Don't Crash Your Rover 100/ Metro @ 40mph....

[FakeConcern]

What NCAP fails to consider though is visibility, most new designs have the "cab forward" style that puts the A pillars right in the drivers line of sight on roundabouts etc never mind the tiny letterbox sized rear windows most cars seem to have now or that many seem to have totally black windows from the factory.

 

It seems to be an extension of the "I'm all right, fuck you" mentality at the moment , I may crash into your Metro/motorbike/pushbike/pram/you because I couldn't see you, but I'll be ok as my house sized SUV is built like a tank with airbags.

[Timewaster]

Add said before, although the Rover 100 was available in 1997 it was to all intents and purposes a 1980 model.

The 2017 Jazz is a 2 year old design.

So a fairer comparison would be a 1995 Punto.

[sutty2006]

Ouch........

 

That is all.

[garethj]

What NCAP fails to consider though is visibility, most new designs have the "cab forward" style that puts the A pillars right in the drivers line of sight on roundabouts etc never mind the tiny letterbox sized rear windows most cars seem to have now or that many seem to have totally black windows from the factory.

 

 

 

But NCAP isn't a safety test, it's a crash test.  Nothing in the NCAP hall of fame today is as safe as my old uncle in his Morris Minor.  Not because he's had it reinforced with crash bars and crumple zones but because he's never had an accident.  But it's not a test of safety, it's a test of hitting things.  Manufacturers design stuff to pass the test.  Same for emissions and how quickly the heater demists the screen.

[FakeConcern]

 

 

But NCAP isn't a safety test, it's a crash test.  Nothing in the NCAP hall of fame today is as safe as my old uncle in his Morris Minor.  Not because he's had it reinforced with crash bars and crumple zones but because he's never had an accident.  But it's not a test of safety, it's a test of hitting things.  Manufacturers design stuff to pass the test.  Same for emissions and how quickly the heater demists the screen.

Not me who's missed the point, but NCAP

[garethj]

Agreed.  NCAP testing is one part of safety, it's not the only part.

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

Very few older cars are truly 'safe' in a modern sense, especially small cars. When it was introduced the Metro was regarded as a very safe car.  Of course by 1997, it was a very old design and outmoded in a number of ways when compared to the fully modern cars of that time. Plenty of  cars sold back in 1997 did badly in that test. I suspect the reason the  Metro is singled out for opprobrium by journalists is partly simple laziness  - but in the main because it confirms a stereotype. They like doing that.

 

Improved crash safety can only be a good thing; I guess it is for the individual to decide how safe is safe enough.

 

For cars built in the pre-NCAP era, there is a British Government publication which details the real-world injury rates for drivers and passengers travelling in accidents which took place in the UK in the relevant period. It's called "Transport statistics bulletin: Cars: make and model: The risk of driver injury in Great Britain."  There is a great difference between the safest cars (Mercedes S Class and Jaguar XJ6) and less safe cars. There are very few of them left, but the Peugeot 505 is also remarkably safe - much better than a Volvo.

 

I have read one or two of these publications - this one - The risk of driver injury in Great Britain 1996-2000 was published in 2003. Here is the Large cars section:

 

 

 

It is interesting to see just how well the Mercedes W126 performs in these stats, even though it was introduced way back in 1979. IIRC the W126 was the first car in the world to be designed to cope with an offset collision - something very few other cars (the Jaguar XJ40 from 1986 being a notable exception) could boast for many years. It really was outstanding for its age.

Strangely, the W126 is rated better than the W124 in these statistics - perhaps this may be a consequence of lower mileages being covered through greater age of the W126, whereas the w124 is still very much in 'daily driver' use at that time, the W126 being driven more carefully - or maybe it actually is more crash worthy.

