Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18-08-2010, 04:14 PM   #121
AussieAV
Regular Member
 
AussieAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckoGT
Hmm, 1981 commodore.

Commodore 100 km/h crash test

The Smart car with no bonnet came off better than this at 70 mph (112 km/h).

Notice how they weren't even willing to put crash test dummies in the Commodore.

Guess they figured even inanimate dolls shouldn't be subjected to that much torture.
__________________
Reality is an illusion
caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Some people drive to go places others go places to drive.......
AussieAV is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 05:00 PM   #122
GS608
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ...in the shed
Posts: 3,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieAV
Notice how they weren't even willing to put crash test dummies in the Commodore.

Guess they figured even inanimate dolls shouldn't be subjected to that much torture.
I think that the commodore was loaded with cement or weight in the boot and was at a higher speed as stated.
GS608 is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 05:24 PM   #123
Franco Cozzo
Thailand Specials
 
Franco Cozzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Centrefold Lounge
Posts: 49,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XR-CHIEF
I think that the commodore was loaded with cement or weight in the boot and was at a higher speed as stated.
I don't think so, thats pretty much the 80s right there for you.
Franco Cozzo is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 05:42 PM   #124
TheZHLANE
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
TheZHLANE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckoGT
Check out this video, unfortunately the narrative is in german but the pictures speak a thousand words.
9 Family Car Crash Test

It looks like all 9 of these cars are from the 80's and apparently the speed is 56 km/h (40 mph). Notice in nearly all of them the shortening of the passenger cell (seen as a kink in the roof or floor) and the fact that the restrained dummies mostly strike the steering wheel hard either in the face or the chest. Both these impacts of either the chest or face would present life threatening injuries that I have mentioned earlier.

Now look at this one, speed is not known but it is interesting to see big old tanks going into lighter cars of the same era.

1970's crashes

Lets remember that the big old tanks there are probably weighing in under 1700 kg, the smaller cars under 1300 kgs. This is relevant to this thread because it is a good example of a big old tank hitting a car the mass of a newer small hatch. Note that in all the old tanks, the passengers hit the dash and steering column at a massive speed, not to mention the passenger cell deformation.

Now some modern cars, I have selected all smaller cars to keep OT.

Mini Cooper (previous model which was only 4 star, new model is 5 star)

Mini Cooper

Subaru Impreza

VW Golf

Ford Focus

Mazda 3

I think that will do, note that in nearly all these tests there is much less passenger cell deformation despite much more damage in front of the firewall. Also in some of these the occupant still moves forward greatly and strikes the steering wheel but an airbag does slow them down. If you look at some of the higher end cars and later models, the occupant stays in the seat and does not strike the wheel, that is the benefit of seat belt pre-tensioners and load limiting belts. These two items are truly the forgotten heroes of car safety, something most people do not even consider yet they are more effective than airbags.

But as has been said, safe driving and crash avoidance is the safest option of all, drive safe people, regardless of old or new car.
The galaxie ****** that pinto up!
__________________
RIDES
76 ZH Fairlane 500, Mushroom Beige, Brown vinyl roof, 351 c4 13.361 @ 104mph 2.001 60ft 208rwkw
ZH BUILD
TheZHLANE is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 05:50 PM   #125
Nikked
Oo\===/oO
 
Nikked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Long time member, loves Fords, sensible contributor and does some good and interesting posts. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svo supporter

All the you tube vids about crash testing can be posted until the cows come home. it's not going to change my opinions about modern cars and their safety features. I'll stick with my old unsafe cars, where I do feel more secure.
. So its pointless trying to sway my thoughts
You have bothered to watch them have you.

In the one i posted, A '59 Chevrolet Bel Air is crashed head on with a '09 Chevrolet Malibu, the results are so plain to see, even a monkey with no brains and a bad bong habit could see that the driver of the Bel air is worse off.

