What was your favourite Moose Test fail? Some of them are pretty extreme! 🔔 We JUST released a new video about *Why New Cars Keep Failing This Specific Crash Test* ➡️ th-cam.com/video/3Lu-t5dJrxI/w-d-xo.html
Can I recommend for your verses series trying to get one of those 1000hp baja trucks (2x4 utility or 4x4) that would be the great example of purpose built off-road vehicle vs road vehicle just to show (what I expect) a massive difference in moose, potentially braking etc
The idea that it's not done by a professional driver actually makes the most sense. It's to test what regular people can do in an emergency event in non-ideal conditions.
I disagree, I just think the rest of us idiots need more driver's training. 😆 Just kidding, you're right, it makes way more sense for a common person to be doing the test rather than a professional in order to accurately simulate real life. Although it does appear that a lot of people out on the road need to take another week's worth of driver's training. 🙄
@@EnergyVenom as someone who lives near Detroit I also think people need more driver's training, on that note if they really want to simulate real life they need to put some potholes in there for them to swerve around as well
@@xmahlangeni No, it would just be placed at her end of the first straight of cones, and give the driver something to actually dodge, instead of just changing lanes quickly.
Instead of cones they should have a row of parked cars on the side, inbetween two of which a realistic kid sized mannequin is thrusted forth as you pass.
Seriously the cars previous to the 2000’s pre suv era were safer from rollovers. I’ve got a 66 Buick Electra, basically the most grandpa car of them all, and there is NO way I’m ever rolling it over. It’s low to the ground and wide whereas my 99 crv wants to put two wheels off the ground at any demanding turn. To conserve on space on parking lots but still have lots of room, cars are being built taller instead of wider and longer, which means you actually need to reinforce the pillars but when you do the pillars get huge and you can’t see out of them. The automotive industry is going too far in one direction basically building cars like ladders. The taller the car is the harder the fall.
Was on a bus late one night on a highway one of those big touring buses and the driver suddenly had to avoid a moose by swerving into the other lane then back into the correct lane. He got clapping and cheering from most of us acknowledging his skill and alertness. I bet that made his year. 👍🏼
Notice that the failure almost always occurs when returning to the original lane. Keep this in mind if you have to swerve. Return back only as abruptly as absolutely necessary. Look for opportunities to extend the maneuver to ease the lateral acceleration. If the moose appears in a curve swerve to the inside if possible making recovery less drastic.
You need to be mindful that moose tend to react to your approach by speeding up. So you should fairly strongly prefer to swerve behind rather than in front of the moose, conditions allowing.
That's why I don't think this test actually gives you valid data. There is rarely a need to dart back over into your lane just as hard as you darted out of it. I've done this maneuver in a lifted Tacoma before. Because I understand how cars work, I know you can't change direction before the car has settled in the initial direction change. You'll only make it unstable. You can dart pretty hard out of the way of something, you just can't dart back into your lane just as hard as you left it unless the weight transfer has settled. You have to bring it back as gradually as the circumstances allow you to. And in my experience, getting on the brakes while maneuvering is the last thing you should do. You can turn with traction and control, you can brake, or you can accelerate. Pick one and do it. If you're going to do 2 at the same time, you have to balance it out. When I did my "moose test" in real life, I was going 60mph. I darted hard to the left, floored the accelerator to put some weight to the back b/c my truck is very light in the rear, and once I had passed the danger I brought it back over to my lane as gradually as i could. My truck is lifted, with very wide tires on 18" rims. I never felt any loss of control. The tires didn't even squeal.
Well noted. I had to do a manouver like that to avoid a deer. Long straight road with car approaching from the distance so I couldn't use high beams. I was doing the speed limit, 50mph. Bambi decides to foil my plans and jump in front. I swerved. Thankfully didn't flip over.
Having lived in moose country, when the roads are covered in snow and ice over half the year, a vehicles handling characteristics is CRITICAL. Esp when slamming on the brakes can be bad too on slidey roads. I've had to manuever around many a moose, elk, deer and the occasional bear. I
+1 for winter tires. Proper winter tires, not just any crap that some maker decided to slap a snowflake symbol on. Read winter tire tests, people! I am very pleased with my Hakka 9:s. I've heard the new Hakka 10 is even better.
It's always funny when you're going down a snowy hill in a little 2door hatchback, the 4x4 in front of you is trying to slow down by spinning its wheels in reverse, and while you shout advice out of the window another 4x4 slides into the back of you and you bring it to a stop by knowing how to use the gears to control the speed.
@@2WhiteAndNerdy Not even that! I had mismatched all-season tyres on, because to replace the tyres would've been more than the car was worth. The first 5 years or so of driving I didn't spend more than £500 on a car, because I understood that I was still learning and I wanted to push my abilities (off public roads) without risking an expensive mistake. Which also taught me how to do basic repairs and maintenance, and helped me save money on insurance.
The reason this test is important is that it mimics more real world driving conditions where people are just steering out of the way of something and then panic steering back into their lane without ever hitting the brakes. A professional driver could go through that course but most people around me can barely manage to not kill themselves in a round a bout so this is a pretty accurate way of testing.
Yeah i can see that for sure. Amazing how many people don’t understand the balance of slow methodical steering. I have a 2012 Grand cherokee basically the same as what was tested and i can swing it around corners. Some people have it and others just don’t.
@@zexcthd5519 The average staff member where I work can't even drive our fleet of Toyota Siennas without crashing them into every property gate or curving driveway retaining wall. These fucking idiots have no concept of the size of the vehicle despite driving them every day. And they apparently ignore the angry beeping with which they warn you when you're about to sideswipe something. The average millennial and gen Z driver is completely incompetent at the task.
Exactly, it’s an idiot person test, because most intelligent drivers understand that upsetting the balance of the car that much will result in the car crashing. But dumb people instinctually will swerve out of the way, and then try to swerve back to where they were before, which is never a good idea.
I don't think this test in general makes sense. The more natural instinct to apply brakes when something comes in front of the car. Reduce your speed to less than 50kmph and then steer the car away. It won't get rolled up and will easily steer without any issues. Just reduce the speed.
@@RaunakPSingh I've watched enough idiots put themselves into the ditch by swerving when they should have just braked to disagree with your assessment. I've also watched too many people lock up their brakes and hit something they could easily have steered around. It's normal for people to just flat out do the wrong thing when reacting to something unexpected. Therefore, it is necessary to test cars under the assumption that drivers will fuck it up.
French car lover here. The Xantia's performance is a testimony of a time where Citroën had the edge in suspension design. A thing of the past, regretfully. Thank you for the informative video!
@@caspardejonge5902 I had the Xantia sister, the Peugeot 406 , estate version with a V6. This was a very fair ride. I have good recollections of this. I guess the V6 xantia would have been even better.
I'll never forget a car pulling out from a row of parked cars at the last second. I was driving a citroen XM with ABS. To this day I remain amazed at the maneuver that car performed. It was literally a moose test as I had to drive around the car that pulled out and get back in lane before hitting an oncoming car. Police were behind me and napped the idiot. Policeman said to me "how did you miss him? I'm amazed!"
Yep the XM was awesome. I had the Premiere with 6 balls and ABS with Twin Webber carb bodies and fuel injection. Wierd combination but was a hell of a beast.
This just makes it sound like you were speeding in an area where cars are parked. Or do people typically park their cars on the side of busy highways in your area?
@@crazy808ish probably somewhere with parallel parking, and someone who didn't use their light swinging out into traffic. Happened to me before in Baltimore
@@crazy808ish Normal road with a 45mph limit, but the guy literally pulled out from a long line of parallel parked cars with no indication and spinning his wheels. I'd say 99.9% of people would have hit him, I had lightning fast reactions being a fighter at the time, but with the amount of braking and turn I had to do to on a cold road to miss him, that citroen was the star.
I live in a mountainous area and people try to swerve to miss wildlife all the time many times taking their own life in the process my position on this is to slow down the best you can and honk the horn flashlights the animal either get out of the way are you hit it and walk away uninjured. The other thing to do is not drive fast in deer areas especially during migration and near sunrise or sunset when they're most active. Good luck with your swerving Darwin roulette
I hit five deer so far, never been injured. All of mine were hit during rut when their running, when they run they'll run into the side of your vehicle or in front of you with no time to react. I usually slow down and drive under speed limits during rut because I know better. And still have close calls from time to time. Best thing is not to swerve most every vehicle has anti lock brakes which helps greatly. Hit the brakes and hope you miss them.
I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador Canada. We have a large amount of moose accidents here every year. This is probably the most realistic test you can have. This is real world testing. I've struck a moose once and avoided a second time.
The Citroen Xantia did lots of things very well in addition to the record for the Moose Test. In 2013 we took a 1997 Xantia 1.9 Turbo Diesel on an Aussie Outback road trip. We are the only two wheel drive car we saw on the Oodnadatta Track from Marree to Oodnadatta via Lake Eyre down to Coober Pedy. 600 km with great comfort and stability and 5.4 l/100 kms cruising on the dirt at 90 - 110 kph. Magic. Continued down to Kangaroo Island, having passed thru Broken Hill and the Flinders Ranges. The first car to circumnavigate Australia was in 1925 in a little 1923 Citroen 5CV.
@@sitkasate Xantia was a car of many competencies... Not just the moose test... The outback test... The comfort test .... the economy test.... the safety test... You can have a front wheel blow out without loss of control.. Like other hydraulically spring Citroens with adjustable height suspension can even drive of 3 wheels.... Lots to show off.... not just the moose test. My school chum did 300,000 kms in his Xantia. Most modern cars are not its equal... especially SUVs.
@@tomkocur they are actually super cheap and very fun to drive. Except for the "Activa" version that had the computer controlled suspension which are very pricy. This version costs tens of thousands when a Xantia usually does not cost more than a thousand €uros. It is still well used for amateur rally as they are very affordable, you can still find aftermarket and manufacturer parts and pieces and there are plenty of them in junkyards
As a Canadian this is actually important. Driving on a snowy mountain road at night and having a giant moose just appear has actually happened to me many times…. This is not sarcastic this actually happens lmao
If there's snow on the road, you will hit it anyway. If you drive so fast that you have swerve like this, you're driving too fast for the road conditions.
companies are thinking luxury and comfort but not anything else. the soft suspension, with the general car weight, and the extra space to put objects in(to put it under load) is gonna tank handling. i would really just have a car with and a lot less luxury than a rolls royce
I can speak from firsthand experience that this can and does happen. My wife and I were driving 50-60mph through Colorado in our 2019 Honda Ridgeline west on I-70 through the mountain pass on wet and occasionally slushy roads when, all of a sudden, she spotted something moving on the mountain next to us. She thought it was an animal, but quickly determined it was a boulder falling. It was about 1 meter wide and landed in our lane just ahead of us. I had just enough time to swerve to the other lane and avoid hitting the boulder. The truck was by no means fully loaded as per the moose test, but we had plenty of camping gear in it and our dog. I have no doubt the full time AWD with torque-vectoring make a HUGE difference. The truck rotated well without slipping the back end around and I was able to confidently maneuver. We ended up having some small paint chips and a cracked windshield, but the alternative could have been much worse. We still count our blessings that it landed ahead of us and not on us. I'm not sure we would have known what happened. Just lights out! Long story short (too late), the moose test is relevant and Super Handling AWD is legit.
It's a good test of handling, but I do think the 2nd part of the test isn't applicable in the real world very often. Swerving into the other lane is something most drivers will have to do at least once but swerving back across would mean oncoming traffic, so for most obstacles the necessity of the 2nd maneuver means the 1st one was the wrong choice. Sounds like you had to make the 1st part and not the 2nd part? If the obstacle is a boulder though, dodging it is definitely a good choice. Not only that but it sounds like you handled it better than most of us would so well done! Modern cars are impressive but you've still got to have a decent ability to drive them (decision making being more important than rally skills) and it sounds like you have ☺
@@ApothecaryTerry To have oncoming traffic *and* a moose to deal with at the same time is not an unforeseeable risk. It's also relevant in deer or kangaroo country, not just where moose roam. IIRC, it was Saab that first designed a car specifically to handle both *impact* with a moose, and the double-swerve test for *avoiding* it; their marketing material promoted the resultant smart handling as a safety feature.
Makes total sense. I see all these SUVs on the road, being driven very aggressively and I’ve wondered : with all this weight can you stop as quick as my car?! And didn’t cross my mind they’d tip over because I assumed they were on the ball with this since Mercedes fail. This test partially replicates common near misses when folk are tailgating and things suddenly change. Try testing the Renault Capture/Rapture(?!), that thing is lethal. Nothing like the 2004 Megane which shocked me how good it was in an emergency once.
@@WebOSDevelops What is good about them though is that people would rather fuck someone lives over themselves. In an emergency, they could just ram whatever infront of them, trusting they will be okay and whoever/whatever in front of them will be in a bad time. People in my country loves big car because of this.
@@FuglyStickexactly, my Ford Fiesta can drift and do this test, but my Volvo SUV can brake way way way faster. You need to stop a bigger mass, but engeneering is engeneering and Volvo literally has experience into stopping big heavy trucks.
Hilux is a very popular model in Australia, particularly in rural areas. There are no Moose in the outback, but a Hilux may find itself having to dodge Kangaroos, Cattle and Camels. So this test is as valid for the Hilux and like vehicles as any other.
@@matthewmillar3804 yes. Camels were a big part of the 'development' of the outback in the late 1800s, along with their drivers, colloquially called "Afghans" but in reality from many countries in the Middle-East. Camel trains carried goods, mail and machinery and ore to and from the goldfields and small settlements. A vital link between the rivers and the outback before the advent of motor vehicles and better suited to the sandy deserts than bullocks. Inevitably feral populations developed. Australia now has more camels than Saudi Arabia. They're mostly confined to the dry areas of the interior, where they reach plague proportions when conditions are good.
@@matthewmillar3804 Australia exports camels to rich Arabs, believe it or not. We also have to dodge emus which are very large, stupid and fast - not a good combination near highways. I had to swerve to avoid one at about 90 km/h towing a 3.5 tonne caravan.
True. I don't remember having this problem when I was a kid, but it might have been because there was a passenger in the back (me) to break the wind. Or, maybe it's because cars are getting more aerodynamic by default, so that the open window affects the wind more than it used to?
@@jpaugh64 if i find an old car, without power windows I'll ask if they could manually roll it down and drive to test. I remember my early 90s camry had the problem.
its the new aerodynamics. the smooth wave around the car creates a pressure gradient. squarer vehicles, and ones with a lot of things sticking out in the design break up the wind, create eddies and whirls, that reduce that. still happens on older cars, a balance of design and luck... but lots less for sure.
i used my old '97 pathfinder in a moose test, except it was an elk and it wasn't a test. i had total control when i skidded my tires slightly around 55 mph, my first thought was, thank god this car was built so well. traction control systems on newer cars would have prevented the maneuver that saved me.
@@omarjamal161 such solid vehicles, really gives credence to the saying 'they dont make'em like they used to'. i drove that car round trip to death valley from colorado in 110 degree heat with over 200k miles on it, zero issues, the AC stayed cold, and it never even overheated.
People where I live can't even turn their blinkers on correctly, there is no chance in hell they are making this evasive maneuver regardless if the vehicle is capable of it😂😂
5:33 Criticism about not braking during the test. This actually used to make a lot of sense. In Norway, and probably in Sweden too, this kind of training to steer the car on (especially) slippy surfaces has been part of the standard training. We were taught to make a choice between steering and braking, because in marginal conditions there may not be enough friction to go around for both forces simultaneously. Hence, the procedure for the moose test would be first to brake as much as possible, then to _release_ the brake while steering around. The simulated test reflects this by assuming a residual speed after the braking, and then testing the cornering stability at that speed. However, these days where virtually every car has ABS anyway, that principle may no longer be the correct one. (I believe it is well documented that an automatic system does a better job of stopping a car on practically every surface than even the best manual brake-pumpers can manage.) The right procedure now would be to just apply the brakes hard all the way through. Old-timers would definitely feel the urge to avoid that, because that is what all practice and long experience has imbued us with!
Actually you can stop faster without abs, abs just gives you the ability to steer. Here's a good video to show that th-cam.com/video/fge_m9u864k/w-d-xo.html
Don't release the brake. Hard brake to kick in ABS then steer until out of danger before releasing the brake. You are not obligated to save a moose and kill yourself. Same can be said for pedestrians but the paperwork can be messy. Instead of a moose maybe a squirrel as people swerve to save them too.
@@TheHDPerspective Thanks for the link. It's good to see some corrobation to what many older drivers (used to non-ABS) feel when getting used to ABS; these things never brake as hard as you need to! (Alternatively: "I can do better than this myself.") I think many of the videos are somewhat biased though, and maybe slightly different (unscientific) results on each side of the Pond too.
Very interesting, when i took my drivers license here in Sweden we all had to do the Moose test as a part of a safety class. However it was a slightly different variant where we drove on ice and we used brakes as well.
That is part of the 'slippery road driving' classes here in Norway. I expect you have a similar slippery road class in Sweden? th-cam.com/video/QnzvsRZE8CQ/w-d-xo.html
This test in Sweden is mostly to make sure people can handle a car without hitting the moose and to not brake when doing the maneuver braking will make the car go straight Do not brake only swerve
If that pavement princess is offroad focused, my ranger is a Cadillac. Something designed for offroad should not have failed this test. Something that top-heavy can't be trusted to climb hills or dodge trees. I'm betting the only "offroad" applications they tested were 3" deep mud and light gravel.
Once went to view a secondhand car in the UK, private seller, and noticed the windscreen pillar was a little bumpy and the paint wasn't perfect. Questioned the guy and he'd hit a cow which ended with it's head coming through the windscreen! He'd pulled the pillar straight, filled and painted it, replaced the glass and was trying to sell the car knowing the damage done. Thankfully he answered honestly but he should have been up front. It was a lovely 1972 VW fastback - such a shame. So yes, even in the UK we get stray animals. Deer in parts, I've heard ofhorses involved a couple of times and this cow! Plus kids running out into the road to get a ball etc. It's a valid test.
