7 ms·

> All of those models scored Good on the driver side small overlap test, indicating that when Honda increased the safety on the driver's side to score Good on t

> All of those models scored Good on the driver side small overlap test, indicating that when Honda increased the safety on the driver's side to score Good on the driver's side test, they didn't apply the same changes to the passenger side. This is an especially concerning observation for Honda. I'm curious if there's any more detail on this or if there's a plausible reason aside from gaming the benchmarks (e.g., the positioning of firewall-forward components might naturally favor small-overlap protection on the driver's side, or a steering-wheel mounted airbag would naturally perform better than dash-mounted).

mattlondon 5y ago
I agree this seems especially odd since Honda are Japanese and in Japan the driver sits on the right (as they do in the UK, Australia, NZ and some others). I doesn't make sense for them to skimp on driver-side protection in these markets.
- ranger_danger 5y ago
  Honda domestic models are actually not as ubiquitous as you might think in Japan. They're typically larger than your average kei car; the roads are narrower, the speed limit is lower, and the crash safety standards just aren't the same as other countries.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The current generation Accord went on sale in the US more than 2 years before it went on sale in Japan. There aren't any factories even producing the Accord in Japan. Any of them that exist there are imported. It's primarily a car designed for the US (and other) markets. The most popular Honda and Toyota models are just as American (or more so) than anything the Big 3 produces. Some of them are even designed in Detroit.
sokoloff 5y ago
It seems like, even if intentional, that it’s a sensible optimization. Among multi-car collisions, drivers’ side small offset collisions I’d expect to be vastly more common than passenger side small offset collisions. In both single and multi car collisions, we will assume there’s a driver in all cars, but less than 100% chance for there to be a front-seat passenger in all cars.
- flyingfences 5y ago
  The question then arises whether they apply those optimizations to the same or to opposite sides in left-hand-drive vs. right-hand-drive markets.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    It's very likely. The difference between RHD and LHD models are much more extreme than is obvious. Vehicles have to be designed with chirality in mind, but not everything can just be moved to the other side of the vehicle, for example, a FWD car usually has the engine orientation fixed regardless of market, which is going to cause asymmetries.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      You'll sometimes see a real tight engine compartment, with a huge gap where the master cylinder and brake booster will go in the RHD models. I think that the 1990's Camaros and Firebirds had this peculiarity. It also meant that changing the right hand side sparkplugs was a breeze, but the left side required either dropping the engine or drilling the firewall.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        Despite having owned two f-bodies, I never knew they were available in RHD.
        dotancohen 5y ago
mywittyname 5y ago
The small overlap test is designed for situations where cars hit one-another, head on, on a narrow two lane road. So making changes only to the driver's side makes some sense here, because it's always the driver's sides that impact in this test. It's less "optimizing for the test" and more "optimizing for results", as these accidents used to be the most deadly type of accidents. Additionally, this is a really, really difficult test to pass, which is why everyone failed it. Even the revisions didn't help too much because there's not much that can be done to an existing chassis other than add a deflection bar or something. True success here requires ground up engineering.
- cf100clunk 5y ago
  At last, after a word search of that web page and of the HN comments revealed no glossary-like description of "small overlap" collision, I thank you for your description of it.
MaxBareiss 5y ago
My understanding is that these companies were gaming the benchmarks, but one possible justification is that many vehicles have only one occupant: the driver. Adding weight and reinforcements for a seating position that's typically unoccupied may seem at least partially unjustifiable.
ben7799 5y ago
The article is just flat wrong about Honda. The small overlap tests started in 2013, most of the Hondas already scored "Good" in the small overlap tests by 2013. The Author awards BMW and M-B excellent status for correcting their problems by 2017, but most of their cars were Poor/Marginal for 4 years. Somehow Honda is worse for having most of their models "Good" in 2013 with only a few models having issues. The Civic and the Accord for example have never been tested as anything but "Good" in these tests, whereas comparing them to the BMW 3-series and M-B C Class those cars tested out as "Poor" or "Marginal" for 4-5 years before they were corrected. The Pilot by comparison did have problems. How this equates to BMW/M-B being great and Honda being problematic is terrible. Note the author in his notes doesn't denote which cars/trucks/SUVs in which model years he's actually talking about, making it impossible to figure out how he's judging the brands. Most of doing well on these tests tended to have to do with where in the redesign cycle a manufacturer was with a particular car/truck/SUV.

