Crash test 1959 vs 2009

[HillmanImp]

Sorry if this is glasscock as its just stolen from Reddit but its sodding scary monkeys

 

 

 

[Lukas]

No big surprise that a car from the 50s is by far not as safe as a new car. I don´t know why anyone had any interest in testing this. It´s obvious.

 

But that´s a very controversial video. Some say, the engine got removed from the 1959er Impala, some say it was completely rusted out underneath etc. etc. ...

 

L

[Angrydicky]

So what?

[Station]

I'd have the convertible Bel Air so I could jump out of the top when I saw the car coming out of me. Couldn't do that in that horrible silver thing.

[Ratdat]

These new vs old crash tests are pretty irrelevant. For a start, it's tells us nothing we didn't already know.... that modern cars are stronger than old one.  50 years of technical development in materials, design and manufacturing has made for stronger cars.You don't say.

 

However, try smashing that modern car into one the same and it wouldn't fare quite so well. It'd do better than cars did 50 years ago but then 50 years ago cars were very different. Crash two 50's cars and yes it'd be more of a mess than the equivelent modern crash but the damage not as major as in this test as both cars would absorb impact as both would be equally strong, or weak, as the case may be.

 

Modern cars are considerably stronger and safer but they way the industry promotes safety levels makes Joe Public believe they can walk away from any crash. The truth is that almost any crash above 40mph can be fatal, even in a modern car. They are designed to safely absorb energy in impacts at relatively low speed. Throw any car into the scenery or a solid object at 70mph plus and you'll be fortunate if you or it stays in one piece.

[STUNO]

Many years ago I came across the scene of a head-on between a 60's Humber Snipe and an early Honda Civic. Humber passengers ok with a few scratches, remains of Honda people hanging out the hatchback. Not pretty.

[Squire_Dawson]

I think Chevrolet performed this stunt to compare the new with the old Chevy, but yeah, it doesn't tell us anything we don't know or help us at all.

Waste of 2 good cars if you ask me.

[Bobthebeard]

I think Chevrolet performed this stunt to compare the new with the old Chevy, but yeah, it doesn't tell us anything we don't know or help us at all.

Waste of 2 good cars if you ask me.

As both cars are Chevrolets it does indeed look like a comparison for promoting the new models. As such may well have been rigged in some way to make things look worse than they are for the older car, and the new one promoted as 'safe'.

Even so, if involved in a accident in an older car the occupants may well not fare as well as those in a modern. But we all kind of know that, and accept it as part and parcel of running older stuff. IMHO.

[Spiny Norman]

Seen that one before & frankly don't believe it, sorry.

[Bobthebeard]

Seen that one before & frankly don't believe it, sorry.

No need to apologise old chap, looks a bit suspect to me too!

[trigger]

remains of Honda people hanging out the hatchback. Not pretty.

 

Anybody want to buy a early Honda Civic?. 

[Bobthebeard]

Anybody want to buy a early Honda Civic?. 

Would you take a 1959 Chevrolet Impala with no engine, rusty chassis and light* crash damage in PX?

[mercrocker]

Whats all that aggregate coming out of the sills?   In any case I don't buy cars to front-end another one.   If I did, I probably would still rather have my life shortened in a gullwing chevy than extended to pant-shittage in a dog-eater

[Split_Pin]

Did anyone see crash test comparison that 5th Gear carried out between a Renault modus and a Volvo 740? The result was surprising.

[garethj]

I saw the Fifth Gear test, I'm still not convinced the Volvo driver would have been hurt, there's an awful lot of padding and soft plastic on that dashboard before any metal comes towards you.

 

In order of importance for surviving a crash, mine is:

1. Don't crash

2. Be lucky, or at least don't be unlucky

3. NCAP

 

Others may prioritise them differently which is fine.

[chaseracer]

Did anyone see crash test comparison that 5th Gear carried out between a Renault modus and a clearly engineless Volvo 740? The result was completely predictable.

 

Let me help you with that.

 

[rml2345]

Having been crashed into by a modern in my Volvo, I can say that the modern car was much more squishy. This is about as scientific a test as the one above, and the 5th gear test...
Garethj is right though, the priority should be to not crash at all, for which I'd be looking for a nimble-ish car with good visibility and decent feedback.

It's also surprising how much sheer blind good (or bad) fortune plays in a collision. Being in that exact place, at that exact time with that set of circumstances is an infinitesimally small chance. It's good that manufacturers have focussed on safety over the last 50 years or so but it can only help so much. 

[dugong]

I played that Fifth Gear video frame by frame back to MM5 and he reckoned the Volvo had an engine in it. 

[scooters]

These tests are bollocks. 

No one doubts the advances in car safety but there was a day when the idea of driving was NOT to get into a crash in the first place by having a vehicle that handled will, braked well and went where you pointed it. They seem to have given this approach up in around 1996 and now we have bloated plastic blobs that handle terribly, need computers to keep them on the road and detatch the driver from the experinence so much that they waive all personal responsibility for avoiding a crash.

 

hell going round a roundabout in a 1974 109" land rover in the wet reminds you of your mortality, if you roll it you'll probably get squashed - therefore - DONT roll it.

 

and as to that test? looks like the engine is out of the old un - like the old 940 crash where there was also a suspicious lack of engine. 

 

We drove a scrapped 940 into the side of a pretty new written off wee Kia on the farm last year and there was not a lot left of the kia - its a matter of simple physics

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

CIA KILLED KENNEDY

FIFTH GEAR TOOK ENGINE OUT OF VOLVO

 

Old cars are shit when it comes to safety, it's really no more complicated than that. Sorry, can't be bothered looking for my usual rebuttal post in defence of the Modus and 2009 Chevy Whatever. 

