Fun fact: in 2013 the IIHS tested the 2013 VW Jetta at 50mph, test number CF13006. Although the structure held up well dummy readings showed injuries to every body region (especially the head and leg). If it were officially tested it would be rated poor.
Has the IIHS considered crash testing where the vehicle is already in deceleration (seat belts loaded/tensioned, occupant leaning forward)? A scenario would be a driver braking hard just prior to a crash. All of the crash testing thus far has been with the vehicle at 0 acceleration/deceleration just prior to crash, which means the occupant is in the neutral/resting position. I would imagine the results would be a fair bit different if the occupants are already leaning forward against their seatbelt.
@@Miner332 it only is able to tension so much, so the occupant may not always be pulled upright completely. So in my mind it's still a test case worth exploring.
It is hard to replicate, would be a better test, but not consistent across many vehicles. The only way to do this is maybe on sledge, just to see seatbelt pre-tensioning effect on leaned occupant.
@@worawatli8952 I'm thinking it would have to be a fixed deceleration rate that's applied through the pulley system that's pulling the car. That rate could potentially be determined by getting the average deceleration from a series of common vehicle styles braking by multiple different drivers on a dry road surface, or by a traffic safety study of the average deceleration of a vehicle just before collision.
In short, if we increase the test speed, vehicles would get stiffer and heavier to the detrimental of safety of low speed crash as crumple zones would be optimized more toward high speed. (Less crumpling in the front at low speed to make it crumple just right at high speed) Also vehicles would be less maneuverable and less compatible with older cars.
Yup, like you’d have to make cars so stiff in order to hold up to a 60mph crash without intrusion. But this means the car would barely crumple at 40mph and won’t absorb any energy.
Why not test at both lower and higher speeds? It is not complicated. I'd also like to see lower speed testing in crashes with pedestrians/bicycles (to see how well the ped/biker fares).
Wait, can you upload the full footage of the Chrysler LeBaron convertible crashes? I'd love to see how those 1980s cars perform, or more accurately don't perform, in the moderate overlap tests, considering they're basically extended K-cars built on a platform engineered in the late 1970s.
Crashes at over 40 MPH are rare. In most instances there is at least partial braking involved. Thus, even though the car may have been traveling at 70mph, the impact itself is at 40 or less. Again we must look at european highways whos speed limits are usually 130 kph (80 mph). Their mortality rates are a fraction of ours. The reasons are simple, better driver education, better highway design, enforcement of lane discipline, and lower speed limits for large trucks.
It is such a limp-d*ck cop-out when people say it's all about speed while completely ignoring the wretched state of driver skill and education in America.
If you have two cars both moving towards each other it's not hard to get a crash well over 40 mph even with both cars braking. You just need speeds of over 20 mph from each car. And while crashes over 40 mph may be relatively rare compared to total crashes, the majority of FATAL collisions ARE over 40 mph. I had never heard there's a tradeoff in making a vehicle safer at high speeds compromises safety on lower speed collisions though.
@SuperMrgentleman This crash test against an unmovable barrier is comparable to a head-on collision of 2 vehicles traveling at 40 mph each. OR a single vehicle hitting a stopped vehicle at 80!
@@Wised1000 I didn't realize 80 mph into a stationary car was equivalent to 40 mph into the barrier, my bad. I guess because the barrier doesn't deform?
I would like to see IIHS start testing tail lights. They test headlights for their ability to light up the road (the ability to see). Tail lights are no less important in that they make sure a vehicle can be seen. And I have seen some seriously bad tail lights on new cars. Manufacturers focus more on an aesthetic rather than function.
I agree especially with indicator lights. A lot of the times in the US the indicator is incorporated with the break light so its hard to see when someone is slowing down and is going to make a turn. In Europe it is required that the indicator is an amber color separate from the break light.
@@heavenleigh111exactly...and that crappy design has spread to many brands of vehicles now. And I don't think it affects just drivers of other cars. When I'm cycling on the roads and come across a stack of cars in the right lane, I can never see the blinkers of those cars with the lights in the bumpers like I can with cars with blinkers higher up next to the tail lights.
This video still doesn't explain why IIHS cannot increase the speed a bit to like 45 mph. That would cover even more crash test scenario and save more life. While at the same time, not significantly increasing the cost for car company to reinforce the car. Also, every single car nowadays have a good IIHS frontal crash rating, increasing the crash speed to 45 mph would help separate the true winner from the crowd. Allowing consumer to select the best from the best, in term of safety. This video seems to show why IIHS keep coming up with excuses to Not give more protection to consumer. But rather, give more protection to car company wallet. At least, that's what it look like.
shame on them. they have the balls to admit their problems, and quickly admit "f**k it, we'll do nothing about it" did those guys seriously forget that it was only because of IIHS that manufacturers took it up a notch to beef up for 40, and beefing up for every test after that caught them off guard ??? if germans can do 60, anyone can.
@@unknownunknowns yea, thats why 40 mph crash test is a joke. The frontal crash test speed and standard haven't changed or improved at all in the last 35 years.
I think these should be the more clear reasons: - IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests) - 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur - If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results. Thus, - The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes - At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties. - Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
So we need to figure out a way to make the structures be able to withstand higher speed crashes as well as low speed crashes. Like a dual step crush zone. The outer members of the structure need to be softer for lower speed crashes and then the second half of the members need to be stiffer for higher speed crashes... I don't see why that's impossible to do without making vehicles bigger or look weird...
