In the uk we all follow the euro ncap crash test safety system but in America they weren't happy with this and wanted something more rigorous, with a 'small overlap' test, this test has been around a while now and although the fiat 500L and the L treaking were really conceived to be a bigger 500 in a us market, fiat have screwed up big time with the 500L reviving a poor rating in the small overlap test




On top of this the 500L and fiats reputation in general is taking a beating with concerns over gearbox reliability and safety (another own goal for fiat)

On the dawn of the launch of the 500x it seems people are calling for fiat to sort of the issues with the L before launching any more problematic cars, I wonder with the damage seen to fiats reputation we will see fiat pull out of the US again an replace the fiat badge with a Chrysler one

Why should the USA 'over lap test' be more convincing as to safety than what we have in Europe?..

No car is going to handle the slight overlap test unless it is a tank...
...oh American cars are!

Seriously though, it provokes discussion and research so it can't be a bad thing. Clearly with such little overlap it is going to miss the chassis legs and therefore there isn't much strong stuff to take the hit - just plastic bumper, light and the wing before the A pillar.

Considering the small overlap, the passenger cell stood up well. It has squashed the side and peeled it back a bit, but the main structure is mostly intact.

I've looked at tests of the cars that have passed, and this is a big fail actually. Fiat will need to re-engineer it.

It can be done...

The problem is that the airbags too often allow the drivers's head to deflect into an unprotected corner by the A pillar. They are aware of this.

The whole reason that America introduced the small overlap is that many of the accident had in the US are subject to a very small overlap with what ever they hit, clipping a wall barrier or another car etc,

These day virtually any car sold in Europe gets a 5 star NCap rating but this test goes to shop the 500L the countryman and the golf all 5 star NCap cars but clearly the 500l wouldn't perform as well in certain circumstances.

As Dave pointed out many cars that look like they perform well still fail as the drivers head slips between the airbags to make contact with the A pillar,

The 500L (and the 500 too) failed because the safety cell was badly compromised where as other cars don't have this issue, must be especially annoying to fiat the the countryman did well as this is the car fiat were going head to head with when the launched the 500L

Ulpian said:

I've looked at tests of the cars that have passed, and this is a big fail actually. Fiat will need to re-engineer it.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that it would need a completely new body shell design in order to pass that.

I am still curious what percentage of accidents involve a 'small' overlap like this compared to what NCAP test for.

Additionally they don't seem to simulating rear ending another vehicle but rather hitting something immovable like a bridge pillar, again how many accidents would be like that?

MJG said:

I am still curious what percentage of accidents involve a 'small' overlap like this compared to what NCAP test for.

Click to expand...

i would think loads, people try to avoid some thing that comes to a sudden stop in front of them but just clip the edge. Someone using phone or other distraction and wanders into the lane some one is over taking it in....

dave said:

i would think loads, people try to avoid some thing that comes to a sudden stop in front of them but just clip the edge. Someone using phone or other distraction and wanders into the lane some one is over taking it in....

Click to expand...

But that crash test doesn't accurately replicate that scenario does it?

If you clip the rear of a car like that it too will absorb some of the impact and will also to a degree be propelled forward thus reducing the impact and effect of the collision on the following car.

As I look at that test it only seems to replicate a collision with something big, immovable and non absorbing, like a bridge support. I am sure such collisions occur but it strikes me (no pun intended) such collisions must be much less common.

To me the NCAP test is more representative of what would happen rear ending another vehicle.

people are always driving into trucks that have stopped in a traffic jam on a motor way, that would be big, immovable and non absorbing

dave said:

people are always driving into trucks that have stopped in a traffic jam on a motor way, that would be big, immovable and non absorbing

Click to expand...

But at what angle?

Are there any stats to prove the USA test is more indicative of real life collisions than the NCAP one?

I'm not convinced TBH. Not least because lots of trucks have a collapsible rear guard and given the height of them driving into the back of one creates a completely different collision/impact scenario than the one replicated in the US test.

Not sure whether this test is a good or a bad thing, it seems rather specific, I could design a test every current car would fail catastrophically but that wouldn't make it relevant ( crash into a wall fitted with scaffolding poles at windscreen height incase your wondering).

Strikes me that to pass this test you must engineer a huge amount of strength into a small area, is that a good thing in the event of a none offset accident? When your crumple zones don't because they've only got a fraction of the load they were designed for?

Edit: also I see the golf is fitted with the optional rear curtain airbags, personally I think all VAG cars should be docked an NCAP star on the basis its a family car yet there's no curtain airbags unless you pay for them.

MJG said:

I am still curious what percentage of accidents involve a 'small' overlap like this compared to what NCAP test for.

Click to expand...

This is the iihs website which explains everything you need to know about the test it's self
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

It's to simulate hitting an immovable object or a very small overlap in a head on collision with another vehicle

40% of Single vehicle crashes are subject to a small overlap according to a study by an American medical university, leading to a much higher percentage of head neck chest spine and pelvic injuries (those most likely to be life changing injuries) and 25% of deaths from frontal collisions involve a small overlap and when you take into account that there are 380,000 deaths on the road in the us each year (nearly 100 a day) that makes this test very relevant indeed

Also the iihs doesn't diminish what NCAP do they build upon it, saying cars are safer because of what NCap have done but there is still space for improvement.

Of the cars tests very only a hand full have performed well and several have achieved acceptable ratings, but many like the 500L have earned a poor rating

Essentially it's another tool to encourage manufactures to improve designs

Also iihs isn't an independent body like NCap so these test are important to the insurance industry which funds them to help evaluate car safety and calculate premiums accordingly

Retro engineering safer structures to pass this test is sometimes possible. I think Mazda (might be another Japanese maker) did it recently when one of their new models performed badly. Mostly it needed a revised cross member behind the radiator.

Ulpian said:

Retro engineering safer structures to pass this test is sometimes possible. I think Mazda (might be another Japanese maker) did it recently when one of their new models performed badly. Mostly it needed a revised cross member behind the radiator.

Click to expand...

If it was the latest 3 they modified the front suspension arms to achieve a good rating.

Ulpian said:

I've looked at tests of the cars that have passed, and this is a big fail actually. Fiat will need to re-engineer it.

Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

In a crash, keeping the doors secure is vital to preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment.

Look at the three vids (500, mini & golf) carefully, paying particular attention to the passenger door.

In the 500 crash, the lock gives way almost immediately, so the door flies open and can't absorb any of the shock loads. The passenger door on the other two cars stays secure and the door is taking a good deal of the damage, protecting the passenger compartment.

IMO redesigning the door latching/locking mechanism might enable the 500 to do much better.

AndyRKett said:

This is the iihs website which explains everything you need to know about the test it's self
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

It's to simulate hitting an immovable object or a very small overlap in a head on collision with another vehicle

40% of Single vehicle crashes are subject to a small overlap according to a study by an American medical university, leading to a much higher percentage of head neck chest spine and pelvic injuries (those most likely to be life changing injuries) and 25% of deaths from frontal collisions involve a small overlap and when you take into account that there are 380,000 deaths on the road in the us each year (nearly 100 a day) that makes this test very relevant indeed

Also the iihs doesn't diminish what NCAP do they build upon it, saying cars are safer because of what NCap have done but there is still space for improvement.

Of the cars tests very only a hand full have performed well and several have achieved acceptable ratings, but many like the 500L have earned a poor rating

Essentially it's another tool to encourage manufactures to improve designs

Also iihs isn't an independent body like NCap so these test are important to the insurance industry which funds them to help evaluate car safety and calculate premiums accordingly

Click to expand...

Thanks for that..interesting.

However 40% of SINGLE vehicle crashes involve a small overlap. So what has this to do with collisions with other vehicles?

They are not being honest with the stats. Because they suggest it as a significant percentage of the 380,000 which it is clearly not.

MJG said:

Thanks for that..interesting.

However 40% of SINGLE vehicle crashes involve a small overlap. So what has this to do with collisions with other vehicles?

They are not being honest with the stats. Because they suggest it as a significant percentage of the 380,000 which it is clearly not.

Click to expand...

So crashes involving a single vehicle 40% of the time involve a small overlap collision with an object, tree lap post etc the other 60% are most likely minor bumps or major head ons with something big and immoveable

in addition 25% of head on collisions involving another vehicle are subject to a small overlap type impact

the test its self is supposed to replicate "what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole."

from scouting around in 2012 data shows 18,000 people were killed in the USA when their vehicle left the road (no other vehicle directly involved) the data show 65% of all road deaths were people in passenger vehicles (11,700) and of theses 40% sustained and accident involving a small overlap (4,680)

so just this suggest that 4,680 people died in 2012 when their car left the road and hit something so that alone is 14% of the total road deaths in the USA in 2012

applying the maths to those killed at collisions between cars at junctions another 1,500 are killed in accidents with a small overlap i can't find specific data for cars that have collided while traveling towards each other but clearly there is a need for this type of test and they wouldn't spend millions developing and creating a test that they didn't feel was accurate or necessary