new vs old safety technology

[redressonance]

My girlfriend is deeply concerned that my daily driver is a 39 year old car with 39 year old safety technology. This might be a broad question but how much safer are new cars vs old cars?

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/07/bad976-1.jpg

Some topics that I imagine might come up are:

ABS
Airbags
Body-on-Frame vs. unibody (Monocoque)
crumple zone
side beams
Collapsible steering columns

If you had to guess a percentage of likelihood that you would survive a serious crash in new car vs an old one what would your guess be?

-Alonso

[silver69camaro]

My opinion is, well, there really is no comparison. Old cars are death traps compared to new cars. Yeah, there are stories about guys who got into a serious accident in their musclecar and came out just fine, but lets face the facts, the liklihood of serious injury is seriously reduced in a new cars.

Full frame cars don't really allow much more protection at all. Factory frames are just there to support the suspension and connect it to the body - about 2/3s of vehicle stiffness comes from the body itself. Crumple zones and side impact beams is where, IMO much of the difference is made. Avoiding injury is about absorbing and transferring energy, and old cars don't do this well at all. A stiffer car (say, McLaren F1 or similar) will actually increase the deacceleration rate which can cause further injuries. Crumple zones slow deacceleration - so the impact is softened.

Roll bars and cages don't help either, unless if you plan on wearing a helmet 100% of the time. If you smack your head on a door bar, you're dead - plain and simple - and you'd be amazed how far your body will travel in a serious accident.

I have ABS on my car, and while that does make me feel better, it doesn't do anything when the impact actually occurs.

[David Pozzi]

IF you have 3 point safety belts in your car and you USE THEM, you are way ahead of many others who are not. At least safety was being worked on pretty hard when the late 60's cars came out, with 1967 being a huge improvement year. Things like safety glass and protrusions in the dash were fixed for the most part by that time. Earlier cars had no seat belts (they were offered as an option), metal knobs and low dash panels that would impale the passengers in a crash. Unrestrained passengers flew through the windshield (no laminated safety glass) and landed on the pavement in many crashes.

A first gen Camaro has modern tweaks like weakened sections in the hood so it buckles and won't come through the windshield, the subframe was designed to bend and absorb energy, the car has at least some consideration to roll over protection with a padded dash, the collapseable steering column was introduced in 1967, attention was paid to steering wheel impact to the driver's chest. These were brand new innovations back then. I'm not saying you are as safe as in a new car, but you are safer in a 67 Camaro for example than an early 60's car.

[Vegas69]

Tell her your going to buy a motorcycle instead and she'll forget all about it. :) Night and day that's the difference. I would get a 3 point belt set up if you intend to drive it on a daily basis.

[DoABarrelRoll]

ABS is for people who don't know how to use brakes, or panic easily.

Air Bags are neat, but they have caused quite a few deaths themselves (yes the people were wearing their belts properly).

Remind her that these new technologies work great when you have nothing but new tech. on the road. An old car will cut through a new car, regardless of how many air bags, crumple zones, and how fast the windows automatically get rolled up.

[dannyho]

I couldn't find the video, but i remember seeing a crash test of two cars, that were the same make and model, but 10 years apart or so. both had received the highest crash rating and when the cars hit each other the newer car destroyed the older car. I remember them saying specifically that any occupants in the older car would've surely died. and those cars were definitely not even close to 30 years old. there are a number of similar tests, do a search on google or youtube. In the end you really need to rely on you being a good driver in the first place, which includes avoiding all the idiots out there.

[Vegas69]

Most wrecks have nothing to do with you being a good driver. When I was 15 years old and made my first trip to school on a school permit I was blindsided at a 2 way stop. I had no way to see him coming due to some trees and bushes.

[ProTouring442]

I couldn't find the video, but i remember seeing a crash test of two cars, that were the same make and model, but 10 years apart or so. both had received the highest crash rating and when the cars hit each other the newer car destroyed the older car. I remember them saying specifically that any occupants in the older car would've surely died. and those cars were definitely not even close to 30 years old. there are a number of similar tests, do a search on google or youtube. In the end you really need to rely on you being a good driver in the first place, which includes avoiding all the idiots out there.


I know what you're getting at, but at the same time that video sounds a bit fishy considering that many of the new standards are add-ons to the old.

In my opinion, and it is only that, I would think that any good sized car from somewhere in the 80's on up would be reasonably safe in a crash if the occupants are properly belted, etc. Newer technology, such as multiple air bags, really comes in when the crashes approach high speeds, such as would be the case in a head-on collision.

As others have pointed out, the installation of a roll cage will actually cause more danger due to the chance of the passengers impacting the cage. On the other hand, i would think it would be completely possible to make a "cage" of smaller diameter tubing, integrated into the A, B, and C pillars, door jams, etc, surrounding the passenger compartment with higher strength bracing. You could even add a door impact bar tied in with the hinges in the front, and the latch at the back of the door. This, in theory, will create a situation where the passenger compartment remains fairly in tact whilst the front or rear of the car becomes a "crumple zone." True, we as amateurs cannot engineer the collapsing of these zones, but with some careful thought a reasonable solution should be doable.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[69stang]

Roll bars and cages don't help either, unless if you plan on wearing a helmet 100% of the time. If you smack your head on a door bar, you're dead - plain and simple - and you'd be amazed how far your body will travel in a serious accident.
I disagree with this kind of blanket statement. I agree that your "typical" roll bar could increase your chances of injury IF it intrudes too much in the occupant's space. Regardless, if you smack your head on a roof brace or doorway structure you're just as dead. Again -
you'd be amazed how far your body will travel in a serious accident.


On the other hand, i would think it would be completely possible to make a "cage" of smaller diameter tubing, integrated into the A, B, and C pillars, door jams, etc, surrounding the passenger compartment with higher strength bracing.
Creating a safe zone, so to speak, where occupants can survive while leaving the other areas to crumple seems to be a viable option. You want the passenger compartment to remain intact while the rest of the car crumples or dissintegrates dissipating the energy of the impact.

I don't think anyone can argue against newer cars are, overall, safer than older cars, they're supposed to be. Just knowing about it and understanding you can make some improvements to an older car then get on with life. Millions & millions of cars have been built and driven for over a hundred years. Worrying about it does nothing but cause stress. Keeping your car in good reliable condition will do more for peace of mind than being overconcerned about "old" safety technology. Enrolling in a driving school to improve your skills, I think, would do more good though there's always bonehead drivers out there. Untill everyone is required to pass a real driving skill test (vs a current driving test) to get a license, I don't see old or new safety technology being all that important.

[silver69camaro]

I disagree with this kind of blanket statement. I agree that your "typical" roll bar could increase your chances of injury IF it intrudes too much in the occupant's space. Regardless, if you smack your head on a roof brace or doorway structure you're just as dead.

I dunno Roger. Part of my job is designing cages and roll bars, and I've never really seen setups that truely impressed me (in typical cars) that were able to keep the roof line/brow bar/hoop away from the driver enough to where a helmet was not needed. I'm sure it's possible in larger sedans and pickups, but say a Camaro...I don't know how it could be done safely.

Keep in mind that all roll bars or cages will be 1-5/8" to 1-3/4" closer to ANY roof or door structure to your head.

[69stang]

Matt,
I can see your argument but I look at it from possibly a slightly different view. My job, before my employer was sold and moved out of state, was designing armor packages for a wide variety of vehicles including cash-in-transit, SWAT, SUVs and luxury cars. The armor thickness runs from .125" on the low end to .5" and up depending on the cutomer's security requirement. Armor steel is very stiff and requires many small pieces to make up a package that conforms to the body structure with as little intrusion into the passenger compartment as possible. Factory panels are trimmed where possible and re-fit to the vehicle. Where the original panels can't be used the panel is usually covered with auto carpeting or possibly a thin layer of foam and some leather. If you bounce your head off that you'll be wishing it was a padded roll bar. Things like the headliner and pillar trim no longer have any give either. I've knocked my head on spall guards around the doorways too. I don't know, maybe not such a big difference in the real world.

[Norm Peterson]

The concern is that a 1.75" OD tube is still going to be closer to your head than most any fitted plates. Even if the difference is only 1", that's potentially significant. Consider the case where your head would travel (say) 4". Do you prefer the half inch thick armor 4.5" away or the cage tubing 3.5" away? Consider both to be equally padded.

Unfortunately, I've had a little personal experience with how far the human body can stretch during an accident. Not anything recent, but you tend to remember things like having hit the rearview mirror with your forehead hard enough to make it punch a nice big star in the windshield - while belted in (think 2-point 1960's-era belts). I'm sure that there was at least some belt stretching involved, though it's a bit moot to bother separating belt stretch from body excursion.


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Some topics that I imagine might come up are:

ABS
Airbags
Body-on-Frame vs. unibody (Monocoque)
crumple zone
side beams
Collapsible steering columns

If you had to guess a percentage of likelihood that you would survive a serious crash in new car vs an old one what would your guess be?

-Alonso
Wow, that's quite a variety of categories to cover in a single thread. Maybe a little separation is in order.

Structural improvements

Elimination of secondary hazards or reduction of their likely consequences (i.e. collapsible steering columns, double-pivot rearview mirrors, and I'd lump air bags and belt pretensioning here as well)

Electronic driver assists (ABS, stability control, etc.)

Other (pedestrian protection - I think only European at this point)


There shouldn't be much question that newer cars are much better than the older ones with respect to the first two categories. Even more so when you consider the effects of corrosion.


I really don't want to get started on the third, so I'll keep it as short as I can. At best, they enable those with poor driving skills to drive at lower risk. At worst, they teach them to do the wrong things (or not do the right things) by actively assuming control.

