- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
True, we once had a Renault Clio with wings made of plastic.
do euro ncap crash test ratings actually mean much?
- Thread starter puntonew
- Start date
Currently reading:
do euro ncap crash test ratings actually mean much?
True, we once had a Renault Clio with wings made of plastic.
But if the us tests get adopted in the eu or eu manufacturers are required to meet the stricter us standards to be allowed to sell over there I can see the wing area or just behind it becoming structural or been altered to pass the stricter tests
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
Indeed that is my point, many less deaths now despite an explosion in the number of vehicles on the road means something is right theses days.
No people killed in that Isle of Sheppy accident is testimony to that., imagine being in the thick of that in a FIAT 126....
But if the us tests get adopted in the eu or eu manufacturers are required to meet the stricter us standards to be allowed to sell over there I can see the wing area or just behind it becoming structural or been altered to pass the stricter tests
Are actual external wings in Americanian cars actually structural though?
Not sure only the us crash tests seem to be getting much stricter take a look at the BBC I player link mep posted its a good watch
I have a photo scanned from the back page of the West Australian a few years ago of me pushing Petter Solberg's Impreza WRC, the wing crumpled when I pushed it because it was made out of.... you guessed it.... plastic
And there was me just thinking it as because you're a heavy fisted git
Apparently plastic wings are cheaper, but not convinced myself, and I doubt there is much of a weight saving.
Me closest to camera. Ended up having to get a 4x4 to pull him out as he'd wedged it in nicelyAnd there was me just thinking it as because you're a heavy fisted git
Apparently plastic wings are cheaper, but not convinced myself, and I doubt there is much of a weight saving.
I watched that a while agoNot sure only the us crash tests seem to be getting much stricter take a look at the BBC I player link mep posted its a good watch
I still don't see how an external panel that's not riveted or welded and which only connects to the chassis on one or two edges is going to do anything for crash performance.I'm temping for a Jag supplier at the moment and I very much suspect that crash performance is far more down to the engineering of the joints between the panels, the choice of material and how many layers there are. We have 3 separate quarters of an X350 Jag (the first aluminium one they made) and it's very interesting to see how the actual body of the car is engineered. Honestly, I would hazard a guess that an unstressed panel like a front wing does 3/5 of **** all in terms of a crash.
Me closest to camera. Ended up having to get a 4x4 to pull him out as he'd wedged it in nicely
All for show of the camera I say. Lol.
Nah, he crashed right in front of me, twas quite funny.
Here's something that's sitting on my desk at work at the moment, it's an engineering sample, probably for Jag.
Watch the 59 Belair get totalled by the 09 Malibu [ame="http://vimeo.com/69030858"]Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset) IIHS 50th Anniversary on Vimeo[/ame] it ain't pretty. Malibu driver would walk away,Belair driver RIP.
NCAP test is into a concrete block, much harder than any 4WD, at 50kmh, all the crash energy is dissipated by the car, ie concrete block not damaged, and you still survive.
If you head on into another vehicle, it is a softer target, but momentum ie energy is transferred one car to the other, the faster, bigger car gives more energy to smaller car to dissipate.
The energy is dissipated around the driver by the car structure crumpling, the engineer has to design the max crumple in to absorb max energy. If it crumples too far you hit the dash etc, too little, you stop too fast, your body can't stand the deceleration and you sustain internal injury.
So get a higher rated car with more airbags, and try not to hit anything, cos its gonna hurt!
NCAP test is into a concrete block, much harder than any 4WD, at 50kmh, all the crash energy is dissipated by the car, ie concrete block not damaged, and you still survive.
If you head on into another vehicle, it is a softer target, but momentum ie energy is transferred one car to the other, the faster, bigger car gives more energy to smaller car to dissipate.
The energy is dissipated around the driver by the car structure crumpling, the engineer has to design the max crumple in to absorb max energy. If it crumples too far you hit the dash etc, too little, you stop too fast, your body can't stand the deceleration and you sustain internal injury.
So get a higher rated car with more airbags, and try not to hit anything, cos its gonna hurt!
NCAP smash into an offset deformable barrier, its not solid concrete.
It's supposed to represent to identical cars hitting head on, off set, while each doing about 35MPH I read on their website a few years back.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
This is what happens when an HGV changes lanes without signalling and warning across the front of a Renault Clio (This was us on the M62)
This is when I discovered we had plastic wings as out of shot unfortunately was a tear in the drivers side as if it had been cut with a knife....
This is when I discovered we had plastic wings as out of shot unfortunately was a tear in the drivers side as if it had been cut with a knife....
i ask because -
with all due respect to the mk2 fiat punto (2002 and after revisions), the build quality feels a lot flimsier than the mk4 astra, and the punto gives away around 250kg, (i know it is a smaller unit, but some of this lighter weight translates into build quality as well eg. thinner metal body panels made of the same type of metal), yet both achieved 4 star euro ncap crash test rating.
similarly, renault clio mk2b also got 4 stars, yet has PLASTIC wings
a mk3 astra and a 88-95 cavalier achieved 1-2 stars max, yet are somewhat solidly built cars.
so all this leaves me wondering if these crash test ratings mean much at all
i mean a vectra B gets 3 stars, yet is 400kg heavier than the mk2 punto, and does feel like a sturdier car. so am i supposed to believe i am safer in a head on collision with say - a range rover - in the punto?
i get the impression these euro ncap crash test ratings give a lot of weight to the number of airbags (2+) in a car?
also, a lot of the bumpers and trim and even wings on modern cars are plastic, whereas 30+ years ago this was all metal. Am i seriously supposed to believe plastic is stronger in a crash than metal?
i mean i know henry t ford made a car made out of hemp plastic that was super strong, but is it not just standard plastic on modern cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgE6Tzi3Lg
maybe my hunches are unfounded.
whats your view?
thanks.
I dont know if this is 100% correct but i thought i read somewhere that 3 stars go to driver safety, 1 for passengers, and 1 to pedestrians? Which adds up to the full 5 stars, so if your car has 4, it might have passed on pedestrian and passenger safety, but fallen short on one of the driver safety aspects......dont quote me though
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
Interestingly the new Vauxhall Adam failed to get the full 5 stars this week.
Another factor often missed in these tests is the difference in height between vehicles. There are more and more 4x4s/cross overs/SUVs on the road these days which have higher ride heights and frontal beams. This can lead to the larger car missing the designed crumple point of a lower car and driving over it. About time more was done to standardise as much as possible the position of these impact points so to maintain as much compatibility as possible between vehicles.
Another factor crash tests often fail to grasp is visibility. Obviously you are much safer in a new mini than an original if you actually crash but with the thin A pillars in the original you might have seen the obstacle and avoided having the accident in the first place.
Another factor often missed in these tests is the difference in height between vehicles. There are more and more 4x4s/cross overs/SUVs on the road these days which have higher ride heights and frontal beams. This can lead to the larger car missing the designed crumple point of a lower car and driving over it. About time more was done to standardise as much as possible the position of these impact points so to maintain as much compatibility as possible between vehicles.
Another factor crash tests often fail to grasp is visibility. Obviously you are much safer in a new mini than an original if you actually crash but with the thin A pillars in the original you might have seen the obstacle and avoided having the accident in the first place.
Last edited:
I dont know if this is 100% correct but i thought i read somewhere that 3 stars go to driver safety, 1 for passengers, and 1 to pedestrians? Which adds up to the full 5 stars, so if your car has 4, it might have passed on pedestrian and passenger safety, but fallen short on one of the driver safety aspects......dont quote me though
That's not correct at all, pedestrian safety is a completely different rating within the results.
