Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
8694 messages, Last post on Dec 07, 2009 at 6:51 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 14, 2009 7:19 am) No matter how gargantuan a vehicle one buys, there will always still be PLENTY of much larger vehicles on the road for one to tangle with, and there is some chance under 1% that the vehicle will not be able to protect you from serious injury or death. Of course, I believe that the smaller and more agile the vehicle, the more likely the accident can be entirely avoided in the first place..... |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 14, 2009 7:49 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 14, 2009 7:49 am) Yeah, they would. Actually in some situations, the bigger cars might come out worse. For example, if you ran a Yaris into a parked bus at 40 mph, it might come out better than a Sequoia, because there's so much less mass to have to decelerate. When you run into something that's not going to budge, all that extra mass can work against you as it shifts forward and puts more force into the impact. And a city bus does start to approach the immoveable, although I do remember seeing pics of an H2 that rear-ended a school bus. The impact was enough to throw the bus about 10 feet forward and to the right, making it hop a curb. The H2 was penetrated on the passenger side back to roughly the passenger seat. Years ago, in Baltimore, there was a high-speed chase involving an OJ-style Bronco, which ended up hitting a 1991-96 era "whale" Caprice copcar head-on at high speed. The Bronco pretty much disintegrated ahead of the firewall. However on the Caprice, everything ahead of the rear axle pretty much ceased to exist, as it was stripped from the frame and, for lack of a better term, mulched. The cop died instantly, while the Bronco driver only received minor injuries. So basically, no matter what you're driving, there's always something bigger out there. And even if you're in the biggest, you can still get hurt. I know I've told the story before about one of my Mom's friends, back in the late 70's, who was in a VW Bug and got into an accident with an Impala wagon, a tractor trailer, and another car...it was a mess, but the only one who got hurt seriously was the tractor trailer driver. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am) Still, it's funny how many people warn me that the car is so small and not safe, and some of those people own vehicles that do far worse. There are so many factors. Weight is one, for sure, but just one.
|
|
|
explained she was getting her daughter a used Exploder to drive as her first car, citing crash safety as her prime criterion. Not much thought process there, IMO.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 14, 2009 9:03 am) That's probably demographics more than anything else. I'm guessing a lot of people who buy Corvettes and Mustangs like to get the testosterone pumping, and then the next thing you know the paramedics are peeling them off an oak tree. |
|
|
Replying to: plan_man (Apr 14, 2009 9:06 am) When did people throw in the towel and decide accidents cannot be avoided? 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am) Yes, but the point of the latest test is they are NOT crashing into an unmoving barrier. It is two cars each moving at 40 mph in opposite directions and crashing head-on into each other. Net speed: 80 mph. For 40 mph crash tests into an unmoving barrier, Yaris received the top score of "good". And what seems a little unfair to me here is that they tested small cars on purpose to make a point about small cars. If they had tested a whole bunch of models of varying sizes, I'm convinced we would have seen the result that "all cars are unsafe". Which we already know to some degree, although many folks driving Explorers and Tahoes (and pick-your-favorite-large-car-or-SUV) are in abject denial of said fact. |
|
|
those 35-40 mph barrier tests are supposed to simulate two cars of similar mass running head-on into each other, at 35-40 mph. Although I don't get it. How would running one car into a fixed, somewhat-deformable barrier, at 35-40 mph simulate two cars hitting head-on? Seems to me the only thing it would simulate is running at 35-40 mph into a parked car. Anyway, seeing what happens to those little cars when they smack head-on into bigger models doesn't surprise me. And even though I have a preference for bigger cars, it really doesn't scare me that much, either, as those are some pretty serious impacts they were re-creating. The main thing that scares me about some small cars is that my knees are so close to the dashboard, that it wouldn't take much of a penetration to get me wedged in that car....or my legs snapped! And to be fair, there are bigger cars with the same problem. There was some Jag I sat in, I think it was the S-type, where the ignition switch actually got in the way of my right knee!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 14, 2009 11:46 am) If the barrier is 'somewhat deformable', you're right. The test only works if no deformation occurs in the barrier. Think 3 feet of reinforced concrete anchored 10 feet deep. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Versa
2010 Toyota Yaris
2010 Honda Fit
2009 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
