ANCAP. Small car VS Big car

[Jesterarts]

Just having a debate at work.

My mate is saying that a 2008 Barina which has a 5 star rating is as safe as a VE commodore, which also is a 5 star rating.

And I'm saying that if the 2 cars were to have a head on, you would be more likely to be injured in the Barina simply based on physics.

The heavier car will push the lighter car, therefore the deccelertion of the occupants will be greater in the smaller car that the larger car.

Thus the occupants of the smaller car would have a higher potential of being injured.

And he is saying since they are both 5 star, the occupants are equally safe.

By the way the debate was started with the new SMART car which has a 4 start rating and is the size of a shoe box. I don't understand how that would work.

Opinions?

[minux]

lol, a safety rating doesn't protect you against something bigger than something else. Of course a 2 tonne car hitting a 1 tonne car will cause more damage and make the occupants less safe in the smaller car.

The problem with crash tests, is they are almost always against stationary items, so weight neverr comes into the equation really. Would love to see a barina go against a VE head on, i'd certainly want to be sitting on the further rear point of the car lol.

[MasterOfReality]

Are the ANCAP rating based on vehicle class?

[Jesterarts]

lol, a safety rating doesn't protect you against something bigger than something else. Of course a 2 tonne car hitting a 1 tonne car will cause more damage and make the occupants less safe in the smaller car.

The problem with crash tests, is they are almost always against stationary items, so weight neverr comes into the equation really. Would love to see a barina go against a VE head on, i'd certainly want to be sitting on the further rear point of the car lol.

That's what I was saying.

The crash tests arr mostly against an object that will not move. So they can be equally safe if you hit a brick wall in each.

But once the object CAN be moved, so another car, then weight comes into it and it's better off to be in the heavier object.

And no, the ratings are not calss based. They are across all types of car.

[greenfoam]

Same thing if the VE has a head on with a truck, the crash tests are at 64?km/h. I'd rather be in the lighter car hitting a tree or wall head on at a higher speed, say 100km/h than the VE however because the lighter weight helps you stop before your head hits the object in that case , the heavier VE would just keep on going untill it was flat. A lighter car is also more likely to be able to change direction and bounce off things which must be the safer option in some kinds of crashes. If you read the crash tests both the VE and the FG are a major fail in pedestrian safety, alot of cars score much much muuuuch better in that test

[greenfoam]

YouTube - Spectacular 100mph Train Crash Test

It's a VE ^

[Jesterarts]

Same thing if the VE has a head on with a truck, the crash tests are at 64?km/h. I'd rather be in the lighter car hitting a tree or wall head on at a higher speed, say 100km/h than the VE however because the lighter weight helps you stop before your head hits the object in that case , the heavier VE would just keep on going untill it was flat. A lighter car is also more likely to be able to change direction and bounce off things which must be the safer option in some kinds of crashes. If you read the crash tests both the VE and the FG are a major fail in pedestrian safety, alot of cars score much much muuuuch better in that test

The lighter weight helps you stop? As in you will be able to reduce your speed by braking more before the impact? Is that what you mean?

Bouncing of things is not the safer option. Because each time the car bounces of something, new forces are acting on the occupants. This is what you want to avoid. This isn't pin ball lol

[Jesterarts]

YouTube - Spectacular 100mph Train Crash Test

It's a VE ^

No... that's a train

[greenfoam]

If the collision isn't exactly head on and your car can deflect off something, that's better than a head on , race cars do it all the time because they don't weigh much. If that train were to hit an unmovable object it would have so much momentum that the first couple of sections of it would be turned to mulch, but if the train was make from say..... paper and weighed almost nothing then it would have almost no damage. That was I'm saying

[GAMBLR]

No... that's a train

lol Gold!

I read a discussion a few years ago now, a hypothetical safety comparison between a Nissan Patrol and a Renault Megane. Bit more extreme than your hypothetical situation, but same principal. I know what I'd rather be in...

So really, they're saying with these ratings that you're equally as safe in a Barina and a VE Commodore IF you're hitting a stationary object like a wall? Then how would they rate a vehicle hitting objects whilst in motion? As stated, you'd be safer in a larger car, but for obvious reasons we can't all drive around in something as big as a Hummer (for arguments sake, cos they're huge).

[Jesterarts]

If the collision isn't exactly head on and your car can deflect off something, that's better than a head on , race cars do it all the time because they don't weigh much. If that train were to hit an unmovable object it would have so much momentum that the first couple of sections of it would be turned to mulch, but if the train was make from say..... paper and weighed almost nothing then it would have almost no damage. That was I'm saying

As I said, if we are talking a stationary object and we are comparing 2 cars of the same rating neither will come out ahead. On any angle or deflection.

I understand where you're coming from with but physics doesn't work that way. If one deflects, the other will defect the same providing both objects stay ridgid. But this is not a good example because cars have crumple zones.

So say the lighter car will glance off with no damage to the car but the occupants neck has been snapped because of the sudden change of direction. In the heavier car it has more weight so the car is more heavily damaged, but it deccelerated in that direction it's momentum was heading, the occupants head is still attached.

