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'?
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'?
