59 Bel Air vs 09 Malibu IIHS crash test - Page 4

Cam2011 · 04-01-2011, 11:24 PM

I'm surprised they still had a 59 in such great shape, the thing looked brand new. Sad to see it destroyed though.

kmcd · 04-02-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fbodfather

You'd be surprised at what happens to older cars in collisions at 20mph!

(......and I say this because I've seen vintage crash testing film..........)

Now - what IS true: Aerodynamics (as a result of fuel economy standards) has changed how the fronts of cars are designed.....cars now have 'fascias' - and those are costly to replace......

Not only that. If modern technology means my car is totalled after a 30-mph collision, that's fine with me. I don't want it back at that point anyway. Let's get a new one and start over.

1BADLS3 · 04-02-2011, 01:06 AM

A quick lesson I learned from a few past employers:

The video shows how far 'crash optimization' has come. Mass is key to survival in a collision, but it must be configured correctly to achieve maximum results.

The best crash optimized cars do 3 things:

1) They allow the opposing force to be absorbed and slowed over the maximum distance possible. One of the huge dangers in high speed crashes isn't actually the car collapsing in on you, it's vital organs literally being crushed and major arteries shearing because the body is being stopped from for example, 40mph-5mph, or 60mph-10mph in just a few few feet. Extending that distance and reducing the force by absorbing the energy in plastics, frame rails, airbags, seatbelt tensioners, etc can be the difference between life and death.

2) They retain the vital space in the passenger cabin.

3) They redirect the force vectors and decrease the force applied to your body through deformation of the vehicle components.

The 5th Gen Camaro does very well. Watch as the front end hits the barrier. The hood accordions up and in, but does not shear from the hinges or touch the windshield. The fenders crumple in, down, or out, and the engine cradle maintains its position. When the wheels are impacted, the tires are used as energy abosorbers, but the wheels do not intrude into the passenger footwell. The passenger, meanwhile, is restrained as the seatbelt tensioners fire and slows the forward movement of the body as the airbag (which should already be deployed and waiting for contact) absorbs the rest of the body's energy, bringing it to rest so the passenger does not slam into the steering wheel. The recoil, or "whiplash" is mitigated by a properly positioned headrest that coddles the head like a basket on a lacrosse stick. Watch as the force is transferred through the a-pillars (they retain shape), and the energy ripples through the roof rails and rockers and wiggles through the rear of the car, which is launched UP. Also notice that the doors stay latched. The 'UP' is force that would have otherwise been applied to your body as you slam into the seatbelt, instead, it is redirected.

The WORST crash optimized cars are easy to point out.

As they slam into the barrier, the hood crumples but maybe shears at the hinges and breaches the windscreen, putting occupants in danger and reducing the effectiveness of the airbags. The fenders crumple, and the engine cradle and the front wheels slam into the firewall and intrude into the passenger footwell, potentially breaking feet, ankles, tib/fib and/or femurs. In turn, the dash comes forward, and the passenger is either punched in the face with the airbag or slams into the dashboard/steering wheel. On the recoil, especially with older, lower seats, the neck is hyper-extended as the neck bends over the headrest. The a-pillars and roof rail deform, or the rockers collapse and create a "V" allowing the passenger to drop down, and out of the vehicle. The door may open, the b-pillar may deform and allow passenger movement (seatbelt is attached here). Bad, bad bad bad.....

GM has also had one hell of a very poorly crash-optimized vehicle as well...just to be fair

kmcd · 04-02-2011, 01:13 AM

Excellent info. Well done, 1BADLS3.

myold88 · 04-02-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam2011

I'm surprised they still had a 59 in such great shape, the thing looked brand new. Sad to see it destroyed though.

Two extra doors = dime a dozen, Very little value.

guiLT · 04-02-2011, 05:52 PM

Thats pretty cool!

1966goat · 04-02-2011, 06:07 PM

Video is not a correct comparison. The 59 Bel Air used an unusual X frame, which is in the shape of an X under the car rather than the normal box frame. Of course it would crumple in that test. Pit a malibu against a malibu or chevelle from the 60s/70s and see if that same test holds true.

