Crash. Old car versus...old car...

[2011G6E]

Nasty video of a crash between a nice EK Holden and an XYGT Falcon, unbelievably.
Also a lesson in looking ahead and watching for traffic suddenly slowing down up ahead...the guy in the Falcon obviously didn't notice the cars stopped to turn ahead of him and locked up. Unfortunately someone was coming the other way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=vP5cqzBkaAU

This is the EK after the prang...not too bad.

No photos of the XYGT yet. I wonder how the crash would have turned out if you were not in an EK, but instead in a nice little 5 star rated Kia or something and had a virtual head on like that with a solid old XY...?

[Trevor 57]

Jesus Christ, that is not good, Bright Rod Run I am guessing?

[karj]

Nasty and very unfortunate, but rather than a lesson in paying attention to what is going on ahead, I think it's a lesson not to sit up other peoples ***** on the road.

Take a look at the 3 cars packed like sardines at 1:02

[Ford_The_Win]

The weak body structure (by modern standards) of the XY would probably allow the smaller, lighter Kia to compress the front of the XY, penetrate the cabin and seriously injure whoever was inside. That's my guess. It's been proven time, and time again that the illusion of old cars being solid is just that, an illusion.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

The weak body structure (by modern standards) of the XY would probably allow the smaller, lighter Kia to compress the front of the XY, penetrate the cabin and seriously injure whoever was inside. That's my guess. It's been proven time, and time again that the illusion of old cars being solid is just that, an illusion.

Absolute rubbish. The modern car that met the front end of my ZD received 10000 dollars damage. My car drove away with a bent bumper and bonnet.

[block58]

Originally Posted by superyob

Absolute rubbish. The modern car that met the front end of my ZD received 10000 dollars damage. My car drove away with a bent bumper and bonnet.

All that means is that more of the impact of the crash was absorbed in your body, which in a higher speed crash can do a lot more damage. I would rather my car be written off than have my heart go through my ribs.

[El Caco]

Originally Posted by block58

All that means is that more of the impact of the crash was absorbed in your body, which in a higher speed crash can do a lot more damage. I would rather my car be written off than have my heart go through my ribs.

Actually it's the opposite, more of his impact was absorbed by the other car and unfortunately the people travelling in the other car. This has been shown in many new vs old and heavy vs light crash tests and accidents.

There is a prevalent myth that new cars are made from weaker materials and more likely to crumble than older vehicles but that is not the case, newer vehicles may often be made from thinner lighter materials but in most cases that material is also stiffer and stronger. Gone are the days of pressing every panel on a car out of mild steel of varying quality, these days many of the panels on cars are made from hardened metals and alloys, this is why body repairers must not only know what material is used but what panels they are not allowed to heat as it can weaken the car.

New cars are heavier and stiffer and that's why in most cases of new vs old a new car will drive through an old car suffering little damage while the old car absorbs the impact and there are times when the airbags will not even be required to deploy in the new car.

I've seen the result of Hyundai vs WB Statesman in a panel shop I worked in, the WB belonged to my boss and he was devastated that it was written off by the Hyundai that was repaired in his shop. That said I rear ended a VS Commodore in a XA Falcon, I closed the rear gaps on the Commodore and did a few thousand damage but the only damage my Dads XA suffered was a cracked indicator lens, the bar required adjustment but was not damaged so there are exceptions but a 90's commodore isn't a great indicator of modern safety standards anyway..

[Stazza_Brendan]

Modern cars are designed to be sacrificial. Car can be totally destroyed but the occupants live hopefully without serious injury.

Not much point having your nice old car that can be fixed, if your bedridden the rest of your life.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by Stazza_Brendan

Modern cars are designed to be sacrificial. Car can be totally destroyed but the occupants live hopefully without serious injury.

Not much point having your nice old car that can be fixed, if your bedridden the rest of your life.

True (and you'll see I agree in the post I made above)

but I think I would rather be bedridden for the rest of my life having had years of cool od cars than only drive boring modern cars always chasing the next latest safety feature or 5star ancap rating, man how boring life would be if I considered a 5 star Ancap safety rating as a reason to upgrade a car (and I know people who have done this, my sister included)

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by The Yeti

man how boring life would be if I considered a 5 star Ancap safety rating as a reason to upgrade a car (and I know people who have done this, my sister included)

I have a sister-in-law the same...her primary and only requirement for buying a car is how many stars, and a minimum of six airbags. She is, honestly, frightened to drive even a short run to the shops in the passenger seat of my '82 Celica...literally frightened to silence as we drove through traffic.
When we owned our '57 Morris Minor, she thought it was "cute", but actually refused full stop to set foot inside it to go somewhere...

How anyone can live like that, in a constant state of terror, is beyond me...

[JC]

Holy crap. I'm surprised there' only that much damage to the EK. "You right?" "Yeh, I'm right. You right?" Good to know that both driver and passenger were OK - assume the GT occupants survived as well. And the HQ/X/Z (?) wagon up front chucked a u-ey to go back and render help I guess.

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by JC

Holy crap. I'm surprised there' only that much damage to the EK. "You right?" "Yeh, I'm right. You right?" Good to know that both driver and passenger were OK - assume the GT occupants survived as well. And the HQ/X/Z (?) wagon up front chucked a u-ey to go back and render help I guess.

Yea I noticed that and thaought that was great, so many times Ive seen peple continue on their way after witnessing an accident, I thought it was really good that the wagon stoped and went back, I might only have been able to say are you guys OK but atleast he had the decency to do so

[aquahead2001]

This is more appropriate, its living proof they don't build 'em like they used too! Thanks god!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

[2011G6E]

Call me psychic, but I knew that video was going to turn up...

There is a massive problem with that video...that being that many people have noticed the staggering amount of rust (a massive red cloud of it as well as stuff falling out) and crap flung about after impact. Many people, at the time of release, said it would be sad, but how about staging the crash with a fully restored and A1 condition '59 Chev and see what happens...

There were also questions about the chassis...the '59 having an X frame instead of the older Chev style full chassis straight front to rear. That would have been different.

Anyway, back to the crash in the video...I seriously doubt a little flimsy Kia would have crushed the XY like a tin can and gone through into the passenger compartment...mass always wins, and I think it would be more like the passengers of a modern smaller car being able to admire the Cleveland which has suddenly interposed itself into their laps...

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Anyway, back to the crash in the video...I seriously doubt a little flimsy Kia would have crushed the XY like a tin can and gone through into the passenger compartment...mass always wins, and I think it would be more like the passengers of a modern smaller car being able to admire the Cleveland which has suddenly interposed itself into their laps...

An XY weighed about 1360 kgs brand new.

A 'flimsy' 2012 Kia Rio weighs about 1215kgs. Must be weighed down by all those side intrusion bars, crumple zones, and airbags!!

It cracks me up when people assume old cars are heavy (and well built) They may look nice, but the 'Fred Flintstone' engineering of the old girls is scary.

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Call me psychic, but I knew that video was going to turn up...

There is a massive problem with that video...that being that many people have noticed the staggering amount of rust (a massive red cloud of it as well as stuff falling out) and crap flung about after impact. Many people, at the time of release, said it would be sad, but how about staging the crash with a fully restored and A1 condition '59 Chev and see what happens...

Probably something very similar. Having a full frame and no rust wouldn't stop the non-collapsible steering column from getting rammed into your head, along with those knife-like blade chrome trims cutting your face and neck. And if you're unfortunate, the all-metal dash and glove box lid might slice into your torso if you're the front passenger. Who'd choose a flimsy Kia over that?

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Anyway, back to the crash in the video...I seriously doubt a little flimsy Kia would have crushed the XY like a tin can and gone through into the passenger compartment...mass always wins, and I think it would be more like the passengers of a modern smaller car being able to admire the Cleveland which has suddenly interposed itself into their laps...

I strongly suggest all you skeptics watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_7zEVujB6s

In that video the focus is on wearing seat belts...but I don't think a seatbelt would stop the flimsy door latches from breaking open or the bench seats from dislodging themselves and going out the car. Absolute disaster.
Older cars are not as solid or safe as newer ones, it's a result of 50+ years of automotive engineering & improvement and billions of dollars of development money spent.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

Probably something very similar. Having a full frame and no rust wouldn't stop the non-collapsible steering column from getting rammed into your head, along with those knife-like blade chrome trims cutting your face and neck. And if you're unfortunate, the all-metal dash and glove box lid might slice into your torso if you're the front passenger. Who'd choose a flimsy Kia over that?

I strongly suggest all you skeptics watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_7zEVujB6s

In that video the focus is on wearing seat belts...but I don't think a seatbelt would stop the flimsy door latches from breaking open or the bench seats from dislodging themselves and going out the car. Absolute disaster.
Older cars are not as solid or safe as newer ones, it's a result of 50+ years of automotive engineering & improvement and billions of dollars of development money spent.

There's all the proof anyone needs. Identical brand new (old) cars crashing into each other and practically exploding.

The 'classics' were death traps when they were new, and even more now after years of degradation. This doesn't mean they should be denigrated. It means they should be treated with respect by those driving them AND those sharing the roads with them. The person in the driver's seat should always be aware of the older car's shortcomings and the person in the newer car should give the old girls some space and enjoy the view!!

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years. I've owned an old car before (1970 ZD Fairlane) and whilst it was beautiful to look at and fun to cruise around in (I got many admiring looks) when I drove it it's shortcomings were blatantly obvious and living with it day to day I couldn't help but think it was designed to maim it's occupants.

While small bingles result in more damage (and cost) for newer cars, they are infinitely more practical, comfortable and safe than their ancestors (and they're not all boring to drive!!)

