ArticusMedicus Posted December 26, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 26, 2009 In a recent thread and cell phone use, a few people were talking about the safety of newer cars than old. I can across this clip earlier today, I though it was eye opening. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g]YouTube- Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (Frontal Offset) IIHS 50th Anniversary[/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venturous Randy Posted December 26, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 26, 2009 This is a very good example on the difference in todays technology in auto crashes. One is a walk away and the other is deadly. Once the video plays there are several that comes up across the bottom. The one showing the seatbelt on goes into banned commercials and some are pretty funny. RandyA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flb_78 Posted December 26, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 26, 2009 What a waste of a great barn find 1959 BelAire. The test I'd like to see is to drive each one into a telephone pole at 10mph. See which one drives away and which one will have to towed off to a body shop with $10,000 worth of body damage and blown airbags. Cars may be safer, but they cost much more then what they need to because of all the extra "safety features". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyR Posted December 26, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 26, 2009 What a waste of a great barn find 1959 BelAire. The test I'd like to see is to drive each one into a telephone pole at 10mph. See which one drives away and which one will have to towed off to a body shop with $10,000 worth of body damage and blown airbags. Cars may be safer, but they cost much more then what they need to because of all the extra "safety features". yep, the old big heavy chrome bumpers used to cover up a multitude of sins. Yet, I'd rather walk away from an accident with $10,000 of repair bills than be lying in a hospital bed with $100,000 of medical bills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bummer Posted December 26, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 26, 2009 So it would seem that newer cars are, in fact, substantially more safe for the occupants than the older cars without air bags, crumple zones, and many years of safety related innovations. Isn't that interesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly Posted December 26, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 26, 2009 They had to pick on the one old design that was really crappy, X frame, no side rails. Dirt track racers knew that car wouldn't survive a season like the full box frame. Try that test with a older full frame! My 2 cents Daryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1bummer Posted December 28, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 28, 2009 They had to pick on the one old design that was really crappy, X frame, no side rails. Dirt track racers knew that car wouldn't survive a season like the full box frame. Try that test with a older full frame! My 2 cents Daryl Still... You CAN'T change the laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryZ Posted December 28, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 28, 2009 Still... You CAN'T change the laws of physics. A friend of mine had a similar accident. He was driving a 1987 Impala and hit a top-of-the-line Lexus. The head-on collision not only stopped the Lex dead in its tracks, the Impala pushed it backwards nearly 30 feet! Let's examine the law of physics and how it will apply to this video demonstration. 1959 Chevrolet Impala - curb weight = 4221 lbs 2009 Chevrolet Impala - curb weight = 3555 lbs Does anyone else see a problem? If the speeds in the test were equal, the 700 lb heavier 1959 should have pushed the 2009 backwards or significantly spun it around. I think the "crush zone" designs in new cars is great and the 2009 shows superior cockpit protection. However, the 1959 should have pushed the 2009 around a lot more and it makes me doubt the entire test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlm Posted December 28, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 28, 2009 About 3 years ago, my wife and I got to see the aftermath of an accident at an intersection by our house while we were out walking. A small red car collided with a minivan. The minivan had pulled out into the intersection and the red car hit it at full speed. The red car was probably traveling at about 45 mph, which is the normal speed for that road (40mph speed limit). The damage to the cars was extensive, with hoods crumpled completely in, broken plastic bits all over the place, and both front and side airbags deployed on both vehicles. When we walked up, we were pretty sure someone was dead. Bystanders helped the driver of the red car, a young lady, out of her car. She sat on the curb waiting for the police and ambulance. The driver of the minivan climbed out of the passenger side door. Both were really shaken up, but both ended up being fine, and neither went away in the ambulance. When we finally left the scene, my wife asked me, "Does my car have airbags all around like that?" It didn't, so a week later we bought her a new car that does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeze Posted December 28, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 28, 2009 A friend of mine had a similar accident. He was driving a 1987 Impala and hit a top-of-the-line Lexus. The head-on collision not only stopped the Lex dead in its tracks, the Impala pushed it backwards nearly 30 feet! Let's examine the law of physics and how it will apply to this video demonstration. 1959 Chevrolet Impala - curb weight = 4221 lbs 2009 Chevrolet Impala - curb weight = 3555 lbs Does anyone else see a problem? If the speeds in the test were equal, the 700 lb heavier 1959 should have pushed the 2009 backwards or significantly spun it around. I think the "crush zone" designs in new cars is great and the 2009 shows superior cockpit protection. However, the 1959 should have pushed the 2009 around a lot more and it makes me doubt the entire test. You can't compute the Data on the sole Weight (or better said Mass) of the Vehicles. The Crash Zones are designed to crumple up and take the Force which is provided from the Impact and Speed Differential. If you look at the '59, the Fender gives up too fast and transfers the Forces into Safety Cage, thereby most likely killing the Passengers by the Lack of passive Safety. The Crash your Buddy had may have ended this Way because the Lexus took most of the Forces out and taking most of the Momentum out of the Collision. This combined with one Driver on the Brake and the other Driver not on the Brake (perhaps the Foot got moved by Impact or Air Bags) will end in a false Conclusion. It's not that easy and don't believe in the old Ladder styled Frames either. They might be superior in Damage Control up to 15 mph, but above that, the new Design will save the Occupants more than any older Design. [ame=http://www.myvideo.de/watch/2724912/Renault_Werbung_Baguette]Renault Werbung Baguette Video - Autovideos - MyVideo[/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1bummer Posted December 28, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 28, 2009 Now that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aharbi Posted December 28, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 28, 2009 My girl friend at the time had a 1959 BelAire. The seats were like sofas, no center console, lots of room to move around and stretch. We would take it to the drive-in movies. Aaahh the memories, all those years ago, I miss her... the car the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now