Euro NCAP Crash & Safety Tests of VW ID.4 2021
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Euro NCAP performs a series of crash and safety tests on car models:
a frontal impact test, 50% of the width of the car is striking an oncoming deformable barrier, also travelling at 50 km/h
a frontal impact test, the car impacts a rigid full width barrier
a side impact test, a mobile deformable barrier impacts the driver's door
a pole test, the tested car is propelled sideways into a rigid pole
a far-side impact test, the robustness of the centre airbag is evaluated by two dummies in the front.
A series of pedestrian tests are conducted with different impactors, adult and child head form, lower and upper leg form and whiplash tests are performed on a sled as well as AEB pedestrian and cyclist tests.
Active safety is tested based on the car’s equipment: autonomous emergency braking car-to-car scenarios, occupant status monitoring (including seatbelt reminders), lane support and speed assistance technologies.
All details on the Euro NCAP Website:
VW ID.4 2021 test information www.euroncap.c...
Euro NCAP April 2021 Press release www.euroncap.c...
Good to know the vehicle we're reviewing is safe; thanks for testing it, Euro NCAP!
Electric cars do very good at side pole test
2:11 VW ! Why is the Windowbag only beside the head. In the middle of the rear door window there is no bag coushion but only bag fabric 😡
@@matimoonhoney5606 you already answered yourself 🙂 it makes sense only besides the head. The rest of the window is covered just because the glass I guess. There is no reason to have pillows on places where no head impact is possible...
@@matimoonhoney5606 😐
The ID.4's form factor reminds a lot of the Peugeot 3008 (2020). Especially, from the back quarter views.
It reminds me more of the Peugeot 5008, which is the 7 seater version of the 3008
Really good for the ID.4 !!
Enyaq did better
@@julianroberts5407 Not really. The ID.4 is marginal better on 3 of 4 sections and on the for section the Enyaq is marginally better. It’s more of a draw, but never mind.
Sehr gutes video. Danke
Very good video😁👍😃
Škoda Enyaq iV has ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ stars and Volkswagen ID.4 has ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
3:03 how does it still receive a good rating of 76% when it is hitting the cyclist that hard?
because the category doesn't just consist of this one test with the cyclist
If the speed is reduced by at least 20km/h it counts as a pass.
you pay bribes to ncap and your rating is better than Teslas , the shits..
It still went from 60kmh to 30kmh
Looks good!
Euro NCAP test of the new Hyundai i20 wen?
wen crash?
Wen means when.
can you do crash test nissan sunny n14
Also safe notice how these electric cars never fail in safety
honda kinda fuked up and only got 4 starts with the Honda e
Well, true for most, some previously if you have them some time they would burst into flames, (nhsta Chevrolet Volt)
@@nickbien it is a minicar so tbh its understandable
@@vxllfire true, but if they just improved the aeb to make it react to pedestrians and cyclists better, and made the aeb car to car better, I'm confident the honda e could have gotten 5 stars. Also, the car is expensive compared to other electric cars. Especially with the amount of range it has.
@@nickbien renault got 0 stars with 2021 zoe
Кузов очень крепкий. Круто)
Wait, please check 0:40 the front passenger airbag failed to deploy in a front full width impact?? And is still gets 5 stars!! How NCAP??
Why should it? There was no passenger
bruh
The car only deploys all airbags in the front if you have the seat belts on (the car assumes there is a passenger ther, or by using the pressure sensor for the seat belts to indicate the person on the passager side. Since there is no person there, the car saves an airbag or two
there was no passenger
The ID4 has a occupancy sensor. It can tell there's noone sat in that seat, so why would it set off the airbag. If the seat sensor shows there's a passenger in there, the airbag will go off.
3:00 man this really doesnt look like a 76% to me
It was good for the others :)
the tests are not fair.
i think they get paid for better results.
@@napim6752 that... doesn't happen.
You can see that it gets an almost perfect score for everything else, if it wasn't for that test it would probably be around 90%.
3:01 yeah, maybe a bug/glitch in the software?
Who wants to see car vs. car crash tests? Like....actual cars on the market crashed into each other to see which one will perform better? That would be a fun TV show. LOL
NCAP are crashing cars in a scientific manner to test vehicle safety. As we can see from the videos, many brand new cars have to be destroyed in the process. However, this is an important job which helps us all to build a safer world. Now, what you are asking for is a pointless destruction of perfectly good vehicles for your momentary dopamine spike. Please don't destroy things for a show. Please stop asking for thing destruction for a show. We are destroying and wasting enough already.
haha holy shit, it completely overwhelms the MDB
Nice job VolksWagen
only 5 videos
Скорее бы в России начали
Продавать .
Хорошая машина .
So this thing killed two cyclists, but despite that, still got 5 stars & Dacia did not kill no-one & got 2 stars. Euroncap is pointless rating for today.
Yeah the Dacia did not kill anyone because it does not have an AEB pedestrian System so it was not tested you fool!
Start reading the official ncap documents instead of crying in TH-cam comment section based on what you are seeing in a Video.
Furthermore the Crash protection for vulnerable road useres as for the occupants of the dacia is by far worse than the id4.
And Again: Start reading the offical documents!
The time where a car was good when it did not wreck completly in a crash test are over.
Standards evolve and become stricter to force car manufacturers to improve their safety.
@@RechtschreibrichterReiner You are talking bullshit. If you broadcast these videos, then it must be in video, all, not inside some documentation somewhere. Electronic gizmos "safety", you can create separate rating systems, do not mix(mess) with real security. If you want better cars, rise crash tests speeds and thats all.