That won’t make things much better at low speeds. It’ll crumple halfway and then just stop crumpling. Yet if it crumpled all the way to the firewall, then it would’ve reduced the forces.
Look up Saab crash test, they all got long nose for maximum crush zones, it can be done, multi stage crush zones, but very expensive and would make car looks weirdly long. They are all front wheel drives, but they got long noses for crash safety.
@@akj2387 yes it would work exactly as he says it would. There are cars with very short crumple zones that protect the passengers from severe impact just fine. You don't need a large crumple zone, you just need to dissipate the energy in such a way that it doesn't get to the passenger which requires careful selection of metals and engineering.
Can IIHS explain why Euro NCAP changed the testing speed from 40mph on a deformable barrier to 31mph on a mobile deformable barrier? I know Euro NCAP's improved barrier is heavier but it wouldn't make sense for a car of the same or even heavier weight. And the speed dropped to 31mph, while the old test simulated two vehicles of the same weight crashing into each other at about 40mph. March 14, 2024 10:09PM
Для того что бы тяжелые электромобили могли успешно пройти этот тест, так как их конструкция при прежнем тесте будет иметь дело со своим большим весом. В новом тесте тележка весит около 1400 кг, тогда как электромобиль около 2000 кг.Это всё маркетинг электромобилей(
Because most vehicles in Europe is lighter than 1400kg. Than this test is heavier for most cars. EuroNcap make pressure to car makers to make heavy cars softer and absorb more energy than before. Heavy cars get penalty points, and in 2026 they wont get 5 or 4 stars. Euroncap 50km/h at movable barrier have same energy iihs at 64km/h with static barrier.
The new test allows results to be comparable across vehicles with different weights. Heavier and lighter vehicles alike have to deal with the fixed kinetic energy of the moving barrier. The new test is hence easier for heavier cars and harder for lighter cars
Are wrong is this the IIHS not the euroncap which test are outdated and don't have idea why doesn't make small overlap test if any European based brand wants to access to American market would perform the test bad since haven't been made the cars for the protocol of the IIHS which are more strict, I have an European car but I don't think that can even protect me in case of an small overlap test by example
Because 40 MPG is already a good balance. Generally, IIHS represents insurance companies. They want to know which vehicles lead to less bodily injuries. If you are testing at higher speeds, all you are getting is whether passengers will die or become paralyzed. And these scenarios are not that different.
In part because rear end collisions have a much lower proportion of the overall driver injury and death rates; e.g., a very low % of that 40K. I'd bet that more pedestrians are killed in that 40,000/year than those who are as a result of a rear-end crash.
You guys should figure out a formula to determine which the vehicle thats being tested should be traveling at during the crash. Especially for small cars, increase the speed to match the energy that would be received if the vehicle was to hit a much heavier car. The heavier the car thats being tested, the slower the test speed is. Test light cars at higher speed to simulate a crash against a heavier vehicle.
It would be interesting to see a car from the 90s or 2000s with a small overlap or updated side crash test how this will perform. For example an BMW E36, E46 with the 2024 tests. Would be very interesting how these cars perform.
That would be interesting. Growing up my mom had a 89 Volvo 760 and 92 Mercedes 300e as these 2 cars were always touted as one of the safest cars of the time. It’s be interesting to see how they would perform in our modern tests.
If that's the case, here's an interesting fact for you! Cited from Jakobsson, L., McInally, G., Axelson, A., Lindman, M. et al., "Severe Frontal Collisions with Partial Overlap - Two Decades of Car Safety Development," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0759 Frontal Severe Partial Overlap Collisions (SPOC) also called small overlap crashes pose special challenges with respect to structural design as well as occupant protection. In the early 1990s, the SPOC test method was developed addressing 20-40% overlap against a fixed rigid barrier with initial velocities up to 65 km/h. The knowledge gained has been used in the design of Volvo vehicles since then. Important design principles include front side members orientated along the wheel envelopes together with a strong support structure utilizing a space frame principle with beams loaded mainly in tension and compression. This novel setup was first introduced in the 850-model in 1991 and has been refined and patented (2001) in later Volvo front structures. And when combined with information written here : Cited from : Lindberg, Henric. "Advanced high strength steel technologies in the 2016 Volvo XC90." Great Designs in Steel (2016). Structural principles Same basic principles since the early 1990s: ・Slide away from obstacle ・Strong safety cage ・Restraint systems adapted for small overlap So we can assume that As for Volvo, They were making their cars expecting serious small overlap crash scenarios from their 850 onwards! And crashed in the same way how current generation of volvos slide away from the obstacle in these scenarios! Hope you found these information interesting! ヾ(๑╹◡╹)ﾉ" Edit : Don't be concerned yet! There's a part of this video called "Volvo : Decades of crash testing" that starts from 0:53 Where you can see them crashing their 1986 Volvo 480 ES in a way very similar to how the small overlap test is done! If you'd like to see how these old cars perform, this might be one of those you're looking for! ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
If that's the case, I Have a interesting fact for you! There's these lines from a technical paper called "Severe Frontal Collisions with Partial Overlap - Two Decades of Car Safety Development" that goes like this! Frontal Severe Partial Overlap Collisions (SPOC) also called small overlap crashes pose special challenges with respect to structural design as well as occupant protection. In the early 1990s, the SPOC test method was developed addressing 20-40% overlap against a fixed rigid barrier with initial velocities up to 65 km/h. The knowledge gained has been used in the design of Volvo vehicles since then. Important design principles include front side members orientated along the wheel envelopes together with a strong support structure utilizing a space frame principle with beams loaded mainly in tension and compression. This novel setup was first introduced in the 850-model in 1991 and has been refined and patented (2001) in later Volvo front structures. And when we combine that with information cited from "Advanced high strength steel technologies in the 2016 Volvo XC90" that goes… Structural principles Same basic principles since the early 1990s: Slide away from obstacle Strong safety cage Restraint systems adapted for small overlap That means as for Volvo, they were building their cars expecting Severe small overlap crashes from their 850 model onwards! And Crashed the same way how the current generation of volvos slide away from the obstacle in small overlap! Also, you can see them crashing their '86 480 ES in a way very similar to how these small overlap tests are performed in Volvo : Decades of crash testing! If you want to see how these old cars perform, this might be one of those you wanted to see!