[Lacquer Peel]

I think the Volvo's engine ended up in the passenger compartment.

 

I'll try not to drive my 940, with its roots in the 1970s, head on at 50MPH into a modern 5 star EuroNCAP rated car. Yes, try not to crash at all, that might work.

[scooters]

 

 

I'll try not to drive my 940, with its roots in the 1970s, head on at 50MPH into a modern 5 star EuroNCAP rated car. Yes, try not to crash at all, that might work.

   

[scooters]

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

CIA KILLED KENNEDY

FIFTH GEAR TOOK ENGINE OUT OF VOLVO

 

Old cars are shit when it comes to safety, it's really no more complicated than that. Sorry, can't be bothered looking for my usual rebuttal post in defence of the Modus and 2009 Chevy Whatever. 

 

 

not saying they aren't shit - of course modern cars are better in a crash but this doesn't necessarily make them safer,  you drive a new volvo at 30mph you don't notice it so insulated are you from the world around you. try doing 30mph in a westfield with your arse an inch off the road and a bit of fiberglass for a SIPS and you start to understand that 30mph is actually quite fast for a homo sapiens. There is an argument against insulating the driver from the experience

 

old cars - well - 

 

if you don;t want to get hurt driving one - don't drive one

 

if you do want to drive one - don't crash

 

you drive head on at 40mph into another vehicle doing the same speed, doesn;t matter what you are in, you will get hurt

[Angrydicky]

It's all just bullshit propaganda to sell more new cars to gullible idiots. Modern cars are totally wank, pointless and expensive, and I don't intend ever owning anything under 25 years old. Driving older cars without ABS, seatbelts, PAS, airbags and so on makes you more aware of your surrounds and less likely to have an accident anyway.

 

Waste of a good Bel Air, too.

[trigger]

It's like this Focus crash, i wonder what happens when you crash in to a solid wall at 120 mph?.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dI5ewOmHPQ

[inconsistant]

In order of importance for surviving a crash, mine is:

1. Don't crash

 

 

This is so true. I've survived every crash I haven't had.

I think the whole area of perceived risk/hazard is v. interesting, and new car manufacturers have a field day with this. First sign of rain/snow/wind/floods though and everything falls apart because as a whole technology in cars has removed much of the skill, judgement and margin for error from driving. I learned to drive in a way that preserved car/me/others. Been lucky so far...

 

I cycle + walk more than I drive, which gives a completely different perspective of road safety. Dashboard spikes would make the roads safer for everyone overnight. When's the next series of Dragons Den on?

[HillmanImp]

I agree the chances of being in a crash are slim. The post by RetroGeezer the other week was good. 

 

 

 

Looking at this chart it looks like it has possibly dropped by around 1500-1800 since 1990 to just under 2000 deaths. Those 2000 deaths would include pedestrians/cyclists/motorcyclists (probably the highest of the lot)

http://en.wikipedia....itish_Roads.png

There are 63 million people in the UK so that is a 0.00317 chance of being killed in a road accident, even less as a car driver. 
How much lower a risk do you think it is by driving a newer car?

There is also huge classic car ownership in the UK, do you think people shouldn't use their classics because of the risk when they are out in them? 

You are more likely to die from a DIY injury at home. Do you not do DIY because it's more risky than driving?

2293 people died in transport related accidents in 2011 (922 in cars) 3593 died because of a fall, so don't walk anywhere!

http://www.theguardi...#zoomed-picture

In my opinion the 'safety' of cars is just a massive sales tool because that it what the car industry is, a profit making organistion, not a health andsafety one.

 

Chances of a crash are rare but you are taking a risk being in an old car as you are probably going to come off worse, but you are taking a risk being on a motorbike, riding a bicycle and walking across the road too but you can't live your life worrying what if. On the whole chances of something going wrong are slim to none. It not like being covered in petrol, shooting up a mixture of heroin and speed into your cock whilst tightrope walking above an volcano on a daily basis is it?

 

I suppose its just when it goes wrong it looks bad, especially with a car crash as the mangled remains of the car is a lasting reminder that you do get to see after the accident that tells a story that a car hitting a person doesn't.

 

A chap I bought an engine off once was selling all his Imps as he had a big collision in his Defender. His family and him got out of the defender and were okay but it shit him up so much thinking about how dead they would have been if they were in his Imp that he just sold them all.

[Negative Creep]

Thanks to NCAP we also have massive blindspot A pillars, headlight bulbs that are difficult to change so most don't bother, no rear visibility, weight gains and increased repair costs, but who cares about trivial things like that?

[Sudsprint]

In my old Lotus Elan head on is the way to go.

 

Rear end is the fuel tank, role over is deffo bad news and you don't want to think about a side impact.

[panhard65]

I remember back in the 90's a couple of volvo accidents. The first was a 240 hit a Bedford TK the passenger compartment was perfect. It did fold up a bit but there was a lump of bumper on the end of the chassis rail that hadn't moved at all. The second one was a 740 estate that hit a Cavalier, they reckoned they were both doing over 60 when they hit. The bloke in the Cav was killed instantly. The lady in the volvo had to be cut out due to the impact bars jamming the doors shut. She suffered a broken ankle. Old cars are still pretty safe it all depends where the impact is. I expect if it was a proper head on the 50's chevy would of done a lot better but they hit it on the corner where it wouldn't be as strong.