For those of you that profess how safe our old cars are.........

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

"The fact that they say they were specifically looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash leads me to believe that they were specifically looking for a 1959 Bel Air as opposed to any 50 year old car. I believe they knew its weaknesses and wanted to use them to their advantage. "

I would agree... I think the make & model vintage vehicle was carefully selected.

Wonder how that '09 would've faired against an Airflow, or a Nash Airflyte, or even a '59 Plymouth... ???

There's a lot of MadisonAv slant in the original video...

[Guest robb01]

wow, scary vid

[Guest palosfv3]

Interesting that GM conducted its 1968 crash tests using early 1960's Chrysler products and a few Fords.

None of these tests used seat belts which should have been optional at least on all these cars. They can be retrofitted now if the car doesn't have them. My point #1 from the previous post

Do you think sawing big holes in or sawing off the roof and removing the doors might affect the structural integrity of the cars?

How well would Smart Cars or Focuses do in these same tests with doors removed and roofs cut off?

As seen in the other videos with S-Class Mercedes vs. Smart Cars and other small vs. large, size and weight do make a difference. These cars are all the same size and weight. Point#2

The only thing that this video seems to prove, is that Chrysler might have had a problem with its door latches in the early 1960's.

Physics 101. mass x speed = force , for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yes for the most part the big object wins. In an auto collision there are to many variables that influence the outcome for the occupants.

I posted the 60's video so people could see the differences in construction , engineering and safety items. Yes at the time seat belts were optional equipment but they were not integrated into the design/ construction of the car, besides who wore their seat belts before mandatory regulation ? So these films are probably very representative how cars of that time functioned in thistype of situation.

Watch these videos closely. See the steering columns move up and toward the driver during impact, the windshields fly out of the car , the seats rip loose from the floor,. these are just some of the more obvious. We need to remember these early test films are from the infancy of the science. I've seen the efforts used by todays engineers in putting together a test of this nature . They take it very seriously and calculate things most would take for granted.

Did they chose the 59 Chevy for its known shortcomings ? You never know. Most car guys know the problems associated with these Y frame cars but really did those big Plymouths fair any better ? What is missing in regards to most of these films both early and recent, is the written detailed analysis reports. They would make some very interesting comparison reading.

Removing panels from an auto during a test like these would have been carefully weighed and examined by not only the test engineers but also by the engineering design teams. You could not remove doors or cut holes in todays cars and get the same results because many of these parts are utilized in the trasfer of energy through the structure. It may not have made that big of an issue on the 50/60's cars since these doors didnt have impact beams designed into them.

The Smart cars are surprisingly much better at absorbing energy than several other currently sold cars. The fact that a small car can take a heavy hit and protect the passengers as well as it does is hard to believe but if do your research and you will find out exactly how differently this car is made and why it works well. In the film Smart vs Benz the Smart car flies a rather long distance after hitting the Benz. What many dont realize is the car is still dissappating energy not passing it through to the occupant.

This subject is just another chapter in the evolution of the automobile .

[Barry Wolk]

Well stated.

[LINC400]

Yes, that is the problem. It is not two blocks of wood where simple physics rules apply. It makes a big difference if the 2009 Malibu hits a 1959 Chevy, another 2009 Malibu, or a 3600 lb. block of concrete. Same weight for the 3 different objects, but the result will not be the same. The same as if the 1959 Chevy rams into the drivers' side of the 2009 Malibu. The Malibu driver might not fare so well then. There is way too much gray area to make a blanket statement that new cars are always safer.

As for the '60's video. Ever see a car door get stuck shut in an accident? Do you think the accident results would be the same if no door was there? Automakers always put reinforcements in the body when making a convertible. Aftermarket coachbuilders do the same when converting a car to a convertible. Ever see the cars advertised as "parade cars" where someone sawed the roof off and it doesn't have one? I rode in one of those where they supposedly did some reinforcing. You could feel the body flex over every pothole. So I am not going to believe that sawing the roof off or sawing holes in it is not going to affect the structural integrity of a car, new or old.

