did a good job though, it was outstanding. Totally incompatible to the other two.
@First Last what are you smoking? ID4 is on the EV platform, it doesn't share any components with the ICE cars. ID4 doesn't have a frunk, but it has larger interior space in the same outer dimensions and it has way smaller turning circle, because they put in larger wheel arches. Actually model 3 did the worst on this test, look at how much the door gets bent.
Because the contact corners rolled its designed to cheat the test.
@@UhOhUmm Yes it does... The ID.4 uses the MQBevo platform, which is one VW developed and used on a bunch of cars, electric, gas and diesel.
@@Nabeelco that is absolutely positively 100% false. ID.4 uses VW MEB platform which is 100% electric and it's not even related to MQB, it's a skateboard design. MK8 Golf uses MQBevo.
ID.4 is rear-wheel drive, there are no MQB rear wheel drive cars...
Tesla Model Y, VW ID4, and Mustang Mach-E are all classified as "Compact crossover SUV" The Model 3 is classified as "Compact executive car." Apples to apples people!
Tesla fanboy in denial.
Doesn't really matter what they call themselves. They're going off physical dimensions and weight.
right?!
@@RogerM88
In denial of what?
@@9fiveb180 Model 3 is significantly lighter.
The result of the Tesla is not that great: the front pilar (that holds the roof and the windscreen) is bend and the driver's door moves. This means that the driver's space is reduced and he may be trapped by a damaged door.
Look carefully at 1:29 for the pilar.
And 0:24 or 0:58 for the door: the left door glass explodes and the door itself is seriously damaged
Starting at 1:43. By analogy as to how fragile things are packaged for shipping - minimal movement. Least amount of movement from initial position. Would this equate to less internal (brain and other organs) damage? Think also of whiplash. Your muscles tighten to try and keep you locked in one position.
1. Model 3 - practically keeps you where you are. Tight fit foam around the product.
2. Mach-E - more movement than Model 3 but less than ID4. Head would've bounced back to the headrest.
3. ID4 - most movement. If this were champagne glass, would it still be intact? I feel like major damage to spine (champagne glass stem).
As for the car itself, the more energy is used to deform it, then less energy is transferred to the occupants. It would be nice to see a chart showing how much energy was there total (each car has different weights) and how much was transferred to the occupants.
Assumptions out the REAL scoop, shape,forms sizes,weight ,standard parameters etcetera determine the damage.
what do you mean by foam
You cannot determine energy absorption/deflection solely on the basis of the deformation of the vehicle. It also depends on the rigidity of the chassis, crumple zones etc. You also notice that the Mustang and M3 are pushed off the straight line, which means energy is deflected sideways to lessen the frontal impact. The ID.4 doesn't do this, and all the energy goes into a straight line. The car deforms more, but you also see how the driver travels forward far more. Partially perhaps also because the airbag seems to deploy a fraction too late, which ironically can add to the impact on the driver's face.
Wondering what will happen if crashes occur at speeds beyond 40 mph. Hard to believe someone turtling along at 40 mph.
The test by Euro NCAP which is similar to the US one is showing that these cars all have 5 stars with small differences in points in four categories. The most important thing would be the survival chance in these cars when you hit something with 150 km.
Generally death. Hitting anything like this crash above 80kms per hour is death everything above 100 is guaranteed death hitting a solid item like this
@@ryanmicro some guy crashed a model 3 at over 100mph, walked away from the accident
@@olemissjim yeah thats not a crash like this, any dead stop above 80 is pretty much desth
I’d really like to see these test done with the car turned on to see if the car avoids the accident altogether.
Bet the ID 4 would veer into the obstacle! lmao
@@davidbeppler3032 - lol
@@davidbeppler3032 yeah cos teslas don't do that
@@jeffsteyn7174 True. AS has been proven hundreds of times so far. 66% safer than anything else on the road. Numbers don't lie.
that is not what this test is for, there are separate tests for the assistance features.
Should provide the background music 🎶🎶 link
Yeah no luck finding it on my side. I tried all means I know...
Deep Dream by MARiAN
The ID4 impact looked way harder than both other cars. From the top angle the frame had an instant stop point while the other cars slid off to the right. Also from the inside view, the dummy in the ID4 looked like a lot more g's causing the head to bounce off the dashboard. But the ratings were all the same in the end? Bogus. Everybody gets a 5 star rating?
Well test results are determined by sensors, not by which crash looks best.
@@MrSchwabentier do you have the data? You know like 40% of cars are "top safety pick" even though there are big difference in safety.
It almost rips the door off the Tesla... really bad.... the other two didn't have that problem.
I'd rather have a door ripped off than a head like in the ID. The Tesla driver would have faired the best. Also, the ID and Mach-E are crossovers. The Model 3 is a small sedan.
@@kenbob1071 Dream on, here are the scores after the NCAP crash test.
Tesla:
Adult occupants: 96%
Children 86%
Unprotected road users: 74%
Safety assistants: 94%
Let's compare with the VW ID4:
Adult occupants: 97%
Children 89%
Unprotected road users: 79%
Safety assistants: 91%
Both vehicles scored 5 points in the NCAP crash test, yet the Tesla was below the safety points achieved by the ID4, except for active safety assistants. In addition, the door was also identified as a weak point here. At higher speeds, there is a risk that the door will detach from the hinges and tear off completely.
What a job to have. But that guy in the yellow suit must have a hell of a headache after all that headbanging. Hope he's getting paid well.
Mach-E, ID4 and a Model 3???? Why not an Model Y? lol
I think the model y would perform similarly too as it's basically a bloated 3 although that would be a better comparison
@@thedumbconspirator4956 exactly. The more bloated is the car the more time and distance it allows to stop, and therefore much less risk to the occupants.
They all did very well. Glad my Model Y can take a punch (not in the video but the 3 and Y are the same).
The mustang was definitely the best performer
@@mattbrew11 username evidently does not check out
@@jasper5097 my sister is a program director at NHTSA.
That’s her position
@@mattbrew11 and I'm supposed to trust this?
@@jasper5097 you don’t have to do anything amigo. Happy holidays
In order of performance, the Mustang faired best, the cabin structure remained solid, the vehicle deflected smoothly and the driver was in perfect alignment with the airbag.
The Tesla did well but the cabin structure failed halfway up the a post but like the Mustang, deflected well with only slight offset of the drivers face on the airbag.
The VW I.d in my opinion wasn't a good result, there was no deflection rather a sharp jolt and then a pivotal motion resulting in the driver undergoing increased impact stress followed by twisting that caused the driver to offset the airbag completely to the left and what looks like an impact with panels. Not good
These small offset tests are brutal
And what's your winner?
Any comments from the channel on the vídeo?
What an amazing track. Is this your own music or can you provide a track ID? Thank you.
Too cringe Tesla fanboys jumping on the comment section to hype the Model 3 results. When it was the car with more crumple on the driver's door.
you realize its a good thing if more energy gets absorbed, right?
@@spawndwalk are you aware that having the door in better condition after the crash, it's way safer? Because allows the door to be more easily open.
@@RogerM88 thats not what you should care about. Just how much energy gets absorbed because this energy then wont impact your body. Just take a look at the inside shots and then think about which one you would want to sit in.
@@spawndwalk so the car getting crunched as a can is better, because "it absorbed the impact". The front structure is meant to have the crumble zones, not past the A pilar. So you don't get stuck inside the car. Informe your self and stop being so biased.
@@RogerM88 you are talking nonsense now lol. where the hell did that car get crunched? the cabin was totally intact. I mean just look at the video. I wish they released the impact data on the dummy then things would maybe look clearer for you.
Impressing sequences... Thank you very much !
An good luck to all car drivers...
Подскажите название трека
Interesting to watch from various angles, but I was expecting the findings toward the end. Are they somewhere else?
You can get them on internet I'm pretty sure
I’d like to see a crash test with one of these vs a standard non electric car, the extra weight of the batteries will surely mean the standard car comes off much worse.
Welcher Song ist das?
This is the most expensive face print on the pillow ))
Это самый дорогой отпечаток лица на подушке ))
Great thumbnail!
Tesla's A column was the only one of the three that deformed.
Must be the panel gaps
To me it didn’t penetrate and videos looked like least amount of force absorbed by body during stop
VW looked terrible
Those airbags are incredible
Don't wanna be inside that Volkswagen....
You mean the tesla lol....
Id4 looked bad for the rider
@@alanmay7929 look better
@@alanmay7929
No he meant the volkswagon, that thing went to shit when it hit the wall.
Lots of people seem to not understand that deformation is good, falling into pieces is not. iD4 did an awful test here, also there's a huge gap between the airbags, quite bad performance overall m
ID4: Front Windows were *not* closed before impact. Why? Right?
AND.............queue all the Tesla fans saying they won.
Never understood why Ford, with so many car models no longer in production to choose from would have two cars with same name. Personally I would have loved to see the Corsair badge back in production. Yeah the car was blah but it's a banger of a name.
Название музыки ?
Seems to me if they made a stronger bumper it would deflect the car to the side better so the cabin doesnt hit the wall so straight. It would do better in the test anyway
Mustang performed the best. Amazing work Ford
Whats the song name? Shazam coulnd´t find it :/
If you see closely, the Tesla is the one absorb more forces, diverting then from the dummy...
Actually thats incorrect per the data. The ford was the top performer
@@mattbrew11 Not by the Euro NCAP ratings ... anyhow I has refering to the images ...Cleary can see the level off pressure by the paint on the air bag from the 2 cars ...and model 3 clearly has less paint/pressure ...
@@mattbrew11 The Tesla dummy looked to be the best protected and moved around the least in the tests. I felt sorry for that VW dummy.
the id4 reminds me of the model s small overlap test
Interesting to note that both the Mustang and the ID-4 eject substantial items. I see the brake caliper flying off the Mustang wheel at 0:11 with half a snapped rotor in it, and the ID-4 at 0:44 throws out the whole wheel hub, brake rotor and suspension knuckles(?)! The ID-4 _somehow_ even manages to fling the headlight unit from the opposite side out. OK for the occupant, but not for everyone else.
lol... what a stupid statement... i see thousends of people injured every year by flying headlamps...
Did you miss the bit where the majority of the wheel assembly shoots out of the video frame? Here in the UK where we have narrower roads that massive chunk would easily cross the oncoming lane, and onto the pavement/footpath. I'll be super conservative and estimate 15kg of hard, jagged metal striking at the perfect shin-shattering height. Sure the chance is small, but perhaps a better design would have not ejected parts in the first place. The point about the headlight was more about highlighting that the other two cars designs didn't eject whole components as easily as the VW. But sure... make a facetious comment.
@@stephen-boddy I agree, but I saw VW has the most or worst stuff flying around than the rest.
Just scary.
@@DSPNWtoCali these stuff has to flex back in the case the vehicle hits pedestrians (which is tested in NCAP tests) so it's plastic and no massive metal bumper with heavy glass headlights compared to a vintage car.
@@shrekaner people like to focus on Ford and Volkswagen because they're Tesla fans. Don't pay him any attention he was just trying to find something to make himself feel better Because as I seen it, Tesla actually didn't fare too well but it did better than the Volkswagen ID 4 but not as good as the Mustang Mach E. And that also accounts for his fit and finish and build quality.
They all stopped at the Battery pack and deflect saving legs and hips.. I like the VW ID4!
Id3 looks the dodgiest, rebounded hectically, lost its whole front, and the drivers head almost missed the airbag.
The VW still got a better rating than the Ford for adults and was best out of the three for children
@@MrSchwabentier he is looking at it from fanboy eyes. They completely miss the obvious on the car he is fanboying for.
Tesla model 3 has its A pillar bent…
you should do mach-E vs model Y vs ID4
Ford Mustang, great job!
I'm not too sure about that A-pillar buckling on the Tesla.
Tesla looks more safer..👆👆
What the music?
All 3 vehicles seem to do well, although the ID 4 looks like its completely disintegrating at the front, a lot messier than the other two cars. Also I like the airbag deployment on the Tesla the most, looks to be the safest of the three. Only odd thing in this comparison is the fact that Mustang and VW are 2021 versions while the Model 3 is a 2019 version - strange since Tesla does continuously work to improve their cars, almost on a yearly basis.