@@SiiliViin If you had any knowledge of basic physic you would know that raising crash test speeds is not useful and possible because kinetic energy does not increases linear to Speed.
For example: If you double the speed you will experience four times the kinetic energy.
The current speeds that are tested ist pretty close the maximum of what the human body can take without suffering internal injuries and broken Bones. To lower the energy you would have to build much larger crumple zones in the car to absorb the impact for a longer period of time which results in lower kinetic forces. But these crumple zones would have to be very very large, maybe twice as large as in the current state.
So for example if you would increase crash speeds from 64 to 80km/h (25%) the kinetic energy would increase 1,5 times.
To control this much energy in a car that is designed for normal people with 3 point belts and airbags ist near to impossible. Even today (especially smaller) cars still have a hard time to keep energy on occupants chest and knees low.
Just a hint:
These youtube videos are just for basic information. If you are to dumb to read the documentation on the Website don't blame euroncap for that 😂
@@RechtschreibrichterReiner At first, you do not know basic product design principes. If user need to read some documentation, that means, you have bad product, not user is dumb.
For second, about your "theory" about current test speed, that is also 100% rubbish and you just trying to explain, why can not do anything, despite trying to reach another(next) level. Before euroncap, there was similar thinking, that cars are already safe and there is not much to do. We have seen last 20 years dramatic security level improvements. If you do not push, things do not improve. It is as simple as that.
Bye!
@@SiiliViin The average user doesn't need to know every single detail about these crash tests, making it harder to evaluate and compare crash safety in cars. If you actually knew anything about product design you would know the importance of accessibility and adapting data presentation based on the target audience.
Or do you expect the average car buyer to watch a 20 minute video and get irrelevant information such as: "the front passenger's left knee experienced moderate levels of stress, which could lead to a fracture". What the hell would information like this add to the average user? The format Euro NCAP presents it's data - gathering qualitative and quantitative data, analyzing it, and summarizing it in a few main categories through quantitative scores - works great for comparisons. If you want more detailed information, which cannot be easily compared and is excessive for most people, then you simply go read the report. That's how it's supposed to work if you want to offer a powerful and accessible comparison tool but still have the resources available for power users to analyze for themselves. And presenting those resources in any other form than in a written report is both ineffective and unintuitive. Simply being too lazy to read a report isn't Euro NCAP's fault.
Solid, but still behind we all know who...
You have no proof of that, so better keep quiet 🤐
Which one?
I don't like that Euro NCAP did not note EXCESSIVE material usage for crush systems. Hood is extremely heavy with lots of crush zones and parts. This vehicle is artifically HEAVY making it more dangerous for urban environment and crashes with lighter vehicles.
Euro Ncap doesn't judge design choices but rather the end result of them (crash safety), so I don't see why that would be necessary.
I would guess VW designed the hood with crash safety in mind, and having good crush zones to better absord energy might be benefitial to making a 5kg lighter hood anyways. It's also reasonable to assume that the added weight in the hood is there for a reason and would otherwise be placed elsewhere to strengthen the car's structural rigidity. Doing that could potentially increase the weight *even* *more* to compensate for not strengthening where it was *really* needed. So basically, VW surely did what they did for a reason.
Haha, in the USA half the vehicles are monster SUV’s like suburban, I want something big and strong to take a hit from one.
@@DracoRemixer Hood is not structural component. You can remove it and vehicle will be in perfect structural integrity. VW overengineered a lot with this vehicle. Sandy Munroe has some stuff already covered. Like suspension and and other rigidity stuff.
5kg of extra steel is not green. Not even slightly. This should be a gód footprint vehicle...
@@racekar80 next time drive a bicycle 😄
@@tarassu Okay, so by your reasoning, the hood, windshield, doors, trunk, fenders, front and rear crash bars, etc, are not part of a vehicle's structural rigidity *in* *the* *event* *of* *a* *crash* because it's removable with a few bolts and the car can sit/drive without them? The design might be overengineered, I don't know. I lack the qualifications to judge this. But that doesn't mean this design is any worse, more unsafe, make an overall heavier vehicle, and so on than any other design. Is it a worse experience for the end user who opens the hood? Yes, because it's heavier. Might it be a better design for the pedestrian who smacks their head on the hood? Maybe. But to immediately write it off and go as far as calling it unsafe is just plain wrong.
You do realise 5kg extra material in the right spot could save 10, 20kg somewhere else, right? It's better to reinforce where it is needed than further away. Example: a stronger hood which better translates energy to the frame earlier on in a collision (with i.e. the underrun protection of a trailer) could mean they don't need extra reinforcement by the A pillars, as that's where the majority of the collision might otherwise happen.
And if you think car manufacturers actually cared about a few extra kilos, then you are wrong. Just look at any car interior and think about how much weight could be saved - it's *a* *lot* more than 5kg. In the grand scheme of thing, in a vehicle which weighs a bit over two tonnes, a few kilos is nothing neither for range nor for crash safety. Just lose a few kg yourself if you are worried about the footprint, but don't expect dieselgate to care one bit. Car manufacturers in general seriously don't care about their footprint. They want to make competitive cars so that consumers will buy them, and that's it. If they portray anything else then you should thank their marketing department.
widac że bezpieczne
Я уж думал что я один из России сижу и смотрю
can you do crash test nissan sunny n14
can you do crash test nissan sunny n14
can you do crash test nissan sunny n14