Shite in crash testing

[Mash]

Seeing the Simca 1000 fold up into itself in the eBay bargains thread got me a bit jittery about old cars and their performance in a crash. I know you shouldn't get paranoid but all the same, makes you think!!

 

Check this one out, quite an eye opener if you thought big old yank tanks were rock solid:

 

[Wilko220]

We had this posted a while ago - what a ridiculous and pointless waste of a classic.

[dollywobbler]

Still better protected than anyone on a motorbike. Or pedestrians. I generally try and avoid crashing!

 

EDIT - I'd like to know what speed that Simca was going when it hit the wall. No way was that 30mph.

[CortinaDave]

And they took the engine out of the Bel Air to make it look worse than it probably was. What a waste.

[autofive]

Sierra

 

1983 Beetle and Golf

 

Ford Crash Test - Then and Now

[trigger]

I was reading this eariler in one of my Motor Trend magazines from 1972, I can't believe they used to get in such depth about car crashes, They don't seem to keen on the whole air bag idea either.

 

 

 

 

 

[M'coli]

Still better protected than anyone on a motorbike. Or pedestrians. I generally try and avoid crashing!

 

EDIT - I'd like to know what speed that Simca was going when it hit the wall. No way was that 30mph.

80 Km/h - roughly 50 mph. This is always the problem of rear-engined cars, getting the engine and gearbox to stop. It's one of the reasons that rear-engined family cars exist in the "Blind Alleys in Car Design" - the engine/gearbox represents the major concentration of mass in a family car, thus placing them ahead of the occupants means that the mass of the drivetrain can cancel each other out.

 

I still love driving my Imp, though!

[R9UKE]

The shite I love is rock solid. I can't imagine an accident in my favourite shit heap of all time would be any less pleasant than an eggy fart

 

[Negative Creep]

I don't let it bother me. Car makers have managed to indoctrinate us that anything without 5 NCAP stars is a death trap.The way some people talk about it you couldn't have completed a trip to the shops pre 1990 without exploding in a ball of flame. It's also killed off interesting car design, brought about a reliance on aids, as well as drastically reduced visibility and engine bay access

[Father Ted]

[AnthonyG]

It is a shame they wasted that Bel Air, but it did have an engine, the body deforms like that because its a body on frame design, also on those I believe the frame is a X shape, which is less safe than a H shape like most. The engine just falls off the mountings and is pushed to the side of the Malibu's front quarter.

 

I love these conspiracies theories about old cars in tests, like all that crap about the Volvo 940 having its chassis legs cut in the 5th gear test a few years ago. Its all bollocks from people who know nothing about modern safety design or the thought that goes into it. FredTransit was convinced that a Mk2 Transit was one of the safest vehicles on the road because it had lots of metalwork around the front. She also said 'Forget about physics, in the real world' :lol:

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

That BelAir had a straight 6 engine, and if you look at engine bay photos there's masses of room on either side of it. The X-chassis, as AnthonyG said, offers no protection in an offset crash. That test was a 2009 Malibu crashing into an empty tin box.

 

I do not believe the choice of a BelAir was accidental. No 1959 car would have come out of that better than the 2009 car, but I think they chose one which they knew would create the most dramatic looking wreck. A silent video of a disintegrating BelAir is far more effective than a film where the 1959 car holds up reasonably well but needs a voiceover explaining the subtitles of crash physics when applied to the human body.

[cobblers]

Bloody hell, I'm glad I searched. My vans actually quite safe. I'd read that "OH THOSE OLD VW VANS, YOUR SHINS ARE THE CRUMPLE ZONES M8 LOLOL! WHY NOT GET A VIVARO OR SOMETHING!"

 

 

It does pretty well for a commercial vehicle designed in the seventies

 

 

Although this is less promising:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2rT5xQosV8

 

Turns out it was done to test the test wall, and there was a few tonnes of ballast in the back, and it was at some mega speed or something mental like that.

[AnthonyG]

If you want a 'safe' classic then this 1950s Merc does very well. I can't read German but I'm sure the note below says it was a proper ADAC sponsored test at 64KM/h (40 mph).

 

[mattblack]

Nice, they take away the Belair's engine to lie to costumers.

 

Gee... Maybe because the Motor would have been in the fucking passenger seat if it would have had one?

 

LOL!

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

A lot of the old crash tests were head on into a wall, and they're useless. The impact forces are evenly distributed down the sides of the car so it appears to fare very well. The problem with that is 1) no-one ever crashes into an identical car 100% head on 2) it's very different from how a car behaves in an offset collision.

 

If you want a 'safe' classic then this 1950s Merc does very well. I can't read German but I'm sure the note below says it was a proper ADAC sponsored test at 64KM/h (40 mph).

 

That thing crashed like a modern! Roof didn't crumple, A-pillar didn't fold... amazing.

[Lankytim]

Shite lorries crash well too!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPGIsLrqB_c

[Father Ted]

"OH THOSE OLD VW VANS, YOUR SHINS ARE THE CRUMPLE ZONES M8 LOLOL! WHY NOT GET A VIVARO OR SOMETHING!"

 

So, it would appear are your average coach, where the drivers face forms part of the impact absorption system.