Thai
Elite Member
Agree 100%. Thus, my change from Prius to MDX.
Link: Find the safest cars and vehicles and the most dangerous cars and vehicles
Very informative. You can look up individual vehicles.
Last edited:
2016 Honda Pilot
- Thread starter NoDak
- Start date
Agree 100%. Thus, my change from Prius to MDX.
Link: Find the safest cars and vehicles and the most dangerous cars and vehicles
Very informative. You can look up individual vehicles.
1engineer
Moderator
Nice link! I still have issues with that stupid small frontal area crash test though. The 4Runner (and many others) loses on that and the rollover risk. Good call on the MDX versus Prius.
My wife drives a new CR-V. She only drives it around town and puts around 4K a year in miles. Any trips we take the bigger vehicle.
I realize that in the end every single person in the world has to make a decision and compromise something for something. You can't drive an 18 wheeler (safe) and expect to get 30 mpg (efficient) and what people can afford plays a huge role. My bone of contention is even though the real data is out there (mass matters in an accident) the 'ol crash test ratings is all regular people know and they are not correct. Your link addresses these issues but the IIHS (insurance funded) is the big dog and while they have the correct data on their website the press only picks up on the crash test star ratings.
Thai
Elite Member
I disagree with you that small-offset is not needed or not important or stupid. Not everyone crashes straight and flat into a brick wall. Many crash into trees, telephone poles, or highway barriers at odd angles. Just because 4runners do bad does not mean that it can be blown off as irrelevant.
The bigger issue and one that YOU should be mad at and call stupid is...TOYOTA. Toyota knew about the small off-set IIHS test since 2012 (or even earlier i am sure via internal documents bc IIHS usually notifies OEMs of their crash test changes in advance of public showing). 4runner got significant mid-cycle refresh for 2015...and Toyota did NOTHING to protect the 4runner against this type of crash test. Most (every?) manufacturers have updated their car design for this test, esp. a mid-cycle refresh!!! Hell, Subaru in 2012 emergently re-designed their 2013 Outback even though a new design was coming in less than 2 yrs!!! No excuse for Toyota. NONE. You can argue that Pilot was on its last leg for the cycle with a new one coming in early 2015 and thus Honda did nothing...but Toyota mid-cycle refresh of 4runner totally oblivious to this crash test?! That is plain stupid IMO.
Instead of getting angry at Toyota, you called IIHS test stupid........come on, 1engineer, do you not see your flawed logic in this? :loco:
Last edited:
1engineer
Moderator
I should have defined what I thought was stupid about the test lol and I alluded to it in my first post. While I'm sure there is a remote possibility this type of crash could actually happen, logic dictates that it is far more likely to involve more of the vehicle's frontal or side area. You would have to hit something perfect to get it to mimic the small offset test. I used the "crowbar through the roof" analogy above.
Question: Why do you think the IIHS did this relatively new test?
How the 4Runner compares on this specific test is a moot point with me. Again we all reach a point where we have to compromise.
For the record I applauded the moderate offset frontal crash. Much more realistic than hitting something dead center. The small offset test though? http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
You're missing the bigger picture...in real life, we crash at all sorts of angles, all sorts of speeds, against all sorts of materials (wood vs. concrete vs. steel). The more crash test data, the better. Small off-set puts more pressure on the frontal and side rails of the frame/unibody. It tests the structural integrity of such. Why would you NOT want a better score? I am missing your argument i am sure. A better small offset structure ONLY benefits the rest of the frontal structure in protecting you from the unknown. There is no downside whatsoever.
Just like roof strength testing on a sports car...how often do you see a BMW M3 on its roof? Not many...but does that mean that we don't test it on cars?
So, you're OK with Toyota "compromising" your and your family's safety for the sake of saving them money on proper R&D? BTW, the reason why IIHS did this new (not really, since 2012 was the start of public testing) is that crush zones on earlier cars do NOT protect you from this type of crash.
