partial frontal impacts

I watched the crashes on IIHS' YouTube channel. Sure, they look terrible - but there's a couple of key reasons.

First, unlike previous crash tests, the speeds are higher. The old full and 50% offset tests were at 35mph. The new test is at 40mph. Although 5mph may not seem like much difference, the physics of it says you are not dealing in additive results, you are dealing in compounding results. If IIHS repeated the full frontal and 50% offset tests at 40mph, those results would look much worse on the same cars that fairly easily pass the current 35mph tests.

Second, the barrier is completely rigid. The full frontal and offset tests use a deformable barrier. This puts all the deformation in the new test on the car. Yes, its going to create more drastic results.

The point is that the IIHS has to keep creating new tests to try to push car design to eliminate more and more instances of 'loss' in less and less common scenarios. Car design has made the full frontal and 50% offset crashworthiness fairly easy to achieve. Side impact is also being pretty well addressed. Remember, this is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - not a government body, but an organization primarily supported by insurance companies to essentially create a basis to charge rates for insuring a car. If they can create a test that cars perform poorly in, they can justify a rate difference - read 'increase' - for those cars. They are also a lobby group, and have a large influence on the government, so they can incite new standards and regulations for vehicle manufacture.

Having watched all of these crash tests, the thing that was most obvious to me is that despite having incited much development in frontal and side airbags, they found a gap to stick an occupants head through. Now, will we get to have ANOTHER airbag stuffed in there, or will they be smart and adjust the shape of the frontal airbag to be a bit wider and 'scoop' your head into it? Which do you think will cost more? Which do you think insurance companies will prefer to discount; a higher airbag count, or a less obvious and quantifiable 'improved design'?

Couple of photos of a partial head on. Due to driver incapacitation, a white Ford Windstar drifted acorss the solid double yellow line and stuck on on-coming MBZ C230 head-on. Both were traveling at about 40 mph prior to impact with no evasive action taken by either belted driver. Both vehicles rotated counter-clockwise after impact and came to rest in opposite directions.
Occupant kinematics caused the upper body mass and head of the MBZ driver to become exposed through the drivers window. The exposure caused a fatal head injury to the MBZ driver.
Stiffness of vehicle structure is the enemy in collisions. Modern vehicles are designed to crush on impact to increase the survivability of occupants by absorbing energy. Essentially the car sacrifices itself to save you.
Partial frontals involve collisions with stiff structures such as suspension mounting points. The MBZ is promoted as a safe vehicle and differences in safety engineering can clearly be seen in the increased deformation shown in the Windstar.
Had the MBZ driver not become partially ejected, this would have been survivable.

upflying said:

Stiffness of vehicle structure is the enemy in collisions. Modern vehicles are designed to crush on impact to increase the survivability of occupants by absorbing energy.

Click to expand...

Not quite an accurate portrayal of the situation. New vehicles are MORE rigid around the passenger compartment, and LESS rigid fore and aft of that compartment. You need stiffness to preserve passenger space, and crush to absorb impact around that space.

Partial frontals involve collisions with stiff structures such as suspension mounting points.

Click to expand...

Except that in the videos of the tests, almost ALL of the vehicles ejected the wheel where it was struck and the suspension broke. The mounting points are normally rigid, but the mounting hardware usually isn't that robust against such impacts. Notice in your pic of the Mercedes that the tire did NOT come off. It also didn't come into the passenger compartment, as it did in one of the IIHS tests. I don't see the side airbags on the Mercedes, which makes me wonder why they wouldn't have deployed. That, combined with the compromised door, would have more to do with driver ejection than vehicle rigidity or 'crumple zones'. Also, do you have a crash report to support that the Mercedes driver was wearing a seat belt? (Or any of the other data you present, for that matter.)

Or better yet, put down the EFFING phone and pay attention to driving. I am so sick of manufacturers trying to take control from drivers because the drivers are not doing their job. I don't need a car that parks itself because I learned how to park a car. I don't need a car that applies the brakes for me because I am looking at the road ahead and have the ability (and responsibility) to apply the brakes as needed. /rant.

The new crash test shows that the old tests were successful in the evolution in design. The former issues were problem areas that caused the highest claim payments by insurance companies. We now see that the highest injury claims are now coming from incedents that on the surface would be considered relitively minor accidents. The vehicles I have seen with this type of damage did not collide with another vehicle in motion, but with a fixed object. Generally, distracted driving caused the driver to veer slightly one way or the other from the lane into said object. At work there is currently a Sprinter with this type of damage.