I would love it if you guys compared small vs. big grills in cars and how this big grill trend is affecting everyone outside said vehicles, would be a very interesting topic to cover since not only the vehicle occupants should be safe, but also the ones outside the vehicle (be it bikers, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) should be able to sustain the least amount of injuries possible.
More clarified reasons by bullet points: - IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests) - 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur - If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results. Thus, - The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes - At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties. - Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
Every new car is getting G in small overlap nowadays. To make the distinction they really should start testing SO at 50mph to see who REALLY stands out
The thing is anything faster than 40mph crash would most likely kill the occupants, even if the car maintain structural integrity. To survive a crash, it's about how much G-force your organs experience when it literally crash(!) & squeeze into itself & to bones. As crash speed increases beyond 40mph, it gets way way much harder (almost impossible) to reduce that G-force.
As a general principle, the exponential danger associated with increased traffic speed is a topic which is being willfully ignored by politicians of all stripes. Habitual high velocity travel also increases the environmental impact of any vehicle.
That also has to be factored through increased vehicle safety and environmental consideration. Speed limits haven't increased in the last decades, but vehicles now are much safer both in general handling at speed and crashworthiness. And vehicles of the same category have gotten more fuel efficient; my 1995 F150 is nowhere near as fuel efficient as a 2024 model, especially at highway speeds, because engines have gotten more efficient, transmissions gained speeds to keep engine RPM low on the highway, and bigger vehicles tend to be more aerodynamic than before, although new "flat" grilles are bucking that trend. People need to be places, especially in North America where distances traveled are huge compared to denser populated countries where lower speeds affect travel time minimally. At some point, asking people to travel 55mph on the highway in a smooth-driving, agile and safe vehicle will only lead to non-compliance, or absurd revenue generation from police enforcement for unnecessarily low speed limits. Maybe we should enjoy the fact vehicles have gotten safer through stricter testing and increased consumer awareness by reassessing the need for low speed limits on non-urban, non-pedestrian arteries instead of striving for unattainable "zero fatalities" vehicle crash figures.
Speaking As an engineer, you validate your designs using the worst case scenarios possible. In terms of vehicle crash testing this means testing at higher speeds. Sure cars may not pass the tougher test initially however we shouldn’t just give up, given time they will easily pass.
Affordability has to be considered, as well. The more requirements regarding safety mean manufacturers have to spend more on engineering and development to pass tougher tests and those cost will be reflected in car prices. Prices are already too high for most.
You have to increase the speed limit to the highest legal speed limit. That's the speed that separates a safe car from the rest. Currently, all cars may appear very safe, but still, many people are dying. That's a misconception!
These are more clear reasons by bullet points: - IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests) - 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur - If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results. Thus, - The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes - At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties. - Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
GM had airbags as far back as the late 1960’s, even had them on some of their 1973 to 1976 full sized cars. Btw, it’s ‘68, not 68’ unless you mean sixty eight feet tall.
@@Sashazur except US cars had them before that. 94 was the catch-up for all cars lagging behind. the 98 rule was basically to make ford f350's catch up for their loooong overdue improvement
@IIHS: In mechanics and material resistance you work with forces, not energies. Car structures use materials which are tested/subjected to forces. Both persons in the video talk about energies, which is scientifically incorrect and the improper physical notion when it comes to what car and people have to endure in a crash.
My question is why back seat safety wasn't put on the radar until the last few years. Suddenly a vehicle that was a top safety pick is no longer safe for your family? It's seems insane that pretensioners haven't been looked at until now. Most people can't afford to go just buy a new car to get those features.
"...why back seat safety wasn't put in the radar..." Because the average trip has less than 2 occupants. The most-important seating-position for safety is the driver's seat, because it always has an occupant. Gradually, over time, lower-priority safety factors (such as the lower-occupancy-rate seating positions) are given attention.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Agreed. Just seems strange that back seat side impact airbags and crash worthiness came before, "Does the seat belt tighten up in a crash". Especially on vehicles that are designed and marketed as family vehicles. I agree that it takes time but I find it odd that it has taken till just recently considering that pretensioners aren't highly expensive or difficult to equip.
Everything is simpler, manufacturers don’t want to spend money or change anything, because sales are already going well. But in fact, the technology for producing bodies by stamping from sheet steel is irrevocably outdated, and does not allow creating bodies that are equally safe at any speed. Therefore, the person in the interview is simply disingenuous.
Testing at the IIHS are flawed...especially side impact...I just saw a lifted Tundra hit a new 2024 RAV4 in the side (T-Bone) and the Tundra went through the RAV4 and killed 2...the Tundra had no damage except a flat tire and busted wheel... they need to raise the test sled about 3 feet and retest side impacts...
