Crash Tests

Article by Dennis James

For anyone that puts auto safety as a priority when it comes to purchasing new cars and trucks should understand that certain models perform differently in a crash. Learning what the new auto safety information is will benefit each and every person seeking to purchase a safe vehicle. New vehicles are safer than vehicles in the past, however; their crash worthiness varies by individual models even in the same vehicle class.

Two different sources perform auto safety tests in the US one is nonprofit trade groups and the other is government agencies. All new cars and trucks in the US must meet and pass Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The form includes that new vehicles must, meet a standard of 30-mph frontal and 33.5-mph side-impact compliance crash tests however, the safety of these vehicles above this standard varies. One thing you must understand is that the results for all models cannot be compared.

Unit-to-unit comparisons of frontal crash-test ratings are valid only within a vehicle class or between models of comparable weight within 250 pounds class. These tests will show how a car would stack up in a collision with another car of the same model and not compared with a larger or smaller vehicle or a lower or higher riding vehicle. Studies have shows that a heavier vehicle will protect its passengers better than a lighter one if all the factors tested were equal, however, they never are. Because of this, a large vehicle a Poor rating is not necessarily safer than a small vehicle with a Good rating.

You do need to understand that agencies test differently, as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducts a frontal-offset crash into a deformable barrier that reacts like another vehicle. This type of test gauges how only half of the vehicle’s front end absorbs crash energy.

The NHTSA testers perform head on car crashes with firm solid objects, the results will never show the real outcome of a collision, as most crashes do not head a solid object head on. Anther test they perform include chance-of-injury stat’s based on trauma to the test dummies’ torsos, not their heads. In reality, a passenger’s head is more susceptible to injury in a side impact and head injuries are more serious and many times fatal.

As you are shopping for your new car, the information of these tests may not be available yet because it is still pending or the vehicle may not be eligible. The majority of the times, convertibles are not normally tested for this very reason. Results for new or recently re-engineered models are likely to appear months after the vehicle goes on sale because both agencies purchase their test subjects from dealerships, just as consumers do. NHTSA tends to note if a vehicle is TBT (to be tested) or if results are pending or under review; IIHS gives no clue as to future reports.

Nevertheless, cars and trucks are safer today than in the past. Modern technology has helped with all phases of car safety. However, you must remember that the crash worthiness does vary. Therefore, if you wish to have the fasts vehicle on the road but you are concerned about safety it would be in your best interest to compare safety ratings and performance test in within the same models.

About the Author

Dennis runs Car Dealer Check which has reviews on Alabama Car Dealers including Birmingham Car Dealers.

Find More Crash Tests Articles

Czech Crash Testing Confirms The High Quality Standard Of Safety Of Škoda Cars

Article by Skoda Australia

A unique crash test was performed at the Škoda Auto testing polygon in Úhelnice on 7th September 2010 in front of a specialist public.

For the first time in the Czech Republic a frontal offset crash of two Škoda cars was presented to a Traffic Safety Research team where a Škoda Yeti, travelling at a speed of 90km/h, hit a standing Škoda Superb Wagon head on. Both cars were carrying four crash test dummies which had their seat belts fastened and secured with safety elements. The results of the crash test was clear: the occupants of both cars, in the case of a real crash at a speed of 90km/h, would come out of the crash without any injuries subject to all safety elements being used correctly.

The crash test was originally inspired by a real traffic accident that the Škoda Auto Traffic Safety Research team had analysed. Here photographs showed that the entire energy of the impact at a speed of 90 km/h was absorbed by the front part of the car without having any impact on the space of the passengers.

Further, upon close examination of the shots from the high-speed cameras, the rapid reaction of the car’s electronic systems that activates the safety elements showcased the safety standards of the cars even further. At this time the safety belts, knee and front airbags already had been activated before the test dummies had any chance to move as a result of the impact. Only 45 thousandths of a second after the bumpers first touched, all the airbags had already absorbed the human body’s energy.

Although the crash test in Úhelnice was of a different type and in a higher speed, the assessment methodology of the independent Euro-NCAP association used was the same in comparing the stress on the occupants during the impact. The results were further proved by a more detailed analysis of selected measurements, such as in the case of the amount of stress experienced on the passengers’ heads or compression of the passengers’ chests.

The European ECE R94 regulation, according to which all cars for use on European highways undergo homologation, prescribes a maximum value of 80 G for stress on a car passenger’s head which is the maximum value of acceleration that the human brain can handle for a short period without any serious damage.

The value measured on the head of the driver’s dummy in the Škoda Yeti only reached 44% of the value permitted by the regulation, which less than half of the level European ECE R94 regulation prescribes.

In the case of compression of an adult passenger’s chest, similar conclusions were applied where the measured value was around 35.7% percent of the permitted limit. The values permitted for stress on the thigh bones were only at 20% of the permitted maximum.