04-02-2011, 01:06 AM	#45
1BADLS3 Drives: Sold: 2011 2SS/RS Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: United States Posts: 1,896	entertaining AND informative... A quick lesson I learned from a few past employers: The video shows how far 'crash optimization' has come. Mass is key to survival in a collision, but it must be configured correctly to achieve maximum results. The best crash optimized cars do 3 things: 1) They allow the opposing force to be absorbed and slowed over the maximum distance possible. One of the huge dangers in high speed crashes isn't actually the car collapsing in on you, it's vital organs literally being crushed and major arteries shearing because the body is being stopped from for example, 40mph-5mph, or 60mph-10mph in just a few few feet. Extending that distance and reducing the force by absorbing the energy in plastics, frame rails, airbags, seatbelt tensioners, etc can be the difference between life and death. 2) They retain the vital space in the passenger cabin. 3) They redirect the force vectors and decrease the force applied to your body through deformation of the vehicle components. The 5th Gen Camaro does very well. Watch as the front end hits the barrier. The hood accordions up and in, but does not shear from the hinges or touch the windshield. The fenders crumple in, down, or out, and the engine cradle maintains its position. When the wheels are impacted, the tires are used as energy abosorbers, but the wheels do not intrude into the passenger footwell. The passenger, meanwhile, is restrained as the seatbelt tensioners fire and slows the forward movement of the body as the airbag (which should already be deployed and waiting for contact) absorbs the rest of the body's energy, bringing it to rest so the passenger does not slam into the steering wheel. The recoil, or "whiplash" is mitigated by a properly positioned headrest that coddles the head like a basket on a lacrosse stick. Watch as the force is transferred through the a-pillars (they retain shape), and the energy ripples through the roof rails and rockers and wiggles through the rear of the car, which is launched UP. Also notice that the doors stay latched. The 'UP' is force that would have otherwise been applied to your body as you slam into the seatbelt, instead, it is redirected. The WORST crash optimized cars are easy to point out. As they slam into the barrier, the hood crumples but maybe shears at the hinges and breaches the windscreen, putting occupants in danger and reducing the effectiveness of the airbags. The fenders crumple, and the engine cradle and the front wheels slam into the firewall and intrude into the passenger footwell, potentially breaking feet, ankles, tib/fib and/or femurs. In turn, the dash comes forward, and the passenger is either punched in the face with the airbag or slams into the dashboard/steering wheel. On the recoil, especially with older, lower seats, the neck is hyper-extended as the neck bends over the headrest. The a-pillars and roof rail deform, or the rockers collapse and create a "V" allowing the passenger to drop down, and out of the vehicle. The door may open, the b-pillar may deform and allow passenger movement (seatbelt is attached here). Bad, bad bad bad..... GM has also had one hell of a very poorly crash-optimized vehicle as well...just to be fair

04-02-2011, 01:13 AM	#46
kmcd 1,425 hp / supercharged Drives: (2020 2SS/M6) (2025 GMC Yukon) Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,105	Excellent info. Well done, 1BADLS3. __________________

04-02-2011, 05:52 PM	#48
guiLT Tampa Gulf Coast Family Drives: 2001 Maxima Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 6,585 View My Garage	Thats pretty cool! __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hot air Intakes -By Kenne bell	ADM PERFORMANCE	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	66	02-08-2011 09:33 PM
List of Intakes that will work with the TVS-2300 MagnaCharger	JJ2010	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	26	03-19-2010 03:11 AM
2010 Camaro Crash Test results - Full (almost)	Vizon	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	390	08-30-2009 01:58 PM
Another Camaro Magazine Test - Sorry...	KJS	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	40	04-21-2009 01:17 AM
New Malibu	Moose	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	11	12-09-2007 09:02 AM

04-01-2011, 11:24 PM	#43
Cam2011 Drives: 2011 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: CT Posts: 2,061	I'm surprised they still had a 59 in such great shape, the thing looked brand new. Sad to see it destroyed though.

04-02-2011, 06:07 PM	#49
1966goat Drives: 2001 Trans Am WS6, 1966 GTO Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 43	Video is not a correct comparison. The 59 Bel Air used an unusual X frame, which is in the shape of an X under the car rather than the normal box frame. Of course it would crumple in that test. Pit a malibu against a malibu or chevelle from the 60s/70s and see if that same test holds true.