Better idea: *_require a CDL_* to operate any vehicle with a GVWR over 6,000 lbs (e.g. every full-sized pickup truck). Effective immediately, with no exceptions.
There are still deaths because people have a sense of invulnerability in modern cars. So they speed, text, drunk drive with gleeful abandon. I wish people were told their cars were 100% unsafe, then they would drive them ever so gingerly around the planet...
My Tacoma runs well between 75-80mph, whereas my wife’s Outback enjoys 85-90mph. Usually in our home state of Washington we’ll set the cruise on 75-80 on I-90, because the speed limit is a mere 70mph. But when we go to the family ranch in Montana, the speed limit is 80mph, so we set the cruise on 85-90mph. At 75mph the likelihood of dying in an accident is quite high, so at 80-90mph survival is not very high. I’d rather be dead than confined to a wheelchair or tubes coming in and out of me. We’re firm believers that when it’s your day to die, it’s, well, your day to die.
@@Doc1855Maybe you can make me understand why IIHS refuses to raise the frontal crash speed to 50 mph, when, as you pointed out, 80 mph is becoming the norm.
Okay so don’t drive on the highway and interstate or over 44-45 mph? It’s tone deaf and unrealistic to say to someone that would only drive past that speed that “we tested it lower so it’s safe there but your on your own on anything else.” That’s pathetic. You’re saying exactly that road ways over 44-45 aren’t safe enough to drive one solely based on speed. So no. They do need to be more rigid and softer. I’m hearing pure ignorance. Has to be. All the people that have to drive over 44-45 and on stop testing right there. Pathetic.
Drivers keep going faster and 80 mph on the highway is less uncommon these days. So, it would make a ton of sense to raise the crash speed to 50 mph, at least. Something’s not right in this video, thumbs DOWN!
Everything is simpler, manufacturers don’t want to spend money or change anything, because sales are already going well. But in fact, the technology for producing bodies by stamping from sheet steel is irrevocably outdated, and does not allow creating bodies that are equally safe at any speed. Therefore, the person in the interview is simply disingenuous.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: in 2013 the IIHS tested the 2013 VW Jetta at 50mph, test number CF13006. Although the structure held up well dummy readings showed injuries to every body region (especially the head and leg). If it were officially tested it would be rated poor.
So head on crash with a f150 both going 35mph sounds like bad news
HIC result is 971. Absolutely unacceptable.
where can I lookup said test?
@@davesmith3530 Same crash as an F150 crashing into an immovable object since they both have crumple zones.
Sad fact: Dummies getting older, making their bones more susceptible to fracture. So we need to make vehicles safer.
Has the IIHS considered crash testing where the vehicle is already in deceleration (seat belts loaded/tensioned, occupant leaning forward)? A scenario would be a driver braking hard just prior to a crash.
All of the crash testing thus far has been with the vehicle at 0 acceleration/deceleration just prior to crash, which means the occupant is in the neutral/resting position.
I would imagine the results would be a fair bit different if the occupants are already leaning forward against their seatbelt.
Very good point, on top of that, vehicles dip down in high braking scenarios, under ride scenarios in cars vs trucks etc
That's what the pre-tensioner is for. It's an explosive or spring loaded system that pulls you upright in your seat
@@Miner332 it only is able to tension so much, so the occupant may not always be pulled upright completely. So in my mind it's still a test case worth exploring.
It is hard to replicate, would be a better test, but not consistent across many vehicles. The only way to do this is maybe on sledge, just to see seatbelt pre-tensioning effect on leaned occupant.
@@worawatli8952 I'm thinking it would have to be a fixed deceleration rate that's applied through the pulley system that's pulling the car. That rate could potentially be determined by getting the average deceleration from a series of common vehicle styles braking by multiple different drivers on a dry road surface, or by a traffic safety study of the average deceleration of a vehicle just before collision.
In short, if we increase the test speed, vehicles would get stiffer and heavier to the detrimental of safety of low speed crash as crumple zones would be optimized more toward high speed.
(Less crumpling in the front at low speed to make it crumple just right at high speed)
Also vehicles would be less maneuverable and less compatible with older cars.
Yup, like you’d have to make cars so stiff in order to hold up to a 60mph crash without intrusion.
But this means the car would barely crumple at 40mph and won’t absorb any energy.
@@akj2387 SmartForTwo was crash tested at 70mph and its cabin space perfectly but the driver would've died from the blunt force trauma.
Why not test at both lower and higher speeds? It is not complicated. I'd also like to see lower speed testing in crashes with pedestrians/bicycles (to see how well the ped/biker fares).
why cant it do both... what.
@@akj2387 the solution is giving them just enough resistance to leave half of the length remaining at 40
Wait, can you upload the full footage of the Chrysler LeBaron convertible crashes? I'd love to see how those 1980s cars perform, or more accurately don't perform, in the moderate overlap tests, considering they're basically extended K-cars built on a platform engineered in the late 1970s.
I grew up with a 2nd and 3rd gen Chrysler minivans and they were so flimsy. They probably didn’t perform well in crash tests.
That would be really cool. Videos from the archives, 70s-90s...
I second this!
Look at the modern vs classic Impala test. Shocking.
Yes! Please!