Go watch the crash test of a SMART FORTWO against the crash test of a VE commodore hitting a barrier half way on the bonnet.

The SMART hits, deccelerates a bit but begins to rotate hard and bouces off the barrier at just over 90 degree.

So the occupant had the initial head on forces from the impact and then the forces from the rotation acting on them.

In the VE, it has more momentum and so it crumples more before bouncing off. So the occupant decelerates more over a longer period of time and then it subjected to lesser forces from the rotation as it's not as violent.

There is not BENEFIT to having a small car when it comes to safety, but they are able to MATCH larger cars in collisions with a stationary, unmovable object.

VE Crash test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3V6sqgRqc

SMART Crash test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU

Personally, I'm very happy with the whole push for smaller cars etc etc. I intend on buying a big, heavy car and the way I see it, each time there is another small car on the roads, the bigger car becomes safer.

Because the chances of me having an accident with a smaller car become higher. I'd I'll win that type of accident.

[Jesterarts]

SMART vs C300.

Which would you prefer to be in?

The C300 that kept going in basically the same direction or the SMART that changed direction and "Bounced" off.

YouTube - IIHS Crash Test Of Mercedes C300 Versus Smart ForTwo

[greenfoam]

YouTube - 2006-2012 Holden Commodore (VE) ANCAP Side Pole Impact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3V6sqgRqc

VE

YouTube - Euro NCAP | Ford Fiesta | 2008 | Crash test

Fiesta

Compare those, both 5 star rated, Fiesta 1100kgs. VE 1800?. I know which one is more likely to avoid a crash in the first place (not the VE) but if you do crash one the results would be about the same, If anything the Fiesta looks to be stronger on the head on crash

[Reaper]

Same thing if the VE has a head on with a truck, the crash tests are at 64?km/h. I'd rather be in the lighter car hitting a tree or wall head on at a higher speed, say 100km/h than the VE however because the lighter weight helps you stop before your head hits the object in that case , the heavier VE would just keep on going untill it was flat. A lighter car is also more likely to be able to change direction and bounce off things which must be the safer option in some kinds of crashes. If you read the crash tests both the VE and the FG are a major fail in pedestrian safety, alot of cars score much much muuuuch better in that test

Vehicle vs Vehicle - I'd prefer to be in the heavier/bigger/stronger one. Vehicle vs Immovable object - I'd prefer to be in the one that had the front squash into the smallest possble area before coming into the passenger compartment (which will usually be the heavier one), further more, a heavier vehicle is more likely to mash said immovable object and go straight thru it.

The goal is to de-accellerate as slowly as possible thus giving the passengers the best possible chance at minimising injury.

Reaper

[Jesterarts]

Agree that you may be able to avoid a crash easier in a lighter more nimble car. But we're not comparing handling performance, we're comparing crash performance.

[Jesterarts]

Vehicle vs Vehicle - I'd prefer to be in the heavier/bigger/stronger one. Vehicle vs Immovable object - I'd prefer to be in the one that had the front squash into the smallest possble area before coming into the passenger compartment (which will usually be the heavier one), further more, a heavier vehicle is more likely to mash said immovable object and go straight thru it.

The goal is to de-accellerate as slowly as possible thus giving the passengers the best possible chance at minimising injury.

Reaper

Yep, its all about deccelerating over the longest period of time. And in the case of hitting an immovable object, both cars WILL deccelerate to 0. Since bigger cars have bigger crumple zones in general, the occupant will deccelerate to 0 over a larger distance and longer period of time.

Bigger car ftw!

[minux]

but if the train was make from say..... paper and weighed almost nothing then it would have almost no damage. That was I'm saying

Sure, it would not have much damage, but its occupants would not be very safe...lol

[greenfoam]

YouTube - Crash Tests Show Impact of Size on Safety

And finally here is a video bigger car vs smaller car, although I still think it doesn't matter much because head on stacks don't happen very often, you could have 500 crashes into a tree before before you got unlucky enough to hit another car, atleast for non city people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caOqD54oxRA

And what you can expect from a fully loaded early Commodore at 100 km/h. I've seen the results of HQ head on into a truck at 150km/h once and it wasn't damaged past the front window (but it tore the front wheel off the truck and continued down the road) so it didn't come to a total stop

[Jesterarts]

Sure, it would not have much damage, but its occupants would not be very safe...lol

Unless the occupants are also made of paper, then we'll be sweet!

I've seen that commodre crash test before, it's like a VB. Pretty bad but not really relevant to this discussion considering it would have an ANCAP rating of about -3. lol

That first video you posted sums up this thread topic well.

[greenfoam]

You forgot the paper train would have stoped 2km before the crash :P

[Jesterarts]

lol! Enough with the damn paper train already!

Anyway, I've now won my arguement at work. Thanks for the input guys!

[STEALTHY™]

YouTube - Spectacular 100mph Train Crash Test

It's a VE ^

Why not make cars out of what that nuclear container is made out of?

[greenfoam]

Might be a bit costly

[STEALTHY™]

Might be a bit costly

But indestructible

[stocky]

heres one of a VR i found. doesnt seem too bad
YouTube - Holden Commodore Crash Test