The Jaguar XJ40 and X300 also perform very well. The late 1993/1994 XJ40and X300 have a similar frame - Jaguar made over 170 metal changes to the XJ40 in 1993 including an entirely new front crash structure, which it shares with the X300. It could be there should be a separation there - with the late XJ40 more similar in accident performance to the X300. (IIRC, the previous Government publication did make this distinction, but I can't find it and may have imagined it!!) Or there may be another reason for the X300's improved crash performance. I believe that engineering improvements mean it is marginally stiffer.

It is interesting to see the X300 outperforming the much newer E38 and E39 BMW, together with the w210 Mercedes E Class  - and also how poor the E32 7 Series was. Strange that it should fare so much worse than the E34.

The Volvo 850 was pretty good too - and the Peugeot 505 is outstanding for its age, but that era of Peugeot was very safety focussed. I remember they used to say Peugeots were "World famous for strength" - and they were right.

 

 

I will have a look round to see if I can find it to see how the Metro compares with cars of its age in real world accidents.

[Tamworthbay]

 

 

But NCAP isn't a safety test, it's a crash test.  Nothing in the NCAP hall of fame today is as safe as my old uncle in his Morris Minor.  Not because he's had it reinforced with crash bars and crumple zones but because he's never had an accident.  But it's not a test of safety, it's a test of hitting things.  Manufacturers design stuff to pass the test.  Same for emissions and how quickly the heater demists the screen.

I remember reading in autocar many years ago that the car with the highest chance of fatality if involved in an accident was the 2CV, however the car you were least likely to die in per 100 of each car was a 2CV. The reason being that they were involved in so few accidents.

 

Of course older cars aren't as safe, the designers of modern cars aren't complete fuckwits. Several others have said more eloquently than me - the point of pointing this out being?

[SiC]

Well that airbag was a waste of time!

 

To be fair, when they first tested this, it was the worst car of the time. The fiat seciento isn't much better!

 

Nothing wrong in continued crash safety. I was rear ended in my Saab 9-3, shunting me forward into the car in front. I walked away just with bad whiplash. Nothing I could have done to avoid that accident. I was very appreciative on that day of all the work the Saab engineers had put into crash safety and survival.

[willswitchengage]

Could be worse

 

[SiC]

Damn. I hate it when those tall walls jump out at you.

[Tamworthbay]

From the still he looks like he has pogoed that bike into a wall, bloody punks causing hassle again.

[Sigmund Fraud]

this is a stying buck looking at what the finished product would have looked like, very similar to the Yugo Florida

 

EFA

[doobietoo]

I have been driving for almost 38 years and in all that time I have never even once come close to hitting a concrete block at  any speed let alone at 40mph... I have hit other cars, trees and a few other inanimate objects though and yet despite always having been in cars that would get a minus figure in any NCAP test I am still alive.... How lucky am I?

[robinmasters]

On the bright side, the Metro did replace a much less safe car.

 

[YouTube]

[/YouTube]

 

Imagine if they still been making that as late as the mid-nineties!

[richardmorris]

Try not to crash. Older cars have better visibility.

[Alusilber]

this was the original plan, the LC8/ADO88 metro would have made way for this the AR6 sometime around 1988

 

this is one of the preproduction prototypes now in Gaydon museum.

 

sadly as the meastro and montego didn't generate anywhere near the cash that the company needed to put something as advanced as this into production, we got the warmed over R6 Rover Metro instead. it was intended to be a short term thing until the Rover R3  200/25 was ready after which the Metro would be quietly dropped. But Rover got greedy, they priced the R3 too high, and then reheated the Metro over again to become the Rover 100. sad really.... priced at the correct (lower level than they did originally) as a natural replacement for the metro, then Rover would again have had a proper super mini contender.

 

and it must be remembered too, that each time Longbridge was successful, it was with a proper, neat and clever SMALL car leading the charge!

 

And after the AR6 was canned, there was the rather handsome R6X reskinned Metro proposal:

 

But they couldn't even afford that, so we got the R6 instead.

[richardmorris]

That does look like a corsa to me.

[rantingYoof]

I rather like Volvo's approach to crash testing..