I'd say another good use case of this test is if you're driving on a highway and someone suddenly cuts into your lane. It's the same 'Sharp turn, turn back' processs as you'd do to avoid an animal or person in the road. :)
@@thebrowns5337 Ah, the joys of the UK country side! Coming around a corner to find a cow or sheep stood in the road! Can relate, greetings from Cumbria.
Also a moose has only got four thin sticks of legs where your designated impact zone is. The other 600 kg of animal hits your car straight onto the windshield and into your lap.
As a petrolhead, I love my zero electronic assists. But when on public roads and slippery conditions, I allways keep the car in Normal mode. I think I could probably do just fine, but when sh*t hits the fan, I'd rather have a few dozen computers doing everything. I can be tired, or not paying attention, or just make a mistake. The computers can't. So I think the moose test should not be done by a racing driver.
Absolutely, doing everything yourself is great when you're on it, fully paying attention and pushing to the limit. Suddenly having to go from singing along to Bonnie Tyler (or whatever ☺) to controlling a car on the edge of what's possible is a change that nobody can make. I'm only a decentish driver, good enough to know how much skill there is above my level (lots) and also good enough to see that so many people are so much worse than I am, which is genuinely terrifying. If a kid jumps out in front of me...well I'm glad the electronics are on!
I think if they really want to test the car itself it should be done with a racing driver, but if they wanna see if it's actually safe, they should do it with some regular driver
@@ApothecaryTerry have you seen the video of the audi tt driver hydroplaning with his girlfriend in the car he handled that like a boss definitely alot of luck and skill involved tho
@@alext7952 This one? th-cam.com/video/y4_3LNvglLA/w-d-xo.html If so then I shall lazily copy/paste my comment from that video! Tl;dr is he did a lot wrong. Not to say I'd do better (other than not getting into that situation) but there's a lot to learn from. Copy/pasted comment: 1: He lost control because the wind got blocked by a lorry and he passed that lorry without predicting the gust as he cleared the lorry- and he had 1 hand on the wheel at the time. That's bad driving, he should have been ready for that and holding onto the wheel properly to adjust quickly so none of this ever happened. Looks like crosswind not truck aero since the truck is 2 lanes away and you can see him correct left as he gets to the 1st truck and the crosswind is initially blocked. 2: Then he over-corrected, which many of us would do too, but it's still not something to compliment. 3: He then kept over-correcting and fishtailed which I'd hope most of us would not do- if you think this isn't bad driving then go to a rally school for a day, any decent driver should not do this. 4: He kept 1 hand on the wheel for far too long, cocky and stupid. 5: 140 was probably too fast for those conditions, can't see many puddles which are the big risk at that speed (effectively sudden braking on 1 side of the car...hello barrier). Sure, he did a reasonable job of not crashing, so credit where it's due there, but as many people have said the car had a huge role in that. If he was doing 100kmh and hit a puddle then I wouldn't be so critical, but this looks 100% the driver's fault so even if it was a good catch (as above, it was...fine), he shouldn't have had to do it.
This is a very important test. I recently had to avoid a dark brown cow at night in a pitch dark road, I only saw it at the last few milliseconds. Needless to say, I'm lucky to be alive.
My dad had to go to work before sunrise every morning. Once came over a hill to find a black bull in the middle of the road. He was able to swerve in time but still clipped the back legs. The bull went to the side instead of through the window. Could have been a lot worse. Plus we have alot of people (including small children) in my area who like to ride their four-wheelers in the road even though it's illegal and the roads are very curvy and hilly so you have to be very alert while driving. Having good swerving ability is important.
The Hilux, in Australia at least, is largely used by suburban soccer mums and people that have never touched an off-road track. This test is definitely useful
No this test is stupid...it will only give you a false sense of security while driving these top scorer cars. Why? First this test was conducted by professional drivers who expected these maneuvers. The average driver will flip the car regardless of the top scoring car they drive. The best way to avoid crossing animals is to do hard breaking because ABS and EBD work best if you keep your steering straight and make a full brake.
Or brake and swerve to the side. But yes I agree. This test is very dumb and a lot of people actually hit moose’s because of the fact that it’s impossible to brake or swerve in time unless you’re alert. But even if you are there is a high chance of you hitting a moose.
@@TheCompleteMental i thought they have ford trucks for that thing. Tbh, people who drive toyota trucks never have insecurity with masculinity. Usually the ones that have drive ford or chevy trucks.
My father worked as an engineer in the driving dynamics department of Mercedes-Benz when the A-Class failed the elk test. It was a big thing back then and an immense driver of innovation which lead to the development of the electronic stability system ESP. This system has saved thousands of lives since it’s birth.
That one was particularly famous here in Sweden. Because not only did it fail, but Mercedes said the test was done poorly and sent their test driver to Sweden show the car was safe, which then fell over as well. After that the A class was given the nickname "Vält klass" (vält=to fall over) in the media.
It didn't lead to the development of the system. The system was already available in other cars for some years, it just wasn't on the A-class. What did happen however, was that Mercedes fitted it to every A-class as standard as part of the recall to help solve the problem.
@@MAXlMUS the design is 30 years old. Things move on, especially European environmental standards. The Xsara which followed it seems to have been designed more with cost in mind than quality....
@@martinlord5969 Xantia was replaced by the C5 which was the last car to feature this suspension system. The Xsara you mention was the replacement for the ZX
@@MAXlMUS Because french Citroen made a lot of "high tech" cars, but being tech does not mean it sells better than a standard car. So they had to cut the losses .
02:15 Funfact about the first A-Class models and why it was so top heavy: It was first designed to carry a battery and be the first production electric car (afaik). So it had a hollow ground and the weight of the battery was in calculation for the dynamics of the car. But it didnt seem like EVs were successful at that time, so Mercedes chose a regular motor and lost the low center of gravity.
They fixed it, equipping the Class A with 15" wheels, stability control, ABS and improving the suspension. I had a lot of trips and it was always very stable in difficult situations.
Not exactly true, whilst yes they were intended as electric cars, those hollow areas have been "removed" or rather refitted for the production line combustion engine A classes. The reason why it failed was because its a city car not made for some cross country ralley. Its not supposed to be able to dodge an object longer then the car itself from about 3m distance which btw. basically no car can do.
I had to do this same maneuver yesterday on my Toyota Corolla 111 because a van all of a sudden pulled up on the highway while my speed was 100km/h. I not only survived the car did so as well without a scratch. That car apparently handles pretty well in these conditions
Watching this makes me realize this is what I went through in 1978 in my Volkswagen Beetle on a freeway. A car cut in front of me from an on-ramp, I had to swerve to the left, then as my car started to skid, I turned the wheel to the right and the front wheels went as far as possible and locked as the skid continued. My car skidded across three lanes and then hit an embankment and flipped over. Fortunately for me, I was one of a tiny percentage of people who voluntarily wore a seatbelt then, and I survived intact.
I'm glad you made it. A Beetle (VW Käfer) is probably one of the worst cars ever build when talking about stability. Engine in the back, light front (so no weight on the steering wheels), and a suspension dated back to the 30s. In a Porsche 911 (old ones) one would face the same "rear heavy" problem, but one would have the power to accelerate out of a situation partly straightening the car's path again.
Way back when Beetles didn’t have seatbelts, my dad took a hard corner in one going into a bridge, door burst open and he only just hung on and avoided being flung out. Beetles were death traps back then which is probably why he’s building a new one.
Every Citroen I've owned (4) had excellent cornering/handling. Unfortunately Citroen's factory workers didn't stand close enough when they threw the cars together, so there's that... :-)
Just like the Moto Guzzi factory. When they build the gearboxes they put all the gears in OK, but then get carried away and put several extra neutrals in there too 😂
Citroen Xantia still leasing after 20 years!! I had the VSX with hydractive suspension, not the Activa, and loved it. That 4 wheel drift at 7.17 is immense!
You guys have never lived in the midwest, have you? Off road doesn't mean bouldering, it means off paved roads. A dirt path through a ranch, a farm, or a forest is just as 'off road' as bouldering, and these trucks very regularly get used in such environments. If you've only ever seen trucks in a city, try getting out of the city. The vast majority of the population of America lives outside of them.
That was a twenty year old Citroen. They stopped using their unique engineering solutions to ride and handling quite a while ago, and are little more than cut-rate Peugeots today.
I mean, Citroen's are really comfortable and they put a lot of new technologies on their cars but the problem is: When it breaks it will cost you like 15% of the original price of the car to get it fixed, and I speak of this by experience...
@@djyppo the spares parts of Citroën as Peugeot and Opel in a little part are absolutely insane if you need to go at a workshop, many websites have nice prices. In my C3 moto ventilator was dead, original part costs more than 500 euros i have found it for 220 on web
@@badbotchdown9845 My father's car, a C4 Lounge had problems on the shock, the vacuum servo and on the injectors, overall we would have to pay like 10.000 brazilian reais to get it repaired, that's literally like 10% of the car price
@@swagchu6737 Moose have a really unfortunate build. Heavy body on top of freakishly long legs. So it'll primarily impact your windshield and the speed your going determines whether it'll stop on your lap or maim you and your children in the back row.
If the rear doesn't have enough grip, you want a stiffer roll bar in the front. Whichever end has the stiffer bar relative to the weight will lose ultimate grip for it. The hilux could have a roll bar disconnect feature like some other new trucks, then it could have a stiffer bar up front and you could push a button when you want to do off-roading.
@@martinsvensson6884 Okay, but I wasn't saying this was a solution to rollovers. The guy in the video said there was a problem with inadequate grip in the rear causing the Hilux to fishtail and then roll. A stiffer roll bar in the rear would only make rear grip worse and compound the issue. A stiffer bar in the FRONT would help this imbalance better and cause a more predictable behavior. Not a stiffer bar in the rear, as he suggested. Putting that aside, a lower COG is ideal for handling and safety, but goes against the design goals of the vehicle. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it's something they'd have a hard time fixing with it still being the same kind of vehicle. Track width has some room for variance, but is ultimately limited by the width of traffic lanes minus buffer. The amount of weight that ultimately shifts for a given lateral g-force is the same regardless of what you do with the suspension for the most part, but how quickly the weight shifts and how predictable it feels are all in the suspension design. Chances are, this truck isn't gonna pass this particular test no matter what you do, but the front end sliding first will lead to a safer behavior in most situations. That can be accomplished through roll bars, and the vehicle will feel more stable on the road. Big stiff roll bars will get in the way for off-road, which is why having a convenient way to disengage roll bars is a good thing for this kind of vehicle.
Plus, whether a vehicle rolls or slides depends on the behavior of the tires and the angles of the suspension links, and can definitely be affected by suspension dynamics, including roll bars.
@@LifeInJambles Yes, but my point is that it doesnt matter why it rolled over. It shouldnt. If you somehow altrnate the grip between the different axles slighly with different suspension components you are still going to be around the edge. If the case of one axle is sliding or not is going to make the difference between a roll over or not, you are already too close to the edge. They have modified the model since then, and it passes the test now. You can increase track. You have 2,5 m wide trucks running on our current road.
Basically, the higher the car’s centre of gravity, the more likely it is to roll over. And as most new cars sold today are SUVs and crossovers, they fail the moose test.
And why the Tesla model X did so well: the engines and battery, the two heaviest components, are right at wheel height. When Tesla finally ships roadsters, I imagine they’ll basically be impossible to roll.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +13
Why they do the Moose Test is Because if you Hit a Moose the Driver and the Passenger in the Front Seats will be Killed. Them Moose Antlers will come thru the Windshield and Go Rite thru your Head or Chest like a Knife Thru Butter. it is Better off Hitting Anything then a Moose a Tree or Cars Coming at you is Better off hitting then the Moose.
@@orangecookie3132 Generally true, motor is the more universally generic term for both. "Engine" is never applied to the electric variety, but you do know about Ford Motor Co. and General Motors, yes?
My understanding is they failed because of higher mass and differing priorities. Making a car pass this unofficial test will cost money and will hurt the suspensions performance in other areas like comfort. There are also industry standard tests that cover similar situations that their cars do pass, so sometimes manufacturers simply prioritize their own tests instead of one from a youtuber, even if the youtubers test has merit.
Because the test is stupid and useless and most modern cars that failed are high center of gravity SUVs that are by nature going to do poorly on dumb slalom tests, or performance cars that have such advanced suspension you could pass the test if you had a fast enough reaction time to catch the rear end mid-turn (which is mentioned in the video).
Gotta say, I once had a pedestrian walk out into the street on an extremely heavy rainstorm, I thank God there's people making these tests, since I actually was in a situation like that and my car performed wonderfully. Avoided both the pedestrian and the cars parked on the opposite side to where the pedestrian came out of
Alfa Romeo 159 are one of the few cars that did the Moose test at some of the highest speeds. Having owned one, I can attest to its ridicules good handling, drove that thing 130kph on black ice in Norway and stuck like glue on the road.
I had a less intense turning but at higher speed “moose test” encounter in my 2013 Chevy Sonic (Hatchback). While I was traveling 60mph on a country highway a child bolted into the road from behind bushes. My turning was not as intense as in the moose test but it followed the same pattern. One rear wheel lifted but I never lost grip in the front. It being a FWD, that was pretty helpful. That car saved that kid’s life. It’s just a little economy hatchback with the smallest effort to cater to “driving experience” but that was enough that day! Unfortunately, Chevy sold that car in a bright Orange. As you likely know, the human eye cannot perceive Orange and thus the car was invisible. It was finally totaled after being rear ended in broad daylight for the FOURTH TIME.
We had a Citroen xantia when I was 5-13 years old, ever since we had to replace it I've said; if I can ever make a company remake a car the way it was, but modernized, it's the xantia. That car absolutely hauls in corners and turning it on with a heavily loaded trunk is still a very satisfying sight
Agreed. My boss had one as his company car many years ago, and whenever i needed to borrow a car I chose his. The ride on long journeys and the soft seats were sublime.
I'm sorry but not all the Xantia were above at handling, the only one was the "Xantia Activa" with this particular electronic suspension system! The others were "banale" (average)...
Just for a bit of perspective for those who live in non-moose-country... the reason for this test is because when a car hits a moose, it typically doesn't end well for both the moose and the passengers in the car. I'm not sure how large European moose get, but here in North America they can weigh as much as 1700lbs (typically around 1000lbs) and since all that weight is up high on long skinny legs, it tends to end up in the back seat when you hit them.
Here in Oz we have mallee bulls and wild cattle as well as camels up North on the long stretches. Sheep, roos and most other things which can find themselves in front of a speeding vehicle you learn to just hit most of the time.. The risk of swerving is too great for losing control of the vehicle. At most you might line up a wheel rather than take it in the center and thus lose your radiator. With the bigger animals I mentioned though, only big trucks will not swerve for them. They can go right through and over even a big bull with the worst risk being to their brake lines from the hooves. So you consciously learn to not brake or swerve as a rule. The decision to swerve around and brake hard comes in the case of something big enough to be a serious risk on impact or a person. The long legs is a problem for Emus. You'll often hit one but the head on the long thin neck breaks off and come through the windshield. At high speed you can end up with a roo jumping and coming through the windshield too. Wombats aren't that big but crossing the Nullarbor you will have stretches where they're abundant and they're so solid they can rip off the differential let alone the sump off the engine.
Moose out number people here 3 to 1 Sadly I know a number of people that have lost their lives from hitting moose And I’ve repaired countless vehicles that have impacted them I’ve seen one where it completely ripped the roof off a Honda Civic
Sadly in the USA, People don't pay enough attention to the road these days for it to matter, that or they are stuck in bumper to bumper gridlock. That's what a family car should be about. Safety, really cool to see the results. I honestly thought it would have been an M class BMW. I'd love to see a 4 wheel steering dodge stealth results ( if you can find one anywhere )
this is taught as part of the motorcycle test in the UK and I can say its saved my life. guy pulled out infront of me from a side road spotted me and stopped in the middle of the road pretty much across the whole road I was able to swerve behind them and then back onto the road. most Motorcycles are alot more agile and with the right rider are safer than cars. The the wrong riders they are death machines
This test reminds me of a course you had to take while getting your drivers license here in Denmark. When you take your drivers license here in Denmark it is required that you take a driving course on a special track made for it. Then you have to go through obstacles on both dry and wet (As in more slippery than ice) asphalt. One of the obstacles during this course was setup exactly like this. You had to drive towards cones blocking your lane. The setup was identical to the moose test track shown in this video. We were allowed to brake though but only after crossing a certain line at a certain speed. I believe we did it at 50-60 km/h. All in all the course is very good because you get to practice things you can't do on the road. Like a full emergency stop going 80 km/h with the ABS system literally jolting you up and down as you stand on the brake. If you have never tried that you might be shocked when having to do it in the real world as it doesn't feel healthy for your vehicle and you feel like it actively falling apart. The wet part of the course is also very good as you learn to counter steer once you backend starts sliding. You do the exact same things on the wet course as you have tried previously on the dry course. There is a corner with wet track where you pull the handbrake and lock up the back wheels and then take a corner. It was a fun experience and you really learnt some things that day.
Sounds like fun. ABS is a weird system. Im still not fully sold on it. My old boss had a fleet of chevy astrovans and after he was in a fender bender he and I tested out the braking distance with the abs on and disabled. With ABS on slowing from 45mph, it extended the braking distance around 25 feet. It just seems abit hit or miss depending on the vehicle and in most cases i feel like my foot does a better job modulating the brakes. Your right about familiarizing yourself with it because it really does make a racket and feels like your vehicle is broken when the ABS kicks in
Ah we do a similar test in Sweden, but it's on actual ice with water sprayed all over it and you should be able to avoid the moose at 70km/h without going off the road
@@TheZebinator That basically what we do. We don't have ice tracks though. But I have walked on the track and its more slippery than any ice I have walked on.