The Dash, steering wheel, front end all get smashed into the poor dummies face, the full force of the impact is sent right through into that cabin. The dummy hits the roof aswell, suffers allot of movement in every direction (meaning the brain is bouncing off you scull)

Now, the Malibu has all the impact absorbed through the front structure (Crumple zones) until it hits the cabin shell, that doesn't suffer near as much impact as the Bel Air, further more, the head is protected buy the airbag. Furthermore, the body stays still...
__________________





Check out my Photo-chop page

T...I...C...K...F...O...R...D
\≡≡T≡≡/
Nikked is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 06:09 PM   #126
JimNiki
71Mach1
 
JimNiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melb
Posts: 465
Default

everyone is entitled to their opinion ...
I stop wasting time once logic leaves the room...

then you may as well argue whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate icecream...
__________________
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
JimNiki is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 06:15 PM   #127
Nikked
Oo\===/oO
 
Nikked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Long time member, loves Fords, sensible contributor and does some good and interesting posts. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimNiki

then you may as well argue whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate icecream...
Thats easy, Vanilla
__________________





Check out my Photo-chop page

T...I...C...K...F...O...R...D
\≡≡T≡≡/
Nikked is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 06:19 PM   #128
DJR David
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
DJR David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cairns
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikked
Thats easy, Vanilla
Whata croc!! Everyone knows it is cookies and cream flavour!! duuuuurrrrrrrr
DJR David is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 06:34 PM   #129
AussieAV
Regular Member
 
AussieAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
Default

The correct answer is obviously Choc Chip!!

Why - because its got "crumpled zones" of chocolate
__________________
Reality is an illusion
caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Some people drive to go places others go places to drive.......
AussieAV is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 06:51 PM   #130
Nikked
Oo\===/oO
 
Nikked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Long time member, loves Fords, sensible contributor and does some good and interesting posts. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJR David
Whata croc!! Everyone knows it is cookies and cream flavour!! duuuuurrrrrrrr
Great, you had to throw a spanner into the works...
__________________





Check out my Photo-chop page

T...I...C...K...F...O...R...D
\≡≡T≡≡/
Nikked is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 07:01 PM   #131
svo supporter
Fixing Ford's **** ups
 
svo supporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 4,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckoGT
No joke, all the proof and reasons in the world could not do that, that is why I won't bother. Believe what you want, you are going to anyway. I believe I can fit an 18' tyre on a 19' wheel with enough force, nothing you can say will change my mind because that is my opinion and it is right in my mind.

I'll agree you can put an 18" tyre on a 19" rim. Can't guarantee it holding air though.

I have no intension of changing your views on car safety features and what you want for your kids. I have expressed my views on what I prefer and you have done the same. if we all liked the same things in our cars, what a boring world it would be.

As for AUSSIE AV and you're quote regarding Commodores. Surprisingly enough, the majority of dummies I get in my trade don't drive them. I'll leave you guess what colour the big oval badge is at the front of their cars are? So don't go bad mouthing a particular brand of car driver.

I posted up what makes of cars I do own, just to show that I'm not biased towards one make or the other. I'd suggest you open your eyes and stop being so one eyed too towards the blue oval.

MODS. My apologies for the abruptness.
__________________
A wheel alignment fixes everything, when it comes to front end issues. This includes any little noises.



Please read the manual carefully, as the these manufacturers spent millions of dollars making sure it is perfect.....Now why are there so many problems with my car, when I follow the instructions to the letter?....Answer, majority rules round here


Lock me up and throw away the key because I'm a hoon....I got caught doing 59 in a 60 zone
svo supporter is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 07:05 PM   #132
Dave3911
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svo supporter
I to have kids. 6 to be precise. The youngest being 11 years old. The rest are old enough that they are driving. So I do care about their safety, but it doesn't mean I agree with a 5 star safety rating with their choice of cars. To me prevention of an accident is more important than the safety features of a car.