Link: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ESV/esv21/09-0423.pdf
Link: Crash Test 101 | Crash Ratings - Consumer Reports
"One effect of the new small-overlap test is that the vehicle tends to rotate around the point of impact as the crash proceeds. Since occupants then move to the side as well as forwards, the test poses new challenges to some safety-belt and air-bag systems."
Link: New Crash Test Shakes Up Car Safety Ratings
"In all, about 10,000 people a year die in frontal crashes of all types, Lund notes. "We were looking for why people were still being killed in this kind of crash," he says. These small frontal overlap crashes may make up nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes that result in serious or fatal injuries to drivers and front seat passengers, according to research by the IIHS.
For instance, a small overlap frontal crash in the real world might involve a single car running into a light post, Lund says. Or a driver on a two-lane road might stray over into the opposing lane, realize the mistake and in swerving back to his own lane, clip the oncoming vehicle, he adds."
------------------------------------
In other words, this small off-set crash test reflects multiple points of safety of a car. It is not just testing ONE thing.
Last edited:
1engineer
Moderator
Again good links.
Forget the manufacturers for a minute. You speak of the big picture but let's get bigger as this is where I have my issues with this test.
First of all, a concept: A truly safe car could be built to protect the occupants and let them walk away from just about anything. Why have we not done this? Cost. Comfort. Sale ability of the product. All of the above. Quick example: 5 point harness versus lap and shoulder belts. No brainer right? So why don't regular vehicles have 5 point harnesses? Could you imagine how safe a vehicle would be if we had a NASCAR cage and restraint system combined with the top of the line airbag and passive restraint and then add all the electronic gizmos they have now for lane departure and such? Put a person in that vehicle and make them wear a helmet and you will walk away from pretty much anything. We could never afford it and I couldn't get my wife to wear a helmet. Now back to the stupid part:
They do a small offset test and make a big deal out of it. Sure, again I will say that I agree, more data is good and marginally safer cars will result. My point is there are much better and more statistically important tests they could do, such as dynamic testing with average weight vehicles (3200 lb according to the engineer from Connecticut) that would REALLY help make cars safer. Why don't they do it? Because the public would see the results and immediately trade in those little vehicles. So instead they do a test that while helpful, is only marginally so. THAT'S why I said it was stupid. BTW I have no beef with any automaker. Every one of them has their issues and strong points, even Jeep lol. Ever wondered why they classify vehicles into categories for safety? They could just have one rating across the board but again, there goes the small vehicle market.
Thai
Elite Member
I agree with all that...but, why are you saying that the test is marginal or stupid?
Here's the thing...to get a GOOD in small off-set, it can be done fairly easily...because all sorts of cars, from tiny bits to big heavy SUVs can get good scores. Why does a 2015 design fail?
Now, marginal...come on! Stats say that small offset accounts for 1/4 of front crashes. For me and my family, small offset rating is important...certainly not marginal or stupid. IMHO, you calling it as such reveals your bias in your thinking.
Again, this small offset reflects other aspects of the car's safety, like the side airbags popping out in such a collision, does the seatbelt restraint you enough of your forward momentum to limit your head from sliding off the frontal airbag, etc..
5 point harness? How painful is that to put on and take off? You're right...there is a balance. BUT, you calling a piss-poor score in small offset as Toyota finding the right balance/compromise?? Right balance of what? Of your safety or their pocket book?
Look at Lexus NX...got great scores...i guess that is where the R&D bucks went, right?
Now, if you're telling me that adding reinforcements to frontal structure and changing out restraint system to get GOOD rating requires excessive weight gain, tearing down the whole structure and go back to drawing board, then i may agree with you. But that is simply NOT the case. Other OEMs can reinforce their current platform to pass the test. Hell, look at what Toyota did to RAV4 to get it pass.
Yet, a 2015 mid-cycle design fail the test.
Again, instead of putting the blame on Toyota, you crap on IIHS for making such a stupid, marginally useful test. :der: (Unfortunately, statistics disagree with you regarding the marginal aspect of your argument.)
1engineer is completely fine with this marginal & stupid crash test. YMMV. On a brighter note, driver can now adjust the AC vents much easier since it is literally on his lap!
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Example: Vehicle details
"The Toyota RAV4 was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Beginning with 2015 models built after November 2014, the front-end and occupant compartment structure was modified to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes."
It can be done. Or this: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/odyssey
During 2014 Odyssey mid-cycle re-fresh, Honda made improvement to its front structure.
Now, maybe RAV4 and Ody are a unibody and therefore structurally easier to modify vs. a BOF design. I do not know...but that adds to my argument with LANDCRUISER that cross-overs are inherently safer.
"The Toyota RAV4 was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Beginning with 2015 models built after November 2014, the front-end and occupant compartment structure was modified to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes."
It can be done. Or this: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/odyssey
During 2014 Odyssey mid-cycle re-fresh, Honda made improvement to its front structure.
Now, maybe RAV4 and Ody are a unibody and therefore structurally easier to modify vs. a BOF design. I do not know...but that adds to my argument with LANDCRUISER that cross-overs are inherently safer.
1engineer
Moderator
Jeez. No, I (and every other person) make the decision on the compromise. Not Toyota. Not Subaru. Not Ford. They make a product for sale. The consumers decide, hopefully based on research, what to buy. Now forget that for a minute:
Do you disagree that a dynamic test using an average weight vehicle would not be better for safety than a small offset test would be? That is my whole point man. Sure, small offset test will save X lives. Changing the dynamic and doing more real world accident testing would save countless more lives. They won't ever do it though.
I wasn't joking on building a truly safe vehicle. It can be done. Problem is nobody would buy it because, wait for it, they think their little tiny vehicle is safe because it got four stars in a small offset frontal crash test. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Thai
Elite Member
When did i disagree with you about smaller cars and their ratings? Is that the discussion here? I missed the memo.
Dynamic testing would be nice...but which 3200 lbs vehicle do you use? How fast is the other vehicle moving? Which angle should it be moving at? The problem with "dynamic" testing is that it also introduce a lot more variables that are harder to control...and thus, maybe harder to compare from Vehicle A vs. Vehicle B. I don't know...
...but if vehicles like Quest, 4runners, etc. are failing these simple stupid tests, then you think 4runners will do better in a dynamic testing against 3200 lbs vehicle in small offset?????? I am sure that a Honda Fit will do bad against 3200 lbs...but you think that 4runner will beat MDX, Mercedes ML, etc. in a dynamic crash???
IIHS ratings give a basis to compare. Based on IIHS scores of my MDX, does it mean that i can crash into another car and survive? No. It is not a guarantee of anything. But, i am pretty damn sure that i will have a better chance of walking away than if i was in a Nissan Quest:
Your argument makes no sense IMO. You keep on deflecting by saying how small cars suck or how dynamic crashes are better.
Yet, you blow off SMALL offset because it is marginal and stupid. YET, in the same breath, praise the MODERATE offset. Hmmmm, i wonder why. Human nature i guess. Statistics then showed that 1/4 of FRONTAL crashes are SMALL offset. You keep on ignoring that FACT.
1/4 of FRONTAL crashes are SMALL OFFSET crashes. Sure, you can say that 1/4 of anything is small, but for me, it is significant and i want the max protection that i can get without interfering with my life. I guess that you are equating getting GOOD off-set scores as something like adding 5-point harness belts...i just think that argument is very weak...because reinforcements to frontal structure does not interfere with the way i function in everyday's life.
Sorry, i think that you're in denial and bias. I think that i have said what i have to say on the matter.
Just waiting for LandCruiser to comment back....
Last edited:
Volvo is doing this. Their goal is for no one to be killed or seriously injured in a new Volvo by 2020. Check out the small overlap test for an XC90. It deflects off the barrier and hardly slows down!
Vehicle details
Compare that to the MDX, which absorbs some energy then hits the barrier hard with the reinforced safety cage.
Vehicle details
The Volvo driver will experience much lower acceleration, even though both get a "good" rating.
I suspect that a lot of people don't care about safety of cars, or are uninformed about it, or can't afford a newer car. Even if you had a crash test that shows that small cars are unsafe against larger cars, only some people would buy larger cars as a result. There are plenty of people driving unsafe cars every day, particularly older ones that were never tested to new standards.
I would hate to see how a 4th gen 4runner does in the small overlap test. They never tested side impact on the models without side airbags, but plenty of people drive ones without side airbags. And it gets a poor rating for head restraints, but I still drive one.
Thai
Elite Member
I agree...Volvo's solution is damn cool!!!
1engineer
Moderator
When did i disagree with you about smaller cars and their ratings? Is that the discussion here? I missed the memo.
Dynamic testing would be nice...but which 3200 lbs vehicle do you use? How fast is the other vehicle moving? Which angle should it be moving at? The problem with "dynamic" testing is that it also introduce a lot more variables that are harder to control...and thus, maybe harder to compare from Vehicle A vs. Vehicle B. I don't know...
...but if vehicles like Quest, 4runners, etc. are failing these simple stupid tests, then you think 4runners will do better in a dynamic testing against 3200 lbs vehicle in small offset?????? I am sure that a Honda Fit will do bad against 3200 lbs...but you think that 4runner will beat MDX, Mercedes ML, etc. in a dynamic crash???
IIHS ratings give a basis to compare. Based on IIHS scores of my MDX, does it mean that i can crash into another car and survive? No. It is not a guarantee of anything. But, i am pretty damn sure that i will have a better chance of walking away than if i was in a Nissan Quest:
Your argument makes no sense IMO. You keep on deflecting by saying how small cars suck or how dynamic crashes are better.
Yet, you blow off SMALL offset because it is marginal and stupid. YET, in the same breath, praise the MODERATE offset. Hmmmm, i wonder why. Human nature i guess. Statistics then showed that 1/4 of FRONTAL crashes are SMALL offset. You keep on ignoring that FACT.
1/4 of FRONTAL crashes are SMALL OFFSET crashes. Sure, you can say that 1/4 of anything is small, but for me, it is significant and i want the max protection that i can get without interfering with my life. I guess that you are equating getting GOOD off-set scores as something like adding 5-point harness belts...i just think that argument is very weak...because reinforcements to frontal structure does not interfere with the way i function in everyday's life.
Sorry, i think that you're in denial and bias. I think that i have said what i have to say on the matter.
Just waiting for LandCruiser to comment back....
My point is there are much better tests they could use for all makes, models and sizes of vehicles that would tell a much better story than a vehicle only using it's own weight and crashing into a fixed barrier.
As far as testing:
3200 lb block carriage weight that collides with a vehicle head on, moderate offset on and small offset on at the same speed as the vehicle approaches in the opposite direction. If they do it at 35 mph, then the 3200 lb carriage should be towed at the same speed in opposite direction. That's much more real world than hitting a fixed wall. That was/is my point. Why tout small offset when there are much better dynamic tests? Because the public would freak that's why and they are much happier going into the world with a false sense of security thinking that because their vehicle scored high on the different crash tests that you are safe. What are your chances that you will hit a lighter vehicle? 50/50?
If they did dynamic testing then they could actually make some REALLY safe cars based on those results. Be safe out there!
Thai
Elite Member
So, just because there are better (theoretical) tests out there, that makes IIHS small offset crash test marginal and stupid? And thus, useless in real world?
Why were you praising IIHS MODERATE offset crash test before? And when IIHS makes the test harder, you cry foul and call it stupid?!
Why were you praising IIHS MODERATE offset crash test before? And when IIHS makes the test harder, you cry foul and call it stupid?!
Thai
Elite Member
Here is a thought...maybe technology is not there yet to keep us safe in a dynamic test. This is why IIHS is not a guarantee...but i will probably fare better in my MDX than say a Quest in a frontal crash. Do you not agree?
IIHS has to do testing that current OEMs can live up to. What is the point of making a crash test where everyone fails?
If you follow the history of IIHS and NHTSA, then you will see that every 5 yrs or so, they step it up. You're telling me that these IIHS/NHTSA guys just one day had a bright idea to make the SMALL offset? OR, more likely, it was time to step it up now that everyone was doing better in the MODERATE offset.
I think that IIHS and NHTSA will release more stringent crash tests as technology progresses.
They could probably do the same thing by testing smaller cars on fixed walls at a higher speed, and larger ones at lower speed.
Two identical cars each traveling 35mph colliding head on is the same as one of the cars hitting a fixed wall at the same speed.
What would be the point of showing that smaller cars are less safe, anyway? That would encourage everyone to drive bigger and bigger cars over time, until we are all driving around in armored tanks. They would have to change the mass of the test sled every year to account for increasing average weight of cars.
If everyone rode a bike and there were no cars, we would all be a lot safer.
1engineer
Moderator
Because the moderate offset was much more real world than just full frontal head on. Full frontal and small offset are nowhere near as common as moderate offset. Dynamic testing would be even better in those categories.
I agree.
Everyone would not fail. Actually if you have a vehicle over 3200 lb then you will do much better than they currently do, especially if the carriage weight is designed to crumple like a vehicle. What would fail miserably is the light weight vehicles and that would really open the eyes of the public and that is where the majority of injuries and deaths occur. 3X more likely to get hurt in a small car than a large SUV.
Oh, the technology is there all right to do the tests.
Can you imagine though what people would say if they crashed a Smart for Two into a 3200 lb average car? And it was done by an official testing agency?
1engineer
Moderator
Good post!
If safety were the only goal then your above statements would be true. There is another goal though and that is efficiency. Remember the government has mandated efficiency through CAFE and automakers have to hit their numbers.
Showing that small cars are less safe would force the manufacturers to think outside the box because they have to be safe and efficient. They would have to improve the safety and continue to improve efficiency. Can you have both? I am not smart enough to figure that one out but I'm sure you can do it.
Thai
Elite Member
They have think out of the box: pre-collision warning/interventional systems, radar cruise control, lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring...and soon, self-driving cars with radars 360 degrees.
There is no way to improve without more technology. My MDX has over 65% high-tensile steel, ultra-high tensile, magnesium, and aluminum...all to keep weight at 4300 lbs. I think that we have reached the pinnacle of structural design (i hope that i am wrong!). The next step is technology.
BTW, 1engineer, this one for you: Crash tests show how vehicle size, weight affect safety
And just for kicks:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mnI-LiKCtuE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Skip to 4:45 to bypass talk and see destruction!
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Link: New crash test raises bar for frontal protection
""Nearly every new car performs well in other frontal crash tests conducted by the Institute and the federal government, but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year," Institute President Adrian Lund says. "Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities. This new test program is based on years of analyzing real-world frontal crashes and then replicating them in our crash test facility to determine how people are being seriously injured and how cars can be designed to protect them better. We think this is the next step in improving frontal crash protection."
In a 2009 Institute study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants. Another 24 percent of the frontal crashes were moderate overlap crashes, although they likely occurred at much higher speeds than the Institute's moderate overlap test. An additional 14 percent occurred when passenger vehicles underrode large trucks, SUVs or other high-riding passenger vehicles."
That last paragraph goes against your argument. Small offset may happen less often, but they account for the same amount of deaths and severe injuries.
-----------------------------------------------
My point is that you are WAY underestimating SMALL offset crashes...esp. when you call them "marginal" and "stupid."