Crashes at over 40 MPH are rare. In most instances there is at least partial braking involved. Thus, even though the car may have been traveling at 70mph, the impact itself is at 40 or less. Again we must look at european highways whos speed limits are usually 130 kph (80 mph). Their mortality rates are a fraction of ours. The reasons are simple, better driver education, better highway design, enforcement of lane discipline, and lower speed limits for large trucks.
It is such a limp-d*ck cop-out when people say it's all about speed while completely ignoring the wretched state of driver skill and education in America.
Amen
If you have two cars both moving towards each other it's not hard to get a crash well over 40 mph even with both cars braking. You just need speeds of over 20 mph from each car.
And while crashes over 40 mph may be relatively rare compared to total crashes, the majority of FATAL collisions ARE over 40 mph. I had never heard there's a tradeoff in making a vehicle safer at high speeds compromises safety on lower speed collisions though.
@SuperMrgentleman This crash test against an unmovable barrier is comparable to a head-on collision of 2 vehicles traveling at 40 mph each. OR a single vehicle hitting a stopped vehicle at 80!
@@Wised1000 I didn't realize 80 mph into a stationary car was equivalent to 40 mph into the barrier, my bad. I guess because the barrier doesn't deform?
I would like to see IIHS start testing tail lights. They test headlights for their ability to light up the road (the ability to see). Tail lights are no less important in that they make sure a vehicle can be seen. And I have seen some seriously bad tail lights on new cars. Manufacturers focus more on an aesthetic rather than function.
Like the Hyundai's with the blinkers down near the bottom of the bumper
I agree especially with indicator lights. A lot of the times in the US the indicator is incorporated with the break light so its hard to see when someone is slowing down and is going to make a turn. In Europe it is required that the indicator is an amber color separate from the break light.
@@heavenleigh111exactly...and that crappy design has spread to many brands of vehicles now. And I don't think it affects just drivers of other cars. When I'm cycling on the roads and come across a stack of cars in the right lane, I can never see the blinkers of those cars with the lights in the bumpers like I can with cars with blinkers higher up next to the tail lights.
Agree. Separate turn signal lamp of an amber color (instead of red) should be a requirement for the TSP+ score.
Oh gosh yeah, combo turn /brake lights should be changed to separate fixtures. They are so hard to see during the day
This video still doesn't explain why IIHS cannot increase the speed a bit to like 45 mph. That would cover even more crash test scenario and save more life. While at the same time, not significantly increasing the cost for car company to reinforce the car.
Also, every single car nowadays have a good IIHS frontal crash rating, increasing the crash speed to 45 mph would help separate the true winner from the crowd. Allowing consumer to select the best from the best, in term of safety.
This video seems to show why IIHS keep coming up with excuses to Not give more protection to consumer. But rather, give more protection to car company wallet. At least, that's what it look like.
shame on them. they have the balls to admit their problems, and quickly admit "f**k it, we'll do nothing about it"
did those guys seriously forget that it was only because of IIHS that manufacturers took it up a notch to beef up for 40, and beefing up for every test after that caught them off guard ???
if germans can do 60, anyone can.
80 mph is becoming a less uncommon speed these days on the highway.
@@unknownunknowns yea, thats why 40 mph crash test is a joke. The frontal crash test speed and standard haven't changed or improved at all in the last 35 years.
I think these should be the more clear reasons:
- IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests)
- 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur
- If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results.
Thus,
- The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes
- At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties.
- Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
So we need to figure out a way to make the structures be able to withstand higher speed crashes as well as low speed crashes. Like a dual step crush zone. The outer members of the structure need to be softer for lower speed crashes and then the second half of the members need to be stiffer for higher speed crashes... I don't see why that's impossible to do without making vehicles bigger or look weird...
Could be a cost issue
It usually comes back to money mate , most problems can be easily fixed if you have the coin to fund them .
That won’t make things much better at low speeds. It’ll crumple halfway and then just stop crumpling. Yet if it crumpled all the way to the firewall, then it would’ve reduced the forces.
Look up Saab crash test, they all got long nose for maximum crush zones, it can be done, multi stage crush zones, but very expensive and would make car looks weirdly long.
They are all front wheel drives, but they got long noses for crash safety.
@@akj2387 yes it would work exactly as he says it would. There are cars with very short crumple zones that protect the passengers from severe impact just fine. You don't need a large crumple zone, you just need to dissipate the energy in such a way that it doesn't get to the passenger which requires careful selection of metals and engineering.
Can IIHS explain why Euro NCAP changed the testing speed from 40mph on a deformable barrier to 31mph on a mobile deformable barrier? I know Euro NCAP's improved barrier is heavier but it wouldn't make sense for a car of the same or even heavier weight. And the speed dropped to 31mph, while the old test simulated two vehicles of the same weight crashing into each other at about 40mph.
March 14, 2024 10:09PM
Для того что бы тяжелые электромобили могли успешно пройти этот тест, так как их конструкция при прежнем тесте будет иметь дело со своим большим весом. В новом тесте тележка весит около 1400 кг, тогда как электромобиль около 2000 кг.Это всё маркетинг электромобилей(
Why the hell do you think those 2 relate at all… iihs does not control euro ncap. Stupid question.
Because most vehicles in Europe is lighter than 1400kg.
Than this test is heavier for most cars. EuroNcap make pressure to car makers to make heavy cars softer and absorb more energy than before. Heavy cars get penalty points, and in 2026 they wont get 5 or 4 stars.
Euroncap 50km/h at movable barrier have same energy iihs at 64km/h with static barrier.