 

[theorganist]

I am sure my Renault 5 wouldn't fair any better, and I guarantee cars I have recently owned like the Austin 1100, Horizon etc also would fare badly.

 

I just do what I can and drive sensibly. I like old cars, I am willing to take the risk. I do an hours walking a day commuting to work, I could easily get mown down whilst crossing the road.

 

I can't help thinking that they chose the Metro for this test as it is British and it seems there is still a tilt to mocking the "home grown" car industry even if there is none left now.

[Jim Bell]

205 at 6mph.

 

 

 

 

To many dangers.

[SiC]

I can't help thinking that they chose the Metro for this test as it is British and it seems there is still a tilt to mocking the "home grown" car industry even if there is none left now.

No it was most likely chosen because it had the worst crash results of anything they've tested. When they did the original test it was slower. Due to way energy+physics works, a small increase in speed increases the potential energy by far more.

 

So they knew that a 40mph crash makes the results more shocking. Thus more likely to get news coverage. Hence why we are talking about it now.

 

Anyway it's much more interesting than hearing about whatever document that the twat has signed now.

[LostnotFound]

Lots of us ride motorcycles, it would be interesting to see a video of a bike being put through the same tests as the car!!

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

 

You don't need to do one for a motorbike because no matter what caused the accident someone on the internet will still shout about how the biker deserved it because of 'poor obs'

 

 

We're all agreed that we rarely hit concrete walls but other vehicles are more of a realistic risk. This brings us to something I think you notice if you look at crash test videos and use elementary physics, when it comes to multi vehicle accidents 'might is right' even if it's a modern 'safe' car.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ

 

 

 

[Skizzer]

I actually did once crash the front corner of an Austin Metro into the side of Wales at more than 40mph. Nobody was hurt in the slightest. The Metro needed some panels, a radiator and a good session on the straightening jig but lived to fight another day.

 

Sum-up: don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail / Pistonheads / Mumsnet etc.

[320touring]

Subtle Aussie review of the ford mustang 2* performance..

 

[Rave]

That vid of a T3 crewcab pickup being immolated was apparently a test for the testing facility itself, rather than a serious test of how weak they are. It had a ton of concrete in the bed and no crash dummies in the cab, apparently. Turns out they're actually fairly strong:

 

 

Edit: I'm a very amateur shiter by the standards of most on here but I'm still alive at the age of 37 1/2, having: been all over France as a kid without being strapped in in the back of a Sherpa camper; ridden in the back seat and occasionally the boot of not one but two Nissan Praries with no rear seat belts; learned to drive in, and then driven down to Cornwall and back 4 months after passing my test in, a 2CV; thrashed a rotten MR2 Mk1 everywhere as a young blade; briefly owned a rotten Maestro; again ragged a 106 Rallye everywhere. Any one of those activities would have likely killed me had had a twat in a big SUV crossed on to my/our side of the road.

[KruJoe]

Does any one else remember that Physics text book we had at high school? It was orange, and had a picture of an Austin Metro crash test as an example of how modern cars are carefully designed to crash well.

[Lacquer Peel]

Add said before, although the Rover 100 was available in 1997 it was to all intents and purposes a 1980 model.

The 2017 Jazz is a 2 year old design.

So a fairer comparison would be a 1995 Punto.

 

[sierraman]

You wouldn't catch me knocking about in something that small for the very reasons outlined. Something like an Astra/golf or whatever is much much safer in a real life situation, no dearer to run, more comfortable etc. Like Rev said you've only got to have some moron in an Audi hit you and your meeting Roy Orbison if your in the Metro.

[Timewaster]

Didn't the early Sierra gain a reputation for folding up in a crash?

I remember a friend of a friend who knew a fireman who said he would never get in one because of what he had seen blah blah

Was it simply that they weren't used to seeing cars with effective crumple zones?

 

Also, did they choose the Rover 100 to crash because Rover are dead and can't sue?