32 ms·

The 59 GM Full Sizes with an X frame did perform particularly poorly in overlap crashes - it would have performed better with a full head on - or a earlier/late

by Aloha 4y ago

The 59 GM Full Sizes with an X frame did perform particularly poorly in overlap crashes - it would have performed better with a full head on - or a earlier/later one with a full permitter frame. Nevermind the virtual indestructible nearly contemporary unibody mopars and fords (59 or 60 for mopar, and 61 for lincolns - the lincoln continentals were banned from demolition derby for a reason). While a full permitter frame (or early unibodies) does not negate the benefits of crumple zones - they absorb the impact of the crash, shielding the occupants from the forces of the impact - the X-Body GM Full Size does still perform exceptionally poorly. I don't think anyone car argue that modern cars don't perform several orders of magnitude better in severe crashes - however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home.

namdnay 4y ago
> however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage I don't get your point - yes they have less damage, because they're not soaking up the energy. That's like saying "a motorcycle helmet made of solid steel won't damage as easily as a modern one". Sure, but that's exactly the point of a modern helmet
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  I think the point is that, practically speaking, there is no such thing as a "fender-bender" with modern cars. Even very low-speed collisions typically involve lots of plastic going "crunch". Instead of your fender being a little bent, you now have dozens of pieces of plastic paneling that have to be replaced.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Fender-bender has been replaced by crumplezone-groan.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      Airbag-snag. Bumper-thumper. Insurance-abhorrence. Holy-fucking-shit-that's-going-to-cost-me-what?!?
  - namdnay 4y ago
    ah yes i agree
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Between cars, no. But a pretty significant amount of the traffic in my area is actually just trucks and full-size SUVs. Twice I've had someone hit the hitch receiver on my truck and damage their vehicle without any damage to my vehicle.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(car)#First_standards_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(car)#First_standards_1... For a while, they mandated that a 5mph crash should result in almost no damage, which caused bumpers to evolve accordingly. These days, the term "bumper" seems more like an anacronism.
cesaref 4y ago
It's interesting to think that if you found yourself in a '59 and looking like you were going to hit an oncoming car, that the best chance you had was to turn in towards them! Also, i'm wondering if there is any equivalent of the dieselgate scandal for crash testing - given the tests are controlled and repeatable, is there any suggestion that optimising to ace the tests creates any compromises in other areas which mean that overall injuries are more serious than otherwise would occur?
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Yes, of course, the industry designs vehicles specifically to pass the tests. But the tests themselves are very comprehensive, both in the US and in the EU. It's like having 100% code coverage in your unit/integration/regression tests, and then doing test-driven development.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Also the tests are regularly updated/changed/made more difficult to prevent engineering to the test alone
- fomine3 4y ago
  https://danluu.com/car-safety/ https://danluu.com/car-safety/
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
> however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home. Because all that kinetic energy didn't get dissipated and so transferred into the softest bits of the car, which in the 50's-70's car was the driver.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
GM and Ford vehicles were deathtraps until the mid 2000's when Ford bought Volvo and borrowed several of its platforms for their own vehicles. Ford literally cheaped out on the steel used in the roof pillars of their SUVs and pickup trucks, for example - deciding that the cost of lower-strength steel was worth the additional profit and they'd eat the cost of any potential lawsuits/settlements. Honda and Toyota, similarly, were death-trap cars until around the same time, because a)the Japanese have a much lower crash rate and travel far less on high-speed roadways so it wasn't a domestic issue, and b)they had to compete against Ford in the US market (and GM, who had to compete against Ford.) In the EU, Euro-NCAP crash standards were forcing safety improvement among the non-luxury brands Honda and Toyota were mostly competing against (and GM/Ford brands/models sold in the EU, too.) > I don't think anyone car argue that modern cars don't perform several orders of magnitude better in severe crashes - however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home. Performance isn't judged based on damage level and "severe" versus "light" are completely arbitrary standards you picked aka "wiggle words." Less damage to the car in any crash means more acceleration on you. Human body repair bills, especially in the US, cost significantly more than body damage to cars. Unfortunately, due to the sad state of US healthcare - getting to the ER and the first hours of medical care could cost more than the value of one's car, easily. Given car crashes are a significant cause of injury and death in the US - and that modern cars are significantly less polluting (multiple orders of magnitude so) and more fuel efficient, quieter, more ergonomic and comfortable - I'll take a modern car, thanks. Side benefit: modern sedans and european SUVs are also significantly safer for pedestrians.

by Aloha 4y ago

namdnay 4y ago

> however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage I don't get your point - yes they have less damage, because they're not soaking up the energy. That's like saying "a motorcycle helmet made of solid steel won't damage as easily as a modern one". Sure, but that's exactly the point of a modern helmet

jlkuester7 4y ago
I think the point is that, practically speaking, there is no such thing as a "fender-bender" with modern cars. Even very low-speed collisions typically involve lots of plastic going "crunch". Instead of your fender being a little bent, you now have dozens of pieces of plastic paneling that have to be replaced.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Fender-bender has been replaced by crumplezone-groan.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Airbag-snag. Bumper-thumper. Insurance-abhorrence. Holy-fucking-shit-that's-going-to-cost-me-what?!?
- namdnay 4y ago
  ah yes i agree
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Between cars, no. But a pretty significant amount of the traffic in my area is actually just trucks and full-size SUVs. Twice I've had someone hit the hitch receiver on my truck and damage their vehicle without any damage to my vehicle.
- userbinator 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(car)#First_standards_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumper_(car)#First_standards_1... For a while, they mandated that a 5mph crash should result in almost no damage, which caused bumpers to evolve accordingly. These days, the term "bumper" seems more like an anacronism.

cesaref 4y ago

It's interesting to think that if you found yourself in a '59 and looking like you were going to hit an oncoming car, that the best chance you had was to turn in towards them! Also, i'm wondering if there is any equivalent of the dieselgate scandal for crash testing - given the tests are controlled and repeatable, is there any suggestion that optimising to ace the tests creates any compromises in other areas which mean that overall injuries are more serious than otherwise would occur?

dotancohen 4y ago
Yes, of course, the industry designs vehicles specifically to pass the tests. But the tests themselves are very comprehensive, both in the US and in the EU. It's like having 100% code coverage in your unit/integration/regression tests, and then doing test-driven development.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Also the tests are regularly updated/changed/made more difficult to prevent engineering to the test alone
fomine3 4y ago
https://danluu.com/car-safety/ https://danluu.com/car-safety/

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

> however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home. Because all that kinetic energy didn't get dissipated and so transferred into the softest bits of the car, which in the 50's-70's car was the driver.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

GM and Ford vehicles were deathtraps until the mid 2000's when Ford bought Volvo and borrowed several of its platforms for their own vehicles. Ford literally cheaped out on the steel used in the roof pillars of their SUVs and pickup trucks, for example - deciding that the cost of lower-strength steel was worth the additional profit and they'd eat the cost of any potential lawsuits/settlements. Honda and Toyota, similarly, were death-trap cars until around the same time, because a)the Japanese have a much lower crash rate and travel far less on high-speed roadways so it wasn't a domestic issue, and b)they had to compete against Ford in the US market (and GM, who had to compete against Ford.) In the EU, Euro-NCAP crash standards were forcing safety improvement among the non-luxury brands Honda and Toyota were mostly competing against (and GM/Ford brands/models sold in the EU, too.) > I don't think anyone car argue that modern cars don't perform several orders of magnitude better in severe crashes - however for light crashes, your hunk of 50's-70's metal will often end up with significantly less damage, and at a minimum can be driven home. Performance isn't judged based on damage level and "severe" versus "light" are completely arbitrary standards you picked aka "wiggle words." Less damage to the car in any crash means more acceleration on you. Human body repair bills, especially in the US, cost significantly more than body damage to cars. Unfortunately, due to the sad state of US healthcare - getting to the ER and the first hours of medical care could cost more than the value of one's car, easily. Given car crashes are a significant cause of injury and death in the US - and that modern cars are significantly less polluting (multiple orders of magnitude so) and more fuel efficient, quieter, more ergonomic and comfortable - I'll take a modern car, thanks. Side benefit: modern sedans and european SUVs are also significantly safer for pedestrians.