The title feels pretty disingenuous here because the small overlap test is substantially more difficult than the full frontal, or half overlap tests that were t

The title feels pretty disingenuous here because the small overlap test is substantially more difficult than the full frontal, or half overlap tests that were tested previously. As was discovered when looking at real world crash data, the improvement in outcomes from the 50% overlap tests fell off dramatically in 10% overlap situations. Hence, why a new test specifically for that was introduced. I think a better way to look at how cars fair in crash tests that they are not "specifically optimized" for is to look at results from real world crash data. Like, among various vehicles which received top marks in <crash test>, how did buyers of those vehicles fair in real world accidents that the crash tests are designed to simulate.