All this modern garbage incorporated in a cars driveability (like ABS, traction control, decent control, air bags and seat belt pre tensioners) doesn't teach a person to drive carefully. If anything it lures them into a false sense of security, so they rely on the car features more than learning properly from older drivers and their experiences.
Surely you can understand that the best, safest, most experienced driver in the world can still be involved in an accident, regardless of anything they do? All of your fantastic mentoring and driver training isn't going to count for a hell of a lot when your kids round a blind corner to be faced with a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road....... Yes, teach your kids to drive safely and responsibily - that is a definate, but totally dismissing their choice of car and writing off ABS, air bags and the like as "modern garbage" is tantamount to child abuse in my book.

Quote:
All the you tube vids about crash testing can be posted until the cows come home. it's not going to change my opinions about modern cars and their safety features. I'll stick with my old unsafe cars, where I do feel more secure.
So, in one sentence you bleat off about "modern garbage" like ABS luring drivers into a false sense of security..... yet then outwardly state your happy to sit in your vehicle that makes you "feel secure" regardless of any videos or evidence you've watched that quite clearly shows the opposite. Huh? How does that make sense? Aren't you just perpitrating the same thing, but in reverse?
Dave3911 is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 07:45 PM   #133
svo supporter
Fixing Ford's **** ups
 
svo supporter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 4,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave3911
Surely you can understand that the best, safest, most experienced driver in the world can still be involved in an accident, regardless of anything they do? All of your fantastic mentoring and driver training isn't going to count for a hell of a lot when your kids round a blind corner to be faced with a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road....... Yes, teach your kids to drive safely and responsibily - that is a definate, but totally dismissing their choice of car and writing off ABS, air bags and the like as "modern garbage" is tantamount to child abuse in my book.



So, in one sentence you bleat off about "modern garbage" like ABS luring drivers into a false sense of security..... yet then outwardly state your happy to sit in your vehicle that makes you "feel secure" regardless of any videos or evidence you've watched that quite clearly shows the opposite. Huh? How does that make sense? Aren't you just perpitrating the same thing, but in reverse?

Part one of your response. There is no training in the world, nor is there any car made that would prevent death, if you're faced with that scenario. So how are the modern features going to work there? They won't. Same applies with an older car.

Part 2. There is no guarantee the ABS will work when necessary. There is no guarantee an airbag will deploy when necessary. This is where the false sence of security comes into play.

So does my original quote amount to child abuse? I don't think so. It's more the modern features that could be classed as child abuse, because there is no guarantee they will work
__________________
A wheel alignment fixes everything, when it comes to front end issues. This includes any little noises.



Please read the manual carefully, as the these manufacturers spent millions of dollars making sure it is perfect.....Now why are there so many problems with my car, when I follow the instructions to the letter?....Answer, majority rules round here


Lock me up and throw away the key because I'm a hoon....I got caught doing 59 in a 60 zone
svo supporter is offline  
Old 18-08-2010, 08:00 PM   #134
WMD351
Size it up
 
WMD351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: big blue ball of mostly water
Posts: 591
Default

It's all about the odds.
5 stars WILL give you the best CHANCE, IF it all goes pear shaped.
You may as well stack the odds in your favor as best you can!
Sadly, a lot of life's most important lessons can only be learned the hard way, and the hard way aint pretty.
WMD351 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 12:19 AM   #135
block58
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
block58's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria
Posts: 836
Default

Some people just cannot be reasoned with I suppose.

The "more metal between me and what I hit, therefore safer" theory has been disproven countless times in this thread, with clear video evidence and knowledge from GeckoGt who has seen first hand the consequences crashes have on people in old and new cars.

Sure, you may feel "more secure" in a larger, stronger built car but surely you can realise that you have less chance of surviving than if you were in a newer car (even if it was smaller).

As stated many times before, the energy from the crash must be absorbed somewhere. In newer cars it is in crumple zones and airbags.