The new test allows results to be comparable across vehicles with different weights. Heavier and lighter vehicles alike have to deal with the fixed kinetic energy of the moving barrier.
The new test is hence easier for heavier cars and harder for lighter cars
Are wrong is this the IIHS not the euroncap which test are outdated and don't have idea why doesn't make small overlap test if any European based brand wants to access to American market would perform the test bad since haven't been made the cars for the protocol of the IIHS which are more strict, I have an European car but I don't think that can even protect me in case of an small overlap test by example
Why not have both low speed and high speed crash test?
Because the annual budget is only $32M.
Did you watch this video?
They said that it would make automakes make cars more rigid, which isn't a good thing, so why not balance out both?@@Sashazur
Because 40 MPG is already a good balance.
Generally, IIHS represents insurance companies. They want to know which vehicles lead to less bodily injuries. If you are testing at higher speeds, all you are getting is whether passengers will die or become paralyzed. And these scenarios are not that different.
ha, was literally going to write the same thing@@Sashazur
Why don't you perform rear-end crashes?? I know the seats and headrests are tested, but not the cars rear structure itself
This is my greatest fear while driving. I can control where I go but the people behind me are entirely out of control.
@@N20Joe always keep track of your surroundings by using your mirrors frequently even if you're not changing lanes or anything. Situational awareness
In part because rear end collisions have a much lower proportion of the overall driver injury and death rates; e.g., a very low % of that 40K. I'd bet that more pedestrians are killed in that 40,000/year than those who are as a result of a rear-end crash.
NHTSA does it already at 50
@@joec1774 NHTSA already does back tests at 50 mph, so there's that
You guys should figure out a formula to determine which the vehicle thats being tested should be traveling at during the crash. Especially for small cars, increase the speed to match the energy that would be received if the vehicle was to hit a much heavier car. The heavier the car thats being tested, the slower the test speed is. Test light cars at higher speed to simulate a crash against a heavier vehicle.
It would be interesting to see a car from the 90s or 2000s with a small overlap or updated side crash test how this will perform. For example an BMW E36, E46 with the 2024 tests. Would be very interesting how these cars perform.
They had one with a 90s car vs a semi modern 2010ish model, 90s car got obilterated
That would be interesting. Growing up my mom had a 89 Volvo 760 and 92 Mercedes 300e as these 2 cars were always touted as one of the safest cars of the time. It’s be interesting to see how they would perform in our modern tests.
where can i find this@@astefanik16
If that's the case, here's an interesting fact for you!
Cited from Jakobsson, L., McInally, G., Axelson, A., Lindman, M. et al., "Severe Frontal Collisions with Partial Overlap - Two Decades of Car Safety Development," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0759
Frontal Severe Partial Overlap Collisions (SPOC) also called small overlap crashes pose special challenges with respect to structural design as well as occupant protection. In the early 1990s, the SPOC test method was developed addressing 20-40% overlap against a fixed rigid barrier with initial velocities up to 65 km/h. The knowledge gained has been used in the design of Volvo vehicles since then.
Important design principles include front side members orientated along the wheel envelopes together with a strong support structure utilizing a space frame principle with beams loaded mainly in tension and compression. This novel setup was first introduced in the 850-model in 1991 and has been refined and patented (2001) in later Volvo front structures.
And when combined with information written here :
Cited from : Lindberg, Henric. "Advanced high strength steel technologies in the 2016 Volvo XC90." Great Designs in Steel (2016).
Structural principles
Same basic principles since the early 1990s:
・Slide away from obstacle
・Strong safety cage
・Restraint systems adapted for small overlap
So we can assume that As for Volvo, They were making their cars expecting serious small overlap crash scenarios from their 850 onwards!
And crashed in the same way how current generation of volvos slide away from the obstacle in these scenarios!
Hope you found these information interesting! ヾ(๑╹◡╹)ﾉ"
Edit : Don't be concerned yet! There's a part of this video called "Volvo : Decades of crash testing" that starts from 0:53 Where you can see them crashing their 1986 Volvo 480 ES in a way very similar to how the small overlap test is done! If you'd like to see how these old cars perform, this might be one of those you're looking for! ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ
If that's the case, I Have a interesting fact for you!
There's these lines from a technical paper called
"Severe Frontal Collisions with Partial Overlap - Two Decades of Car Safety Development" that goes like this!
Frontal Severe Partial Overlap Collisions (SPOC) also called small overlap crashes pose special challenges with respect to structural design as well as occupant protection. In the early 1990s, the SPOC test method was developed addressing 20-40% overlap against a fixed rigid barrier with initial velocities up to 65 km/h. The knowledge gained has been used in the design of Volvo vehicles since then.
Important design principles include front side members orientated along the wheel envelopes together with a strong support structure utilizing a space frame principle with beams loaded mainly in tension and compression. This novel setup was first introduced in the 850-model in 1991 and has been refined and patented (2001) in later Volvo front structures.
And when we combine that with information cited from
"Advanced high strength steel technologies in the 2016 Volvo XC90"
that goes…
Structural principles
Same basic principles since the early 1990s:
Slide away from obstacle
Strong safety cage
Restraint systems adapted for small overlap
That means as for Volvo, they were building their cars expecting Severe small overlap crashes from their 850 model onwards! And Crashed the same way how the current generation of volvos slide away from the obstacle in small overlap!
Also, you can see them crashing their '86 480 ES in a way very similar to how these small overlap tests are performed in Volvo : Decades of crash testing!
