Results 1 to 20 of 51
Thread: new vs old safety technology
Hybrid View
-
07-16-2009 #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Alameda, CA
- Posts
- 29
new vs old safety technology
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?
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
-
07-17-2009 #2My 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.Matt Jones
Mechanical Engineer
Art Morrison Enterprises
07-18-2009 #3