Hi,
There has been some dicussion in the past about whether you are as safe in a large 5 star ncap rated car as a smaller 5 star ncap related car.
I could this interesting link where they cashed the latest Golf in to a Volo XC90 and then did the test again with the Golf V Kia Sorento. You can check it out here for the picures. www.oeamtc.at/netautor/pages/resshp/anwendg/111025...l
The Volvo driver would have light injuries where as the Golf passengers had the dash board pushed in whish gave ride to leg injuries. The Golfs airbags and restraint would have provented fatal head and chest injuries though.
Different story with the Golf V Kia Sorento. The Golf drivers would have come of better than the sorecto driver. The Golf could still be driven after the crash.
Hope you find it interesting.
Kind Regards
Jlo
Sorry its in German. I put it though a tranlator and the article read as:
'Frontally the off Roader weighing tons rams the schmaechtigen VOLKSWAGEN gulf. A horror scenario on the road, which the OEAMTC on a Crashtest plant placed behind. "both steering wheels, also the gulf driver, would have survived this accident. That is compared with earlier tests a large progress reported OEAMTC Cheftechniker max of long with passenger security ". With the partner protection the jeeps have however still large Verbesserungspotenzial. The five-he gulf (1480 kg) had to place itself equal two giants: That 2340 kg of heavy Volvo XC90 and the Kia Sorento with 2270 kg. Largely and small met one another with in each case 56 km/h and around half the gulf width transferred. Volvo XC90 against gulf: The Volvo stands for a modern partner protection concept and is in such a way designed according to manufacturer that it preserves smaller passenger cars with a frontal one. The calculation comes up not completely: Because with the Crash a Volvo cross beam tears, the gulf can push away only punctually. The Volvo rises during the impact up and meets the front front VOLKSWAGEN. The instrument panel gulf pushes itself thereby into the interior, the knees of the driver is suspended for large loads. Nevertheless can prevent the own protective system gulf heaviest or fatal injuries in the head and chest range. Long: "shows the progress of the past years in passive security. The Volvo passengers have only light injuries." Kia Sorento against gulf: A solid leader framework marks the design of this off Roaders. With the Crash this leader framework nicks however suddenly, the gulf can any longer push away and does not bore themselves in such a way into the "soft parts" the Kia Vorderfront. For the Kia driver increased danger of injury at feet and Unterschenkeln means. For the passengers gulf are however smaller the loads than with the Volvo Crash, because the instrument panel does not push itself so far inward. Long: "that the gulf will not over-drive to owe has it also in this situation its security concept." In the partner protection there is the result for the area cars still enormous area for improvements, reads: "front fronts, which are evenly stable during the entire Crashverlaufs", demand the OEAMTC Cheftechniker, are demanded. "it may not depend on the coincidence whether the front holds." With the off Roader the crunch zone must be in front for the partner protection more softly, the rear part for the self-protection rigidly and stably. In addition it must be impossible that smaller passenger cars "over-drive" become.'
|
From what I can see
Golf v XC90
Golf, driver would probably die. Severe trauma to both thighs that normally means fatal blood loss, and near fatal chest injuries. Passenger looks safe
XC90 both looked to survive with minor injuries.
Golf v Sorento
Golf driver loss of one leg and same chest injuries. Passenger safe,
Sorento driver: Nothing fatal worse injuries than Volvo, passenger same.
The interesting thing is that a 5* XC90 causes more damage to the 5* golf than the 4* sorento.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
jlo,
Thanks for a very interesting post.
I am amazed that in each crash one of the vehicles suffers a failure of a major safety structure - the golf's crossmember in the first, and the sorento's ladder frame in the second.
Perhaps euroncap is flawed in crashing into smooth blocks that allow force to be transmitted through the whole length of a crossmember. What about testing by crashing head-on into a lampost?
|
Very interesting. I do wish that they would take all possible steps though..
1) A different test/licence for large vehicles with thorough education
2) A name other than "4x4". Something like SUC to exclude Pandas for example
3) Effort into the understanding of the causes, and prevention, of collisions.
4) Consideration of alternative approaches such as separation and the like.
It does show the limitiation of NCAP. That is, as with any test, unavoidable but I don't think that the limitation is well known - i.e. that an NCAP rating is only useful for comparison purposes between two cars of a similar type and size.
It did make me consider why I drive a Landcruiser in this country. In case you're interested then the following spring to mind;
I like the upright driving position and the ability to see over stuff (hedges and other cars mostly).
I like the amount of room that they have within them (particularly the width).
I occasionally find their offroad abilities useful. I like know I have those abilities, even when I'm not using them.
I occasionally find their towing abilities useful.
I like the way they look
I like the style of driving implicit in having one - a little slower, calmer and more relaxed.
I am not a speed freak and so don't need something that goes around corners or straightlines like a bullet.
They are treated with more caution/respect by other road users and thus are less stressful and perhaps less likely to be involved in an incident.
They make me feel more protected. I suspect I probably am, since at the least my legs are up high out of harms way - but I feel it whether I am actually or not. Of course, if I get hit by a trucky or a bussy then I'm going to get hurt, but that's true whatever you are driving.
In my experience they last longer than a car.
None of the safety measures they talk about - impact zones, banning of bull bars, crumple zones, etc. etc. have any impact on any of the above as far as I can see.
So, bring on the redesign of their construction as far as I'm concerned.
As an aside, does anybody know when they first brought in the idea of NCAP type testing and how long it took for that to be generally accepted by the industry and reognised by the market ?
|
Something funny going on with this crash test, the Golfs have different wheels, one car has alloy the other steel and side airbags have worked on one and not the other.
If their going to do a crash test at least use the same spec car.
|
|
The NCAP ratings don't deal with how much damage a particular vehicle will cause to another vehicle, as far as I understand it. It is obvious that a big, heavy SUV is normally going to cause more damage to a smaller, lighter car.
|
|
I just chuckled over the idea of the Volvo being designed to "spare" the smaller car. Patronising, or what?
|
|
Probably down to me Cliff - sorry. The one size fits all translation for "schonen" is to spare, but it's used more widely in German than in English. "Minimise [or reduce] damage to" might have been a more idiomatic phrase.
|
In a collision between a large and small vehicle travelling at similar speeds, the large vehicle would tend to keep moving in the same direction, pushing the smaller one backwards. So the people in the smaller vehicle are likely to experience a more violent impact. This is on top of the greater likelihood of injury caused by a weaker structure.
However, 4x4s are more likely to roll over in accidents, and judging by pictures in salvage ads, 4x4 roofs don't look any stronger than on other cars.
Cheers, SS
|
|
|
|
|
|