The automobile will continue to evolve, and engineers will improve on those three core values.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

This thread gives me flashbacks of trying to explain evolution to my creationist Nanna
"But if we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys?! Got ya stumped there, eh!". The facts are there but it's easier for some people to just not believe.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

There's all the proof anyone needs. Identical brand new (old) cars crashing into each other and practically exploding.

The 'classics' were death traps when they were new, and even more now after years of degradation. This doesn't mean they should be denigrated. It means they should be treated with respect by those driving them AND those sharing the roads with them. The person in the driver's seat should always be aware of the older car's shortcomings and the person in the newer car should give the old girls some space and enjoy the view!!

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years. I've owned an old car before (1970 ZD Fairlane) and whilst it was beautiful to look at and fun to cruise around in (I got many admiring looks) when I drove it it's shortcomings were blatantly obvious and living with it day to day I couldn't help but think it was designed to maim it's occupants.

While small bingles result in more damage (and cost) for newer cars, they are infinitely more practical, comfortable and safe than their ancestors (and they're not all boring to drive!!)

The automobile will continue to evolve, and engineers will improve on those three core values.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

Don't know about 'comfortable'. I'd rather cruise around in my ZD than many other modern cars. It is a far more comfortable car to ride in than many modern offerings. I know it does not handle, go around corners or stop and that the power of the almost stock 302 is woefully inadequate compared to modern engines, but I drive it within its limits and I don't feel it's a 'death trap'.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Anyway, back to the crash in the video...I seriously doubt a little flimsy Kia would have crushed the XY like a tin can and gone through into the passenger compartment...mass always wins, and I think it would be more like the passengers of a modern smaller car being able to admire the Cleveland which has suddenly interposed itself into their laps...

A number of Kia models weigh more than an XY. Would much prefer to be in a Kia than an XY in any crash.

[noosacuda]

Originally Posted by aquahead2001

This is more appropriate, its living proof they don't build 'em like they used too! Thanks god!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

I'm quite sure that is set up, the 1959 Chevrolet has aluminium front panels and strategic weakening done as per cars used in movies to make smashes look more "dramatic" George Barris did it in the '50's and '60's for movies!
Yes, modern cars are safer, mostly, but then i'd rather be in my 2100kg, 5.6m 1966 Chrysler than a Korean Coke Can.

[XBROO]

Bloody ford drivers, always look ahead not just the car in front. Feel for the EK driver to loose a car like that. Few dollars to get her back on the road, lets hope it's repairable as they said it's bent underneath.

[mik]

The gt had already slighty gone sideways , so it was more a glancing blow, as for a little front wheel drive vs an xy or an ek, the ancap always test the weak spots, I would hate to be in a small fwd in a direct head on with either of the oldies.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by mik

The gt had already slighty gone sideways

Look again, it was more than slightly sideways

[Olbucko]

If the 2 cars involved were a new Holden and a new Falcon, the crash may not have happened. The Ford would have stopped in a straight line, and the Holden would have been able to steer and brake at the same time thanks to ABS and stability control, and avoid hitting the Ford.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

If the 2 cars involved were a new Holden and a new Falcon, the crash may not have happened. The Ford would have stopped in a straight line, and the Holden would have been able to steer and brake at the same time thanks to ABS and stability control, and avoid hitting the Ford.

Spot on. Primary safety is getting out of control in new cars, in a good way of course. If the XY was a late model car with radar cruise control like so many do now there wouldn't even have been a close call in that situation!

[The Yeti]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Spot on. Primary safety is getting out of control in new cars, in a good way of course. If the XY was a late model car with radar cruise control like so many do now there wouldn't even have been a close call in that situation!

yes and the bigger danger would be falling asleap at the wheel casue the late model cars are so booring

o then you have that new anti fatigue thing where it detects your eyes moving and tells you to pull over, trouble is with that feature I would be asked to pull over for a nap every 15 mins

becasue the cars are so bloody boring

[MAGPIE]

Good example of why you should pull off the road onto the shoulder when wanting to turn right off a rural road.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Good example of why you should pull off the road onto the shoulder when wanting to turn right off a rural road.

How do you determine if the shoulder is safe to drive on, is it wide enough, does it have a drain hidden under the long grass? stop on the edge of the road here and a truck is likely to take the side off your car. Many roads around here don't even have shoulders - daft idea. The safest way to turn on a rural road is to indicate well in advance, slow down gradually making sure that the driver behind you is aware that you intend to turn. If you see that the driver behind you is not paying attention to your signals abort your turn rather than cause an accident.
I drive on rural roads every day delivering mail and have to turn off at unmarked driveways every km or so. You can't be to carefull. And pulling back onto the road can be just as dangerous.
The B Doubles and the timber trucks around here don't want to stop for anyone.

[noosacuda]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Good example of why you should pull off the road onto the shoulder when wanting to turn right off a rural road.

Turn right from the left,WTF??? You WOULD have to a Victorian!