In local terms the Czech crash test has been conducted with a far higher speed used (90km/h) than in Australian testing where ANCAP crash test speed for frontal offset crash test is conducted at 64km/h. Further according to real-world (US) data, more than half of all fatalities to seat-belt-wearing drivers in frontal crashes occur at impact speeds under 55km/h.

The testing evidently demonstrates the high standard of safety of Škoda cars, thereby confirming Skoda’s ongoing commitment to occupant safety for its customers.

For further information, contact:

Karl Gehling, General Manager Press and PR

Telephone: (02) 9695 6003

Fax: (02) 9695 6186

E-mail: karl.gehling@volkswagen.com.au

www.skoda.com.au

Nadine Nethery, Public Relations Specialist

Telephone: (02) 9695 6010

Fax: (02) 9695 6186

E-mail: nadine.nethery@volkswagen.com.au

Jenny Wu, Public Relations Representative

Telephone: (02) 9695 6004

Fax: (02) 9091 7004

E-mail: jenny.wu@volkswagen.com.au

About the Author

–ABOUT SKODA–

For more information about new cars by Skoda or to contact your nearest Skoda car dealer take a look at the Skoda website. Skoda is very proud of their safe, quality cars and recently won an award for the Skoda Superb Wagon, a great family car.

More Crash Tests Articles

NHTSA To Overhaul Crash Test Program

Article by Lauren Woods

The major problem with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) program is that nearly all vehicles pass current tests. This makes it hard for consumers to compare between vehicles. This situation triggered the need for the NHTSA to overhaul its crash test program. Some of the standards have not been changed since its creation in 1979. The crash test program overhaul will also reduce three crash ratings to one.

The safety agency earlier held a day-long hearing with automakers, suppliers and safety advocates to discuss ways so as to overhaul NHTSA’s crash test program for new vehicles and create a single safety ranking. The hearing is aimed at toughening the standards and give rewards only to the most deserving vehicles.

Among the revisions contemplated is the awarding of higher ratings to vehicles that have more safety features, including crash-avoidance systems. Other revisions include increasing speeds in some crash tests, increasing the weight of crash barriers, expanding the scope of the new tests to account for additional injuries, considering the use of dummies to better represent female drivers, and improving frontal, side-impact and rollover testing while gauging new auto technologies and features like electronic stability control, brake assist systems and lane departure warnings.

The proposal to overhaul the crash test standards do not require for new legal requirements. This is because what would only be changed is how the safety agency conducts tests that are used to assign the ratings.

Automakers offered support for the proposal to overhaul the crash test standards for new vehicles. On the other hand, safety groups suggested that the NHTSA should also test child restraint systems to ascertain how they hold up in crashes and rate them accordingly. The standards should not be limited to the efficiency of brakes, steering, suspension or even the K & N cold air intake – it should delve deeper than the current standards.

At the said public hearing, General Motors Corp., the Honda Motor Co., and the Toyota Motor Corp. all endorsed the efforts to give vehicles a single overall ranking for performance during simulated frontal, side and rollover crashes. Toyota’s Chris Tinto said it is hard for engineers to figure how much weight to give each of the current three scores, let alone for consumers to try to interpret three numbers.

The NHTSA introduced a list of changes that it is considering. However, the safety agency did not disclose the final details of their proposed revisions. In 2006, 87 percent of vehicles received four or five stars for side impact crashes while some 95 percent garnered top ratings for frontal crashes.

Safety groups criticized the safety agency for not going far enough in toughening the standards. At present, tougher crash tests are conducted by outside groups like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The institute’s standards have gotten more attention and have stressed safety flaws of those vehicles which got top ratings in government tests.

Adrian Lund, the institute’s president, offered harsh criticism of the NHTSA initial revisions, calling them “timid” and “disappointing.” He said that the NHTSA has been delinquent in doing research, noting that it still is not considering the roof strength in assessing new cars. He said, “These tests don’t challenge industry to design safer cars and instead reinforce what they’re already doing.” Lund also said that the NHTSA should not focus all of its efforts on crash-avoidance technologies such as electronic stability control at the expense of ensuring that vehicles are crash-worthy.

At the much-concluded 2007 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, NHTSA officials announced that the agency planned to toughen several of its voluntary car safety crash tests used to rate new vehicles. The safety agency said the new program would encourage automakers to voluntarily invest in safety technologies.

Joan Claybrook, who was NHTSA administrator when the program was introduced in 1979, said Wednesday that the program is “long overdue for updating.” Claybrook said the program should include ratings for child safety restraints, pedestrian safety and vehicle performance in rear-impact crashes. She also suggested automakers be required to add the ratings to new car window stickers.

About the Author

Given her background on cars as an auto insurance director, Lauren Woods finds the world of cars to be constantly changing.