ANCAP vs REAL world crashes. small cars not so good.

[1TUFFUTE]

http://www.news.com.au/national/ligh...-1226446197372

stumbled across this info that I know a lot would be VERY interested in reading. It addresses in a factual way some of the big theories and myths some have about the safety of small vs large cars. size, weight, mass, and the validity of trusting ANCAP as gospel when choosing safe cars. its not new news but research facts are FACTS afterall.

I wont spoil it for you but for eg....some 4 star ancap rated cars only received 1 safety star.

[Crazy Dazz]

"The problem is the ANCAP crash test doesn't take into account weight. The heavier car will always come off better in a crash.

Finally somebody smart enough to agree with me.

In an equal world, we'd all be better off driving lightweight cars. HOWEVER, as long as there are trucks, and buses, and trees, and light posts, and idiots, the world will NOT be equal and drivers of heavier cars will fare better.

[LoudPipes]

Anything over a 100 km/h and you can expect to end up dead anyway.
More credit or stars should be given for passive systems that help avoid the crash in the first place.

[Nikked]

Not this crap again...didn't his go in a whirly whirly the last time someone here crashed a small car a survived to tell his tale?

[Taily]

Get in a whirly all anyone likes, there is no escaping basic maintenance and the laws of physics when it comes to an impact. You've all heard people bang on about power:weight ratio when it comes to performance, well the same can be said when it comes to an accident, apart from the most obvious advantage a small car will have and that is (possibly) a shorter stopping distance. Anyone want to go head to head with a fully laden B-double with your Hyundai i30? Didn't think so, everyone knows you will perish if you try...

Interesting they listed the Mitsubishi 380 as a good'n. We can back that one up by personal experience. Wife bought one new in 2005, was faultless right the way through until written off in late 2010 by some goose who ran up the back of it at better than 70km/h while we were stationary behind traffic. It was only after I thought back about the sequence of events of the actual direct rear impact I remembered the pretensioners banging off, the wheel brakes completely releasing (even though I had both feet jammed on the pedal and my arm across my wife in the passenger seat as I had seen the laden Bt50 careering towards us), the seats front submarining etc. He hit us hard enough to knock not only us into the car in front, but that car into the car in front of it too.

Our injuries? A good bruise each from the seat belt, but apart from that not a mark on us or my 6 month old son who was asleep in the rear seat (in his car seat) during the impact. The Commodore ute we were pushed into much the same, the Scion that was in front of the commodore ute had kids in the back seat that were pinned behind the front seats for a while.

No two accidents are the same though.

[sgt_doofey]

Force = mass x acceleration

If my year 12 physics is correct?

It's all about how the car dissipates that force in an accident.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Finally somebody smart enough to agree with me.

In an equal world, we'd all be better off driving lightweight cars. HOWEVER, as long as there are trucks, and buses, and trees, and light posts, and idiots, the world will NOT be equal and drivers of heavier cars will fare better.

Pretty sure the used car safety people have been saying that for like a decade mate. I can remember looking it up many years ago and they basically said that on their website - is it 'howsafeisyourcar' or something like that?

So none of this is news and your flash of brilliance probably wasn't the first time it has been said either

[TC200six]

I remember seeing this article posted here before.

You don't have to be a qualified expert to understand that because a small car has a 5-star NCAP rating means its safe against a larger car with a lower NCAP rating.

5-star Fiat 500 vs. Audi Q7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVF1Wr7GLQ
F-250 vs. 2002 Ford Focus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQ5XOtF7dY

[jpblue1000]

These threads always seem to be about bashing the person who makes the decision to drive a smaller car than most on here. Is it an inferiority complex of the big car driver? Justification for your life choices perhaps or pure and simply bullying.
No wonder falcon drivers have the reputation they have!

JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

These threads always seem to be about bashing the person who makes the decision to drive a smaller car than most on here. Is it an inferiority complex of the big car driver? Justification for your life choices perhaps or pure and simply bullying.
No wonder falcon drivers have the reputation they have!

JP

MAYBE JUST MAYBE I CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES LIVES
The amount of miss informed people who simply and basically believe ANcap ratings mean everything, is astonishing. I felt obligated to post this info as it's real world results and may help people choose safer cars. And it certainly doesn't mean you HAVE to pick a falcon
You, NIKKED and your constant trolling are not welcome.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

You, NIKKED and your constant trolling are not welcome.

One mans troll is anothers truth seeker!