I remember these videos from high school except then you were supposed to be watching them to see what happened when you didn't drive safely. Now they are being used to show how unsafe old cars are. Now they take a new car and crash test it. For these '60's and '70's videos, they did not use new cars. They took old beaters and crashed them. Some were probably ready to fall apart before they even got hit. So seats and doors flying may be a bad design, or may simply be a car in lousy shape.

I worked for a gas station in the late '80's - early '90's. There were still a good number of 1970's cars on the road then. We had the state police towing contract and would frequently bring in accident vehicles. Ever see the plastic barrels in front of concrete barriers on the expressway? They absorb the energy from the car to lessen the impact/injuries on the passengers. A full size 1970's car will use the crumple zone of a newer car to absorb energy in that same manner. The 1970's car does not need to have the crumple zone itself. That leaves you with just airbags in you new car with less size and weight. I saw plenty of 1970's cars destroy 1980's and 1990's cars with no or minimal injuries to the passengers of the '70's car. As far as the 1950's and earlier, we did not bring in any accident victims that old. So I cannot say for sure. But I do not think all old cars would be as unsafe as a 1959 Chevy.

The Smart Car is very well designed. It's crashworthiness is very impressive considering its size. But I do not think its passengers will be injury free when it is flying backwards into a tree after a head on collision. I'd rather be in a Smart Car vs. 1959 Metropolitan. But I would still rather be in a 1959 Imperial or 1970's Lincoln Town Car in an accident against a Smart Car.

I walked away uninjured from 2 1970's Lincolns. So a couple of videos are not going to convince me that they are deathtraps. Plus my accidents were not carefully staged. They happened in the real world, where accidents happen. Not in some test room.

By the way, if new cars are "safe", and old cars are "unsafe", what is the magical year that makes all cars "safe"? 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009?

[jdome]

Physics 101. mass x speed = force , for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yes for the most part the big object wins. In an auto collision there are to many variables that influence the outcome for the occupants.

The Smart cars are surprisingly much better at absorbing energy than several other currently sold cars. The fact that a small car can take a heavy hit and protect the passengers as well as it does is hard to believe but if do your research and you will find out exactly how differently this car is made and why it works well. In the film Smart vs Benz the Smart car flies a rather long distance after hitting the Benz. What many dont realize is the car is still dissappating energy not passing it through to the occupant.

This subject is just another chapter in the evolution of the automobile .

I don't want to burst your bubble but passengers in the Smart car likely would have suffered severe brain damage, internal bleeding and burst internal organs. And may not have had a single bruise on the outside of their body. It is bad enough that a human body comes to an abrupt stop in a collision, the crumple zones are engineered to slow the force of the stop. But bouncing the skull and rib cage in an abrupt reversal, while the forward inertia is still moving the soft organs forward, causes life threatening damage. Odds of internal injuries are higher in a small car.

[Dave@Moon]

The side by side comparison with the Ford Fusion is very interesting.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

Physics 101. mass x speed = force , for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yes for the most part the big object wins. In an auto collision there are to many variables that influence the outcome for the occupants.

The Smart cars are surprisingly much better at absorbing energy than several other currently sold cars. The fact that a small car can take a heavy hit and protect the passengers as well as it does is hard to believe but if do your research and you will find out exactly how differently this car is made and why it works well. In the film Smart vs Benz the Smart car flies a rather long distance after hitting the Benz. What many dont realize is the car is still dissappating energy not passing it through to the occupant.

This subject is just another chapter in the evolution of the automobile .

Point taken; but here's another wrinkle - the punted Smart-Car is now a projectile.... it may be disipating energy during its flight, but what and / or whom will absorb the remaining energy as it careens / lands?

[Guest palosfv3]

All the points posted are relevant. Engineers have the knowledge and materials to make a structure handle a specific load in a specific situation. What cannot be changed is what the human body can physically withstand whether its a significant impact in a collision or excessive G forces in a fighter air craft.

Driving an older large car or new safety engineered car may give you the level of comfort and security you find acceptable, just watch out for the larger object.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

"Driving an older large car or new safety engineered car may give you the level of comfort and security you find acceptable, just watch out for the larger object. "

Well said. :cool: