One dead in Chevelle SS wreck...

[John S]

Very Sad for the occupants;
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/07/two_in_critical_condition_afte.html

[THE TECH]

Sad indeed.

Wow! Car completely separated from frame.

[Derek69SS]

The story is over 3 years old, but it still sucks to look at those pics...

[6'9"Witha69]

Wow! Car completely separated from frame.
I have disassembled a few 69-71 Chevelles, and if it was the original bolts, yeah, that could easily happen.

Still can't believe people don't wear seatbelts.

[93Polo]

Very sad :( The story was posted up on chevelles.com

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186950 (http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186950&highlight=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.oregonlive.com%2Fbreak ingnews%2F2007%2F07%2Ftwo_in_critical_condition_af te.html)

[Northern Goat]

Not to make light of a tragic event. But the pictures do prove that contrary to some beliefs newer cars maybe smaller and moer plastic; however they are a lot safer than old "solid steel" car we love.

[mc84_zz4]

I think the bolts failed, or the body mounts ripped out from frame or body.
I have seen many, many bad wrecks, this is the first I see where the frame separates.
Once the frame separates from the body, the structures lose most of their rigidity.

[Derek69SS]

I think the bolts failed, or the body mounts ripped out from frame or body.
I have seen many, many bad wrecks, this is the first I see where the frame separates.
Once the frame separates from the body, the structures lose most of their rigidity.

I would bet that had more to do with the aftermarket rigid rear control arms and the direct-hit that it took to the axle than any hardware failure. A stock rear suspension would have folded up and absorbed some of that impact instead of transferring it all to the frame.

[Vicinity]

Oh my God. That's awful. A roll cage just went way up on my to do list.

[93Polo]

Oh my God. That's awful. A roll cage just went way up on my to do list.

Be careful with padding and spacing on the rollbar, so that you don't hit your head in a accident.

[PoundinPoncho]

My guess would be a holeshot/burnout that the driver lost control. Story indicated fishtailing and the road appeared dry.

[go-fish]

No seatbelts? C'mon! I hate wearing seatbelts too but it's something you have to do.

[Six_Shooter]

It's been a long while since I read the details on the story, but I believe it was the body mount bolts failed or were missing, which caused the body to separate from the frame, in that incident.

[Ripped]

What I think about, when I read a story, like this; is the huge amount of power these cars have.

It is necessary to treat them, and drive them, with a huge amount of respect for that power. It's too easy to get all squirrelly without trying too hard. A small amount of contamination on the road surface, a large crown in the road, coming out of a turn too fast, etc. can get you sideways in a hurrey.

Especially when you have passengers, or are in traffic.

[Derek69SS]

It's been a long while since I read the details on the story, but I believe it was the body mount bolts failed or were missing, which caused the body to separate from the frame, in that incident.

I remember a lot of speculation about that, but in the pics, the mounts that people were referring to never had any hardware from the factory. There were 4 body "mounts" on a '69 Chevelle that never had a bolt in them. They were the 2 in the center of the side frame rail (right below the middle of the doors) and the 2 above the rear axle. There were only 6 mounts (8 counting the core-support) that ever had any hardware in them.

[6'9"Witha69]

I remember a lot of speculation about that, but in the pics, the mounts that people were referring to never had any hardware from the factory. There were 4 body "mounts" on a '69 Chevelle that never had a bolt in them. They were the 2 in the center of the side frame rail (right below the middle of the doors) and the 2 above the rear axle. There were only 6 mounts (8 counting the core-support) that ever had any hardware in them.

Correct, those additional provisions were for convertibles.

[406 Q-ship]

I remember a lot of speculation about that, but in the pics, the mounts that people were referring to never had any hardware from the factory. There were 4 body "mounts" on a '69 Chevelle that never had a bolt in them. They were the 2 in the center of the side frame rail (right below the middle of the doors) and the 2 above the rear axle. There were only 6 mounts (8 counting the core-support) that ever had any hardware in them.

All the Chevelles I have owned have eight bolted for just the body. One on each side of the firewall, one the middle of the doors, one each side right next to the front of the lower control arm mounts, and one on the left and right side just rear of the rear axle. Then there are the other four, two at the very rear of the body and the core support bolts. Convertibles have the two in front of the rear axle are bolted, where on the coupes it is just a cushion. I have never seen a body seperate on any Body on Frame cars unless the car was really rusted or the bolts were at fault, I believe that the body was not properly secured to the frame on that Chevelle SS. We have all seen poorly restored cars or just fluff and buff resale cars, so I would not be suprised to find that the bolts were loose, incorrect, or flat not there.