I would ask anyone who has ever experienced ABS "ice mode" on dry pavement if they still think that ABS is a universally good thing. I have, and I don't.
"Smart cruise control" that maintains following distance - and arbitrarily lets anything and everything cut you off?
"Brake assist" that assumes whenever you're stopping hard that you need absolutely maximum deceleration, immediately?
Just wait until lane departure + automated course correction shows up.



Norm

[silver69camaro]

ABS is for people who don't know how to use brakes, or panic easily.



Boy, that's just plain wrong. Once you get deeply involved with how ABS works, you'll know how good it really is.

[Norm Peterson]

Yes, ABS is very good for some things, like letting you steer while braking hard without demanding a whole lot in the way of driver skill (with ABS you don't have to even know that you can't have maximum braking and any cornering at the same time).

On the 'minus side' of the ledger, sometimes it can make some pretty stupid decisions, such as when "ice mode" gets inappropriately tripped. And even though I don't have hard test data, I can't help but think that every time you add something between the brake pedal and the pad/rotor interface that you're sacrificing some physical "feel" about what's going on. Then again, maybe that doesn't matter to most drivers <sigh>.


Depending on the specific ABS system, it may throw a code just from fitting tires of different size than OE. I've heard that it takes a year do develop and certify an ABS system, so I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for a user fix here.


Norm

[silver69camaro]

I disagree Norm. I have a C6 Bosch ABS system on my Camaro using manual brakes and Wilwood front and rear discs. Ice mode is a big possibility with a mis-programed aftermarket motorsports ABS system, not OE setups.

Pedal feedback is exactly the same as it was before, and pump cycling is barely felt. Stopping distances are extremely short and consistant, and I'll never flat-spot a tire. That's worth the money and time right there.

Any performance-oriented ABS controller will pretty much outbrake a good driver every time. Stability-oriented systems will not, which is where the "ABS is for people who can't drive" method of uneducated thinking came from.

[ErikLS2]

I work on cars everyday that have some of the most advanced safety features out there. The latest being one which keeps the car in the lane, thanks to electronic power steering, slows the vehicle if an obstruction is sensed up ahead and even "watches" the drivers face and alerts him if he dozes off. Now, these features may be annoying to many of us "drivers" who like to control our cars but most of them are outside of the driver's awareness. How would you like to be heading towards a car with some of these features and a sleepy or inattentive driver at the wheel? It could save your life without you even knowing it. IMHO, not a bad thing in this cell phone/texting/multi-taskin while driving world. The next time you or a loved one make it home alive may be due to one of these systems but you'll never know for sure.

What about pre-collision systems that cinch up the seat belts prior to impact to reduce bodily injury? Smart airbag systems that actually weigh passenger seat occupants or calculate driver distance from the steering wheel and adjust airbag deployment force accordingly?

The more advanced cars out there now have virtually no mechanical connections between driver and vehicle, steering is the only one left and the car can control that now too. Every input you give the car goes to a computer at 500 kb/ps or faster followed by a command by that computer sent to a particular actuator. The amount of data flying around inside the car just driving down the road in a straight line is incredible, never mind if a panic or adverse condition occurs. I've seen it first hand on scan tools and scopes.

Are we safer in modern cars? Absolutely. Is there a price to pay for that? Sure. At a minimum we lose some control and feedback from the vehicle. But, we can always build a kick ass older car too and isn't that why we're all here anyway? They haven't taken that away from us..........yet.

[Norm Peterson]

I disagree Norm. I have a C6 Bosch ABS system on my Camaro using manual brakes and Wilwood front and rear discs. Ice mode is a big possibility with a mis-programed aftermarket motorsports ABS system, not OE setups.
Maybe some OE systems. I've hit ice mode - or something scarily similar - a couple of times in my '08 Mustang GT, with no codes being thrown. On the street.

When, or maybe if, such systems can read the road conditions in real time instead of only relying on inferences I'll perhaps be convinced. I guess that all my life I've been able to do a decent job at threshhold braking, and I'll admit that I'm also concerned that placing full reliance on the electronics of ABS (what you must do in order to reap its benefits) will take that away. Thanks, but no thanks.


Norm

[vintageracer]

To put your girlfriends concern in perspective:

We KILL over 40,000 people per year in highway accidents on the roads of the US. Last time I looked that's more than most any disease or any other method of dying. I believe the numbers were over 50,000 people per year in the 70's/80's yet private foundations, individual people and interested companies will spend billions on research for diseases and other aspects that cause far LESS death every year. The ONLY entity that seems to do anything on any type of grand scale to improve the safety of cars/trucks is the government! And we ALL know how good they are at administering programs. The car companies have developed some neat technology however most was driven by regulation not necessarily innovation.

It has amazed me for YEARS that our society accepts the carnage on our nations highways with so little discussion or passion.