JP

[Franco Cozzo]

Meh, my small car did alright when I t-boned an 80s Rodeo on Sunbury Rd when they reversed out across in front of me, if they had a passenger they would have been dead as I bent the thing like a banana.

I come out of it with minor burns and one hell of a bruise from the seatbelt.

I'm trying to sell my current Focus, who wants go test out your theories of small vs large car? Who has an FG they'd be willing to sit in while I t-bone it? My insurance pay out is higher than what I could sell the car for lol.

Danny also bumped into a Navara or Hilux in his Renault Megane and he has some good photos.

In the name of science!

[MAGPIE]

The problem is the ANCAP crash test doesn't take into account weight. The heavier car will always come off better in a crash.

Bollocks it will !

[superyob]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Bollocks it will !

Not saying you are wrong, but what is your evidence?

[Ben73]

In the thread about teh Prado roll over, someone said that 5 star sedans could claim 6 stars compared to SUVs because sedans have less chance of a roll over.
But then we could argue that 5 star SUVs could have 6 stars because they weigh more and that helps to some degree in real world crashes with smaller vehicles.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Bollocks it will !

Wellllll......ancap DOESNT take weight into account. And I'm pretty sure a whole monash university research department with 20 years and over 5million crashes too compile evidence bring us to the conclusion that maybe they know what they're talking about.

[mik]

The ancap system is a nice idea but its badly flawed, no rear end crash testing for a start, if they started doing crash tests of all the cars they have rated over past year's probably half of them would be lucky to see one star, especially the compacts with no rear crumple zones.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

image

image

Meh, my small car did alright when I t-boned an 80s Rodeo on Sunbury Rd when they reversed out across in front of me, if they had a passenger they would have been dead as I bent the thing like a banana.

I come out of it with minor burns and one hell of a bruise from the seatbelt.

I'm trying to sell my current Focus, who wants go test out your theories of small vs large car? Who has an FG they'd be willing to sit in while I t-bone it? My insurance pay out is higher than what I could sell the car for lol.

Danny also bumped into a Navara or Hilux in his Renault Megane and he has some good photos.

In the name of science!

Maybe you and 'Danny' could compile your two accidents are release a comprehensive real world crash safety article for the masses. Monash university will want to know about it tho.
In fact......your incidents were probably included in the stats as all crashes from police,ambos and other sources are used.

Or we could go one further......I could tee bone your focus drivers door in my FG falcon.....then when you come out of traction we could swap over

[LoudPipes]

ANCAP has become a marketing ploy, its value in a real world crash scenario is limited.

Most car manufacturers are aware of its short comings but now deliberately design cars to pass the tests as the 5 stars can make or break them in the market when compared to their competitors.

ANCAP plays a part but passive systems are the real future to a safer motoring world.

[simon varley]

it's MUARC. Who believes anything that comes out of that department? They are hardly impartial are they?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Finally somebody smart enough to agree with me.

In an equal world, we'd all be better off driving lightweight cars. HOWEVER, as long as there are trucks, and buses, and trees, and light posts, and idiots, the world will NOT be equal and drivers of heavier cars will fare better.

Unfortunately all of the bold examples you have given are that much heavier or stronger than any car it doesnt matter if you are in a 3 tonne bentley or a Getz.

Only if you are heavier do you get the benefits

[jpblue1000]

The last time the monash multi million crash analysis was discussed the issue of safest crashing car and safest car was raised and the difference between them.
ANCAP and the MUARC show how well a car performs in the 300 milliseconds after a crash occurs. they do not show how well any car performs in avoiding the many more near misses that occurred before a big one...
I will not argue that during those 300 milliseconds size doesn't matters, what I will argue is you are more likely to have the impact in the bigger vehicle than in a smaller one!
Now also consider large cars are on the decline on our roads, more smaller cars are being purchased so if you don't subscribe to the bigger car more likely to crash then maybe your of the mind that your more likely to hit a similar sized car if your in a 'smaller' car!
Adding define 'smaller' cars, the fiesta, fords smallest car, is circa 1200Kgs the Focus 1300-1400 and the Mondeo 1500-1650 kg's, not that much difference by histories standards.
My daily weighs 830Kg's and I'm not dead, haven't been dead and am unlikely to be dead soon

JP

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by superyob

Not saying you are wrong, but what is your evidence?

20 years of attending motor vehicle accidents and extricating the victims has proven to me that the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Wellllll......ancap DOESNT take weight into account. And I'm pretty sure a whole monash university research department with 20 years and over 5million crashes too compile evidence bring us to the conclusion that maybe they know what they're talking about.