[Derek69SS]

You're correct, I forgot about the 2 right behind the axle... on mine, the one at the center of the door was just a cushion, like the one above the axle w/ no hardware in those 2 mounts.

I think the big difference in this collision was the rear suspension being aftermarket tubular control arms, they did not buckle, so the impact to the wheel was transferred directly to the frame. After all, it's just a ~1" x 1" square nut on the top side of some 18-gauge mild steel, so it's not surprising they'd rip out of the body easily.

[Vicinity]

What I think about, when I read a story, like this; is the huge amount of power these cars have.

It is necessary to treat them, and drive them, with a huge amount of respect for that power. It's too easy to get all squirrelly without trying too hard. A small amount of contamination on the road surface, a large crown in the road, coming out of a turn too fast, etc. can get you sideways in a hurrey.

Especially when you have passengers, or are in traffic.

I just learned this lesson yesterday. I came around a turn too hard and hit some oil and spun my car around. Luckily there was no one around, but it didn't seem like it was out of control until the last fraction of a second when I spun around.

[DarkBuddha]

Probably the biggest message I get from an accident like this is that these old cars have crapall for safety and crash protection. Just f'ing terrible! I used to be super hardcore about not running a cage or roll bar in a street car, but when I see stuff like this, I start to wonder if the potential dangers of having one are offset by the potential safety and protection they might offer in such a crash. Which would be worse: making hard contact with a door bar or having the entire side of the car fold up like a burrito on you? I don't know...

[mikedc]

The car wouldn't have been nearly that weak if it hadn't come off the frame.

It's not a unibody shell on top of that perimeter frame. There's no subframe structure and no full rocker boxes. Without the perimeter frame's support there's not much to hold it in shape during a wreck.

[trapin]

A roll cage and better frame bolts would NOT have saved the occupants. Our classic cars were just not designed with safety as the top concern. They were built for looks first, features/amenities second, convenience, and then you have safety WAY down on the list. If that had been one of the super car Camaros we have on this site with a full blown roll cage and the guy was just out for a cruise sans helmet.....guess what?

Dead.

[FMG CAMARO]

makes me want to sell my car for a newer one. Definitely getting morris 3 point belts this week.

[DarkBuddha]

A roll cage and better frame bolts would NOT have saved the occupants. Our classic cars were just not designed with safety as the top concern. They were built for looks first, features/amenities second, convenience, and then you have safety WAY down on the list. If that had been one of the super car Camaros we have on this site with a full blown roll cage and the guy was just out for a cruise sans helmet.....guess what?

Dead.
I'm not convinced.

[JJEH]

very sad...

[JJEH]

A roll cage and better frame bolts would NOT have saved the occupants. Our classic cars were just not designed with safety as the top concern. They were built for looks first, features/amenities second, convenience, and then you have safety WAY down on the list. If that had been one of the super car Camaros we have on this site with a full blown roll cage and the guy was just out for a cruise sans helmet.....guess what?

Dead.

You know what scares me? What you say is right!

[trapin]

I'm not convinced.
You take a fully restored '65 Malibu and slam it head on with a 2011 Malibu at 40 mph; the guy in the 2011 eats his dinner that night with a knife and fork and the guy in the '65 uses a tube...that's provided he's still with us.

[ZuperZport]

You take a fully restored '65 Malibu and slam it head on with a 2011 Malibu at 40 mph; the guy in the 2011 eats his dinner that night with a knife and fork and the guy in the '65 uses a tube...that's provided he's still with us.

Tony is on point here.

Check this out for proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwupWFy_NP4

[Vicinity]

You take a fully restored '65 Malibu and slam it head on with a 2011 Malibu at 40 mph; the guy in the 2011 eats his dinner that night with a knife and fork and the guy in the '65 uses a tube...that's provided he's still with us.

I saw a picture with two cars, maybe Malibu's (old and new), after a head on crash.

It was pretty nasty.

A roll cage wouldn't help at all?

[LeighP]

you hit a roll bar in a street accident with your head, and you are really going to know about it....even a relatively minor accident can throw your body around more than you think. I've seen roll bars placed with a couple of inches of the back of the seat headrest.....madness. Be very careful designing a cage for a street driven car.

[DarkBuddha]

All I'm saying is that if you're in an accident in a vintage car on the street, I gotta think that maybe running a well designed mild cage (and wearing proper seat belts of course) might have some benefits that outweigh the risks. That '09 vs. '59 vid is the perfect example: would the driver of the '59 faired better if the car was fitted with say something like a six point cage like this:

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

I know there are lots of other issues to deal with (like collapsible column, proper seat mounting, proper seat belts and mounting, etc.), but I'm starting to think that a cage designed to reinforce the chassis and minimize accident encroachment on the passenger compartment might be a reasonable consideration.

[6'9"Witha69]

Tony is on point here.

Check this out for proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwupWFy_NP4

They took an unrestored crappy 59 for that test. The proof is in the amount of rust billowing out of the car. While I believe that new cars are safer, I doubt that an old rusty X frame (very weak original design to begin with) was a good point of comparison.

[mc84_zz4]

Here are some clips from old and new crash tests, these appear to me to illustrate the effects of not
wearing seat belts, and neck injuriues due to lack of head restraints, but looking at
some of these brutal crashes, even without a roof panel in place, the cabin appears
to resist huge loads before deforming.
The X frame car is probably the worst example for a head on driver side/driver side crash test of old vs new.

Some of the crash speeds on these are brutal, I am still looking for a 1960-1970s car in decent
shape versus a 200x car as a good comparo.
Another one that we have seen some freaky wrecks are the new Camaro where the car is split into pieces,
I'm not sure about you, but I have wrecked into phone poles in a 1970s vehicle, and I do not think a modern
unibody would have done any better... JMO

Granted I am not going to argue about how airbags ARE a huge improvement, and the past 40 years of technology
have brought us safer cars, but I still think that one case of the Chevelle was not typical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7wG4uy-Phs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0B5wmtklA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz8D9w5tABo&feature=related

[The WidowMaker]

i can tell you from experience that i walk up to cars on a weekly basis expecting to find a dead body only to find no body. once im done looking inside the TRASHED car, i look over to the side of the road to the driver on the cell phone calling their buddy to pick them up. unhurt! its amazing how much car technology has advanced.

as far as a cage, it can only do so much. it sounds like the dead guy in the story wasnt wearing his belt. a cage isnt going to help that. and its another reason to never take safety gear out of your car (ie. replacing your steering column with an ididit/flaming river).

im also not buying the beefed up rear suspension as a cause. the bodys cage nuts may be a somewhat weak link, but the front core support is held in by a 7/16 bolt with large washers and a nut. theres no way your ripping that off by taking a hit to the rear quarter. it says they took a head on hit, but its tough to tell from the pics.

[sixty5hellvell]

Not to make light of a tragic event. But the pictures do prove that contrary to some beliefs newer cars maybe smaller and moer plastic; however they are a lot safer than old "solid steel" car we love. I would rather die in my old car than not drive it because it is supposed to not be safe. People die in new cars everyday, that car in the story was not properly restored because that body should not have came off the frame if it used new body bolts. Lets all remember the safest cars around are race cars with no airbags and good seats and 5 point harnesses. Just my opinion.

[BonzoHansen]

its amazing how much car technology has advanced..I was poking around copart auctions not too long ago looking at wrecked 2010 camaros. I saw 3 or 4 that were rollovers. You could see the roof panel pushed in but the greenhouse structure was perfect. it may be a tug boat but it appears to be one crash worthy tug boat. I'd hate to roll my 77.

[sixty5hellvell]

I was poking around copart auctions not too long ago looking at wrecked 2010 camaros. I saw 3 or 4 that were rollovers. You could see the roof panel pushed in but the greenhouse structure was perfect. it may be a tug boat but it appears to be one crash worthy tug boat. I'd hate to roll my 77.
A nascar is in my opinion is more safe than any new car could ever dream of being all without an airbag and is built very much like a chevelle. Lets see a new car hit a wall at 200 mph and the driver get out and run across the finish line like Carl Edwards did not to long ago. Roll cages save lives they are much more than a saftey device for a rollover they make the car a solid structure that absorbs inpact instead of a unibody car that 9 out of 10 times is totaled in a low speed collision because if the subframe is bent the car is totalled due to the cost of unibody repair.

[The WidowMaker]

A nascar is in my opinion is more safe than any new car could ever dream of being all without an airbag and is built very much like a chevelle. Lets see a new car hit a wall at 200 mph and the driver get out and run across the finish line like Carl Edwards did not to long ago. Roll cages save lives they are much more than a saftey device for a rollover they make the car a solid structure that absorbs inpact instead of a unibody car that 9 out of 10 times is totaled in a low speed collision because if the subframe is bent the car is totalled due to the cost of unibody repair.

i could be reading your reply wrong, but it sounds like you’re missing the point. cars don’t get totaled because the engineers forgot to design them stronger, they are beyond repair because they were designed to absorb the impact so that your body doesn’t. ive seen people dead with traumatic injuries with no major impact to the body. no cuts, no bleeding, nothing. absorbing the impact saves lives, same as the safer barrier in nascar.

plus, sitting in a car designed for 200mph in a fire suit, with a 6 pt harness, coffin like seat, hans, roll cage that would kill you without a helmet and void of any extra debris that can fly around inside is not like me sitting in my truck that was designed for 65 on the 405 sipping my girlie mocha frap.

and 9 out of 10 aint bad. have you ever seen an indy car wreck? they break apart on purpose.

[sixty5hellvell]

All I am trying to say is that new cars arent that much safer than a correctly moded musclecar, such as mine. And my point is that unibody cars suck and full frame cars are built like a nascar is sort of. And as far as comparing a street car to a racecar I would drive a racecar on the street anyday over the boring slow piece of sh** appliance that they call a car now. My opinion, you dont have to like it but real men dont care if they have to climb over a rollcage or put a 5 point harness on. And as far as indy cars go they work on the same exact concept as all race cars a barrier around the driver ,roll cage ,good seats,good harness. And when does the 405 ever go 65? ha ha

[trapin]

All I am trying to say is that new cars arent that much safer than a correctly moded musclecar, such as mine. And my point is that unibody cars suck and full frame cars are built like a nascar is sort of. And as far as comparing a street car to a racecar I would drive a racecar on the street anyday over the boring slow piece of sh** appliance that they call a car now. My opinion, you dont have to like it but real men dont care if they have to climb over a rollcage or put a 5 point harness on. And as far as indy cars go they work on the same exact concept as all race cars a barrier around the driver ,roll cage ,good seats,good harness. And when does the 405 ever go 65? ha ha
I think you're being a tad too emotional in your responses. We get it, you don't like new cars. But new cars are absolutely NOT "pieces of sh*t". As far as comparing a professional NASCAR circuit race car to some guys lightly modded/caged Chevelle...that's an apples to oranges comparison, don't you think. HUGE difference between the two.

Better bolts and a cage in that Chevelle and the guy is still dead. End of story.

[ErikLS2]

Even comparing an older muscle car to a new car is apples to oranages. You're not going to make an older car AS SAFE as a new car by simply adding one component like a roll cage or better belts or what have you, but you will make it safer than it was. Put an airbag in an old muscle car and without all the other engineering that goes with it it may just kill you in an accident.

[Vicinity]

Even comparing an older muscle car to a new car is apples to oranages. You're not going to make an older car AS SAFE as a new car by simply adding one component like a roll cage or better belts or what have you, but you will make it safer than it was. Put an airbag in an old muscle car and without all the other engineering that goes with it it may just kill you in an accident.

You're driving around in a tin can (old car) vs a plastic bottle (new car). What happens when you reinforce a tin can? It crumbles less, but doesn't absorb impact. Bottle always absorbs without needing excessive reinforcement.

[6'9"Witha69]

Better bolts and a cage in that Chevelle and the guy is still dead. End of story.No seatbelts and ejected from thevehicle. Seatbelts alone and he may have survived. Body of the frame is irrespective of the fact there was little cabin intrusion to the vehicle. And it was a drivers side hit. The passenger died.there was no real deformation on that side. A seatbelt would have saved his life.

And we have a guy on this board who went head to head in a '68 Camaro v. Big van. 40ish MPH each, so an ~80 MPH hit. The morris seatbelts helped save him. Straps keeping the hood from intruding through the windshield would have helped eliminate much of the facial injury.

New cars are safer. I drive my new GM cars every day for that reason. My children are worth too much to not have them as safe as possible. But these old cars are still fairly stout. Subframe connectors, frame reinforcement bars, 3 point seatbelts, better seats, etc that most all of us do make tehm safer than they were. Probably still not better than a new car, but closer.

My opinion, you dont have to like it but real men dont care if they have to climb over a rollcage or put a 5 point harness on. REALLY?!?! calling into question someone's masculinity based on the ability/desire to climb the monkey cage everytime they want to go to friends house, quick trip to the store, etc. Wow, pretty lame.

[sixty5hellvell]

[QUOTE=trapin;784381]I think you're being a tad too emotional in your responses. We get it, you don't like new cars. But new cars are absolutely NOT "pieces of sh*t". As far as comparing a professional NASCAR circuit race car to some guys lightly modded/caged Chevelle...that's an apples to oranges comparison, don't you think. HUGE difference between the two.

Sorry if I overreacted. I just think that my car isnt a lightly modded/ caged chevelle. 20 point rollcages arent exactly lightly modded I trust my cage and 5 point harnesses and kirkey seats more than I do my mass produced tin can with airbags. Anything can be made safe if you know how to fabricate.

[The WidowMaker]

New cars are safer. I drive my new GM cars every day for that reason. My children are worth too much to not have them as safe as possible. But these old cars are still fairly stout. Subframe connectors, frame reinforcement bars, 3 point seatbelts, better seats, etc that most all of us do make tehm safer than they were. Probably still not better than a new car, but closer.


couldnt have been said any better. :twothumbs:

[silver69camaro]

All I am trying to say is that new cars arent that much safer than a correctly moded musclecar, such as mine. And my point is that unibody cars suck and full frame cars are built like a nascar is sort of.

You really think that? Do you have any idea what kind of technology goes into crash safety design these days?

[Bad Bird]

And 40ish MPH each, so an ~80 MPH hit.

That's actually a fallacy. If the car weights are similar, its roughly a 40 MPH accident for both cars.

[1969CamaroRS]

That's actually a fallacy. If the car weights are similar, its roughly a 40 MPH accident for both cars.

I don't think so, compare the damage from a car traveling 40mph hitting a stationary car, vs 40mpg for each car head on. There will be a *huge* difference very comparable to 80mpg crash. Its physics and if the angle is head on then the speeds are additive, vary the crash angle and then things change.

[scogin918]

Driving like this probably didn't help...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQXobiLw8wo&feature=related

I've seen it too many times. Someone trying to impress somebody getting on it right off a turn...

[DarkBuddha]

I don't think so, compare the damage from a car traveling 40mph hitting a stationary car, vs 40mpg for each car head on. There will be a *huge* difference very comparable to 80mpg crash. Its physics and if the angle is head on then the speeds are additive, vary the crash angle and then things change.
Actually, no, at least in the real world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

Explainable by Newton's 3rd law. Gotta love science!

[Derek69SS]

I don't think so, compare the damage from a car traveling 40mph hitting a stationary car, vs 40mpg for each car head on. There will be a *huge* difference very comparable to 80mpg crash. Its physics and if the angle is head on then the speeds are additive, vary the crash angle and then things change.

The car going 40mph hitting a stationary car of similar mass would be a 20mph impact in terms of changes of momentum (and that's the part that matters to the passengers).

[1969CamaroRS]

Actually, no, at least in the real world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

Explainable by Newton's 3rd law. Gotta love science!

I am not sure what you are really arguing. I am not disagreeing with the force going up of the square of the increase in speed. However comparing a 50 or 100mph crash into a solid object and 2 cars traveling at 50mph crashing head on is not an apples to apples comparison. Its not the same as a stationary wall is *alot* different. Walls don't crush or move. A car has a crumple zone which is the distance you are essentially decelerating to zero in. A much better test would have been to crash one stationary car into another traveling at speed.

And certainly the total kinetic energy is a lot different between one car traveling at 40mph hitting another stationary car vs 2 cars going 40mph hitting each other head on.

But comparing crashing object with a crumple zone into a much higher mass stationary object with no crumple zone to 2 objects of roughly the same mass with crumple zones is not a valid comparison.

[DarkBuddha]

I suppose I misread your original post by thinking the of a "stationary car" as a stationary immovable object (like a wall). My mistake. But still gotta love science.

[mikedc]

Take one car going 80mph and crash it into the other car while it's sitting still. That's more valid. Still not a perfect comparison but it's closer than anything with brick walls.

[vanzuuk1]

"Real men"...classic.