@@GonzoDonzo I am not familiar with the chevy astrovan (I'm Danish) however just be googling in its clears that it is a older vehicle. ABS have advanced a lot and have gotten more sensors and so on. It is able to modulate the brake quicker than any human, which means less waste of braking efficiency. Maybe if a person is really good at "Manual ABS" they can beat the ABS. I don't think it is likely though today. But one thing is for sure with ABS it safes lives. In stressful situations it takes workload of your shoulders, and helps in sudden situations.
Even though the Hilux may be an "off-road" vehicle, a LOT of people use this as a daily driver, I'm guessing all around the world, but definitely here in South Africa. This is a very relevant test!
It's heavily used as a police car in South America, so it definitely should have good stability at high speeds, going after criminals at 150km/h on busy highways.
@@caracaes an offroader stable at high speed? do you know how many hilux i see get into an accident on the highway for overspeeding? If you need to be fast on the highway, get a proper road car. The hilux is more of a utility vehicle, deployed ahead of the chase with equipment for blockades and to chase offroad. This is how it should be used. ITs no wonder south america is a region of crappy countries, they cant even get a simple car chase right!
@@jacobmoses3712 no moose, but a whole lot of other big antelope...the Kudu and Eland are the most dangerous on the roads and can be loosely compared to the Moose in America. Also, our pedestrians are very unobservant in general, so...
People keep buying more and more dangerous cars to drive, because most want to drive a car (by themselves) the size of a house just in case they drive past a garage sale and want to buy a table. It's not very smart.
Had a retread coming at me while going 70 on the freeway, guy in front of me just ate it and it rolled under his car straight at me. I swerved and just barely missed it, clipping the edge with my tire. I remember thinking, had I been in another car, that would have been an accident, or I may have lost control. Fortunately I was driving my Miata, it handled the situation perfectly. Really made me appreciate the quality of active driver safety vs. passive driver safety
Active driver safety is great and probably plays the biggest role in the amount of accidents and injuries on the road, the passive driver safety features don't depend on the intelligence or ability of the driver which in many cases is severely lacking lol
The Toyota Rav 4 is especially roll over sensitive. Great info! Thanks for posting. I thought electronic stability control would improve this... Citroen!
What about the Rav 4 hybrid or prime i forget what it is called. It has a battery i believe in the bottom center of the vehicle. Although it is much smaller than the Tesla probably a 4th of the weight.
As a Swede (so someone who has encountered moose on the road) I'd say that cars like the hilux are more likely to encounter the tested scenario in real life, more so than a cars meant to primarily stay in the city. Thus the test is more important for cars like it, likewise with SUV's.
Er...just as cars are meant to primarily remain in the city, SUVs are meant to remain primarily OUT of the city but I assure you not enough people seem to know that.
@@Brato1986 Yep, but sadly it is a trend to car consumers for the past few decades now. SUV's were originally just a 4WD or AWD vehicles meant for off-road or at least they aren't really for everyday city driving only. But it is a type of vehicle that is now selling the most that some car companies even gave up making sedans. The really only good thing with SUVs are the interior space, and due to having bigger wheels and softer suspension, they do have comfortable ride even on bad roads. But they are gas guzzlers, high center of gravity, not as nimble or planted to drive, too big on cities with tiny parking spaces, and can cause visibility hazards to other drivers especially on sedans, mini cars and bikes that obstruct their view and cause headlight glare due to high mounted headlights. Even trucks aren't that bad since many of them have their headlights mounted at the bumper.
@@kornkernel2232 I hate to be that guy, but the problem of SUV taking over is due to (in my opinion based on personal experience) insecure female drivers wanting a car that makes them feel secure and high off the ground.
The A-Class had high seat position and was very popular among old people. Later the A-Class became a sporty hatchback and the new B-Class the high seat pensioner car.
It didn't vanish.They produced 2 generations for a long time. The a class had double floors for safety reasons that made high center of gravity combined with short wheelbase. Still they fixed the problem. Thanks to that we got esp standard through out industry other wise it would have taking much longer time. An a class model was one of the best in the 77 moose test.
@@the4given196 no. Newer PDK, trans system. Honda adopted some things and placed it on the fit sport. The underrated part comes from the looks, but inside the v4 is the same as in any Honda. Vtec makes it go much much faster though. Ontop of a good trans in manual. Oh yea. But to me the yaris GR took the fun with the turboed v3. Honda needs a turbo v3 or a modified turbo ready or pre-installed set up on the fit.
I had a 1962 Ford Fairlane that passed a RL Moose test, admirably. I lived. In this same Fairlane, I was often tasked to go to the Feed Store and get Fowl Food. I learned very very quick (Like, the first quarter-mile) that my car did not like having 600 pounds (273 Kg) in the boot. So: four bags at 50 pounds each in the back seat, on the floor. Two on the passenger seat, strapped in, and one in the passenger footwell, the rest well... Das Boot! Handled a lot better, when the nose wasn't rising up into the air. Why did that one Electric Car bring this to mind?
My '85 F150 doesn't handle all that differently to your old Fairlane and I've been able to easily avoid such things in it, too. The key is to learn the vehicle and drive according to the vehicle, like you did with your Fairlane. I know what my truck does when put in situations like this and how to get it to do what it needs to do to not hit anything because I've taken the time to learn how it drives both loaded and unloaded. Doing donuts in snowy parking lots is a good exercise, too, it tells you the oversteer and understeer characteristics of your vehicle without much risk of actually wrecking the thing. My truck likes to slide all four wheels at about the same time. It does not prefer understeer or oversteer. If I brake, however, the back end gets VERY light and it wants to swap ends on me. So if I'm avoiding an animal or whatever the last thing I need to be doing is hitting the brake pedal; that destabilizes the thing and all but guarantees a wreck.
It's kinda amazing the difference a driver with a brain makes... Proof that the fancy crap is just fluff. But people don't learn how to drive these days, they learn how to hold a wheel relatively straight (while texting of course).
I would definitely say breaking isn’t realistic. Often times making that maneuver is the reaction to something very suddenly appearing in front of you, like a moose. Also I agree with what another person said, that having someone not considered a pro driver adds to the realism. Companies use pro drivers to show the best of the car, not the faults
I feel like using pro drivers would be better because it would exclude driver-mistakes; it would purely show how well the car handles in extreme situations?
@@termitreter6545 again that’s my point. This test isn’t about how well a pro could “theoretically” handle the turn. It’s a more or less average person (albeit one whose run the maneuver many times) showing how the car reacts in the turn. Pros are paid to make things look good, not reflect real world expectations.
@@pokemon202668 Perhaps the people running these tests could be better described as a professional testers, they're getting paid to drive this car through the test - they're indeed professional drivers of a sort.
3:22 the solution isn't a stiffer rear anti-roll bar, it's a stiffer front bar. Whichever end gets more sway bar stiffness looses traction and gives it to the other end.
I've done the ELC Emergency Lane Change test a few years ago and I was surprised how well a vauxhall vectra managed it, got it up to 45mph and made a passenger a very odd shade of green.
Typically passenger cars will handle the test fine especially if they are light and low. The electric cars are also good because of their lower center of gravity. The worst car would be trucks and SUVs with a full frame
Important test for highway driving as well. I've seen cars swerving left and right avoiding another car that cuts into another lane without checking. Some almost spin out of control, some near miss and 1 hit the barrier
It's not quite that. Xantia has a merely better than average performance. Xantia Activa with a hydropneumatic anti roll bar is the winner, while the hydropneumatic suspension of the base Xantia lacks this feature. It's also got a NA 3L V6 and some extra spoiler bits, it's explicitly the sporty version, and with its handling, it's not just lip service. It's not a shopping trolley on wheels which can accidentally corner well, not at all.
@@Galf506 The french automotive industry is on a bit of a revival state right now. Newer PSA models look excelent , offer appealing drivetrains and reliability reports seem decent too. That being said, i only have experience with their econo-boxes. Signed - a 2016 Citroen C4 owner.
@@bogdanrus7953 in the past they just always came out of the blue with insanely advanced tech, the hydropneumatic suspension was one thing, then there's also 2 wheel steering, advanced materials, a lot of fun stuff. But yeah French cars are looking better after that low point that was pretty much anything from the early 2000s to yesterday
I can see that not having a professional driver can skew results, but it's important to keep in mind that it's supposed to reflect everyday driving. So whilst an M4 spinning out isn't as bad as a Jeep blowing a tyre I think it would deserve a mention when writing the review
Doesn't matter if it is meant for the average driver, it's not a test if there is no control in this case being the skill of the driver, with said driver being able to complete this test using the Citroen at the record holding 54mph. Most average drivers these days can't even turn this far considering how many of them sit right up and humping the steering wheel, giving themselves T-rex arms that are unable to easily turn the steering wheel.
A test with two independent variables is an invalid test. This test is testing a machine, not the people driving it. If you're a shit driving you will crash, doesn't matter how good the handling is. So having non professional drivers behind the wheel DOESN'T make sense.
@@eewweeppkk Better drivers are better at cornering and have better compensation skills, which in this case is worse than having "two variables", because you could be completely negating the effects the test could be showing. And they didn't use shit drivers, just average ones
@@ubelmensch Professional drivers are able to get near the vehicle's limit, which means that the difference between professional drivers will be much, much smaller than between average drivers. Average drivers, not knowing how to efficiently drive a car, will vary in how they take the test in many ways; they might turn too much, too little, too early, too late, over-correct, not react in time, etc... A professional driver knows how to handle that scenario, so multiple professional drivers will perform it the same way, even if they have slight variations in their performance. Think of it this way, an average driver might handle a car at, say, between 25% and 50% of its limits. A professional driver might handle it at, say, 85% to 95% of its limits. The difference is much less, ergo the test is more consistent and more useful. This also means that, since the skill difference between two professional drivers will vary less than between two average drivers, the test results will correspond more to the vehicle's limits than to the drivers' skills; this is the opposite when tested with average drivers, because the difference in their driving will make much more of an impact on the result than the difference between the vehicles' limits. Tests regarding how a car will handle the errors of average drivers would be useful, yes, but the point of the moose test is to be a comparable performance test, and that simply doesn't work when there greatly unreliable variables.
@@gohaster well yeah, that's the point of using regular people. Professional drivers know and can stay within the limits of the vehicle, preventing rollovers, doing fancy drifting, and not panicking when the car isn't turning. Regular people will just turn the car wheel and brake at the worst times, causing a vehicle to go OVER it's limits and flip, or rip a tire out of a wheel well. It's like how game testers miss bugs, but regular people playing a game normally can accidentally glitch out of bounds and break the game.
Sadly, the idiots at PSA killed the hydraulic suspension that the Xantia Activa was using as a basis. I used to be a diehard Citroën fan, but nowadays the brand is completely forgettable.
And also, 99% of sport car owners are ppl with money but without skill. Iam doing motorsports for 20 years now and whenever i see a sports car on the road i have to laugh about the driving by the drivers. „A professional driver would have done better“. Yes, thats true, for all the cars here. The M3/4 result is actually alarming when you know a typical owner if these cars
You would think the electric nanny's would kick in. From what little I have done with suspension tuning I would have to guess that the rigidity inhibits the car from transferring weight that quickly to generate grip. As mentioned in the video, it's setup to perform in a different use case scenario. Edit; Spelling
I literally had to pull this manoeuver ON MY DRIVER'S TEST when someone pulled out in front of me. I was going to fail the test otherwise but I ended up passing because I avoided the accident.
Bad drivers are everywhere. I *am* one. Drivers with good instincts, however, are not so common. Congratulations on passing the real test when struggling with the formalities. It wasn't just luck on your side, that day.
@@ShinkuRED I literally got stuck behind a mail truck for 10 out of the 15 minutes, instructor just told me to go back instead of going on the highway lol
This has happened to me many times in Canada during the winter. Deer and moose cross highways at dawn and dusk. This manoeuvre (though frowned upon by many) has saved me and my car from serious damage.
When learning to drive a school bus, the motto was "Dont vear, always smear the deer." and "Hit them square.". Hitting a moose is another thing. +1,500 pounds of flesh and bone on stilts. Better hope it flips over the car. One other animal that is a real killer is a big pig. They roll.
Yeah, but it is not a standard Xantia that aces the test. It's the Xantia Activa, the performance version, which is a fairly rare car. A base version Xantia performs decent but not spectacular
Xantia roadholding is really fantastic. It saved my life several times. Once coming round a highway junction underpass bend with poor visibility and a dead stop traffic jam /just around the bend with the only option that did not involve rear-ending someone being to jump into the leftmost lane in that very second. FYI the hydropneumatic suspension was developed by Citroen, WiIliams had no hand in that.
Having just performed a moose test at 65 mph to dodge a Honda right next to us who suddenly decided to violently slam into our lane (by which I mean the side of our car), moose test will certainly account for a big proportion of our consideration for future cars. Oh by the way we have a Stelvio, which performed really well in moose test.
That's because modern cars are made to be as efficient as possible, not as safe as possible. If a modern car hits an older metal one, the steel vehicle will be 90% okay, the fiberglass? Not so much.
@@seanewing204 modern cars actually do focus on safety. first of all modern cars aren't made of fiberglass, they're made of plastic. second, the outer body of the car is meant to absorb kinetic energy by crumpling so that the passengers are hit with less energy. as a result, they can survive injuries which would've been fatal in an older metal one like you discribed
The question is... Would we pay for a active suspension and the cost of maintaining one of these on a family sedan? I guess that explains the whole thing
To the A-Class, It got recalled, has been lowered by 15mm and given stiffer Damping. As a result of this test, it was the first compact car that came with ESP as standard, and the second car after the S-Class, not as an option. ESP now is mandatory and saves basicly more lifes than Airbags since it can prevent cars getting out of control by individually breaking each wheel, similar to flight envelope protection in modern planes. One killer feature of the moose Test: You add the maximum allowed weight to the car, but also as high up as possible, e.g. by filling containers with water an set them on the Rear seats.
so that's why the hilux rolled so bad. A more realistic scenario where the load is laid down in the bed of the truck like any normal person would do should be tested instead.
@@satunnainenkatselija4478 Laws of physics say : non fixed Objects fall over when the projection of center of gravity along the vector of the force of gravity leaves the "contact area" with the next solid surface. (while contact area doesn't have to mean contact, imagine a table with four legs, I just don't find a better term) Of course for things in motion even more laws would apply. Stability control tries to - brake individual wheels -reduce engine power (by e-throttle) to not allow this condition to be met. That's the trick.
The Moose test IS an extreme test, (I mostly watch km77) and it highlights the inability of vehicles with a high center of gravity as the main culprits in the failure. If the Moose doesn't kill you, the roll over will.
Living in moose country it most certainly is a well needed test. The thing with hitting a moose head on is its so tall its really heavy body will 99% chance to land on your cars windscreen/a-pillars. And that will either hurt you very badly, or kill you. Personally would rather roll the car! If you have oncoming traffic and a deer or something of equal size gets in your way then just brake and hit it. Least damage that way. In an old car you probably still will be able to drive it, slowly.. In a modern with loads of sensors most likely no more driving that day. But you live. If a moose suddenly gets in your way then its time for some seriously quick thinking! Are you alone on the road its choosing hitting it in the rear legs or head for nearest ditch. Head for the ditch, any side of the road. Just dont hit it head on! Best thing ever invented and fitted to cars are ABS or however anti locking brakes are written shortly. Learn to use them to their full capacity!
Everyone knows when you hit the brakes steering actually becomes harder than without... This test should be a industry standard, see it as a child running across the street while you got another car coming into you. While you are unable to see the child until it is to late so you are forced to do this, because braking would kill the child. Not just that, it actually has way more use than you think at first glance because this is actually the same for bad weather and making tight turns. So basically OLD top gear was right all along, cars got worse, not better.
I live on the Ontario/Quebec border and drive those highways every day. Currently have to slow down or stop for Moose/Deer and bears about once a week. Thankfully they havent come out right in front of me yet!
If it's a moose, aim for the hind legs and you might just miss it! Usually once they have begun to cross they will keep going. Reindeers are worse, they can stop to contemplate Wittgenstein or the current situation in the Middle East or something, or remember they left the stove on and turn around to go back - no traffic savviness whatsoever.
I've done this maneuver to avoid a deer in my Honda Prelude at 70mph and in my 1996 Mercury Villager to avoid a car at about 40mph. I'm actually really impressed how well the Villager stayed planted
I've done a similar maneuver in a newer car, Nissan X-trail, and it was impressively balance going 100+ kmph. But for me it wasn't a moose, it was an IDIOT coming out of nowhere.
It was never called the "moose" test originally. Since the point of the test was always to test the cars ability to avoid ANYTHING suddenly appearing in front of the car. It could be a kid.. or another car. And of course a moose. But that doesnt really matter. It was just Mercedes that tried to ridicule the test in their initial shock state. So they labeled it the moose test. Trying to imply that it was a test only relevant in Sweden (that is known in Europe to have a lot of moose), so noone else had to care.
I have a true story about the Xantia (a 1995 second hand model with the active suspension) On my very first day of getting it, I made the huge mistake of taking a dangerous curve without slowing down. I feel how the inertia push me out of the road but luckily the active suspension balanced the car as shown on this video to prevent it. I was terrified and immediately parked the car. I could visible see it being inclined on the side and then slowly getting back to being leveled.
A sword is an edged, bladed weapon intended for manual cutting or thrusting. Its blade, longer than a knife or dagger, is attached to a hilt and can be straight or curved. A thrusting sword tends to have a straighter blade with a pointed tip. A slashing sword is more likely to be curved and to have a sharpened cutting edge on one or both sides of the blade. Many swords are designed for both thrusting and slashing. The precise definition of a sword varies by historical epoch and geographic region.