mattlondon 5y ago

I agree this seems especially odd since Honda are Japanese and in Japan the driver sits on the right (as they do in the UK, Australia, NZ and some others). I doesn't make sense for them to skimp on driver-side protection in these markets.

ranger_danger 5y ago
Honda domestic models are actually not as ubiquitous as you might think in Japan. They're typically larger than your average kei car; the roads are narrower, the speed limit is lower, and the crash safety standards just aren't the same as other countries.
- kube-system 5y ago
  The current generation Accord went on sale in the US more than 2 years before it went on sale in Japan. There aren't any factories even producing the Accord in Japan. Any of them that exist there are imported. It's primarily a car designed for the US (and other) markets. The most popular Honda and Toyota models are just as American (or more so) than anything the Big 3 produces. Some of them are even designed in Detroit.

sokoloff 5y ago

It seems like, even if intentional, that it’s a sensible optimization. Among multi-car collisions, drivers’ side small offset collisions I’d expect to be vastly more common than passenger side small offset collisions. In both single and multi car collisions, we will assume there’s a driver in all cars, but less than 100% chance for there to be a front-seat passenger in all cars.

flyingfences 5y ago
The question then arises whether they apply those optimizations to the same or to opposite sides in left-hand-drive vs. right-hand-drive markets.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  It's very likely. The difference between RHD and LHD models are much more extreme than is obvious. Vehicles have to be designed with chirality in mind, but not everything can just be moved to the other side of the vehicle, for example, a FWD car usually has the engine orientation fixed regardless of market, which is going to cause asymmetries.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    You'll sometimes see a real tight engine compartment, with a huge gap where the master cylinder and brake booster will go in the RHD models. I think that the 1990's Camaros and Firebirds had this peculiarity. It also meant that changing the right hand side sparkplugs was a breeze, but the left side required either dropping the engine or drilling the firewall.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Despite having owned two f-bodies, I never knew they were available in RHD.
      - dotancohen 5y ago

mywittyname 5y ago

The small overlap test is designed for situations where cars hit one-another, head on, on a narrow two lane road. So making changes only to the driver's side makes some sense here, because it's always the driver's sides that impact in this test. It's less "optimizing for the test" and more "optimizing for results", as these accidents used to be the most deadly type of accidents. Additionally, this is a really, really difficult test to pass, which is why everyone failed it. Even the revisions didn't help too much because there's not much that can be done to an existing chassis other than add a deflection bar or something. True success here requires ground up engineering.

cf100clunk 5y ago
At last, after a word search of that web page and of the HN comments revealed no glossary-like description of "small overlap" collision, I thank you for your description of it.

MaxBareiss 5y ago

My understanding is that these companies were gaming the benchmarks, but one possible justification is that many vehicles have only one occupant: the driver. Adding weight and reinforcements for a seating position that's typically unoccupied may seem at least partially unjustifiable.

ben7799 5y ago

The article is just flat wrong about Honda. The small overlap tests started in 2013, most of the Hondas already scored "Good" in the small overlap tests by 2013. The Author awards BMW and M-B excellent status for correcting their problems by 2017, but most of their cars were Poor/Marginal for 4 years. Somehow Honda is worse for having most of their models "Good" in 2013 with only a few models having issues. The Civic and the Accord for example have never been tested as anything but "Good" in these tests, whereas comparing them to the BMW 3-series and M-B C Class those cars tested out as "Poor" or "Marginal" for 4-5 years before they were corrected. The Pilot by comparison did have problems. How this equates to BMW/M-B being great and Honda being problematic is terrible. Note the author in his notes doesn't denote which cars/trucks/SUVs in which model years he's actually talking about, making it impossible to figure out how he's judging the brands. Most of doing well on these tests tended to have to do with where in the redesign cycle a manufacturer was with a particular car/truck/SUV.