If you want to see how these old cars perform, this might be one of those you wanted to see!
I would love it if you guys compared small vs. big grills in cars and how this big grill trend is affecting everyone outside said vehicles, would be a very interesting topic to cover since not only the vehicle occupants should be safe, but also the ones outside the vehicle (be it bikers, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) should be able to sustain the least amount of injuries possible.
More clarified reasons by bullet points:
- IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests)
- 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur
- If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results.
Thus,
- The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes
- At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties.
- Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
#5....*no they F-ing wont!!* volvo & the germans already know enough to have people walking away from 50+, if they can, anyone can
Every new car is getting G in small overlap nowadays. To make the distinction they really should start testing SO at 50mph to see who REALLY stands out
german cars are the winners, as seen in real life highway incidents
@@GaryS-b3yThey do have the ‘infinite’ speed limit on the autobahn.
My question: Joe, Raul, you do Mazda biante crash tests?
The only viable way to get around this is by making the crumple zones huge, to the point the crash never reaches the cabin in a crash.
no, just more resistance. make the length be half of what it shoves back at 40.
nonsense!! volvo & the germans already figured it out & have people walking away from 50+ hits
This is an awesome explanation, and video. Thank you.
It's not. It's pretty asinine.
The thing is anything faster than 40mph crash would most likely kill the occupants, even if the car maintain structural integrity.
To survive a crash, it's about how much G-force your organs experience when it literally crash(!) & squeeze into itself & to bones.
As crash speed increases beyond 40mph, it gets way way much harder (almost impossible) to reduce that G-force.
literally NOT TRUE! go see adrian lund's testimony interview. jeez.
nope, volvo & the germans have long since had people walking away from 50+, they know their shit
As a general principle, the exponential danger associated with increased traffic speed is a topic which is being willfully ignored by politicians of all stripes. Habitual high velocity travel also increases the environmental impact of any vehicle.
yeah
That also has to be factored through increased vehicle safety and environmental consideration. Speed limits haven't increased in the last decades, but vehicles now are much safer both in general handling at speed and crashworthiness. And vehicles of the same category have gotten more fuel efficient; my 1995 F150 is nowhere near as fuel efficient as a 2024 model, especially at highway speeds, because engines have gotten more efficient, transmissions gained speeds to keep engine RPM low on the highway, and bigger vehicles tend to be more aerodynamic than before, although new "flat" grilles are bucking that trend. People need to be places, especially in North America where distances traveled are huge compared to denser populated countries where lower speeds affect travel time minimally. At some point, asking people to travel 55mph on the highway in a smooth-driving, agile and safe vehicle will only lead to non-compliance, or absurd revenue generation from police enforcement for unnecessarily low speed limits. Maybe we should enjoy the fact vehicles have gotten safer through stricter testing and increased consumer awareness by reassessing the need for low speed limits on non-urban, non-pedestrian arteries instead of striving for unattainable "zero fatalities" vehicle crash figures.
@@dledet1👍
Speaking As an engineer, you validate your designs using the worst case scenarios possible. In terms of vehicle crash testing this means testing at higher speeds. Sure cars may not pass the tougher test initially however we shouldn’t just give up, given time they will easily pass.
They explained why engineering for higher speed crashes is counter productive. Watch the video.
@@mylesmadison8289 what even is that comparison? doesn't make sense
Affordability has to be considered, as well. The more requirements regarding safety mean manufacturers have to spend more on engineering and development to pass tougher tests and those cost will be reflected in car prices. Prices are already too high for most.
if germans have enough meat on the bones for 60, anyone can
You have to increase the speed limit to the highest legal speed limit. That's the speed that separates a safe car from the rest. Currently, all cars may appear very safe, but still, many people are dying. That's a misconception!
Can i repost this to my tiktok???
So professional and honest
Dishonest. If people keep driving at 80 mph on the highway, then IIHS should raise the crash speed to at least 50 mph. Thumbs DOWN for this video!
These are more clear reasons by bullet points:
- IIHS is a research firm made by insurance companies to make vehicles safer so that they can reduce the money paid for casualties in crashes + some of the car damages (seen from IIHS's bumper tests and crash prevention system tests)
- 40mph is the speed at which the most crashes occur
- If they test at 50mph+, car manufacturers will reinforce the body structure to optimize the crash results.
Thus,
- The cars will be more expensive, and the insurance will have to pay more for the vehicle's repair or total loss coverage for all speeds of crashes
- At lower speeds (for example 40mph) where more number of crashes occur, the injuries may be more severe, and they have to pay more for the casualties.
- Optimizing the car's performance for a 40mph crash is the sweet spot where they can reduce the most expenditure for the insurance coverage.
also, the old 68' corvette had airbags crazy!
GM had airbags as far back as the late 1960’s, even had them on some of their 1973 to 1976 full sized cars.
Btw, it’s ‘68, not 68’ unless you mean sixty eight feet tall.
The first factory airbag was available on the 1973 Olds Toronado. They weren’t required in all US cars until 1998.
@@Sashazur except US cars had them before that. 94 was the catch-up for all cars lagging behind.
the 98 rule was basically to make ford f350's catch up for their loooong overdue improvement
yeah i know its unreal.@@Sashazur
@Sashazur
the 1998 rule was only to get certain trucks caught up, like the OBS f250&up
why.. they don't do GMC yukons and serrias?
Tahoe/Yukons are too low sale and too expensive to be considered to crash test. They crash test the Silverado, which is the same as the Sierras.
If you see in the IIHS shorts, they were preparing a Tahoe for testing. The results should come out later this year.
probably because their front bone architecture is identical to silverados
@@gwot "too low sale" it's not the 90s anymore. jeez!
@IIHS: In mechanics and material resistance you work with forces, not energies. Car structures use materials which are tested/subjected to forces. Both persons in the video talk about energies, which is scientifically incorrect and the improper physical notion when it comes to what car and people have to endure in a crash.
I'm pretty sure 40 mi an hour crash tests equals two cars come in at each other at 20 mi an hour each.
Energy does not increase exponentially with speed.
it does by ^2
@@느낌표-t1l Exacrly. Not exponentially.
My question is why back seat safety wasn't put on the radar until the last few years. Suddenly a vehicle that was a top safety pick is no longer safe for your family? It's seems insane that pretensioners haven't been looked at until now. Most people can't afford to go just buy a new car to get those features.
"...why back seat safety wasn't put in the radar..."
Because the average trip has less than 2 occupants. The most-important seating-position for safety is the driver's seat, because it always has an occupant. Gradually, over time, lower-priority safety factors (such as the lower-occupancy-rate seating positions) are given attention.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Agreed. Just seems strange that back seat side impact airbags and crash worthiness came before, "Does the seat belt tighten up in a crash". Especially on vehicles that are designed and marketed as family vehicles. I agree that it takes time but I find it odd that it has taken till just recently considering that pretensioners aren't highly expensive or difficult to equip.
@@MontanaMedic13 Fair enough. You make good points.
Everything is simpler, manufacturers don’t want to spend money or change anything, because sales are already going well.
But in fact, the technology for producing bodies by stamping from sheet steel is irrevocably outdated, and does not allow creating bodies that are equally safe at any speed.
Therefore, the person in the interview is simply disingenuous.
if germans put enough meat on the bones for 60, anyone can
1:49 exponentially?
No... ½mv² that's quadratic...
I heard a bunch of nothing
Thumb DOWN for this video.
Testing at the IIHS are flawed...especially side impact...I just saw a lifted Tundra hit a new 2024 RAV4 in the side (T-Bone) and the Tundra went through the RAV4 and killed 2...the Tundra had no damage except a flat tire and busted wheel... they need to raise the test sled about 3 feet and retest side impacts...
most people are not driving lifted tundras that's not fair
Lifted trucks are actually non-compliant vehicles.
This.
Better idea: *_require a CDL_* to operate any vehicle with a GVWR over 6,000 lbs (e.g. every full-sized pickup truck). Effective immediately, with no exceptions.
come to the south half of the USA, every 3d vehicle you meet is a lifted truck@@NevyZine
Been asking for year, CAN YOU ALL UPLOAD VIDEOS SHOWING VEHICLES FROM RUST BELT STATES VS CLEAN STATES??? Thank you.
There are still deaths because people have a sense of invulnerability in modern cars. So they speed, text, drunk drive with gleeful abandon. I wish people were told their cars were 100% unsafe, then they would drive them ever so gingerly around the planet...
1:48 you mean quadratic I think?
It would be exponential, Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * (Mass) * (Velocity)^2
@@rletoryes that’s quadratic. Exponential would be (some constant)^v which grows much faster than v^2
He sounds like Obama
Hello porsche carrera gt carsh test
My Tacoma runs well between 75-80mph, whereas my wife’s Outback enjoys 85-90mph.
Usually in our home state of Washington we’ll set the cruise on 75-80 on I-90, because the speed limit is a mere 70mph.
But when we go to the family ranch in Montana, the speed limit is 80mph, so we set the cruise on 85-90mph.
At 75mph the likelihood of dying in an accident is quite high, so at 80-90mph survival is not very high.
I’d rather be dead than confined to a wheelchair or tubes coming in and out of me.
We’re firm believers that when it’s your day to die, it’s, well, your day to die.
This video was just full of gibberish…
@@unknownunknowns And what scientifically proves your theory?
@@Doc1855Maybe you can make me understand why IIHS refuses to raise the frontal crash speed to 50 mph, when, as you pointed out, 80 mph is becoming the norm.
@@unknownunknowns I can’t make the IIHS do anything, but everyone knows at that speed, you’re gonna die
40mph is not a real life speed…people drives way more than that!
Okay so don’t drive on the highway and interstate or over 44-45 mph? It’s tone deaf and unrealistic to say to someone that would only drive past that speed that “we tested it lower so it’s safe there but your on your own on anything else.” That’s pathetic. You’re saying exactly that road ways over 44-45 aren’t safe enough to drive one solely based on speed. So no. They do need to be more rigid and softer. I’m hearing pure ignorance. Has to be. All the people that have to drive over 44-45 and on stop testing right there. Pathetic.
Your comprehension skills are absolutely abysmal.
Drivers keep going faster and 80 mph on the highway is less uncommon these days. So, it would make a ton of sense to raise the crash speed to 50 mph, at least. Something’s not right in this video, thumbs DOWN!
as someone who watches this that drives 85-95 mph i see this as an absolute win
Everything is simpler, manufacturers don’t want to spend money or change anything, because sales are already going well.
But in fact, the technology for producing bodies by stamping from sheet steel is irrevocably outdated, and does not allow creating bodies that are equally safe at any speed.
Therefore, the person in the interview is simply disingenuous.