How many accidents do they respond to ? (that is... attend to in real life, with real vehicles, real patients, real blood and real death)

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Maybe you and 'Danny' could compile your two accidents are release a comprehensive real world crash safety article for the masses. Monash university will want to know about it tho.
In fact......your incidents were probably included in the stats as all crashes from police,ambos and other sources are used.

Or we could go one further......I could tee bone your focus drivers door in my FG falcon.....then when you come out of traction we could swap over

How many small cars have you stacked?

Mine is from experience not what I read on the internet.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

image

image

Meh, my small car did alright when I t-boned an 80s Rodeo on Sunbury Rd when they reversed out across in front of me, if they had a passenger they would have been dead as I bent the thing like a banana.

I come out of it with minor burns and one hell of a bruise from the seatbelt.

I'm trying to sell my current Focus, who wants go test out your theories of small vs large car? Who has an FG they'd be willing to sit in while I t-bone it?

Instead of using our cars, how about this: I will let you slap my foot as hard as you can, and I will then kick you in the nuts with my steel-caps. That will test your theory.
On the other hand, if you ACTUALLY want to test your Focus, I will happily sit in my AU, whilst you drive into it HEAD-ON.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The last time the monash multi million crash analysis was discussed the issue of safest crashing car and safest car was raised and the difference between them Snip/
JP

Yes, the last time where one article declared a FG falcon to be the safest second hand car due to a collection of data pulled from a variety of crashes, from police reports. The major factors for the data were injuries/death sustained from the crash. Now keep in mind its measuring the crash not how it happened, factors like speed, vehicle condition, road condition, etc etc...just tells you if have a accident, how minced up you will be.

Two of the biggest arguments revolved around how MUARC results are the holy grail of vehicle safety guidelines (yeah, because I can use these used car data results on a brand new model?) and ANCAP are totally worthless because of 5-stars don't tell you much etc etc...the second of these 2 arguments brought forward were the silly assumption "mass will always win", despite the thread being started from a bloke walking away from a narly accident between his small car against a larger car.

The whole storm erupted because some people (like this threads creator) carrying their usual one sided no one else is right approach. This approach saw him ignore simple things like the said MUARC article also listing safe small cars...(apparently its a lack of comprehension and "trolling" to point out said facts).


The problem with one-sided approaches is, that with limited thinking such as "mass always wins", it fails to take into account the almost infinite possibilities that contribute to a crash, (such as the mass effecting the COG something that the OP is similarly creating a tirade over), passive safety, vehicle construction, age, condition what-have you.

As for ANCAP, the argument usually involves "its useless because the 5 stars arn't classed etc etc..." One thing the MUARC does, is dumb it down a tad so people who aren't smart enough to realise that a cars class is its class henceforth you compare it to cars of its class...like Yaris/Maz or Hilux/Triton...

Best thing about ANCAP is, it takes into account all the criteria of a what happens before, during and after an accident in pure laboratory conditions to give the best guide to how a car performs. This is why the tests are set at x speed, one of the first things you learn in science is to make sure all factors other the then the tested item are the same to give a result.

And the whole argument always centres around 2-cars crashing...not 3, or none...


If we are all worried about how mass always wins, does this mean that we should all go buy Prado's instead of Falcons? Because they are heavier...but wait, MURAC list the FG as the safest car...buy a falcon and avoid crashing into Prados...no wait, in 2012 MURAC listed the 2001-08 BMW X5 as the safest used car...but what about if I need to swerve? Where's the COG test!

Oh, but MUARC's Dr Stuart Newstead added that buyers should also not look to larger vehicles as a safety sure-thing..."You might feel safe just being in a large, heavy vehicle but in many cases, a greater vehicle-weight offers no safety advantage," he added...

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The last time the monash multi million crash analysis was discussed the issue of safest crashing car and safest car was raised and the difference between them.
ANCAP and the MUARC show how well a car performs in the 300 milliseconds after a crash occurs. they do not show how well any car performs in avoiding the many more near misses that occurred before a big one...
I will not argue that during those 300 milliseconds size doesn't matters, what I will argue is you are more likely to have the impact in the bigger vehicle than in a smaller one!
Now also consider large cars are on the decline on our roads, more smaller cars are being purchased so if you don't subscribe to the bigger car more likely to crash then maybe your of the mind that your more likely to hit a similar sized car if your in a 'smaller' car!
Adding define 'smaller' cars, the fiesta, fords smallest car, is circa 1200Kgs the Focus 1300-1400 and the Mondeo 1500-1650 kg's, not that much difference by histories standards.
My daily weighs 830Kg's and I'm not dead, haven't been dead and am unlikely to be dead soon

JP

You are WRONG....they also calculate many other things.....such as who is/was driving(gender,age), and where (city,country,dirt road) the incidents did and are likely to happen according to the cars class and other stats. They also arent so silly as not to apply some sort of algorithm that calculates differing amounts of each of the cars involved in all these accidents.