In older cars with no crumple zones, airbags; a large amount of the force is absorbed by your body which has it not only flailing all over the inside of the car, but also your internal organs (heart, lungs, etc.) sustain a significant amount of inertia, sending them into your ribcage with them deing damaged, punctured, etc.

Also, as stated before, car manufacturers have invested billions into making cars safer. If they were so safe in the first place, why bother spending all that money?

Newer cars with better saftey ratings are safer. Period.
block58 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 12:38 AM   #136
xy500
Constant annoyance
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by block58
Some people just cannot be reasoned with I suppose.

The "more metal between me and what I hit, therefore safer" theory has been disproven countless times in this thread, with clear video evidence and knowledge from GeckoGt who has seen first hand the consequences crashes have on people in old and new cars.

Sure, you may feel "more secure" in a larger, stronger built car but surely you can realise that you have less chance of surviving than if you were in a newer car (even if it was smaller).

As stated many times before, the energy from the crash must be absorbed somewhere. In newer cars it is in crumple zones and airbags.

In older cars with no crumple zones, airbags; a large amount of the force is absorbed by your body which has it not only flailing all over the inside of the car, but also your internal organs (heart, lungs, etc.) sustain a significant amount of inertia, sending them into your ribcage with them deing damaged, punctured, etc.

Also, as stated before, car manufacturers have invested billions into making cars safer. If they were so safe in the first place, why bother spending all that money?

Newer cars with better saftey ratings are safer. Period.
I think you are confusing this thread and the opinions contained within with some sort of peer reviewed investigative paper.
Everything in this thread has been just that, opinions. There has been pretty pictures and movies, very little in the way of significant data or logic.
If this thread is all it takes to convince you one way or the other I find that concerning.

Some blokes here seem to think that forums are the epitome of logical debate, and that if you can shout everyone down that you are right and you are the smartest.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through.
xy500 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 12:45 AM   #137
MexicanBatman
Banned
 
MexicanBatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bat Cave
Posts: 1,237
Default

I never felt safe in my VF hard top, came with pre rusted chassis rails, heaps of body flex, oh man it was a cool car, but I'd hate to think how bad you'd be in that if you wrecked it, it was a fine example.... But like I said cracked chassis rails (sleeved) would snap like a twig.

I think in car park bumps, with steel bumpers, old cars are winners, but get out on the street, forget it... I'd gladly like to see my FG totaled and written off than my last memory being that of the steering column decapitating me in a pre 80s car LOL
MexicanBatman is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 12:50 AM   #138
xy500
Constant annoyance
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewg6e
steering column decapitating me in a pre 80s car LOL
you mean pre 70's
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through.
xy500 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 12:53 AM   #139
AussieAV
Regular Member
 
AussieAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by svo supporter
As for AUSSIE AV and you're quote regarding Commodores. Surprisingly enough, the majority of dummies I get in my trade don't drive them. I'll leave you guess what colour the big oval badge is at the front of their cars are? So don't go bad mouthing a particular brand of car driver.

SVO Supporter - my sincerest apologies, didn't intend my comment the way you took it, or even consider it could be taken that way until I read your post above.

I was trying to make a light hearted comment that the testers obviously knew how bad the outcome of that test would be, and they didn't want to waste the money of having to replace the mannequin which would obviously be destroyed.

Please read my comment with the word "mannequin" or "doll" replacing "dummy". Thats how I intended it. Only used the term dummy as that is what they are normally called - crash test dummies. I was not at any time trying to describe Commodore drivers that way ( I still have my VY Commodore that I've been driving for 5+ years).

In fact, just re reading it again, if you look at the second line of my comment,

"Guess they figured even inanimate dolls shouldn't be subjected to that much torture."

you can see that I was talking about the severity of that crash, not making any reference to Commodore drivers.
__________________
Reality is an illusion
caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Some people drive to go places others go places to drive.......
AussieAV is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 10:12 AM   #140
geckoGT
Ich bin ein auslander
 
geckoGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always level headed and i notice him being the voice of reason when a thread may be getting heated 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xy500
I think you are confusing this thread and the opinions contained within with some sort of peer reviewed investigative paper.
Everything in this thread has been just that, opinions. There has been pretty pictures and movies, very little in the way of significant data or logic.
If this thread is all it takes to convince you one way or the other I find that concerning.