@@JohnSmith-tz4on A gun is a ranged weapon designed to use a shooting tube (gun barrel) to launch projectiles.[1] The projectiles are typically solid, but can also be pressurized liquid (e.g. in water guns/cannons, spray guns for painting or pressure washing, projected water disruptors, and technically also flamethrowers), gas (e.g. light-gas gun) or even charged particles (e.g. plasma gun). Solid projectiles may be free-flying (as with bullets and artillery shells) or tethered (as with Taser guns, spearguns and harpoon guns). A large-caliber gun is also called a cannon. The means of projectile propulsion vary according to designs, but are traditionally effected pneumatically by a high gas pressure contained within the barrel tube, produced either through the rapid exothermic combustion of propellants (as with firearms), or by mechanical compression (as with air guns). The high-pressure gas is introduced behind the projectile, pushing and accelerating it down the length of the tube, imparting sufficient launch velocity to sustain its further travel towards the target once the propelling gas ceases acting upon it after it exits the muzzle. Alternatively, new-concept linear motor weapons may employ an electromagnetic field to achieve acceleration, in which case the barrel may be substituted by guide rails (as in railguns) or wrapped with magnetic coils (as in coilguns). The first devices identified as guns or proto-guns appeared in China from around AD 1000.[2] By the end of the 13th century, they had become "true guns," metal barrel firearms that fired single projectiles which occluded the barrel.[3][4] Gunpowder and gun technology spread throughout Eurasia during the 14th century.[5][6][7]
@@JohnSmith-tz4on lol, but just noting the name & model of the Xantia....wondering if they make truck suspension like the Xantia, to make it safer with it's higher center of gravity, which makes it very "Topple-prone" ? I saw an short Clip with a Ford F150 with an expensive undercarriage suspension, individual control for each wheel in height, about 2ft adjustment up&down, but I highly doubt, that it meant for computer controlled "400 times a min or sec" reaction for cornering a lil faster.
Lies. That year rolled no more than 0.5 degrees, and it was NOT the suspension that mitigatied roll, it was the anti-roll bars. You are full of crap. It doesn't work the way you claim it does and there's no way you'd see 0.5 degrees of movement - especially considering it will have righted itself before you exited the car.
This is a perfect test. Regular people driving cars under regular conditions where an object in the road needs the driver to react quickly and instinctively. More manufacturers need to put regular people behind the wheel while testing these vehicles. You know, the people buying them.
This is the reason that in order to qualify for a Swedish drivers licence, you need to do one of these tests with a tuitor twice, once on a dry track once on a simulated slippery road as well as a curve test where you go through a slippery surface curve at gradually higher speeds until it's impossible to maintain traction in the curve just to get familiar with the feel and behaviour if the car under adverse conditions and know when it's safe to keep the legal speed limit and when nature tells you to go slower than that or fuck around and get a stupid award (no darwin awards availiable in the category due to how frequent people leave their brain somewhere else when they sit down to drive) These tests were introduced by the Swedish defence administration for every driver in the armed forces, professional officers and conscripts alike as the costs in equipment and personell to reckless driving incidents and accidents was unacceptably high. At the same time, they introduced and retrofitted seat belts in all vehicles as well as strict rules for documenting and adherance to drivers rest and sleep regulations. Less than a decade later, the cost of vehicle related damages and injuries had dropped by almost 90% across the board and the government had started implementing applicable parts of the army regulations for civilian drivers licences.
exactly .. and there are people trying to disprove legitimacy of these tests because "its and suv / hybrid and the battery in the trunk is causing this" WHO THE HELL CARES ? When you die u can chat with god about the bad battery placement in you car lmao :D :D
I mean, the test is great and all, but realistically speaking if everyone only made cars that passed this test, then all vehicles would look like the Citroen. There's be no buses or semi's, no supercars or trucks, no motorcycles. Take it for what it is, an indication of what your vehicle might do in that situation and then forget all of it when you actually plow into a moose walking out in front of you because you were looking at your phone or whatever.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper umm... I've done the test in a 10cm raised and rough road refitted Mercedes sprinter van (slide guards under engine and differentials, 4wd, double wheels on rear axle) It didn't flip. Part of the test is that you do it multiple times starting at low speeds and increasing until you clip a cone or loose traction in the turn.
European: if i swerve hard just right in this split second i just might make it American: i'm not gonna make it might as well take the bastard with me.
Yeah there was a guy who slammed brakes when hard steering at decent speed, lost all control and crashed through my hedge. Only time you can brake hard is when you already lost control and are sliding, if you still have control of steering it's better to use it instead.
Scares me seeing people doing the test without helmets at the very least. My girlfriend has severe epilepsy from a very basic car crash. Just hoping all the testers are staying as safe as they can be. Thanks for pointing this issue out and hope it's addressed in the future! :)
Mind your own business and let adults' make-up their own minds on how they conduct field test. As you watch this TH-cam video put on your helmet and leave people the hell alone.
I've basically had to do this maneuver on the road several times in my life. The car that did the best (at least for me) was surprisingly a full-size sedan that was front wheel drive (Hyundai Azera). Also the Honda Fit did surprisingly well in this maneuver. Ironically one of the worst cars I've had to do this maneuver in was a "sports" car, the Mitsubishi Eclipse. Despite never having a front-facing collision in any vehicle thanks to quick reactions, all of these cars were eventually traded-in or totaled after being badly rear-ended by someone else... almost always someone in an SUV or crossover. The level of stupid on American roads is hard to quantify because it always goes off the chart.
@@JosephArata Hence why I put it in quotes. I also don't consider it to be a sports car any longer, but when I was younger and F&F was cool, I thought it was. I now have some proper RWD sports cars in my collection (Miata and BRZ) and have enough track time and time on a lift under my belt to know the difference, but when I was young and dumb, that wasn't true. It was, at any rate, a lightweight coupe and should have handled better than it did, and was surprisingly worse in this scenario than economy shitboxes.
@@Tristor86 I’d bet it’s the light weight that did it in. It’s got the weight of a sports car without the real handling capabilities, worst of both worlds when combined. As for the BRZ, how would you rate it for daily road driving? I’ve currently got a Focus ST, but I’ve been thinking of upgrading
Higher center of gravity, heavier than an equivalent sedan, worst aerodynamics (bigger cross-sectional area). And more often than you'd think, no improvement to interior space (headroom, etc) or capacity (volume). But most people have this miconception that being higher/taller is safer. And anyway, most people don't care about cars or about driving, they just buy whatever's trending (or whatever the salesman tells them to buy)...
Its because they keep making cars taller and heavier. making them safer in an accident but more accident prone, impossible to see around and hard to see anything infront of you while driving.
Did you Learn that if you Hit a Moose it will come Thru your Windshield and Kill the People Seating in the Front Seats? that's the Truth Way they Do this Test for if you hit a Moose your Dead. Look it up I Live in the Northeast of the USA Where Moose Live and I have Seen over 20 Car Truck hits Moose and Driver and Passenger are Killed by the Moose Antlers Coming thru the Windshield and Going thru there Heads or Thru there Chest. Do Whatever you Can Your Better off hitting a Tree or a Car coming at you Then Hitting a Moose
u learned BS, sorry but it's true. The Xantia took part in a moose test 20 years ago. Today's test is different. They tested the Xantia on a today's test and it went max 73 kph (not 85kph). So today it would not be a winner - many cars can go way way faster in todays test.
Please make more videos like these! Raising concerns about the safety of vehicles is CRITICAL. In order for improvements to be made, we need to acknowledge the problem in the first place. Btw, you DEFINITELY earned a sub from me.
I can get behind the purpose of the test. People Being Happy a certain Brand failed is what disgusts me. And than Justifying Other brands when they fail.
@@DexMaster881So basically you're disgusted with fan boy mentality? You should check out the Subaru fan boys at the 4x4 tests on rollers-comments, hilarious!
7:00 From the start of the video, I was going to comment that most of these taller vehicles should have active suspension to reduce roll, but Citroen seems to already know that. I wonder how many ambulances have active suspension; unlike the Cadillac-hearse-based ambulances of the 1960s, today's ambulances are very high but still need soft suspensions to avoid further injuring the patients; seems like a perfect case for an active suspension.
Yep, wheels have limited traction, if you use 100% of that traction to turn, then braking (even gentle) will just lock up the wheels Edit: small correction, wheels won't lock up but you'll get under steer until car's weight shifts forwards again
Light braking will load the front wheels giving them more grip and allowing for a sharper steering response, tire grip increases with increased load. It will take practice to manage load across all 4 tires to maximize grip where and when you need it, you must be observant and familiar with the balance of your vehicle. Racing driver Randy Pobst has a series on TH-cam about driving techniques and one episode covers dynamic load management.
@@adro3869 you'll often be better off easing off the throttle, stepping a gear down, and using that to increase both traction and acceleration, which youd be surprised how often matters.
@Bob Watters its actually a pretty good test because swerving in to the oncoming lane, then swerving back in to the proper lane is exactly what happens in the back roads, even in rural america for things like elk or moose or even just deer.
@Bob Watters Man you have never seen a backroad highway in your life have you? you must be dense to think every highway is always bumper to bumper all the time. back roads, like where you will find moose, elk, or even buffalo seldom has anyone else for miles. and yes the other lane is usually safer than the ditch at 70 and 80mph
What was your favourite Moose Test fail? Some of them are pretty extreme!
🔔 We JUST released a new video about *Why New Cars Keep Failing This Specific Crash Test* ➡️ th-cam.com/video/3Lu-t5dJrxI/w-d-xo.html
Toyota Hilux moose test
th-cam.com/video/U7b5SMorbq8/w-d-xo.html
Can I recommend for your verses series trying to get one of those 1000hp baja trucks (2x4 utility or 4x4) that would be the great example of purpose built off-road vehicle vs road vehicle just to show (what I expect) a massive difference in moose, potentially braking etc
toyota hilux
This one: th-cam.com/video/zlu2wCILP5o/w-d-xo.html
The idea that it's not done by a professional driver actually makes the most sense. It's to test what regular people can do in an emergency event in non-ideal conditions.
I disagree, I just think the rest of us idiots need more driver's training. 😆
Just kidding, you're right, it makes way more sense for a common person to be doing the test rather than a professional in order to accurately simulate real life.
Although it does appear that a lot of people out on the road need to take another week's worth of driver's training. 🙄
We can make the car more wide so that it will not fall
@@pauldefillippo8490 as someone who lives in Florida. Yes, many people need to take more time to learn how to drive.
@@EnergyVenom as someone who lives near Detroit I also think people need more driver's training, on that note if they really want to simulate real life they need to put some potholes in there for them to swerve around as well
No body is a profesional driving... So we should be a "shumaguer"...
My main criticism is that you don’t have a cardboard cutout of a moose when you do the tests. That’s just not right.
Which would harder to go round as it would be bigger than these cones.
@@xmahlangeni No, it would just be placed at her end of the first straight of cones, and give the driver something to actually dodge, instead of just changing lanes quickly.
@@leumas75 exactly!
A Room... with a Moose!
Instead of cones they should have a row of parked cars on the side, inbetween two of which a realistic kid sized mannequin is thrusted forth as you pass.
The epitome of grandpa cars being the undisputed king on the moose test is something you can't make up. This is excellent.
depend of grandpa cars. In french streets (campagne), its more like dacia duster or 4x4 toyota, bmw, mercedes
Grandma already has ptsd from the war no need for other traumas!
Very rarely have grandpa cars been bad cars.
@@user-wi7iy2me7y I don’t think many as grandmas were in “the war” lol
Seriously the cars previous to the 2000’s pre suv era were safer from rollovers. I’ve got a 66 Buick Electra, basically the most grandpa car of them all, and there is NO way I’m ever rolling it over. It’s low to the ground and wide whereas my 99 crv wants to put two wheels off the ground at any demanding turn. To conserve on space on parking lots but still have lots of room, cars are being built taller instead of wider and longer, which means you actually need to reinforce the pillars but when you do the pillars get huge and you can’t see out of them. The automotive industry is going too far in one direction basically building cars like ladders. The taller the car is the harder the fall.
Was on a bus late one night on a highway one of those big touring buses and the driver suddenly had to avoid a moose by swerving into the other lane then back into the correct lane. He got clapping and cheering from most of us acknowledging his skill and alertness. I bet that made his year. 👍🏼
Imagine cheering for a guy that's just doing his job.
@@2BigFooted Is English your first language?
@dannygjk is it yours, or did I confuse you?
@@2BigFooted Next question: Are you an AI?
@dannygjk are you or you can't comprehend a driver doing his job? Did you cheer for the engineers who designed the bus to do such maneuvers?
Notice that the failure almost always occurs when returning to the original lane. Keep this in mind if you have to swerve. Return back only as abruptly as absolutely necessary. Look for opportunities to extend the maneuver to ease the lateral acceleration. If the moose appears in a curve swerve to the inside if possible making recovery less drastic.
You need to be mindful that moose tend to react to your approach by speeding up. So you should fairly strongly prefer to swerve behind rather than in front of the moose, conditions allowing.
@@johannesmajamaki2626 Excellent point.
That's why I don't think this test actually gives you valid data. There is rarely a need to dart back over into your lane just as hard as you darted out of it. I've done this maneuver in a lifted Tacoma before. Because I understand how cars work, I know you can't change direction before the car has settled in the initial direction change. You'll only make it unstable. You can dart pretty hard out of the way of something, you just can't dart back into your lane just as hard as you left it unless the weight transfer has settled. You have to bring it back as gradually as the circumstances allow you to.
And in my experience, getting on the brakes while maneuvering is the last thing you should do. You can turn with traction and control, you can brake, or you can accelerate. Pick one and do it. If you're going to do 2 at the same time, you have to balance it out.
When I did my "moose test" in real life, I was going 60mph. I darted hard to the left, floored the accelerator to put some weight to the back b/c my truck is very light in the rear, and once I had passed the danger I brought it back over to my lane as gradually as i could. My truck is lifted, with very wide tires on 18" rims. I never felt any loss of control. The tires didn't even squeal.
Well noted. I had to do a manouver like that to avoid a deer. Long straight road with car approaching from the distance so I couldn't use high beams. I was doing the speed limit, 50mph. Bambi decides to foil my plans and jump in front. I swerved. Thankfully didn't flip over.
Thank you.
Having lived in moose country, when the roads are covered in snow and ice over half the year, a vehicles handling characteristics is CRITICAL. Esp when slamming on the brakes can be bad too on slidey roads. I've had to manuever around many a moose, elk, deer and the occasional bear. I
+1 for winter tires. Proper winter tires, not just any crap that some maker decided to slap a snowflake symbol on. Read winter tire tests, people! I am very pleased with my Hakka 9:s. I've heard the new Hakka 10 is even better.
It's always funny when you're going down a snowy hill in a little 2door hatchback, the 4x4 in front of you is trying to slow down by spinning its wheels in reverse, and while you shout advice out of the window another 4x4 slides into the back of you and you bring it to a stop by knowing how to use the gears to control the speed.
@@dsludge8217 YES!!! Haks FTW!
@@dyent haha. Yup. With all seasons, 4WD just becomes 4 wheel slide. Now 4WD/AWD + snows + actual winter driving skills and we are unstoppable.
@@2WhiteAndNerdy Not even that! I had mismatched all-season tyres on, because to replace the tyres would've been more than the car was worth. The first 5 years or so of driving I didn't spend more than £500 on a car, because I understood that I was still learning and I wanted to push my abilities (off public roads) without risking an expensive mistake. Which also taught me how to do basic repairs and maintenance, and helped me save money on insurance.
The reason this test is important is that it mimics more real world driving conditions where people are just steering out of the way of something and then panic steering back into their lane without ever hitting the brakes. A professional driver could go through that course but most people around me can barely manage to not kill themselves in a round a bout so this is a pretty accurate way of testing.
Yeah i can see that for sure. Amazing how many people don’t understand the balance of slow methodical steering. I have a 2012 Grand cherokee basically the same as what was tested and i can swing it around corners. Some people have it and others just don’t.
@@zexcthd5519 The average staff member where I work can't even drive our fleet of Toyota Siennas without crashing them into every property gate or curving driveway retaining wall. These fucking idiots have no concept of the size of the vehicle despite driving them every day. And they apparently ignore the angry beeping with which they warn you when you're about to sideswipe something. The average millennial and gen Z driver is completely incompetent at the task.
Exactly, it’s an idiot person test, because most intelligent drivers understand that upsetting the balance of the car that much will result in the car crashing. But dumb people instinctually will swerve out of the way, and then try to swerve back to where they were before, which is never a good idea.
I don't think this test in general makes sense. The more natural instinct to apply brakes when something comes in front of the car.
Reduce your speed to less than 50kmph and then steer the car away. It won't get rolled up and will easily steer without any issues. Just reduce the speed.
@@RaunakPSingh I've watched enough idiots put themselves into the ditch by swerving when they should have just braked to disagree with your assessment. I've also watched too many people lock up their brakes and hit something they could easily have steered around.
It's normal for people to just flat out do the wrong thing when reacting to something unexpected. Therefore, it is necessary to test cars under the assumption that drivers will fuck it up.
French car lover here. The Xantia's performance is a testimony of a time where Citroën had the edge in suspension design. A thing of the past, regretfully. Thank you for the informative video!
The new CX5 is being lauded as an extremely comfortable and well designed car by almost all critics. C4 too.
The ironic thing is the car that rolled over in this video was made by the same company that created the best moose test car
Wish I had the Activa but very happy with my Xantia 1999 1.8 16V. Very good road holding.
@@caspardejonge5902 I had the Xantia sister, the Peugeot 406 , estate version with a V6. This was a very fair ride. I have good recollections of this. I guess the V6 xantia would have been even better.
