On May 14, 1:42=A0pm, Bruce <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bruce <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Many people believe that older, larger Volvo and Mercedes sedans offer
> >greater safety than a new small car. =A0Fifth Gear, the same TV
> >programme that staged the Smart tests, arranged for an offset head-on
> >collision between a Volvo 940 and a three year old Renault Modus,
> >which is very much smaller. =A0
>
> >The Renault virtually demolished the Volvo. =A0The combination of an
> >effective crumple zone and a strong safety cell was remarkable in such
> >a small car. =A0Google on "Renault Modus" for details of the car, which
> >is also sold as a Nissan Note. =A0The video is available on YouTube in
> >several versions. =A0Just search on "renault modus volvo".
>
> Here's the one that has been cut to show the most im****tant content:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOrkwdshZkv0
That is impressive. But we are pitting two cars from different
generations against each other. The Volvo was designed and built
before offset crashes were used in crash testing. It was never
designed for that. The cards were stacked against it so to speak.
The Volvo was designed solely for straight on full frontal impacts. It
by design uses the entire front end to absorb the energy in that sort
of impact, and was made flimsy enough to absorb as much energy as
possible to lessen teh acceleration experienced by the occupants.
Since only half the front end was being crashed, it couldn't use the
other half to soak up the energy, and smooshed too far. The Renault is
actually designed for offset crashes. They mention this in the video.
That bar going across the front helps to dissipate the energy into the
rest of the front end. This also serves a second function. It helps
reshape the front end in a way that lets the car slide off the object
it is striking. If you notice the trajectory of the Renault versus the
volvo, it keeps going after it rotates. It does a much better job of
lightening the accelerations experienced by the occupants.
As far as passenger compartment intrusion and intactness the Renault
did better, and this is also where the Smart ****nes. I've noted
multiple times that the Smart is really great for passenger
compartment integrity. The volvo did poorly because the engineers had
not considered offset crashes where the energy is not absorbed by the
entire front end.
So I think I've established that it is my opinion that the Renault did
so well versus the Volvo because it was an offset crash, and it is a
newer car with offset crashes taken into consideration in the design.
Additionally, the intentionally-crumply crumple zone of the volvo
helped absorb some of the Renault's energy.
Now if we ****ft gears and go to a full frontal collision, I think that
the volvo would not cave like that since both sides of the passenger
compartment would take the impact, the Renault would likely still stay
intact, and the Renault would not be able to slough off the side of
the Volvo. The end result would be that the Renault would wind up
moving backward a few feet, the volvo would stop a few feet past the
impact, and the Renault passengers would experience higher levels of
acceleration than those in the Volvo.
But I am not really interested in debating the Renault versus the
Volvo as much as the Smart. I know that in America we test cars
against cars of the same size. I had a hunch that it was that way
across the pond, and the video mentions that that is the case. I still
believe that this is why the Smart scores so well.
Although we have seen that small cars can hold their own against large
cars(Renault versus Volvo) and that the Smart can experience some
really heinous crashes with almost no passenger compartment intrusion
or deformation, I still do not see how the matter of acceleration
experienced by the passengers in a real crash can be overlooked. I say
real crash, because you aren't always going to be cra****ng a Smart
into a Smart size vehicle. That is how it got its four star rating
though. The real world pits much heavier cars against the Smart, and
when they collide, the Smart occupants will experience much higher
accelerations than those in the large car. This is why I believe the
Smart car passengers will not fair as well. It is actually my
reasoning behind my statement that a crash in a Smart versus another
car would be the difference between a close casket and an open casket
funeral. In the smart you'll still be uncrushed and still look good,
but be dead from internal injuries. If it didn't have such a good
cage, you'd also be crushed, thus the closed casket funeral. Either
way the Smart occupants are not going to see tomorrow. When I say high
speed I am thinking on the order of 45 mph and up.
In real crash tests the dummies are monitored for G loads, which is a
measure of acceleration. This is factored into the crash test rating.
None of the videos that I have seen with the Smart have re****ted what
the peak levels are. They concentrate on how intact the compartment
is. Seems like pure marketing to me. Until I get the whole story, I
will remain skeptical of the real world crash-worthiness of the Smart
car.
|