Man, how can you be so wrong?

Do you really think ANCAP throw a dummy into a car, slam it into the wall and then say "yeah that looks safe, give it 5 stars, next"?

Those dummies are loaded with accelerometers and force detection sensors, as well as being purposely designed to behave in the same way a human would in the crash and have the same mass and density properties of a person in the right areas (for example in an adult the head is 1/8 of total body mass).

Each crash produces a mountain of data that they can then analyse and predict injury patterns with amazing accuracy. They are able to predict the injuries after decades of autopsies, advice from leading orthopaedic and trauma surgeon as well as scientific testing of tensile and impact strength of actual human bone tissue. What do you think happens with some of the bodies that are donated to science? They are not all dissected by med students.

Now obviously I do not have access to that direct data but I have read some of the reports that result from that data and I have to say their findings and predictions, after looking at the damage to the car and the impact marks, appear to be spot on the money. Yes my knowledge is less scientific and more anecdotal but my opinions are based on real world experince pulling the victims out. I have seen the same marks on the steering wheel, the same deformation of the steering wheel rim, marks on the dash, star impacts on the windscreen etc. I have also seen the real marks and haematomas on a real person, the open fractures, the lacerations and the xrays and CT scans that prove the injuries, the ANCAP predictions are very accurate.

The funny thing is that I believed, maybe misguidedly that printed data would not be required, most people are fairly visual creatures and video would get the point across. Perhaps not, not that it worries me as one saying we have in our line of work is "not everyone can be saved", this is not really the context we use that saying but I think perhaps it does apply here.

My point here is there appears to be two factions in the debate, those that despite the love of old cars that they may have, can look at the evidence and understand the advances that safety technology has made. Then there are those here that look at the same compelling evidence, discount it and maintain their illogical belief that big old tanks are safer.Thankfully the first group is by far the majority, education of the public does seem to work. I would be interested in seeing a poll attached to this thread just so we can see which way the balance goes.

As for shouting people down, I have not used any capitalisation to demonstrate raising my voice, nor would I as to be honest I do not care enough. Every comment that I have made I have backed up with reason and logic, something that others here on the opposing side have not been able to do, not in a way that stands up to any form of scrutiny anyway. Yes it is a topic that I hold dear to me but I can not educate everyone. I just hope some here have learnt something from the examples, the theory and the experience that I have given on this topic. Perhaps they might use that knowledge in their next choice of car and pick the one with side airbags and seat belt pre-tensioners over the one with shiny wheels, a choice that may save their or their family's life one day. If that happens just once, this was my time well spent.


Quote:
I have no intension of changing your views on car safety features and what you want for your kids. I have expressed my views on what I prefer and you have done the same. if we all liked the same things in our cars, what a boring world it would be.
Firstly lets put this into perspective, we are not talking about the colour of a car, the style of wheels or if it should have stripes or not. We are talking about what makes a car safe or not, that is not a question of taste in the slightest. If you stated that an old car is not as safe but it fills your other desires better and that is how your decision is weighted in respect to car choice, we would not be having this discussion. The simple fact is you are stating that old cars are safer and that is one of the reasons you drive one, not a question of taste.

I actually have no concern that you can not see reason and logic, I am not losing any sleep over it. My only concern is a child's greatest influence over their beliefs and opinions is their parents. Your misguided views, unfortunately will to some extent be passed on to your children and it is very difficult for that attitude to be changed. Now please do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting for a moment that you are a bad parent, just suggesting that in this isolated topic, you are giving poor and dangerous influences to your family. I know that sounds harsh and I guess it is, but that is reality and sometimes reality bites.