Must be great too. Nice design too. @@vchiu9560
I'll never forget a car pulling out from a row of parked cars at the last second.
I was driving a citroen XM with ABS.
To this day I remain amazed at the maneuver that car performed.
It was literally a moose test as I had to drive around the car that pulled out and get back in lane before hitting an oncoming car.
Police were behind me and napped the idiot.
Policeman said to me "how did you miss him? I'm amazed!"
The police being right behind you and getting him is the kind of driver revenge fantasy I wish for daily, im glad one of us got it lmao
Yep the XM was awesome. I had the Premiere with 6 balls and ABS with Twin Webber carb bodies and fuel injection. Wierd combination but was a hell of a beast.
This just makes it sound like you were speeding in an area where cars are parked. Or do people typically park their cars on the side of busy highways in your area?
@@crazy808ish probably somewhere with parallel parking, and someone who didn't use their light swinging out into traffic. Happened to me before in Baltimore
@@crazy808ish Normal road with a 45mph limit, but the guy literally pulled out from a long line of parallel parked cars with no indication and spinning his wheels.
I'd say 99.9% of people would have hit him, I had lightning fast reactions being a fighter at the time, but with the amount of braking and turn I had to do to on a cold road to miss him, that citroen was the star.
As being someone who has rolled a car dodging two deer, can confirm the importance of this test
I live in a mountainous area and people try to swerve to miss wildlife all the time many times taking their own life in the process my position on this is to slow down the best you can and honk the horn flashlights the animal either get out of the way are you hit it and walk away uninjured.
The other thing to do is not drive fast in deer areas especially during migration and near sunrise or sunset when they're most active.
Good luck with your swerving Darwin roulette
I hit five deer so far, never been injured. All of mine were hit during rut when their running, when they run they'll run into the side of your vehicle or in front of you with no time to react. I usually slow down and drive under speed limits during rut because I know better. And still have close calls from time to time. Best thing is not to swerve most every vehicle has anti lock brakes which helps greatly. Hit the brakes and hope you miss them.
@@Boxpok I was thinking, just floor it
I just run them over. Totaled 2 cars, started buying trucks and have hit 5 more with only a muffler that needed replacement.
@@crazywayne7051 : There are a disturbing number of people who don't know how to slow down _and_ dodge at the same time.
I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador Canada. We have a large amount of moose accidents here every year. This is probably the most realistic test you can have. This is real world testing. I've struck a moose once and avoided a second time.
Wow.. be careful...
here the issue is deer, not moose. But in general yeah you could use this maneuver to avoid any number of things in the road.
Hell yeah Canada
The number of stories about deer, moose and bear being in the middle of the roads are bottomless
Sooo many crash, sooo many death
Imagine having the courage to get back out there after getting struck once already.That is one brave moose.
@@ripleyjune the second swerve is to avoid oncoming traffic. The third is to correct an assumed overcorrection.
The Citroen Xantia did lots of things very well in addition to the record for the Moose Test.
In 2013 we took a 1997 Xantia 1.9 Turbo Diesel on an Aussie Outback road trip.
We are the only two wheel drive car we saw on the Oodnadatta Track from Marree to Oodnadatta via Lake Eyre down to Coober Pedy. 600 km with great comfort and stability and 5.4 l/100 kms cruising on the dirt at 90 - 110 kph. Magic. Continued down to Kangaroo Island, having passed thru Broken Hill and the Flinders Ranges.
The first car to circumnavigate Australia was in 1925 in a little 1923 Citroen 5CV.
Wrong place to show off.
@@sitkasate Xantia was a car of many competencies...
Not just the moose test... The outback test... The comfort test .... the economy test.... the safety test...
You can have a front wheel blow out without loss of control..
Like other hydraulically spring Citroens with adjustable height suspension can even drive of 3 wheels....
Lots to show off.... not just the moose test.
My school chum did 300,000 kms in his Xantia.
Most modern cars are not its equal... especially SUVs.
Ah yes the car with the ultimate handling
The Citroën xantia
The MIGHTY Citroen Xantia!
I guess you haven’t seen them in rally
Yeah, not really. th-cam.com/video/U7b5SMorbq8/w-d-xo.html
+ highest speed achievable in a successful moose test tells nothing about handling.
@@tomkocur they are actually super cheap and very fun to drive. Except for the "Activa" version that had the computer controlled suspension which are very pricy. This version costs tens of thousands when a Xantia usually does not cost more than a thousand €uros. It is still well used for amateur rally as they are very affordable, you can still find aftermarket and manufacturer parts and pieces and there are plenty of them in junkyards
actually it's only the activa version of the xantia that can do this and they are really rare and sought-after.
As a Canadian this is actually important. Driving on a snowy mountain road at night and having a giant moose just appear has actually happened to me many times…. This is not sarcastic this actually happens lmao
But on snow you won't roll over. Not enough grip
korean elks vs Canada moose 😊
If there's snow on the road, you will hit it anyway. If you drive so fast that you have swerve like this, you're driving too fast for the road conditions.
companies are thinking luxury and comfort but not anything else. the soft suspension, with the general car weight, and the extra space to put objects in(to put it under load) is gonna tank handling. i would really just have a car with and a lot less luxury than a rolls royce
Anti moose ram wellded to the frame
I can speak from firsthand experience that this can and does happen. My wife and I were driving 50-60mph through Colorado in our 2019 Honda Ridgeline west on I-70 through the mountain pass on wet and occasionally slushy roads when, all of a sudden, she spotted something moving on the mountain next to us. She thought it was an animal, but quickly determined it was a boulder falling. It was about 1 meter wide and landed in our lane just ahead of us. I had just enough time to swerve to the other lane and avoid hitting the boulder. The truck was by no means fully loaded as per the moose test, but we had plenty of camping gear in it and our dog. I have no doubt the full time AWD with torque-vectoring make a HUGE difference. The truck rotated well without slipping the back end around and I was able to confidently maneuver. We ended up having some small paint chips and a cracked windshield, but the alternative could have been much worse. We still count our blessings that it landed ahead of us and not on us. I'm not sure we would have known what happened. Just lights out! Long story short (too late), the moose test is relevant and Super Handling AWD is legit.
It's a good test of handling, but I do think the 2nd part of the test isn't applicable in the real world very often. Swerving into the other lane is something most drivers will have to do at least once but swerving back across would mean oncoming traffic, so for most obstacles the necessity of the 2nd maneuver means the 1st one was the wrong choice. Sounds like you had to make the 1st part and not the 2nd part?
If the obstacle is a boulder though, dodging it is definitely a good choice. Not only that but it sounds like you handled it better than most of us would so well done! Modern cars are impressive but you've still got to have a decent ability to drive them (decision making being more important than rally skills) and it sounds like you have ☺
How'd you get paint chips and a cracked windshield if you avoided it 🤔
@@vestraya There we’re other, small rocks falling with the boulder that hit the truck. Also, when the boulder hit the tarmac it broke apart even more.
@@ApothecaryTerry To have oncoming traffic *and* a moose to deal with at the same time is not an unforeseeable risk. It's also relevant in deer or kangaroo country, not just where moose roam. IIRC, it was Saab that first designed a car specifically to handle both *impact* with a moose, and the double-swerve test for *avoiding* it; their marketing material promoted the resultant smart handling as a safety feature.
Nice fuckin moves
Makes total sense. I see all these SUVs on the road, being driven very aggressively and I’ve wondered : with all this weight can you stop as quick as my car?!
And didn’t cross my mind they’d tip over because I assumed they were on the ball with this since Mercedes fail.
This test partially replicates common near misses when folk are tailgating and things suddenly change.
Try testing the Renault Capture/Rapture(?!), that thing is lethal. Nothing like the 2004 Megane which shocked me how good it was in an emergency once.
But this test isn't a matter of stopping.
Yea, the thing people forget to realize with oversized vehicles is that they tip over more easily, due to a higher center of gravity.
@@WebOSDevelops What is good about them though is that people would rather fuck someone lives over themselves. In an emergency, they could just ram whatever infront of them, trusting they will be okay and whoever/whatever in front of them will be in a bad time. People in my country loves big car because of this.
@@FuglyStickexactly, my Ford Fiesta can drift and do this test, but my Volvo SUV can brake way way way faster.
You need to stop a bigger mass, but engeneering is engeneering and Volvo literally has experience into stopping big heavy trucks.
Renault Capture/Rapture/Rupture
Hilux is a very popular model in Australia, particularly in rural areas. There are no Moose in the outback, but a Hilux may find itself having to dodge Kangaroos, Cattle and Camels. So this test is as valid for the Hilux and like vehicles as any other.
Wait... Asking out of ignorance: you have camels in Australia? Were they imported?
@@matthewmillar3804 yes. Camels were a big part of the 'development' of the outback in the late 1800s, along with their drivers, colloquially called "Afghans" but in reality from many countries in the Middle-East. Camel trains carried goods, mail and machinery and ore to and from the goldfields and small settlements. A vital link between the rivers and the outback before the advent of motor vehicles and better suited to the sandy deserts than bullocks. Inevitably feral populations developed. Australia now has more camels than Saudi Arabia. They're mostly confined to the dry areas of the interior, where they reach plague proportions when conditions are good.
@@bartylobethal8089 👏👍👌 absolutely correct
The camels seem to thrive in the centre and are out of control.
@@matthewmillar3804 Australia exports camels to rich Arabs, believe it or not. We also have to dodge emus which are very large, stupid and fast - not a good combination near highways. I had to swerve to avoid one at about 90 km/h towing a 3.5 tonne caravan.
@@MichaelCsikos doesn't want to restart a war u lost against emu right mate hehehe
New cars are also failing the “rolling the back windows down without ear-splitting air pressure waves” test
Yeah. But Maybe it would also happen with old cars that didn't have electric windows?
True. I don't remember having this problem when I was a kid, but it might have been because there was a passenger in the back (me) to break the wind.
Or, maybe it's because cars are getting more aerodynamic by default, so that the open window affects the wind more than it used to?
@@jpaugh64 if i find an old car, without power windows I'll ask if they could manually roll it down and drive to test.
I remember my early 90s camry had the problem.
@@TheRainHarvester hahaha 😐
its the new aerodynamics. the smooth wave around the car creates a pressure gradient. squarer vehicles, and ones with a lot of things sticking out in the design break up the wind, create eddies and whirls, that reduce that. still happens on older cars, a balance of design and luck... but lots less for sure.
i used my old '97 pathfinder in a moose test, except it was an elk and it wasn't a test. i had total control when i skidded my tires slightly around 55 mph, my first thought was, thank god this car was built so well. traction control systems on newer cars would have prevented the maneuver that saved me.
Not to mention the material is much more weigh down , my '07 f150 stx is dangerous light and much too tall for the wheel spacing of f150s
Or... you got lucky that one time. People never seem to factor this into their conclusions.
I too find the systems hold me back as well, while driving tight mountain roads my traction controll thinks im slipping and mashes the brakes.
Got 97 QX4 just a luxury version of your car I can attest the car handling is on legend tier level.
@@omarjamal161 such solid vehicles, really gives credence to the saying 'they dont make'em like they used to'. i drove that car round trip to death valley from colorado in 110 degree heat with over 200k miles on it, zero issues, the AC stayed cold, and it never even overheated.
People where I live can't even turn their blinkers on correctly, there is no chance in hell they are making this evasive maneuver regardless if the vehicle is capable of it😂😂
5:33 Criticism about not braking during the test. This actually used to make a lot of sense. In Norway, and probably in Sweden too, this kind of training to steer the car on (especially) slippy surfaces has been part of the standard training. We were taught to make a choice between steering and braking, because in marginal conditions there may not be enough friction to go around for both forces simultaneously. Hence, the procedure for the moose test would be first to brake as much as possible, then to _release_ the brake while steering around. The simulated test reflects this by assuming a residual speed after the braking, and then testing the cornering stability at that speed.
However, these days where virtually every car has ABS anyway, that principle may no longer be the correct one. (I believe it is well documented that an automatic system does a better job of stopping a car on practically every surface than even the best manual brake-pumpers can manage.) The right procedure now would be to just apply the brakes hard all the way through. Old-timers would definitely feel the urge to avoid that, because that is what all practice and long experience has imbued us with!
facts
Actually you can stop faster without abs, abs just gives you the ability to steer. Here's a good video to show that th-cam.com/video/fge_m9u864k/w-d-xo.html
Don't release the brake. Hard brake to kick in ABS then steer until out of danger before releasing the brake. You are not obligated to save a moose and kill yourself. Same can be said for pedestrians but the paperwork can be messy. Instead of a moose maybe a squirrel as people swerve to save them too.
Wait you can brake and steer in low traction conditions with modern abs?
@@TheHDPerspective Thanks for the link. It's good to see some corrobation to what many older drivers (used to non-ABS) feel when getting used to ABS; these things never brake as hard as you need to! (Alternatively: "I can do better than this myself.") I think many of the videos are somewhat biased though, and maybe slightly different (unscientific) results on each side of the Pond too.
Very interesting, when i took my drivers license here in Sweden we all had to do the Moose test as a part of a safety class. However it was a slightly different variant where we drove on ice and we used brakes as well.
oh really 🥴
Sweden makes people practice driving maneuvers. US makes you have a pulse
That is part of the 'slippery road driving' classes here in Norway. I expect you have a similar slippery road class in Sweden?
th-cam.com/video/QnzvsRZE8CQ/w-d-xo.html
This test in Sweden is mostly to make sure people can handle a car without hitting the moose and to not brake when doing the maneuver braking will make the car go straight
Do not brake only swerve
Finland has similar one also
3:52 I love how unsafe the safety test is, no barrier for the crew ... their all so dedicated 😂
They are. They're. Say it out loud, they are
They are. They're. Say it out loud, they are
@@FortniteLegendXx theyre? They ARE?!? No, there! Where????
lol, full-on old Top Gear mode
@tikhiy zey R 🤕
2:40 "offroad focused pickup truck" and still 95% of them won't leave the pavement in their lifetime
If that pavement princess is offroad focused, my ranger is a Cadillac. Something designed for offroad should not have failed this test. Something that top-heavy can't be trusted to climb hills or dodge trees. I'm betting the only "offroad" applications they tested were 3" deep mud and light gravel.
I've had to do this in the US to miss a deer and almost lost control. Hitting deers are fairly common in the US, so this test seems relevant to me.
Once went to view a secondhand car in the UK, private seller, and noticed the windscreen pillar was a little bumpy and the paint wasn't perfect. Questioned the guy and he'd hit a cow which ended with it's head coming through the windscreen! He'd pulled the pillar straight, filled and painted it, replaced the glass and was trying to sell the car knowing the damage done. Thankfully he answered honestly but he should have been up front. It was a lovely 1972 VW fastback - such a shame.
So yes, even in the UK we get stray animals. Deer in parts, I've heard ofhorses involved a couple of times and this cow!
Plus kids running out into the road to get a ball etc.
It's a valid test.
I'd say another good use case of this test is if you're driving on a highway and someone suddenly cuts into your lane. It's the same 'Sharp turn, turn back' processs as you'd do to avoid an animal or person in the road. :)
@@thebrowns5337 Ah, the joys of the UK country side! Coming around a corner to find a cow or sheep stood in the road! Can relate, greetings from Cumbria.
A deer moves but an elk think it's the king of the road and force you to do a go around.
Also a moose has only got four thin sticks of legs where your designated impact zone is. The other 600 kg of animal hits your car straight onto the windshield and into your lap.
As a petrolhead, I love my zero electronic assists. But when on public roads and slippery conditions, I allways keep the car in Normal mode. I think I could probably do just fine, but when sh*t hits the fan, I'd rather have a few dozen computers doing everything. I can be tired, or not paying attention, or just make a mistake. The computers can't.
So I think the moose test should not be done by a racing driver.
Absolutely, doing everything yourself is great when you're on it, fully paying attention and pushing to the limit. Suddenly having to go from singing along to Bonnie Tyler (or whatever ☺) to controlling a car on the edge of what's possible is a change that nobody can make. I'm only a decentish driver, good enough to know how much skill there is above my level (lots) and also good enough to see that so many people are so much worse than I am, which is genuinely terrifying. If a kid jumps out in front of me...well I'm glad the electronics are on!
I think if they really want to test the car itself it should be done with a racing driver, but if they wanna see if it's actually safe, they should do it with some regular driver
Computers (as long as it isn't mechanically) can't fail though the software programmed by humans can be faulty.
@@ApothecaryTerry have you seen the video of the audi tt driver hydroplaning with his girlfriend in the car he handled that like a boss definitely alot of luck and skill involved tho
@@alext7952 This one? th-cam.com/video/y4_3LNvglLA/w-d-xo.html
If so then I shall lazily copy/paste my comment from that video! Tl;dr is he did a lot wrong. Not to say I'd do better (other than not getting into that situation) but there's a lot to learn from.
Copy/pasted comment:
1: He lost control because the wind got blocked by a lorry and he passed that lorry without predicting the gust as he cleared the lorry- and he had 1 hand on the wheel at the time. That's bad driving, he should have been ready for that and holding onto the wheel properly to adjust quickly so none of this ever happened. Looks like crosswind not truck aero since the truck is 2 lanes away and you can see him correct left as he gets to the 1st truck and the crosswind is initially blocked.
2: Then he over-corrected, which many of us would do too, but it's still not something to compliment.
3: He then kept over-correcting and fishtailed which I'd hope most of us would not do- if you think this isn't bad driving then go to a rally school for a day, any decent driver should not do this.
4: He kept 1 hand on the wheel for far too long, cocky and stupid.
5: 140 was probably too fast for those conditions, can't see many puddles which are the big risk at that speed (effectively sudden braking on 1 side of the car...hello barrier).
Sure, he did a reasonable job of not crashing, so credit where it's due there, but as many people have said the car had a huge role in that. If he was doing 100kmh and hit a puddle then I wouldn't be so critical, but this looks 100% the driver's fault so even if it was a good catch (as above, it was...fine), he shouldn't have had to do it.
This is a very important test. I recently had to avoid a dark brown cow at night in a pitch dark road, I only saw it at the last few milliseconds. Needless to say, I'm lucky to be alive.
YOUR LACTOSE INTOLERANT
Moo.
My dad had to go to work before sunrise every morning. Once came over a hill to find a black bull in the middle of the road. He was able to swerve in time but still clipped the back legs. The bull went to the side instead of through the window. Could have been a lot worse. Plus we have alot of people (including small children) in my area who like to ride their four-wheelers in the road even though it's illegal and the roads are very curvy and hilly so you have to be very alert while driving. Having good swerving ability is important.
@@hondoklaatu1904 absolutely
@@privacyvalued4134 😂😂😂
The Hilux, in Australia at least, is largely used by suburban soccer mums and people that have never touched an off-road track. This test is definitely useful
Same as America and Canada.
Or men who dont feel manly enough, in the case of the USA.
No this test is stupid...it will only give you a false sense of security while driving these top scorer cars. Why? First this test was conducted by professional drivers who expected these maneuvers. The average driver will flip the car regardless of the top scoring car they drive.
The best way to avoid crossing animals is to do hard breaking because ABS and EBD work best if you keep your steering straight and make a full brake.
Or brake and swerve to the side. But yes I agree. This test is very dumb and a lot of people actually hit moose’s because of the fact that it’s impossible to brake or swerve in time unless you’re alert. But even if you are there is a high chance of you hitting a moose.
@@TheCompleteMental i thought they have ford trucks for that thing. Tbh, people who drive toyota trucks never have insecurity with masculinity. Usually the ones that have drive ford or chevy trucks.
My father worked as an engineer in the driving dynamics department of Mercedes-Benz when the A-Class failed the elk test. It was a big thing back then and an immense driver of innovation which lead to the development of the electronic stability system ESP. This system has saved thousands of lives since it’s birth.
That one was particularly famous here in Sweden. Because not only did it fail, but Mercedes said the test was done poorly and sent their test driver to Sweden show the car was safe, which then fell over as well. After that the A class was given the nickname "Vält klass" (vält=to fall over) in the media.
ESP was made by Bosch, and it is safe to say it safed millions of lifes since it is being used by nearly every car.
@@leunark Its also made it away from only cars. My motorcycle has a Bosh IMU and ABS unit, not the exact same as ESP, but definitely related to it.
It didn't lead to the development of the system. The system was already available in other cars for some years, it just wasn't on the A-class. What did happen however, was that Mercedes fitted it to every A-class as standard as part of the recall to help solve the problem.
Also, meant that the coupe on the E-class platform got the model name "CLK" instead of ELK. Possibly apocryphal, but it has a certain logic to it.
The Xantia was a masterpiece of design. Noise and vibration are also tuned to cancel out at the French motorway speed of 130 km/h.
Wonder why it's abandoned then
@@MAXlMUS the design is 30 years old. Things move on, especially European environmental standards. The Xsara which followed it seems to have been designed more with cost in mind than quality....
I loved my Xantia, I had a 1998 Exclusive, bloody brilliant car.
@@martinlord5969 Xantia was replaced by the C5 which was the last car to feature this suspension system. The Xsara you mention was the replacement for the ZX
@@MAXlMUS Because french Citroen made a lot of "high tech" cars, but being tech does not mean it sells better than a standard car. So they had to cut the losses .
02:15 Funfact about the first A-Class models and why it was so top heavy: It was first designed to carry a battery and be the first production electric car (afaik). So it had a hollow ground and the weight of the battery was in calculation for the dynamics of the car. But it didnt seem like EVs were successful at that time, so Mercedes chose a regular motor and lost the low center of gravity.
They fixed it, equipping the Class A with 15" wheels, stability control, ABS and improving the suspension. I had a lot of trips and it was always very stable in difficult situations.
Not exactly true, whilst yes they were intended as electric cars, those hollow areas have been "removed" or rather refitted for the production line combustion engine A classes. The reason why it failed was because its a city car not made for some cross country ralley. Its not supposed to be able to dodge an object longer then the car itself from about 3m distance which btw. basically no car can do.
@@dackbowland1876 I can drive from London to Birmingham and back in mine. How long is your commute?
@@dackbowland1876 electric cars have ranges of 300 miles now. What's your commute, cross continent?
@@dackbowland1876 commute costs are front loaded in the battery, but still cheaper over time and formerly leased EVs are relatively cheap
I had to do this same maneuver yesterday on my Toyota Corolla 111 because a van all of a sudden pulled up on the highway while my speed was 100km/h. I not only survived the car did so as well without a scratch. That car apparently handles pretty well in these conditions
That Amg Gt was so smooth it was very satisfying.
Edit: typical debate in the reply section
"The Best or Nothing."
I can't see the AMG GT, which one is it?
@@floridakoi 0:25
I thought that was a LC500
@@niw-w1f ok
Watching this makes me realize this is what I went through in 1978 in my Volkswagen Beetle on a freeway. A car cut in front of me from an on-ramp, I had to swerve to the left, then as my car started to skid, I turned the wheel to the right and the front wheels went as far as possible and locked as the skid continued. My car skidded across three lanes and then hit an embankment and flipped over. Fortunately for me, I was one of a tiny percentage of people who voluntarily wore a seatbelt then, and I survived intact.
Just went what you went through in Jan except the car didn’t flip minimum damage was done too just a bad radiator and bent driver suspension
Beetles are like really small so you are lucky lol
I'm glad you made it. A Beetle (VW Käfer) is probably one of the worst cars ever build when talking about stability.
Engine in the back, light front (so no weight on the steering wheels), and a suspension dated back to the 30s.
In a Porsche 911 (old ones) one would face the same "rear heavy" problem, but one would have the power to accelerate out of a situation partly straightening the car's path again.
Way back when Beetles didn’t have seatbelts, my dad took a hard corner in one going into a bridge, door burst open and he only just hung on and avoided being flung out. Beetles were death traps back then which is probably why he’s building a new one.
Lol didn't know that they're really unsafe like that small size would make me think it is very safe. Lol it isn't
Every Citroen I've owned (4) had excellent cornering/handling. Unfortunately Citroen's factory workers didn't stand close enough when they threw the cars together, so there's that... :-)
Just like the Moto Guzzi factory. When they build the gearboxes they put all the gears in OK, but then get carried away and put several extra neutrals in there too 😂
Citroen Xantia still leasing after 20 years!! I had the VSX with hydractive suspension, not the Activa, and loved it. That 4 wheel drift at 7.17 is immense!
Amazing how there are cars valued from 100x to even 1,000 times more then this car, and this car still wins in this specific test.
@@tommytheshimigami Old test. Cones further apart.
@@martinsvensson6884 still proves something about that suspension.
@@tommytheshimigami Sure, its still very good performance.
@@martinsvensson6884 but the technology is absent from modern cars and sport cars when it should be tested to see if it could work.
"It's an off-road vehicle"
Where 99.999% of trucks will never ever go.
Absolutely right. The moose test is simply BS
yeah suvs and pick ups were invented for off road but now for some reason everyone drives them on the normal road and never offroad
You guys have never lived in the midwest, have you? Off road doesn't mean bouldering, it means off paved roads. A dirt path through a ranch, a farm, or a forest is just as 'off road' as bouldering, and these trucks very regularly get used in such environments.
If you've only ever seen trucks in a city, try getting out of the city. The vast majority of the population of America lives outside of them.
@@ciaolimited1061 i dont live in the us and still everyone buys suvs but never use them offroad
@@ciaolimited1061 can confirm, i live in illinois lol
so in short, Citroen's slogan "Innovative Technology" is for real. Amazing how many records this overlooked company has.
they're not an overlooked company. in the industry they are highly respected as innovators
That was a twenty year old Citroen. They stopped using their unique engineering solutions to ride and handling quite a while ago, and are little more than cut-rate Peugeots today.
I mean, Citroen's are really comfortable and they put a lot of new technologies on their cars but the problem is: When it breaks it will cost you like 15% of the original price of the car to get it fixed, and I speak of this by experience...
@@djyppo the spares parts of Citroën as Peugeot and Opel in a little part are absolutely insane if you need to go at a workshop, many websites have nice prices.
In my C3 moto ventilator was dead, original part costs more than 500 euros i have found it for 220 on web
@@badbotchdown9845 My father's car, a C4 Lounge had problems on the shock, the vacuum servo and on the injectors, overall we would have to pay like 10.000 brazilian reais to get it repaired, that's literally like 10% of the car price
**Dodge Ram TRX Hellcat appears**
“I’m totally gonna win this moose test. The goal is to get the biggest splatter and survive, right?”
@Nada Gain no no, you just need to go faster
@@swagchu6737 Moose have a really unfortunate build. Heavy body on top of freakishly long legs. So it'll primarily impact your windshield and the speed your going determines whether it'll stop on your lap or maim you and your children in the back row.
@@neuschf That wont be a problem with a 12-inch lift kit.
@@neuschf is it edible ?
Serius question
@Nada Gain Just throw one of those Aussie Roo Catchers on the front and you'll be good. lol
If the rear doesn't have enough grip, you want a stiffer roll bar in the front. Whichever end has the stiffer bar relative to the weight will lose ultimate grip for it.
The hilux could have a roll bar disconnect feature like some other new trucks, then it could have a stiffer bar up front and you could push a button when you want to do off-roading.
You shouldnt have to do that. A roll over tendancy shouldnt be corrected with suspension. It should be corrected with lower cog or wider track.
@@martinsvensson6884 Okay, but I wasn't saying this was a solution to rollovers. The guy in the video said there was a problem with inadequate grip in the rear causing the Hilux to fishtail and then roll. A stiffer roll bar in the rear would only make rear grip worse and compound the issue. A stiffer bar in the FRONT would help this imbalance better and cause a more predictable behavior. Not a stiffer bar in the rear, as he suggested.
Putting that aside, a lower COG is ideal for handling and safety, but goes against the design goals of the vehicle. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it's something they'd have a hard time fixing with it still being the same kind of vehicle. Track width has some room for variance, but is ultimately limited by the width of traffic lanes minus buffer. The amount of weight that ultimately shifts for a given lateral g-force is the same regardless of what you do with the suspension for the most part, but how quickly the weight shifts and how predictable it feels are all in the suspension design.
Chances are, this truck isn't gonna pass this particular test no matter what you do, but the front end sliding first will lead to a safer behavior in most situations. That can be accomplished through roll bars, and the vehicle will feel more stable on the road. Big stiff roll bars will get in the way for off-road, which is why having a convenient way to disengage roll bars is a good thing for this kind of vehicle.
Plus, whether a vehicle rolls or slides depends on the behavior of the tires and the angles of the suspension links, and can definitely be affected by suspension dynamics, including roll bars.
@@LifeInJambles Yes, but my point is that it doesnt matter why it rolled over. It shouldnt. If you somehow altrnate the grip between the different axles slighly with different suspension components you are still going to be around the edge.
If the case of one axle is sliding or not is going to make the difference between a roll over or not, you are already too close to the edge.
They have modified the model since then, and it passes the test now.
You can increase track. You have 2,5 m wide trucks running on our current road.
Basically, the higher the car’s centre of gravity, the more likely it is to roll over. And as most new cars sold today are SUVs and crossovers, they fail the moose test.
And why the Tesla model X did so well: the engines and battery, the two heaviest components, are right at wheel height. When Tesla finally ships roadsters, I imagine they’ll basically be impossible to roll.
Why they do the Moose Test is Because if you Hit a Moose the Driver and the Passenger in the Front Seats will be Killed. Them Moose Antlers will come thru the Windshield and Go Rite thru your Head or Chest like a Knife Thru Butter. it is Better off Hitting Anything then a Moose a Tree or Cars Coming at you is Better off hitting then the Moose.
@@romannasuti25 ev's don't have engines they have motors
@@orangecookie3132 Generally true, motor is the more universally generic term for both. "Engine" is never applied to the electric variety, but you do know about Ford Motor Co. and General Motors, yes?
they also increasing the wheel diameter
You absolutely didn’t answer the question to why newer cars fail the test. You just showed examples of some.
Inaccurate clickbait title indeed
They failed because they couldn’t complete the test. So he showed they failed! On the same page yet Einstein?
@@88997799 please say more
My understanding is they failed because of higher mass and differing priorities. Making a car pass this unofficial test will cost money and will hurt the suspensions performance in other areas like comfort. There are also industry standard tests that cover similar situations that their cars do pass, so sometimes manufacturers simply prioritize their own tests instead of one from a youtuber, even if the youtubers test has merit.
Because the test is stupid and useless and most modern cars that failed are high center of gravity SUVs that are by nature going to do poorly on dumb slalom tests, or performance cars that have such advanced suspension you could pass the test if you had a fast enough reaction time to catch the rear end mid-turn (which is mentioned in the video).
Gotta say, I once had a pedestrian walk out into the street on an extremely heavy rainstorm, I thank God there's people making these tests, since I actually was in a situation like that and my car performed wonderfully. Avoided both the pedestrian and the cars parked on the opposite side to where the pedestrian came out of
Alfa Romeo 159 are one of the few cars that did the Moose test at some of the highest speeds. Having owned one, I can attest to its ridicules good handling, drove that thing 130kph on black ice in Norway and stuck like glue on the road.
I had a less intense turning but at higher speed “moose test” encounter in my 2013 Chevy Sonic (Hatchback).
While I was traveling 60mph on a country highway a child bolted into the road from behind bushes. My turning was not as intense as in the moose test but it followed the same pattern. One rear wheel lifted but I never lost grip in the front. It being a FWD, that was pretty helpful.
That car saved that kid’s life. It’s just a little economy hatchback with the smallest effort to cater to “driving experience” but that was enough that day!
Unfortunately, Chevy sold that car in a bright Orange. As you likely know, the human eye cannot perceive Orange and thus the car was invisible. It was finally totaled after being rear ended in broad daylight for the FOURTH TIME.
There is always the pet cementery
Human eye cannot perceive orange? What are you talking about, hunters wear orange as safety😂
@@Kooler253 whoooosh
@@Kooler253 sarkasm or orange. you can only perceive one
@@Kooler253 As we say in Latin America; No le sabes.
We had a Citroen xantia when I was 5-13 years old, ever since we had to replace it I've said; if I can ever make a company remake a car the way it was, but modernized, it's the xantia. That car absolutely hauls in corners and turning it on with a heavily loaded trunk is still a very satisfying sight
crazy, they did a good job
Agreed. My boss had one as his company car many years ago, and whenever i needed to borrow a car I chose his. The ride on long journeys and the soft seats were sublime.
See my reply above. The xantia was a mighty fine car. Way ahead of it's time. But then again Citroën were doing it for years so quelle surprise?
I'm sorry but not all the Xantia were above at handling, the only one was the "Xantia Activa" with this particular electronic suspension system! The others were "banale" (average)...
I loved my Xantia, still never owned anything as comfortable... And the car goes up, car goes down lever was cool too.
Just for a bit of perspective for those who live in non-moose-country... the reason for this test is because when a car hits a moose, it typically doesn't end well for both the moose and the passengers in the car. I'm not sure how large European moose get, but here in North America they can weigh as much as 1700lbs (typically around 1000lbs) and since all that weight is up high on long skinny legs, it tends to end up in the back seat when you hit them.
western canada and alaska have the largest moose species in the world... most north american moose are larger than the euro counterparts.
We have the same problem in aus with jacked up red kangaroos. A lot of utes out west have bullbars to keep the driver safe.
Here in Oz we have mallee bulls and wild cattle as well as camels up North on the long stretches. Sheep, roos and most other things which can find themselves in front of a speeding vehicle you learn to just hit most of the time.. The risk of swerving is too great for losing control of the vehicle. At most you might line up a wheel rather than take it in the center and thus lose your radiator. With the bigger animals I mentioned though, only big trucks will not swerve for them. They can go right through and over even a big bull with the worst risk being to their brake lines from the hooves. So you consciously learn to not brake or swerve as a rule. The decision to swerve around and brake hard comes in the case of something big enough to be a serious risk on impact or a person. The long legs is a problem for Emus. You'll often hit one but the head on the long thin neck breaks off and come through the windshield. At high speed you can end up with a roo jumping and coming through the windshield too. Wombats aren't that big but crossing the Nullarbor you will have stretches where they're abundant and they're so solid they can rip off the differential let alone the sump off the engine.
Moose out number people here 3 to 1
Sadly I know a number of people that have lost their lives from hitting moose
And I’ve repaired countless vehicles that have impacted them
I’ve seen one where it completely ripped the roof off a Honda Civic
Yup. And all the passengers become a pair of legs with half a torso on it
Sadly in the USA, People don't pay enough attention to the road these days for it to matter, that or they are stuck in bumper to bumper gridlock.
That's what a family car should be about. Safety, really cool to see the results. I honestly thought it would have been an M class BMW. I'd love to see a 4 wheel steering dodge stealth results ( if you can find one anywhere )
this is taught as part of the motorcycle test in the UK and I can say its saved my life. guy pulled out infront of me from a side road spotted me and stopped in the middle of the road pretty much across the whole road I was able to swerve behind them and then back onto the road. most Motorcycles are alot more agile and with the right rider are safer than cars. The the wrong riders they are death machines
This test reminds me of a course you had to take while getting your drivers license here in Denmark. When you take your drivers license here in Denmark it is required that you take a driving course on a special track made for it. Then you have to go through obstacles on both dry and wet (As in more slippery than ice) asphalt. One of the obstacles during this course was setup exactly like this. You had to drive towards cones blocking your lane. The setup was identical to the moose test track shown in this video. We were allowed to brake though but only after crossing a certain line at a certain speed. I believe we did it at 50-60 km/h. All in all the course is very good because you get to practice things you can't do on the road. Like a full emergency stop going 80 km/h with the ABS system literally jolting you up and down as you stand on the brake. If you have never tried that you might be shocked when having to do it in the real world as it doesn't feel healthy for your vehicle and you feel like it actively falling apart. The wet part of the course is also very good as you learn to counter steer once you backend starts sliding. You do the exact same things on the wet course as you have tried previously on the dry course. There is a corner with wet track where you pull the handbrake and lock up the back wheels and then take a corner. It was a fun experience and you really learnt some things that day.
Sounds like fun. ABS is a weird system. Im still not fully sold on it. My old boss had a fleet of chevy astrovans and after he was in a fender bender he and I tested out the braking distance with the abs on and disabled. With ABS on slowing from 45mph, it extended the braking distance around 25 feet. It just seems abit hit or miss depending on the vehicle and in most cases i feel like my foot does a better job modulating the brakes. Your right about familiarizing yourself with it because it really does make a racket and feels like your vehicle is broken when the ABS kicks in
Ah we do a similar test in Sweden, but it's on actual ice with water sprayed all over it and you should be able to avoid the moose at 70km/h without going off the road
@@TheZebinator That basically what we do. We don't have ice tracks though. But I have walked on the track and its more slippery than any ice I have walked on.
@@GonzoDonzo I am not familiar with the chevy astrovan (I'm Danish) however just be googling in its clears that it is a older vehicle. ABS have advanced a lot and have gotten more sensors and so on. It is able to modulate the brake quicker than any human, which means less waste of braking efficiency. Maybe if a person is really good at "Manual ABS" they can beat the ABS. I don't think it is likely though today. But one thing is for sure with ABS it safes lives. In stressful situations it takes workload of your shoulders, and helps in sudden situations.
This is exactly what is missing in the US. Practice and then testing before licensing of future drivers in real life adverse weather scenarios
Even though the Hilux may be an "off-road" vehicle, a LOT of people use this as a daily driver, I'm guessing all around the world, but definitely here in South Africa. This is a very relevant test!
It's heavily used as a police car in South America, so it definitely should have good stability at high speeds, going after criminals at 150km/h on busy highways.
@@caracaes an offroader stable at high speed? do you know how many hilux i see get into an accident on the highway for overspeeding? If you need to be fast on the highway, get a proper road car. The hilux is more of a utility vehicle, deployed ahead of the chase with equipment for blockades and to chase offroad. This is how it should be used. ITs no wonder south america is a region of crappy countries, they cant even get a simple car chase right!
@@System0Error0Message lmfao
I didn't know you had moose in South Africa
@@jacobmoses3712 no moose, but a whole lot of other big antelope...the Kudu and Eland are the most dangerous on the roads and can be loosely compared to the Moose in America. Also, our pedestrians are very unobservant in general, so...
People keep buying more and more dangerous cars to drive, because most want to drive a car (by themselves) the size of a house just in case they drive past a garage sale and want to buy a table. It's not very smart.
Had a retread coming at me while going 70 on the freeway, guy in front of me just ate it and it rolled under his car straight at me. I swerved and just barely missed it, clipping the edge with my tire. I remember thinking, had I been in another car, that would have been an accident, or I may have lost control. Fortunately I was driving my Miata, it handled the situation perfectly. Really made me appreciate the quality of active driver safety vs. passive driver safety
Active driver safety is great and probably plays the biggest role in the amount of accidents and injuries on the road, the passive driver safety features don't depend on the intelligence or ability of the driver which in many cases is severely lacking lol
I was just thinking, "how would my NA Miata do in this test?" lol, guess this answers my question.
Or '93 300zx
Is the Miata the MX5
@@scottrich976 Yes! The Miata is the name given to the MX5 in America.
The Toyota Rav 4 is especially roll over sensitive. Great info! Thanks for posting. I thought electronic stability control would improve this...
Citroen!
Why are you everywhere? 😜
What about the Rav 4 hybrid or prime i forget what it is called. It has a battery i believe in the bottom center of the vehicle. Although it is much smaller than the Tesla probably a 4th of the weight.
Fuck does this apply to a first gen 😂
Stability control stops the car from sliding / losing traction in a corner.... not from rolling over 😂
Toyotas may be reliable, but forget the handling qualities…. First the Hilux, then the RAV4…
As a Swede (so someone who has encountered moose on the road) I'd say that cars like the hilux are more likely to encounter the tested scenario in real life, more so than a cars meant to primarily stay in the city. Thus the test is more important for cars like it, likewise with SUV's.
Er...just as cars are meant to primarily remain in the city, SUVs are meant to remain primarily OUT of the city but I assure you not enough people seem to know that.
@@ralphm4132 Most modern suvs and suvs owners are only driving in the city.
@@ralphm4132 No cars are perfectly fine outside of the city in most developed countries.
@@Brato1986 Yep, but sadly it is a trend to car consumers for the past few decades now. SUV's were originally just a 4WD or AWD vehicles meant for off-road or at least they aren't really for everyday city driving only. But it is a type of vehicle that is now selling the most that some car companies even gave up making sedans.
The really only good thing with SUVs are the interior space, and due to having bigger wheels and softer suspension, they do have comfortable ride even on bad roads. But they are gas guzzlers, high center of gravity, not as nimble or planted to drive, too big on cities with tiny parking spaces, and can cause visibility hazards to other drivers especially on sedans, mini cars and bikes that obstruct their view and cause headlight glare due to high mounted headlights. Even trucks aren't that bad since many of them have their headlights mounted at the bumper.
@@kornkernel2232 I hate to be that guy, but the problem of SUV taking over is due to (in my opinion based on personal experience) insecure female drivers wanting a car that makes them feel secure and high off the ground.
I wondered why the Merc A Class little car just vanished. Wow they kept that very quiet
The A-Class had high seat position and was very popular among old people. Later the A-Class became a sporty hatchback and the new B-Class the high seat pensioner car.
It didnt. Its still in the model program. But it only had that original design concept for the first 2 generations.
It didn't vanish.They produced 2 generations for a long time.
The a class had double floors for safety reasons that made high center of gravity combined with short wheelbase. Still they fixed the problem. Thanks to that we got esp standard through out industry other wise it would have taking much longer time.
An a class model was one of the best in the 77 moose test.
As I always say: The last days of old technology are always better than the first days of new technology.
ayin nii etha myre?
starship, check mate
Like how black and white had ok quality but then new color was crap
I mean not always, but like 99.99% of the time.
That is a good idea
My honda Fit, pulling in clutch with a speed the same as a 911 turbo.
Goes to show that tall short cars are not always tipping hazards.
Good break control of the car itself and good driver can make all the difference after all.
😂🤣 🤦♂️
The Fit also has an excellent chassis and great handling, something Honda thought through when making it
If you’re talking about an old 911 Turbo: those had a massive oversteer problem
@@the4given196 no. Newer PDK, trans system. Honda adopted some things and placed it on the fit sport.
The underrated part comes from the looks, but inside the v4 is the same as in any Honda. Vtec makes it go much much faster though. Ontop of a good trans in manual. Oh yea.
But to me the yaris GR took the fun with the turboed v3. Honda needs a turbo v3 or a modified turbo ready or pre-installed set up on the fit.
I had a 1962 Ford Fairlane that passed a RL Moose test, admirably. I lived.
In this same Fairlane, I was often tasked to go to the Feed Store and get Fowl Food. I learned very very quick (Like, the first quarter-mile) that my car did not like having 600 pounds (273 Kg) in the boot. So: four bags at 50 pounds each in the back seat, on the floor. Two on the passenger seat, strapped in, and one in the passenger footwell, the rest well... Das Boot! Handled a lot better, when the nose wasn't rising up into the air. Why did that one Electric Car bring this to mind?
My '85 F150 doesn't handle all that differently to your old Fairlane and I've been able to easily avoid such things in it, too. The key is to learn the vehicle and drive according to the vehicle, like you did with your Fairlane. I know what my truck does when put in situations like this and how to get it to do what it needs to do to not hit anything because I've taken the time to learn how it drives both loaded and unloaded. Doing donuts in snowy parking lots is a good exercise, too, it tells you the oversteer and understeer characteristics of your vehicle without much risk of actually wrecking the thing.
My truck likes to slide all four wheels at about the same time. It does not prefer understeer or oversteer. If I brake, however, the back end gets VERY light and it wants to swap ends on me. So if I'm avoiding an animal or whatever the last thing I need to be doing is hitting the brake pedal; that destabilizes the thing and all but guarantees a wreck.
It's kinda amazing the difference a driver with a brain makes... Proof that the fancy crap is just fluff. But people don't learn how to drive these days, they learn how to hold a wheel relatively straight (while texting of course).
@@MadScientist267 and coming from a mechanic. Manufacturers are only adding more and more systems for the lazy.
..... Really, you measured it all out and know you completed your turns on the same space as required by this track. Really.
@@aarontoussaint8364 The real moose test is avoiding an actual moose on an actual road in actual driving conditions. And thats what homey did.
Every car: dodges moose
Gt86: STRIKE
NO!
Have you ever see what those thing can do to a truck. Dont hit them there like a brick wall
I would definitely say breaking isn’t realistic. Often times making that maneuver is the reaction to something very suddenly appearing in front of you, like a moose.
Also I agree with what another person said, that having someone not considered a pro driver adds to the realism. Companies use pro drivers to show the best of the car, not the faults
I feel like using pro drivers would be better because it would exclude driver-mistakes; it would purely show how well the car handles in extreme situations?
@@termitreter6545 again that’s my point. This test isn’t about how well a pro could “theoretically” handle the turn. It’s a more or less average person (albeit one whose run the maneuver many times) showing how the car reacts in the turn. Pros are paid to make things look good, not reflect real world expectations.
If not a pro who else will do the test then? A local grandpa with nothing else to do at 2pm?
@@tomaccino i mean, maybe the guy, doing the testing? its not theoretical, he literally has a channel showing him doing the testing. what?
@@pokemon202668 Perhaps the people running these tests could be better described as a professional testers, they're getting paid to drive this car through the test - they're indeed professional drivers of a sort.
3:22 the solution isn't a stiffer rear anti-roll bar, it's a stiffer front bar. Whichever end gets more sway bar stiffness looses traction and gives it to the other end.
I've done the ELC Emergency Lane Change test a few years ago and I was surprised how well a vauxhall vectra managed it, got it up to 45mph and made a passenger a very odd shade of green.
Typically passenger cars will handle the test fine especially if they are light and low. The electric cars are also good because of their lower center of gravity. The worst car would be trucks and SUVs with a full frame
Important test for highway driving as well. I've seen cars swerving left and right avoiding another car that cuts into another lane without checking. Some almost spin out of control, some near miss and 1 hit the barrier
It is extremely cool that an old Citroen family car can rinse this test.
It's not quite that. Xantia has a merely better than average performance. Xantia Activa with a hydropneumatic anti roll bar is the winner, while the hydropneumatic suspension of the base Xantia lacks this feature. It's also got a NA 3L V6 and some extra spoiler bits, it's explicitly the sporty version, and with its handling, it's not just lip service. It's not a shopping trolley on wheels which can accidentally corner well, not at all.
French car manufacturers go always above and beyond with tech, or at least they used to. Sigh.
@@Galf506 The french automotive industry is on a bit of a revival state right now. Newer PSA models look excelent , offer appealing drivetrains and reliability reports seem decent too. That being said, i only have experience with their econo-boxes. Signed - a 2016 Citroen C4 owner.
@@bogdanrus7953 in the past they just always came out of the blue with insanely advanced tech, the hydropneumatic suspension was one thing, then there's also 2 wheel steering, advanced materials, a lot of fun stuff. But yeah French cars are looking better after that low point that was pretty much anything from the early 2000s to yesterday
I can see that not having a professional driver can skew results, but it's important to keep in mind that it's supposed to reflect everyday driving. So whilst an M4 spinning out isn't as bad as a Jeep blowing a tyre I think it would deserve a mention when writing the review
Doesn't matter if it is meant for the average driver, it's not a test if there is no control in this case being the skill of the driver, with said driver being able to complete this test using the Citroen at the record holding 54mph.
Most average drivers these days can't even turn this far considering how many of them sit right up and humping the steering wheel, giving themselves T-rex arms that are unable to easily turn the steering wheel.
A test with two independent variables is an invalid test. This test is testing a machine, not the people driving it. If you're a shit driving you will crash, doesn't matter how good the handling is. So having non professional drivers behind the wheel DOESN'T make sense.
@@eewweeppkk Better drivers are better at cornering and have better compensation skills, which in this case is worse than having "two variables", because you could be completely negating the effects the test could be showing. And they didn't use shit drivers, just average ones
@@ubelmensch Professional drivers are able to get near the vehicle's limit, which means that the difference between professional drivers will be much, much smaller than between average drivers. Average drivers, not knowing how to efficiently drive a car, will vary in how they take the test in many ways; they might turn too much, too little, too early, too late, over-correct, not react in time, etc... A professional driver knows how to handle that scenario, so multiple professional drivers will perform it the same way, even if they have slight variations in their performance. Think of it this way, an average driver might handle a car at, say, between 25% and 50% of its limits. A professional driver might handle it at, say, 85% to 95% of its limits. The difference is much less, ergo the test is more consistent and more useful.
This also means that, since the skill difference between two professional drivers will vary less than between two average drivers, the test results will correspond more to the vehicle's limits than to the drivers' skills; this is the opposite when tested with average drivers, because the difference in their driving will make much more of an impact on the result than the difference between the vehicles' limits.
Tests regarding how a car will handle the errors of average drivers would be useful, yes, but the point of the moose test is to be a comparable performance test, and that simply doesn't work when there greatly unreliable variables.
@@gohaster well yeah, that's the point of using regular people. Professional drivers know and can stay within the limits of the vehicle, preventing rollovers, doing fancy drifting, and not panicking when the car isn't turning.
Regular people will just turn the car wheel and brake at the worst times, causing a vehicle to go OVER it's limits and flip, or rip a tire out of a wheel well.
It's like how game testers miss bugs, but regular people playing a game normally can accidentally glitch out of bounds and break the game.
I owned a Xantia once. I was the most comfortable ride of all the cars I have owned. I was surprised of its good cornering capabilities also.
I drove one, I was amazed
Citroen has mastered the art of suspension.
It’s the xantia activa not the standard xantia, but yes, the Xantia is incredible.
Sadly, the idiots at PSA killed the hydraulic suspension that the Xantia Activa was using as a basis. I used to be a diehard Citroën fan, but nowadays the brand is completely forgettable.
The M3 result shouldn't be excused. You're looking at a car in the normal or comfort driving mode. You should expect safe handling.
The car red bmw is actually an M4, not an M3
Eh it just knows how to party.
And also, 99% of sport car owners are ppl with money but without skill. Iam doing motorsports for 20 years now and whenever i see a sports car on the road i have to laugh about the driving by the drivers.
„A professional driver would have done better“. Yes, thats true, for all the cars here.
The M3/4 result is actually alarming when you know a typical owner if these cars
@@imbadatcod7208 It's the same as M3 but coupé
You would think the electric nanny's would kick in.
From what little I have done with suspension tuning I would have to guess that the rigidity inhibits the car from transferring weight that quickly to generate grip.
As mentioned in the video, it's setup to perform in a different use case scenario. Edit; Spelling
I literally had to pull this manoeuver ON MY DRIVER'S TEST when someone pulled out in front of me. I was going to fail the test otherwise but I ended up passing because I avoided the accident.
Bad drivers are everywhere. I *am* one. Drivers with good instincts, however, are not so common. Congratulations on passing the real test when struggling with the formalities. It wasn't just luck on your side, that day.
@@zerosumgame5700 It almost felt like a scripted event tbh.
@@ShinkuRED I literally got stuck behind a mail truck for 10 out of the 15 minutes, instructor just told me to go back instead of going on the highway lol
You as a person not only can drive, you can also care about the life forward more then most of us! Good job.
@@smexywexy3087 haha you lucked out 😂
0:59 doing the moose test with the passenger wearing a bike helmet and the driver with none is crazy
He was like "no helmets provided?...I'll bring my own"
This has happened to me many times in Canada during the winter. Deer and moose cross highways at dawn and dusk. This manoeuvre (though frowned upon by many) has saved me and my car from serious damage.
Everyone says not to do it but when you got .5 seconds to react to some jackass deer you're just operating on instinct
The reason it is frowned upon is because if you avoid the animal and ditch the car your insurance does not cover you.
When learning to drive a school bus, the motto was "Dont vear, always smear the deer." and "Hit them square.". Hitting a moose is another thing. +1,500 pounds of flesh and bone on stilts. Better hope it flips over the car. One other animal that is a real killer is a big pig. They roll.
I learned that 98% of the time it's safer to hit the animal over the ditch. The 2% of the time is when the animal was a moose.
😂 The, "Better hope it flips over the car." got me.
In Australia we are told not to swerve around kangaroos because they will usually jump out of the way and you can then swerve into them.
Foot through the floor, and aim for the head.
All debris goes over the top
@@Vanquish96X Best comment :-)
The good "old" technic in the big citroen of the 80's / 90's was favorite. Best of suspension. Great results in comfort and(!) Handling. Thank you!
Yeah, but it is not a standard Xantia that aces the test.
It's the Xantia Activa, the performance version, which is a fairly rare car.
A base version Xantia performs decent but not spectacular
@@per6605 yes, you are right.
Xantia roadholding is really fantastic. It saved my life several times. Once coming round a highway junction underpass bend with poor visibility and a dead stop traffic jam /just around the bend with the only option that did not involve rear-ending someone being to jump into the leftmost lane in that very second. FYI the hydropneumatic suspension was developed by Citroen, WiIliams had no hand in that.
Yea but whit my 1997 xantia td wasn't the moose test the worst problem, getting the damn thing to start in the mornings where the big issue.
@@MrJokkoma Sounds like an electrical problem - those weren’t exclusive to the MX...
Having just performed a moose test at 65 mph to dodge a Honda right next to us who suddenly decided to violently slam into our lane (by which I mean the side of our car), moose test will certainly account for a big proportion of our consideration for future cars. Oh by the way we have a Stelvio, which performed really well in moose test.
a car that came out in 1999 still hold the crown. I miss the old days. that car is a testament that mechanical aptitude can't be aged by time
That's because modern cars are made to be as efficient as possible, not as safe as possible. If a modern car hits an older metal one, the steel vehicle will be 90% okay, the fiberglass? Not so much.
@@seanewing204 the steel vehicle will be okay but not the passengers inside. Modern cars are designed to crumple to be ssfer for the passengers
It absolutely can be aged, we just choose not to because of how we are as a people. Oh well lol.
@@seanewing204 modern cars actually do focus on safety. first of all modern cars aren't made of fiberglass, they're made of plastic. second, the outer body of the car is meant to absorb kinetic energy by crumpling so that the passengers are hit with less energy. as a result, they can survive injuries which would've been fatal in an older metal one like you discribed
The question is... Would we pay for a active suspension and the cost of maintaining one of these on a family sedan? I guess that explains the whole thing
To the A-Class, It got recalled, has been lowered by 15mm and given stiffer Damping. As a result of this test, it was the first compact car that came with ESP as standard, and the second car after the S-Class, not as an option.
ESP now is mandatory and saves basicly more lifes than Airbags since it can prevent cars getting out of control by individually breaking each wheel, similar to flight envelope protection in modern planes.
One killer feature of the moose Test: You add the maximum allowed weight to the car, but also as high up as possible, e.g. by filling containers with water an set them on the Rear seats.
so that's why the hilux rolled so bad. A more realistic scenario where the load is laid down in the bed of the truck like any normal person would do should be tested instead.
interesting. id always just assumed that the idiotic looking skinny wheel/tyre combo you always see on these was the roll over fix :'D
It's actually enough tire for the car. Fitting wider tires won't correct the intentional understeering or the primitive rear-axle
@@satunnainenkatselija4478 Laws of physics say : non fixed Objects fall over when the projection of center of gravity along the vector of the force of gravity leaves the "contact area" with the next solid surface.
(while contact area doesn't have to mean contact, imagine a table with four legs, I just don't find a better term)
Of course for things in motion even more laws would apply.
Stability control tries to
- brake individual wheels
-reduce engine power (by e-throttle)
to not allow this condition to be met. That's the trick.
The main issue was it was given a spoiler.
The Moose test IS an extreme test, (I mostly watch km77) and it highlights the inability of vehicles with a high center of gravity as the main culprits in the failure. If the Moose doesn't kill you, the roll over will.
Exactly. That's why it shouldn't be taken seriously. The chance of happening is like the chance of winning the lottery
Living in moose country it most certainly is a well needed test. The thing with hitting a moose head on is its so tall its really heavy body will 99% chance to land on your cars windscreen/a-pillars. And that will either hurt you very badly, or kill you. Personally would rather roll the car! If you have oncoming traffic and a deer or something of equal size gets in your way then just brake and hit it. Least damage that way. In an old car you probably still will be able to drive it, slowly.. In a modern with loads of sensors most likely no more driving that day. But you live. If a moose suddenly gets in your way then its time for some seriously quick thinking! Are you alone on the road its choosing hitting it in the rear legs or head for nearest ditch. Head for the ditch, any side of the road. Just dont hit it head on! Best thing ever invented and fitted to cars are ABS or however anti locking brakes are written shortly. Learn to use them to their full capacity!
It might aswell be another car so the test is still relevant
@@imtheonehero9305 rollovers are a pretty big deal dude
@@imtheonehero9305 you miss the point entirely. Just because moose aren't common everywhere doesn't mean a car swerving into your lane isn't.
Everyone knows when you hit the brakes steering actually becomes harder than without...
This test should be a industry standard, see it as a child running across the street while you got another car coming into you.
While you are unable to see the child until it is to late so you are forced to do this, because braking would kill the child.
Not just that, it actually has way more use than you think at first glance because this is actually the same for bad weather and making tight turns.
So basically OLD top gear was right all along, cars got worse, not better.
I live on the Ontario/Quebec border and drive those highways every day. Currently have to slow down or stop for Moose/Deer and bears about once a week. Thankfully they havent come out right in front of me yet!
If it's a moose, aim for the hind legs and you might just miss it! Usually once they have begun to cross they will keep going. Reindeers are worse, they can stop to contemplate Wittgenstein or the current situation in the Middle East or something, or remember they left the stove on and turn around to go back - no traffic savviness whatsoever.
I've done this maneuver to avoid a deer in my Honda Prelude at 70mph and in my 1996 Mercury Villager to avoid a car at about 40mph. I'm actually really impressed how well the Villager stayed planted
Old cars are such well-built machines.
I've done a similar maneuver in a newer car, Nissan X-trail, and it was impressively balance going 100+ kmph. But for me it wasn't a moose, it was an IDIOT coming out of nowhere.
Jeremy Clarkson's "apartment citroen" should pass the test with flying colours
No? It would topple over
@@somerandomidiot9996 no it would start levitating
@@somerandomidiot9996 r/woosh
@@infinitemsi reddit moment
It was never called the "moose" test originally. Since the point of the test was always to test the cars ability to avoid ANYTHING suddenly appearing in front of the car. It could be a kid.. or another car. And of course a moose. But that doesnt really matter.
It was just Mercedes that tried to ridicule the test in their initial shock state. So they labeled it the moose test. Trying to imply that it was a test only relevant in Sweden (that is known in Europe to have a lot of moose), so noone else had to care.
I have a true story about the Xantia (a 1995 second hand model with the active suspension) On my very first day of getting it, I made the huge mistake of taking a dangerous curve without slowing down. I feel how the inertia push me out of the road but luckily the active suspension balanced the car as shown on this video to prevent it. I was terrified and immediately parked the car. I could visible see it being inclined on the side and then slowly getting back to being leveled.
A sword is an edged, bladed weapon intended for manual cutting or thrusting. Its blade, longer than a knife or dagger, is attached to a hilt and can be straight or curved. A thrusting sword tends to have a straighter blade with a pointed tip. A slashing sword is more likely to be curved and to have a sharpened cutting edge on one or both sides of the blade. Many swords are designed for both thrusting and slashing. The precise definition of a sword varies by historical epoch and geographic region.
@@woahwoay8342 this message brought to you by schizophrenia
@@JohnSmith-tz4on
A gun is a ranged weapon designed to use a shooting tube (gun barrel) to launch projectiles.[1] The projectiles are typically solid, but can also be pressurized liquid (e.g. in water guns/cannons, spray guns for painting or pressure washing, projected water disruptors, and technically also flamethrowers), gas (e.g. light-gas gun) or even charged particles (e.g. plasma gun). Solid projectiles may be free-flying (as with bullets and artillery shells) or tethered (as with Taser guns, spearguns and harpoon guns). A large-caliber gun is also called a cannon.
The means of projectile propulsion vary according to designs, but are traditionally effected pneumatically by a high gas pressure contained within the barrel tube, produced either through the rapid exothermic combustion of propellants (as with firearms), or by mechanical compression (as with air guns). The high-pressure gas is introduced behind the projectile, pushing and accelerating it down the length of the tube, imparting sufficient launch velocity to sustain its further travel towards the target once the propelling gas ceases acting upon it after it exits the muzzle. Alternatively, new-concept linear motor weapons may employ an electromagnetic field to achieve acceleration, in which case the barrel may be substituted by guide rails (as in railguns) or wrapped with magnetic coils (as in coilguns).
The first devices identified as guns or proto-guns appeared in China from around AD 1000.[2] By the end of the 13th century, they had become "true guns," metal barrel firearms that fired single projectiles which occluded the barrel.[3][4] Gunpowder and gun technology spread throughout Eurasia during the 14th century.[5][6][7]
@@JohnSmith-tz4on lol, but just noting the name & model of the Xantia....wondering if they make truck suspension like the Xantia, to make it safer with it's higher center of gravity, which makes it very "Topple-prone" ?
I saw an short Clip with a Ford F150 with an expensive undercarriage suspension, individual control for each wheel in height, about 2ft adjustment up&down, but I highly doubt, that it meant for computer controlled "400 times a min or sec" reaction for cornering a lil faster.
Lies. That year rolled no more than 0.5 degrees, and it was NOT the suspension that mitigatied roll, it was the anti-roll bars. You are full of crap. It doesn't work the way you claim it does and there's no way you'd see 0.5 degrees of movement - especially considering it will have righted itself before you exited the car.
This is a perfect test. Regular people driving cars under regular conditions where an object in the road needs the driver to react quickly and instinctively.
More manufacturers need to put regular people behind the wheel while testing these vehicles. You know, the people buying them.
This is the reason that in order to qualify for a Swedish drivers licence, you need to do one of these tests with a tuitor twice, once on a dry track once on a simulated slippery road as well as a curve test where you go through a slippery surface curve at gradually higher speeds until it's impossible to maintain traction in the curve just to get familiar with the feel and behaviour if the car under adverse conditions and know when it's safe to keep the legal speed limit and when nature tells you to go slower than that or fuck around and get a stupid award (no darwin awards availiable in the category due to how frequent people leave their brain somewhere else when they sit down to drive)
These tests were introduced by the Swedish defence administration for every driver in the armed forces, professional officers and conscripts alike as the costs in equipment and personell to reckless driving incidents and accidents was unacceptably high.
At the same time, they introduced and retrofitted seat belts in all vehicles as well as strict rules for documenting and adherance to drivers rest and sleep regulations.
Less than a decade later, the cost of vehicle related damages and injuries had dropped by almost 90% across the board and the government had started implementing applicable parts of the army regulations for civilian drivers licences.
exactly .. and there are people trying to disprove legitimacy of these tests because "its and suv / hybrid and the battery in the trunk is causing this" WHO THE HELL CARES ? When you die u can chat with god about the bad battery placement in you car lmao :D :D
I mean, the test is great and all, but realistically speaking if everyone only made cars that passed this test, then all vehicles would look like the Citroen. There's be no buses or semi's, no supercars or trucks, no motorcycles. Take it for what it is, an indication of what your vehicle might do in that situation and then forget all of it when you actually plow into a moose walking out in front of you because you were looking at your phone or whatever.
It's not a perfect test if there is no braking
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper umm... I've done the test in a 10cm raised and rough road refitted Mercedes sprinter van (slide guards under engine and differentials, 4wd, double wheels on rear axle)
It didn't flip. Part of the test is that you do it multiple times starting at low speeds and increasing until you clip a cone or loose traction in the turn.
European: "nooooo America!!! Your cars arent passing the moose test!!"
American in 5 ton dodge: "ramming speed"
Problem is that collision with a moose will absolutely wreck any vehicle short of an armored truck. It is almost like ramming a bison.
@@mr.deviljho9789 And is extremely dangerous for the driver
@@mr.deviljho9789 Same with a kangaroo on Aus, they're only a little over 6ft, but I've seen them total large SUVs
@@mr.deviljho9789 So what your saying is to go faster?
European: if i swerve hard just right in this split second i just might make it
American: i'm not gonna make it might as well take the bastard with me.
Yeah there was a guy who slammed brakes when hard steering at decent speed, lost all control and crashed through my hedge. Only time you can brake hard is when you already lost control and are sliding, if you still have control of steering it's better to use it instead.
Scares me seeing people doing the test without helmets at the very least. My girlfriend has severe epilepsy from a very basic car crash. Just hoping all the testers are staying as safe as they can be. Thanks for pointing this issue out and hope it's addressed in the future! :)
Mind your own business and let adults' make-up their own minds on how they conduct field test. As you watch this TH-cam video put on your helmet and leave people the hell alone.
@@blessusa123 lol. Rough week?
@@blessusa123 they were just giving advice
@@blessusa123 stay mad
Good point, but why would you wear a helmet in a car, atleast one designed to minimize damage?
I've basically had to do this maneuver on the road several times in my life. The car that did the best (at least for me) was surprisingly a full-size sedan that was front wheel drive (Hyundai Azera). Also the Honda Fit did surprisingly well in this maneuver. Ironically one of the worst cars I've had to do this maneuver in was a "sports" car, the Mitsubishi Eclipse. Despite never having a front-facing collision in any vehicle thanks to quick reactions, all of these cars were eventually traded-in or totaled after being badly rear-ended by someone else... almost always someone in an SUV or crossover. The level of stupid on American roads is hard to quantify because it always goes off the chart.
The eclipse isn't a sports car......
@@JosephArata Hence why I put it in quotes. I also don't consider it to be a sports car any longer, but when I was younger and F&F was cool, I thought it was. I now have some proper RWD sports cars in my collection (Miata and BRZ) and have enough track time and time on a lift under my belt to know the difference, but when I was young and dumb, that wasn't true. It was, at any rate, a lightweight coupe and should have handled better than it did, and was surprisingly worse in this scenario than economy shitboxes.
@@Tristor86 I’d bet it’s the light weight that did it in. It’s got the weight of a sports car without the real handling capabilities, worst of both worlds when combined. As for the BRZ, how would you rate it for daily road driving? I’ve currently got a Focus ST, but I’ve been thinking of upgrading
Maybe you should slow down a bit
@@Tristor86 why the hell would you say a eclipse is a sports car
Without even getting 30 seconds in, I'm guessing it has something to do with crossovers becoming more prevalent. Too top-heavy.
Higher center of gravity, heavier than an equivalent sedan, worst aerodynamics (bigger cross-sectional area).
And more often than you'd think, no improvement to interior space (headroom, etc) or capacity (volume).
But most people have this miconception that being higher/taller is safer.
And anyway, most people don't care about cars or about driving, they just buy whatever's trending (or whatever the salesman tells them to buy)...
They're also easier for ingress/egress. That comes into play with ever expanding backsides in certain countries.
@@triggermovies But isn't higher and taller safer?
@@dean4545 Nope, lower the car, the lower the COG and the better it handles.
@Peter Evans I jump over it.
Its because they keep making cars taller and heavier. making them safer in an accident but more accident prone, impossible to see around and hard to see anything infront of you while driving.
I learned something new today, thank you!
The funny keyboard TH-camr is into cars?
Did you Learn that if you Hit a Moose it will come Thru your Windshield and Kill the People Seating in the Front Seats? that's the Truth Way they Do this Test for if you hit a Moose your Dead. Look it up I Live in the Northeast of the USA Where Moose Live and I have Seen over 20 Car Truck hits Moose and Driver and Passenger are Killed by the Moose Antlers Coming thru the Windshield and Going thru there Heads or Thru there Chest. Do Whatever you Can Your Better off hitting a Tree or a Car coming at you Then Hitting a Moose
Hi
u learned BS, sorry but it's true. The Xantia took part in a moose test 20 years ago. Today's test is different. They tested the Xantia on a today's test and it went max 73 kph (not 85kph). So today it would not be a winner - many cars can go way way faster in todays test.
aren't you supposed to stay in the keyboard community
Please make more videos like these! Raising concerns about the safety of vehicles is CRITICAL. In order for improvements to be made, we need to acknowledge the problem in the first place. Btw, you DEFINITELY earned a sub from me.
YES YES
Adding to that,an advanced driver program in schools should be mandatory. Maybe University?
Great video lads.
Here in Texas, we'd call that "the feral hog test."
Free bacon
The feral hog test would be slamming on the gas and having to swerve into the fucker
Can confirm
Here in Texas you have to use this technique in order to dodge slow people in the fast lane
Or the HEB Parking lot Test...
Cars are getting wider, heavier, and more top-heavy. Especially trucks.. they’ve been ordering big Macs every day for 10 years. Huge!
A class fails the test: "Yes We got 'em!"
Others fail the test: "The test if faulty!"
Disgusting...
What.. do you actually trust the Moose test.
@@johndavidson3424 that test can happen in reality
@@strafniki1080 Well then I guess that depends on the driver too.
I can get behind the purpose of the test. People Being Happy a certain Brand failed is what disgusts me.
And than Justifying Other brands when they fail.
@@DexMaster881So basically you're disgusted with fan boy mentality? You should check out the Subaru fan boys at the 4x4 tests on rollers-comments, hilarious!
7:00 From the start of the video, I was going to comment that most of these taller vehicles should have active suspension to reduce roll, but Citroen seems to already know that. I wonder how many ambulances have active suspension; unlike the Cadillac-hearse-based ambulances of the 1960s, today's ambulances are very high but still need soft suspensions to avoid further injuring the patients; seems like a perfect case for an active suspension.
from experience trying to avoid elk and moose, hitting your brakes while trying to corner hard is really rather bad.
Yep, wheels have limited traction, if you use 100% of that traction to turn, then braking (even gentle) will just lock up the wheels
Edit: small correction, wheels won't lock up but you'll get under steer until car's weight shifts forwards again
Light braking will load the front wheels giving them more grip and allowing for a sharper steering response, tire grip increases with increased load.
It will take practice to manage load across all 4 tires to maximize grip where and when you need it, you must be observant and familiar with the balance of your vehicle.
Racing driver Randy Pobst has a series on TH-cam about driving techniques and one episode covers dynamic load management.
@@adro3869 you'll often be better off easing off the throttle, stepping a gear down, and using that to increase both traction and acceleration, which youd be surprised how often matters.
@Bob Watters its actually a pretty good test because swerving in to the oncoming lane, then swerving back in to the proper lane is exactly what happens in the back roads, even in rural america for things like elk or moose or even just deer.
@Bob Watters Man you have never seen a backroad highway in your life have you? you must be dense to think every highway is always bumper to bumper all the time.
back roads, like where you will find moose, elk, or even buffalo seldom has anyone else for miles.
and yes the other lane is usually safer than the ditch at 70 and 80mph