I wonder if this Model Y is the same test scenario. Given it doesn't stop, I guess this is the best outcome? (less g forces)
ua-cam.com/video/5G1dF392iys/v-deo.html
It shattered and the airbags didn't do anything the dummy went through them
@@awesomeness369 You mean on the VW? Yes, indeed. Troublesome.
@@HaraldSchilly This... is fascinating. The Y deflects away from the obstacle. Interesting.
@@robertmandl9326 yea
Damn that wall is quality right there.
nice vid funny to see that the Mustang MachE deflects the car away from the barrier and both Model3 and ID4 absorb the impact in there structure. If your on a highway you can land on different lane and be smashed by an other car/truck....
Never considered that but yeah, you're right!
Wow!! That's rocket science. Ford has been getting their tires like that for years that's nothing new.
When the ford deflects it is lessening the force on the passengers
@@mgunn9801 like some one else said, deflecting means you might crash in to something else. I think the standard is to absorb as much energy as possible.
Airbags looking like Wilson the volleyball after impact
Que tiempos en los años 70 ,cuando el chasis destrozaba el muro en esos choques con sus defensas delanteras
Two things that make me look negatively at these crash tests.- What level of charge has been given to the batteries, extremely dangerous difference.- Battery fire is a chemical reaction with extremely toxic with high temperatures so a crashed electric car is extremely dangerous after a crash until the batteries are discharged, - A serious crash test should take place with a fully charged battery and a waiting period of a few hours to see (reasonable safety management accident scene injured etc.) how batteries cope and do not react chemically
Me hubiera gustado q incluyeran el resultado de todos los modelos. La puntuación, porque a priori parece q el comportamiento es similar
Wonder why part of the VW wheel well is blurred out around the 46-second mark.
the dummy's foot was hanging out, part way severed, my guess.
Interesting that the Mach E steers away from the impact.
It’s not steering from anything. The kinetic forces of the impact probably damaged the steering components on the other side, or the rack and pinion. The car is not steering away with any electronic input.
@@user-ln7of9gs4s bullshit. it is steering away from the impact. watch the video again. in the frontal view of the video, you can plainly see that the remaining front wheel turned to the right away from the crash steering itself away.
@@dethangelishere394 no one is contesting that. What I’m saying is the impact damaged the steering components which allowed the wheel to swivel. The computer is not steering it away, that is from mechanical failure. A wheel turning during impact does not mean the car is steering away, it’s not. The wheel did turn, but it’s not the work of the car steering using electronics to avoid an accident. This is a crash test, not a collision avoidance test.
What scares me the most is the amount of plastic that comes off the bodywork
I promise myself, I’ll buy a model 3
Don't hesitate a second ! 😉
@@kronosaurelius nothing beats the Tesla supercharger network, though. Nor the driving experience.
@@kronosaurelius , agreed. It all depends on your personal situation and needs. I don't even have a fast charger at home, because I very rarely come home with an almost empty battery that I need to fill up for the day after. And my nearest supercharger is only 2km from where i live. Therefore I'd rather just stop by at the supercharger once a month instead of buying a wallbox.
But to each his own.
Was für ein Fortschritt in der Fahrzeug Sicherheitstechnik. Bei allen Fahrzeugen. In den Achtzigern hätte man so einen Aufprall mit einem Fahrzeug, das noch aus den Siebzigern stammt, wohl nicht überlebt.
The Mustang didn't hit the edge between the two dotted lines as the two other cars.
well observed!
It's insane how quickly airbags deploy
Explosives doing explosive things.
Ford 💪
i like the music
Tesla Model 3 has the best result in simple words just in case any1 is wondering.
Seems the same as the Mach E to me, with the ID.4 being third place. But it's physics and if they crashed ten of each car they would all be slightly different.
_"Tesla Model 3 has the best result in simple words...."_
Of course.....
Not to mention
2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E 40 mph fahrerseitiger IIHS-Crashtest mit kleiner Überlappung
Gesamtbewertung: Gut
2019 Tesla Model 3 40 mph fahrerseitiger IIHS-Crashtest mit kleiner Überlappung
Gesamtbewertung: Gut
2021 Volkswagen ID.4 40 mph fahrerseitige Small Overlap IIHS Crashtest
Gesamtbewertung: Gut
MERICA!!!
Why do you compare suv with sedan ?