Hi Renault Family,
Thanks for the update. I found the translation rather difficult to make sense of.
Sounds like big does come of better than small!
Cheers
Jlo
|
|
|
Rephrase that
The interesting thing is that a 5* XC90 causes *different* damage to the 5* golf than the 4* sorento.
In this case in areas that the golf is not protected against.
|
I Thought the XC 90 was designed to have a lower crossmembor so its 'more friendly' in a head on against a saloon/hatch. It is supposed to not ride over the car but in this case it did?
Strange
Jlo
|
Have you watched the two vids?
Shocking - but not as bad as I would have expected.
--
Adam
|
Yes I have just a few minutes ago!
Can you imagine if it hit an older small car such as a nova or metro!!
The moral of the story is drive carefully!! Of if you can afford one buy a XC90 :)
Cheers
Jlo
|
|
|
Certainly seems true that in a direct car to car accident that big is better. However I don't think that the NCAP tests cover all possibilities
The issue of vehicle stability is very important - ie whilst trying to avoid the collsion in the first place or simply trying to avoid an obstacle in the road, this is where I believe that 4 x 4's just can't be better - center of gravity & all that.
Also the NCAP test doesn't give any idea how vehicles cope in a "rollover" situation - high sided vehicles with greater expanses of glass are surely not as strong as smaller/lower sided vehicles.
Whilst I guess that car to car collisions are more common I think that there is also a "bigger picture" that seems to be completely missed
|
A rough translation:
A multi-ton off-roader rams a weedy VW Golf. A nightmare scenario on the road that the OAMTC simulated in this crash test. ?Both drivers, including the Golf driver, would have survived this accident. Compared to earlier tests, this is a huge step forward,? reports OAMTC Chief Technician Max Lang. However, there is still room for improvement in the compatibility of SUVs with other vehicles.
The Golf V (1,480 kg) had to take on two giants ? the 2,340 kg Volvo XC90 and the 2,270 kg Kia Sorento. Both vehicles were travelling at 56 km/h (35 mph), with half of the Golf?s width against the larger vehicle.
Volvo XC90 v Golf: The Volvo represents the modern concept of compatibility and, according to the manufacturer, is constructed so as to spare a smaller vehicle in a crash. However it doesn?t quite add up, as the Volvo rips through a crossmember and so the Golf can only support itself in points. The Volvo rises up in the collision and climbs up the front end of the VW. The dashboard is pushed back into the cabin and the driver?s knee experiences strong forces. However, the Golf?s own safety system succeeds in preventing very serious or fatal injuries to the head or chest. ?This shows the progress that has been made in passive safety over the last few years. The Volvo passengers have only minor injuries,? says Lang.
Kia Sorento v Golf: The construction of this off roader is characterised by a massive ladder chassis. However, the ladder frame suddenly gives way in the crash so that the Golf can no longer support itself and bores into the ?soft space? of the Kia?s front end. For the Kia driver, this means a higher risk of injuries to feet and lower legs. The occupants of the Golf are less severely injured than in the Volvo crash, however, as the dashboard is not pushed as far back. ?The Golf owes the fact that it is not overridden to its safety concept,? says Lang.
There is still enormous room for improvement in compatibility between off road vehicles. In summary, ?What are required are front ends that are equally stable throughout,? says the OAMTC?s chief technician. ?It should not be left to chance whether the front holds out.? For off roaders, this means a crumple zone that is softer at the front to protect other vehicles with a stiffer part at the rear to protect the vehicle itself. Furthermore, the 'overriding' of cars by 4×4s must be ruled out.
|
Thanks for the transalation - the original report comes from the German ADAC site:
www.adac.de/Tests/Crash_Tests/
Many other interesting tests appear on there also, currently rolling convertibles, small cars and, to follow on from an earlier thread, a rear-end crash test of a 7 seater Grand Scenic
- from my limited knowledge of technical German, it would seem that sitting in the rear row, especially with luggage behind you, is not a good place to be when rammed from behind (dummy hit the roof!)
If I remember correctly, the ADAC crashed a Nissan Patrol against a Kadett (when it and Golf MkIII were new and class leaders) - the Patrol rode straight over the Kadett; however, the Patrol's driver would have also been seriously injured as it collapsed from underneath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The interesting thing is that a 5* XC90 causes more damage to the 5* golf than the 4* sorento.
Are you suggesting that a 5* safety rating should also tell us how safe the vehicle is for the occupants of other 5* rated vehicles in the event of a collision? That is, if a 4* rated Sorrento causes less severe injuries to the Golf's occupants than the XC90, then the latter's 5* rating may be unjustified? If so, I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