Quote:
So does my original quote amount to child abuse? I don't think so. It's more the modern features that could be classed as child abuse, because there is no guarantee they will work
As for this comment, I am not going to pull any punches here, that has to be the most ridiculous comment in this whole thread. For reasons why, refer to all my previous posts and some of the many good quality posts from other members that have a solid grasp of the realities of car crash safety.

Now one more cold hard fact that has been raised but not really defined, the road toll in australia. In 1982 the road toll for australia was about 3200, in 2008 that figure was down to 1500 with a steady decrease over the span of that time period (a reduction by 1/2). The percentage of deaths in relation to population is even more profound (consider road toll reduces whilst population increases), in terms of number of deaths per 100,000 in population the figure was 23/100,000 in 1982 and 7/100,000 in 2008. That is a reduction by 2/3 when you look at the number of deaths compared to the population.

If you do not believe, read it for yourself here. Australian road toll report

Now why is this, well the reasons are going to be many and varied as reducing the road toll requires a multi faceted approach ranging from driver education, law enforcement, road quality/design through to vehicle safety and others. The clear leader in this has been vehicle safety, the simple fact is people are surviving crashes today that they did not in 1982. That is a simple fact that no road safety expert, automotive body, manufacturer etc will ever disagree with. The funny thing is in other threads regarding law enforcement threads on this site (i.e speed cameras), the majority of those against speed cameras prop their argument up on this fact. Perhaps if they are wrong and old cars are safer, it is law enforcement that has reduced the road toll and we need more speed cameras to further reduce the road toll (no that is not my belief, just illustrating a point). In this discussion I find the figures for 1982 quite interesting, isn't the average age of a car on Australian roads something like 5-10 years, that would make the largest contributor to the road toll in 1982 mid to late 70's cars (not looking so good for the 1977 valiant).

Anyway, that is enough from me for now, yes it is my opinion but I have backed my opinion up with evidence as to where it came from. Please feel free to offer rebuttal but I do ask that you do us all a favour, back your argument up with some evidence. That way people can assess the value of your information and make an educated assessment of it validity, anything less is just unsubstantiated opinion and not really constructive to any real adult discussion.

I do apologise if some of my post seems harsh, it is not meant to be harsh, I just believe that a subject that directly relates to the health and well-being of our membership requires careful information that is productive and not damaging. Sometimes that belief requires actions which are perhaps a bit blunt and straight to the point.

My final point in this post, before I did the job that I do now and in my early days of motoring, I believed that the big old cars with a mile of bonnet were way stronger and therefore safer than new cars. I truly believed my HK Premier and HT Monaro were much safer. Now I still love those cars and am looking for another HK Premier, but the evidence is overwhelming and I know that my Mini and certainly my F6 are much safer cars, in every way from crash avoidance to crash survival. My attitude changed when I took the rose coloured glasses off and looked at the evidence with an open mind.

Now I am off to bed after night shift before I have to get up and do it all again tonight (good news is no crashes last night), good night all!
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
geckoGT is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 06:25 PM   #141
xy500
Constant annoyance
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckoGT
Man, how can you be so wrong?
Ahhh look, accept the fact you haven't produced data showing exactly how the age of the car, in current crash statistics, has a more significant effect on the trauma to the passengers than other factors like driver behaviour, drinking or age of the driver involved. You've given plenty of anecdotes, but you're trying to prove something purely on stories and here say, i don't disagree with you that a newer vehicle is more likely to reduce trauma on a passenger than an old vehicle.
But I think you'll find it is not nearly the major factor in the severity of injuries as compared to other factors. As has been said many times before improving the safety of the vehicle itself can only go so far to limit the extent of injury human stupidity causes.
So don't bother writing another essay, it doesn't make anyone here any more right or wrong. Unless you can come up with some hard data that is peer reviewed you'll have to accept people's opinions on the subject.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through.
xy500 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 06:37 PM   #142
UNR8D
FORMER T3 OWNER
 
UNR8D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,241
Default

xy500

It makes him, me majority on here and EVERY car manufacturer in the world more right then you..