And for your sake then I hope your 830kg car isn't the dihatsu muira.....it's been 11 times more deadly then the BMW x5 for eg.....and that's not a stat taken from your "1experience".......it's millions of aus and nz incidents over the last 15 to 20 ish years.

And are you guys that childish your resorting to decrediting the muarc simply because of your own lucky incidents?

Please show proof that the muarc is not credit worthy!!
I can simply state the fact that ancap doesn't test cars against other sizes to show how redundant an ancap figure can be.

[JC]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

20 years of attending motor vehicle accidents and extricating the victims has proven to me that the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

But in what situation are you talking? Truck vs tree? 4wd roll over? In the context of large car vs small car where safety ratings are roughly the same (say 3 v 4, or 4 v 5, etc in favour of the smaller car), surely the large car will come out better every time?

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Yes, the last time where one article declared a FG falcon to be the safest second hand car due to a collection of data pulled from a variety of crashes, from police reports. The major factors for the data were injuries/death sustained from the crash. Now keep in mind its measuring the crash not how it happened, factors like speed, vehicle condition, road condition, etc etc...just tells you if have a accident, how minced up you will be.

Two of the biggest arguments revolved around how MUARC results are the holy grail of vehicle safety guidelines (yeah, because I can use these used car data results on a brand new model?) and ANCAP are totally worthless because of 5-stars don't tell you much etc etc...the second of these 2 arguments brought forward were the silly assumption "mass will always win", despite the thread being started from a bloke walking away from a narly accident between his small car against a larger car.

The whole storm erupted because some people (like this threads creator) carrying their usual one sided no one else is right approach. This approach saw him ignore simple things like the said MUARC article also listing safe small cars...(apparently its a lack of comprehension and "trolling" to point out said facts).


The problem with one-sided approaches is, that with limited thinking such as "mass always wins", it fails to take into account the almost infinite possibilities that contribute to a crash, (such as the mass effecting the COG something that the OP is similarly creating a tirade over), passive safety, vehicle construction, age, condition what-have you.

As for ANCAP, the argument usually involves "its useless because the 5 stars arn't classed etc etc..." One thing the MUARC does, is dumb it down a tad so people who aren't smart enough to realise that a cars class is its class henceforth you compare it to cars of its class...like Yaris/Maz or Hilux/Triton...

Best thing about ANCAP is, it takes into account all the criteria of a what happens before, during and after an accident in pure laboratory conditions to give the best guide to how a car performs. This is why the tests are set at x speed, one of the first things you learn in science is to make sure all factors other the then the tested item are the same to give a result.

And the whole argument always centres around 2-cars crashing...not 3, or none...


If we are all worried about how mass always wins, does this mean that we should all go buy Prado's instead of Falcons? Because they are heavier...but wait, MURAC list the FG as the safest car...buy a falcon and avoid crashing into Prados...no wait, in 2012 MURAC listed the 2001-08 BMW X5 as the safest used car...but what about if I need to swerve? Where's the COG test!

Oh, but MUARC's Dr Stuart Newstead added that buyers should also not look to larger vehicles as a safety sure-thing..."You might feel safe just being in a large, heavy vehicle but in many cases, a greater vehicle-weight offers no safety advantage," he added...

This thread has nothing to do with previous threads months ago.

Show me where I have once said that mass will always win. You can't because I've clearly stated I believe size deffinately is a big factor but engineering and other things aswell. So don't confuse me with others comments.

And I'm not sure why u dismiss the basis that the muarc test involves incidents with injuries or deaths. You don't get to choose if your in an accident.....ask the 5 million crash victims....I bet not one of them drove directly into another car.thats just being naive.
And show me once where I've said ONLY large cars are safe picks...JUST ONCE! EVER

Please stop trolling my every thread and or comment....it's beyond belief!

Your whole post is a troll and an attempt to "disrupt" a logical discussion. Mind you...I don't see you posting any facts to back yours comments.that'd be nice