[Norm Peterson]

Erik - you make a wonderful case for these systems being installed in "other peoples' cars". Sure, I'd certainly appreciate an oncoming sleepyhead being nudged back where he belongs. The flip side is that I there are situations where I absolutely don't want any interference - construction zones where the lane markings are temporary, merge zones where you need to use a little more distance, or driving as close to a 'racing line' as your lane width permits. All of these situations are going to occur regardless of the vehicle being driven.

Think about this for a moment - if a passenger were to attempt a similar level of interference, they'd probably get backhanded on the spot and/or tossed out of the car as soon as it could be stopped. Been there, not as either the driver or the interfering passenger.


Norm

[ErikLS2]

Erik - you make a wonderful case for these systems being installed in "other peoples' cars". Sure, I'd certainly appreciate an oncoming sleepyhead being nudged back where he belongs. The flip side is that I there are situations where I absolutely don't want any interference - construction zones where the lane markings are temporary, merge zones where you need to use a little more distance, or driving as close to a 'racing line' as your lane width permits. All of these situations are going to occur regardless of the vehicle being driven.

Think about this for a moment - if a passenger were to attempt a similar level of interference, they'd probably get backhanded on the spot and/or tossed out of the car as soon as it could be stopped. Been there, not as either the driver or the interfering passenger.


Norm

Norm, I most certainly agree with you that there are times when such systems are not desirable. The lane keep assist system I'm familiar with though is not active if a turn signal is used and can also easily be turned off and on at will. Most dynamic vehicle control systems can also be turned off with a button. ABS is always on though and some are much smoother than others.

I do have to say, when I first put a radar cruise system to the test by quickly pulling behind another car and buzzers went off and the car rapidly slowed down on it's own it was unnerving to say the least. Then try a car that parks itself.

It's kind of strange to think though that there are cars on the road right now that have technology on board that would enable them to drive themselves from one point to another, if they just had the software in them to do it. It will be here soon.

[Norm Peterson]

I do have to say, when I first put a radar cruise system to the test by quickly pulling behind another car and buzzers went off and the car rapidly slowed down on it's own it was unnerving to say the least.
I really, really hate to be startled like that, so I'd be on a search and destroy mission with a fuse puller and a pair of wire cutters . . . ASAP

In larger scope, I fear that these active interference measures are only going to make for drivers with (on average) even poorer driving skills.

Not to mention that they can be used to place artificial limits on vehicle performance, render the installation of grippier tires ineffective and pointless, and prevent the driver from learning how his vehicle really behaves (should he wish to do so). That such systems may currently have an 'off' switch does not guarantee that this will continue to be the case, and I'm not even sure that some systems today can't reactivate themselves based on some combination and perhaps timing of driver control inputs. Remember that we now have TPMS due to the unfortunate combination of marginal stability in an SUV, mfr-specified lower tire pressures as a crutch for that, and typical lack of attention - that ultimately bit a relative handful of drivers.

Even ABS is something that I accept only grudgingly, being aware of (and having experienced) some of its downsides as well as (less frequently) its benefits.



It's kind of strange to think though that there are cars on the road right now that have technology on board that would enable them to drive themselves from one point to another, if they just had the software in them to do it. It will be here soon.Just not in my driveway.


Norm

[Dstoltenberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I

If I remember right there was more info on the original version I watched, i think they said the driver of the '59 would have likely died almost instantly, and the driver of the 09 would have sustained minor neck injury.

[John Wright]

Larger cars fair better...can't argue with the laws of physics..LOL

cu95gB04VC4

[monza]

ABS is for people who don't know how to use brakes, or panic easily.
An old car will cut through a new car, regardless of how many air bags, crumple zones, and how fast the windows automatically get rolled up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I
I was just looking for this utube to show how wrong the above statement is , besides this video, there is tons of evidence the old " big steel" is just not as safe. I wish it was not true.
The ABS comment ...it's already being debated.

[Norm Peterson]

The structural improvements are without doubt beneficial, even as they add mass. A stronger and more rigid passenger cell also benefits the ability to tune the handling.


Norm

[kryptik]

Just my two cents...

On December 10, 2009, I was involved in a horrible head on collision in my 1968 Camaro against a 6,000 pound work van.

It was a bright afternoon, I was cruising at the speed limit with my friend in the passenger seat. We were on a single lane canyon road, making a left hand sweep in the outer lane. Upon corner exit, my car entered an uncontrollable state of oversteer, and ended up crossing into the center lane.

From then I remember nothing until I woke up in the hospital 5 days later.

My injuries are severe: broken left tibia (shin bone), broken and dislocated left hip which was operated on, two broken left wrist bones, a torn right hand ligament, a broken nose, a minor broken skullbone under my right eye, and plenty of lacerations everywhere.

Yes, these are bad injuries, but I should make a full recovery and be walking in 3 months from the collision.

Now to my point: my car saved my life.

If you look through all those injuries, they are all outboard limb injuries, my core is 100% intact. The only safety measures I had were a brand new frame, frame connectors, and the amazing Morris 3-point belts which saved mine and my passenger's life.

After the impact, I was trapped in the car and paramedics were forced to cut the roof off and cut the steering column behind the wheel to get me out. The steering wheel was 6" from my chest...had I had an airbag it would have snapped my neck and killed me.

The fact that the car had such frontal structural strength meant that nothing came into the interior area to impale me. It hit a vehicle double the weight at a force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph, and my core and head were safe, aside from the hood coming slightly into the interior and kissing my nose and right eye.

My passenger walked away with nothing, just a mark where the three point belt stopped his movement. He did not need an airbag, in fact it may have injured him further.

The tow truck driver said this was one of the worst collisions he's seen in his 30 years of experience.

Furthermore, the only reason for my broken limbs is because I braced myself in the collision and locked my left leg against the floorboard, and grabbed the wheel with all my force. Yes the rigid frame transferred a ton of force causing these breaks.

But the car did its job, it did not trap my legs under the dash, it did not hit me in the head or knock me unconscious, it did not impale my core with anything, it protected my passenger on the other side, it did not catch fire, and my back, ribs, and neck feel just as they did before the accident.

A newer car would have crumpled much harder, would most likely have impaled me due to cheap lightweight materials, and would have snapped my neck with the airbag thereby ending my life abruptly.

The pain is tough to deal with, but these are all recoverable injuries. Talk to a guy who hits a 6000lbs van head on (with each vehicle moving 40mph) on the driver's side in a Honda or Toyota with a short hood and no steel, if you can even still talk to him

[mikedc]

Not to mention that they can be used to place artificial limits on vehicle performance, render the installation of grippier tires ineffective and pointless, and prevent the driver from learning how his vehicle really behaves (should he wish to do so). That such systems may currently have an 'off' switch does not guarantee that this will continue to be the case, and I'm not even sure that some systems today can't reactivate themselves based on some combination and perhaps timing of driver control inputs. Remember that we now have TPMS due to the unfortunate combination of marginal stability in an SUV, mfr-specified lower tire pressures as a crutch for that, and typical lack of attention - that ultimately bit a relative handful of drivers.


Look at a modern laptop computer. There is no mechanical link to ANYTHING. You can't even mute the volume or turn the entire thing on & off until the software agrees with your decision. And that's assuming the software isn't still lagging 5 steps behind your commands, struggling with software that was supposedly state of the art wa-a-ay back in the dark ages when you bought the machine (3 months ago).


I have absolutely no doubt that they will be doing this stuff to our cars soon enough.

If we're lucky the cars will still at least keep some manual door locks/handles on the outside. At least that way our wives won't be relying on the key remote to automatically soleniod-pop the door open for them in a hurry when they're being accosted by a thug in a dark parking lot.

[ErikLS2]

Just my two cents...


The fact that the car had such frontal structural strength meant that nothing came into the interior area to impale me. It hit a vehicle double the weight at a force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph, and my core and head were safe, aside from the hood coming slightly into the interior and kissing my nose and right eye.

My passenger walked away with nothing, just a mark where the three point belt stopped his movement. He did not need an airbag, in fact it may have injured him further.



First of all, I'm very sorry for your accident. However, I would argue that all that "frontal structural strength" probably contributed to your injuries. All that engergy from the accident had to go somewhere and the less of it that's absorbed by the car the more of it that goes into your body. That hood that almost hit you in the face would have been stopped by large hooks at the base of the windshield and folded right in the middle on a modern car.

An airbag that deploys 6 inches from your face most certainly will do damage. An airbag attached to a modern collapsible steering column on a car with designed crumple zones will virtually always reduce injuries.

Again, very sorry for your misfortune. We can have fun debating this for a long time but the bottom line is your going to be OK and another car can always be built. Good luck in your recovery!

Erik

[kryptik]

Thanks Erik!

I just purchased a 1970 RS split bumper as my next project, partially due to engineering and safety improvements in the second gen camaro vs. the first gen.

I agree that the rigid body did contribute to broken bones due to the extra energy transfer. At the same time though, I have seen many instances of a car which crumples and severely impales or traps the driver, causing core body injuries which are the most important to avoid. The dashboards on new vehicles are much closer to one's knees I have noticed, and are notorious for trapping the driver in the vehicle by his legs. I was fairly easily removed from the car, as even after the force of hitting a concrete wall at 80mph the dash did not crumple down onto my knees.

Many drivers walk away from accidents in new vehicles with mild to severe injuries on the face, neck, and core simply because of the airbag deployment, not from the collision itself.

Because my car didn't crumple, it made removing me from the vehicle and getting me onto the medical helicopter a very simple task for emergency workers, and got me to medical treatment much faster.

Broken bones heal, but neck and core injuries are something which should be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, I have been seeing more and more cars with solenoid controlled door locks which can be a serious hazard upon electrical failure, especially if a fire breaks out around the vehicle.

Regardless, there are trade-offs to both old and new vehicles. I honestly can't say I would have been okay in a new vehicle, as thousands die a year in collisions far less severe than mine.

I guess the safest vehicle is one that doesn't end up in a collision, but we all know the world isn't perfect, sh*t happens. Just drive safe and avoid the canyons in these cars at all costs, a straightaway is one thing (and these cars are the kings of straightaways), but a canyon is just a deathtrap and an unnecessary risk, where one wrong move or pothole can put you into a spin with no room to correct.

In fact, I corrected my spin, but it was too late as I ended up in the inner lane right in front of a 6000lbs van...figures. Guess we all gotta learn our lesson sometime.

Drive safe and don't end up like me is all I gotta say...and we all know that an accident isn't gonna turn any of us away from that beautiful sound, smell, and feel of raw American torque:smoke:

Happy driving and best regards,
Matt

[Roadrage David]

Kryptic, having read your acsidend.
I know that modern cars are disignd to ubsorb the impact with crumble zones ecetera.
BUT they are also disighned to colide ""together"". .
I had more then one discusion , Where i stated i belive that when a modern car colides with a late 60,s early 70,s muscle car with the goodies that are around today. wil be safer, and that the modern car wil take the ""blund"" of the impact sins the older car hase no real crumble zones and hase a more solid structural mass /frame ectera, i acspect that the driver and the pasenger of the older car to walk away with lesser trauma then the newer car . sins that car wil be the one thats going to be teard ore torn up!!.
When i drive a 69 GTO with a roll cage strengtend ladder frame ectera ecetera with a big Endura bumper up frond a hood that is a mile long . colide with a modern Toyota camry witch is build to crumble up. i rather be in the GTO. corect me if im wrong. but u truly belive im safer in the GTO.

[Norm Peterson]

I really don't think that relative crash performance can be evaluated quite that simply. Specific structural geometry and energy management matters as well as mass.

The longer hood on an older car tends to improve its crash performance, but only if the energy dissipation along that length is at least comparable to any newer car being compared to. It doesn't make it better simply by being longer.


Norm

[kryptik]

The body CAN survive extreme forces, bones are extremely strong and resilient, and repair relatively easily and quickly, and broken bones are for the most part non-life threatening.

The body CANNOT survive being impaled. A torn or ruptured artery, puncture wound, head trauma, etc are life threatening.

Although these old cars transfer extreme forces to the body upon impact, the tough steel is resilient and bends rather than crumples and does not enter the passenger compartment as pieces of broken or cracked shards of metal.

[Roadrage David]

WARNING 18 +GRAFIC IMAGES http://www.ehowa.com/features/smartcarvssemi.shtml
Altho i belive that iven with a bigger ore older car with al the structural improvemends that you can put in it, its hard to sirvive this one. i do prefeur the bigger older cars.. Those crumble zones aint worth anything when you meet a lump of solid iron....

[sik68]

WARNING 18 +GRAFIC IMAGES http://www.ehowa.com/features/smartcarvssemi.shtml
Altho i belive that iven with a bigger ore older car with al the structural improvemends that you can put in it, its hard to sirvive this one. i do prefeur the bigger older cars.. Those crumble zones aint worth anything when you meet a lump of solid iron....

Yuck that was unnecessary.

This past weekend, we were 1st on the scene of an accident where a late 80's pickup truck went head-on into a tree at what I estimate at 30-40mph. The truck was mangled up front but the cab appeared relatively uncrushed. The driver and passenger were easily freed and injuries appeared not life threatening. Both of them had injuries relating to their heads being smacked around inside, and the passenger probably had a broken leg.

That accident was a real gut-check to myself about minimizing injury in older cars in accidents, since I am just starting to drive my Camaro again. It seems like occupant movement during a crash is the primary way people get injured. I have always planned to cage my car, and always run 5 pt belts with a proper seat that allows a low seating position to keep me far away from the browbar. Seems to me the 5pt belts would hardly allow any body movement (which is why the drivers in a lot of closed-cockpit cars like nascar, ALMS, rally, etc hardly move when you watch in-car replay footage). Would this be considered safe for my car, even if I wasn't wearing a helmet?

[Roadrage David]

Yuck that was unnecessary.
I beg the differ sir!. its as realistic as everyday drama is!!.
Talking about safty is one thing, showing the hard facts
is another.
I belive that in todays divelopmend of car safty and crumple zones, Tha they dont take in acound that there are riged bigger old heavy cars from the past on the road today , its a calculated risk that the chanse of meeting a lump of iron is a small one.
So I belive that the crumple zone,s and car safty today is divelopt with a colision of simulair modern cars in mind of today, so that both cars ubsorb the energy of a impact. making it safer for the people involved in a acsident, but
In my mind i cant see the safer platform of a modern car that is ""made"" to crumble up, when it meets a older car like the ones we have with ful cage and everyting in it!!.
The modern car with ubsorb more energy then its disignd for. especialy now that the car industry is going to make a lot more smaller cars..

[Norm Peterson]

Not all old cars have a full cage. If anything, they've lost a measure of structural rigidity to the effects of corrosion on panel thickness. Never mind that all the frame stiffness in the world isn't going to help much if the newer car rides up and over some really rigid separate frame and scrapes/peels the body off of it.

With respect to the "full cage" and generally higher stiffness chassis - current thinking in NASCAR is to maintain some measure of crumple at least in front for the very reason of reducing the amount of energy transferred into occupant movement and belt/harness/seat loading.


sik - I strongly recommend getting Alan Blaine's opinion on the details of cage construction vs the expected use(s). He's a very knowledgeable individual in the business of fabricating cages for cars used in a variety of road course competition series (that require sactioning body technical acceptance and logbooking), but understands the unhelmeted street side of it as well. Blainefab over on corner-carvers.com, and IIRC there are separate race and street oriented discussions in which he has taken part.


Norm

[sik68]

sik - I strongly recommend getting Alan Blaine's opinion on the details of cage construction vs the expected use(s). He's a very knowledgeable individual in the business of fabricating cages for cars used in a variety of road course competition series (that require sactioning body technical acceptance and logbooking), but understands the unhelmeted street side of it as well. Blainefab over on corner-carvers.com, and IIRC there are separate race and street oriented discussions in which he has taken part.


Norm

Thank you very much, Norm. Will do!

[kryptik]

Not all old cars have a full cage. If anything, they've lost a measure of structural rigidity to the effects of corrosion on panel thickness. Never mind that all the frame stiffness in the world isn't going to help much if the newer car rides up and over some really rigid separate frame and scrapes/peels the body off of it.

Norm

My 42 year old Camaro retained plenty of structural integrity. I finally went to see the salvaged car in person, and let me tell you its quite a sight. But in terms of safety, the car truly impressed me.

Remember, my vehicle had a full frontal impact on the driver's side fender/framerail with a 6,000+ lbs solid steel work van; and both vehicles were moving 40mph.

Upon inspection, I noticed that the steel subframe (which I replaced with a new OEM unit) bent and twisted to absorb energy, but in no way, shape, or form crumpled, retaining the vehicle's structure; aka exactly what it was designed to do. In fact, the distributor at the rear of the block is in the exact position in relation to the firewall, meaning nothing really "crumpled".

Moving rearward, I noticed that the door did exactly what it should have done as well: it buckled outward meaning nothing to injure the driver from the side. The dash moved a little bit towards me, but retained integrity as well. My knees had plenty of room and were by no means trapped.

The floor pan which caused major injuries to my leg hardly even buckled, only bent inward slightly. My leg took the brunt of the impact because while countersteering the car my reaction was to brace myself.

There were absolutely no abrasive edges, things that could impale me, etc in the passenger compartment. In fact, if I had just let go of the wheel and tucked my leg inward, rather than locking them to brace myself, I would most likely WALKED AWAY.

Tell me that isn't safe. Don't try this in your Honda Civic. And don't let the government fool you into thinking these new tin cans are safe.

[ErikLS2]

Matt, as much as I hate to see crumpled up old cars, do you have any pictures of it we could see? Might help some folks working on improving the safety of their cars.

[kryptik]

The pictures don't do it justice, but here she is...


https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://img33.imageshack.us/i/camaro5s.jpg/) https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/img33/camaro5s.jpg/1/)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://img695.imageshack.us/i/camaro2.jpg/) https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/img695/camaro2.jpg/1/)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://img6.imageshack.us/i/camaro4s.jpg/) https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/img6/camaro4s.jpg/1/)

[Norm Peterson]

I'd trade away any door buckling in either direction in exchange for frontal structure that does crumple in a controlled fashion. That the door buckled means that the passenger compartment was compressed longitudinally at least on that side, moving you at least a little closer toward the windshield and the intruding hood.

My guess is that a hood that folded up somewhere along its mid-length would have left you a bit better off as well.

I'm not trying to downplay anything that may have helped keep you from being injured more severely. What I am trying to do is keep the structural evaluation on track. Engineering looks at details and numbers, not just an overview of the general arrangement.

It's been a little over 40 years since I was involved in a fairly serious intersection crash involving black ice (for visualization, I was the 'stem' of the letter 'T'), and while it wasn't as severe as yours it still involved speeds somewhere north of 35 mph. I was driving a Chrysler Corp. unitized construction Valiant that had seen a number of New England winters (and a V8 engine swap). Long story short and as best as I can remember - I think I was 'out' for a few seconds - it did fold up some, mostly along the engine compartment but only enough along the driver's door to make it somewhat difficult to open. I came out of it all with a small cut from my head striking the mirror driving it into but not through the windshield. While I can't say for sure, I'm pretty sure that had that car been fitted with any sort of upper body restraint instead of just the two-point belt that I was wearing that I'd have escaped that injury as well.

A word on harnesses, though. The current thinking is that you do the harness only with a cage or roll bar for road course activities. The reason here being that the harness will keep you bolt upright in the seat, not a good thing if you manage to roll the car over and start crushing a roof unsupported by auxiliary rollover structure. Once the B-pillars start to give way, the A-pillars tend to follow suit and your spine then becomes a main supporting column for the weight of the now-inverted car. An OE lap/shoulder belt at least allows you to move or get shoved/thrown out of the vertical as the car is rolling. The rules for relatively low speed solo/autocross may let you get away with just the harness or other non-OE upper body restraint in a closed car only, but I don't think I'd drive around on the public roads like that.


Norm

[monza]

The pictures don't do it justice, but here she is...




Damn that is unreal, one ugly looking mess!

Oh that smart car crash is HARSH!

[kryptik]

I'd trade away any door buckling in either direction in exchange for frontal structure that does crumple in a controlled fashion. That the door buckled means that the passenger compartment was compressed longitudinally at least on that side, moving you at least a little closer toward the windshield and the intruding hood.


Norm

Agreed, not saying the car is perfect, just that it did the job it was meant to do, save my life.

A fiberglass hood that would crack before it penetrated the windshield would have been nice.

[mrengineer]

Wow - This is an interesting thread and timely for me!

First off, this is my first posting here (but I visit often). I am an OEM engineer with over 20 years vehicle crash safety experience. Vehicle crash worthiness is very complex and not often understood science. Having a rigid chassis with good torsional stiffness & NVH characteristics does not always translate into what is best for the driver. Example, being rigidly strapped (or attached) into a race car chassis and then hitting a wall or experiencing violent tire shake that transfers those forces directly to the human body without any energy management of the accelerations or ride down of the energy can lead to unfortunate results. That said todays cars & trucks are much improved with respect to crash worthiness. Adding structural chassis upgrades into our cars does not always translate to improved occupant performance.

[John Wright]

The pictures don't do it justice, but here she is...

[/URL] [URL="http://g.imageshack.us/img6/camaro4s.jpg/1/"] (http://img6.imageshack.us/i/camaro4s.jpg/)

Geez Matt, Wow what a crash.




I still think larger cars give you more room for the crumple than the smaller sub-compact cars. I'm sure the safety engineers do what they can with what they have to work with on the sub-compacts, but the facts are that they don't have alot of extra length and width to work with before the interior starts to be encroached upon.

[mikedc]

Anybody else remember how well this super-strong and rigid chassis worked out for the driver?

Crumple zones are important.


https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/3crash-1.jpg

[fordsbyjay]

I don't know if I missed this or not but it was a recent test between old and new.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/crash-test-1959-chevy-vs-2009-chevy.aspx?gt1=33009

You can do a search for 59 chevy vs 09 chevy for more pics and videos.

[stangme]

interesting thread...
i was involved in an accident with my 96 Cobra, 45mph, someone ran a stop sign and boom.... airbag deployed, no brakes, rolled very slow across a couple lanes of traffic...
im convinced of one main thing.... if i hadn't installed steeda moly subframe connectors.... it would have been worse... with the subframe connectors... the roof pilar still deformed just behind the passenger window..maybe it was supposed too.
airbag smashed my glasses against my face... they didn't break... but ill have neck pain probably forever.. rehab got me back to being able to look to my left.. could have been much worse... im thankful it wasn't.. cobra was totaled..

as im getting closer to finishing my 69 mustang.... it will never be finished...lol... im am looking into a roll bar, with harness bar, huge brakes with late model spindles, possible ABS retrofit, hydroboost brake booster.. etc

but correct me if i am wrong, isnt the 69-70 mustang hood designed to buckle?

[signal20hack]

12/29/07, My wife and I were hit by a drunk driver. Both of us had on our seat belts. I was making a left turn when the drunk blow through the red light. We ended up 193' away from the intersection. I walked away, my wife was unconscious and cut out of the truck. I spent 1 day in the hospital. My wife was bay flighted out and spent 3 days in the hospital. My S10, bought new and very loved, died to save our lives. I believe if we had been in a lesser auto, we both would be dead.

[kryptik]

Wow...that accident reminds me of my own. I'm really glad to hear that you and your wife are okay!

Nothing beats the strength of a truck frame when it comes to a collision this serious. I still believe that all of the crumple zones combined with the lightweight materials used on new compact cars are more of a deathtrap than a savior. Yes they may work in a laboratory test, but if one of those cars were to kiss a moving van at a combined velocity of 100mph head-on, like I did, it would not be pretty.