How can you type that and believe what you have just said? there is not one ounce of truth behind the fact that old cars are safer than new cars its like arguing if there is a night/day, its not debatable it just is.

Why would manufactures choose to simply, as you are suggesting give away billions each year to safety institutes? to just waste money? they are like any corporation if it didnt have a positive outcome they would have abandoned the theory long ago.

No one on here has said that OLD cars are BAD, just that when it comes to your survival in a crash a new car is BETTER.

More to the point what qualifications do you have that make you the expert on this matter anyway since your asking the same of all of us?
__________________
Mischief.TV

you can sleep in your car, but you cant drift your house...
UNR8D is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 06:44 PM   #143
Kryton
 
Kryton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,292
Default

Heres a solution:
for those that believe that older cars are safer than newer cars - PROVE IT with some hard documented evidence.

There's 10000's of pages of evidence that says newer is safer - back up what you claim by proving the world is wrong if you believe it isnt.

I wont be holding my breath waiting.
Kryton is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 06:47 PM   #144
Boosh Brus
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xy500
There has been pretty pictures and movies, very little in the way of significant data or logic.
If this thread is all it takes to convince you one way or the other I find that concerning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xy500
Ahhh look, accept the fact you haven't produced data showing exactly how the age of the car, in current crash statistics, has a more significant effect on the trauma to the passengers than other factors like driver behaviour, drinking or age of the driver involved.....

But I think you'll find it is not nearly the major factor in the severity of injuries as compared to other factors.....
What other factors:
Driver drunk/on drugs/insane - new or old car is irrelevant
Driver inexperienced - new or old car is irrelevant. Actually more likely to be in an old car
Mechanical failure - new or old car is irrelevant but at a guess more likely to be in an old car
Driver not paying attention - new or old is irrelevant
Driver on the phone/playing with the stereo - new or old is irrelevant
Dropbear jumps out of pothole- new or old is irrelevant
hurricane - new or old is irrelevant

I found another new vs old crash test for you same model car with 9 years age different. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l4YBf2tjag
Its interesting how the engineer said that the old car received more damage because it hit a newer car.

Unfortunately I dont think the video does not contain the hard scientific data you are looking. But according to the RTA 17% of crashes are head ons. I would guess the fatality rate of head ons represent a large percent of the road toll hence these crash tests being relevent. Link: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...rashtypes.html
Boosh Brus is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 06:58 PM   #145
Auslandau
335 - STILL THE BOSS ...
 
Auslandau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melb East
Posts: 11,421
Default

Everyone has the right to choose what they believe I suppose. Doesn't matter what info is stacked up to back an argument, in an accident some prefer the engine sitting on their lap while others prefer an air bag ........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boosh Brus
What other factors:
Driver drunk/on drugs/insane - new or old car is irrelevant
Driver inexperienced - new or old car is irrelevant. Actually more likely to be in an old car
Mechanical failure - new or old car is irrelevant but at a guess more likely to be in an old car
Driver not paying attention - new or old is irrelevant
Driver on the phone/playing with the stereo - new or old is irrelevant
Dropbear jumps out of pothole- new or old is irrelevant
hurricane - new or old is irrelevant
Really it doesn't matter? Hit a tree with all the above excuses in an FG vs XY at 80k's and see who can walk away.



__________________
'73 Landau - 10.82 @ 131mph
'11 FG GT335 - 12.43 @ 116mph
'95 XG ute - 3 minutes, 21.14 @ 64mph


101,436 MEMBERS ......... 101,436 OPINIONS ..... What could possibly go wrong!

Clevo Mafia
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Last edited by Auslandau; 19-08-2010 at 07:05 PM.
Auslandau is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 07:12 PM   #146
flappist
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xy500
Ahhh look, accept the fact you haven't produced data showing exactly how the age of the car, in current crash statistics, has a more significant effect on the trauma to the passengers than other factors like driver behaviour, drinking or age of the driver involved. You've given plenty of anecdotes, but you're trying to prove something purely on stories and here say, i don't disagree with you that a newer vehicle is more likely to reduce trauma on a passenger than an old vehicle.
But I think you'll find it is not nearly the major factor in the severity of injuries as compared to other factors. As has been said many times before improving the safety of the vehicle itself can only go so far to limit the extent of injury human stupidity causes.
So don't bother writing another essay, it doesn't make anyone here any more right or wrong. Unless you can come up with some hard data that is peer reviewed you'll have to accept people's opinions on the subject.
Every few sundays a couple of nice people turn up at my door and tell me that if I don't read their pamplett and follow what it says I will burn in hell forever.

They think this must be the truth and everything else is lies and nothing will ever convince them otherwise because if it was not the truth then THEY WOULD BE WRONG and that can't ever happen can it..........
flappist is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 07:25 PM   #147
AussieAV
Regular Member
 
AussieAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 308
Default

Great link Boosh Brus, same car 9 years apart takes a lot of the variables out of the equation, its purely older technology versus today's technology. Doesn't get any easier to understand than this.

I might have to start watching Fifth Gear when the new digital 7 channel starts next month.
__________________
Reality is an illusion
caused by an excess of blood in the alcohol stream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by flappist
Some people drive to go places others go places to drive.......
AussieAV is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 07:42 PM   #148
xy500
Constant annoyance
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNR8D
xy500

It makes him, me majority on here and EVERY car manufacturer in the world more right then you..

How can you type that and believe what you have just said? there is not one ounce of truth behind the fact that old cars are safer than new cars its like arguing if there is a night/day, its not debatable it just is.

Why would manufactures choose to simply, as you are suggesting give away billions each year to safety institutes? to just waste money? they are like any corporation if it didnt have a positive outcome they would have abandoned the theory long ago.

No one on here has said that OLD cars are BAD, just that when it comes to your survival in a crash a new car is BETTER.

More to the point what qualifications do you have that make you the expert on this matter anyway since your asking the same of all of us?
Ahhhhh.... sigh.
Nevermind, no one here seems to be able to read what i'm posting it seems. Not once have i said "older cars are safer than newer cars".
re read what i posted and have another think about it.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through.
xy500 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 07:46 PM   #149
zdcol71
zdcol71
 
zdcol71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: brisbane
Posts: 1,095
Default

My old man once told me, "When your'e in a hole, stop digging"!!
I always thought it to be pretty good advice.
__________________
: 30 years later
zdcol71 is offline  
Old 19-08-2010, 07:59 PM   #150
xy500
Constant annoyance
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xc4me
I cannot believe what i am reading! Some of the opinions in here are so ridiculously ignorant. Yes, in collisions a vehicle of bigger mass experiences less change in momentum but the forces experienced by both vehicles IS IDENTICAL (Newtons 3rd Law). As seen in the Chevy impala crash test it's all about where the energy goes. In the new car its directed around the passenger cell and in the old it goes right through collapsing the pillar (I know which car I'd rather be in). In the crash test with the smart car v wall the drivers cell STAYED IN TACT and it would've been the G-forces that killed the person. I'm an automotive engineering student and if someone TRY say this to a lecturer they'd be kicked out of the course - yes, in LOW speed collisions new cars come of second best but this thread is unbelievable!
force is identical but if mass is different acceleration is different (f=m.a i'm sure your familiar with) so a=f/m
If you get kicked out of a course for stating laws of physics you need to change universities. It's a big part of learning to question your lecturers, if you just take their word as gospel then you haven't learnt what university is about yet - Always learning and improving knowledge. Even lecturers will continue to learn, even from students on occasion.
__________________
GT Club - no longer for ford enthusiasts, now for fat old men who need air con and power steering for the maccas drive through.

Last edited by xy500; 19-08-2010 at 08:05 PM.
xy500 is offline  
Closed Thread


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL