|
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. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-05-2014, 05:27 PM | #181 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2,252
|
Quote:
Nobody I have found collects data on near misses! and the analysis of crashes cannot be complete and 100% accurate because no two crashes are the same. Analytical variance needs to be accounted for and a base line assumptions made to spread across all analised instances. A 'homogonised, pasturised' data set results are much like ANCAP et al. Its not perfect but given manufacturers and purchases don't want to test every possible crash scenario in their prospective purchase before forking out their cash its a good base to compare new vehicles in crashworthiness against the criteria and assumptions of the test. If I have to have a standard crash I think Id like to be in a big tall modern car. But to live with for hopefully 100% of my driving (ie all the driving without a crash) I feel, based on my own anecdotal research, ie my memory, Id be less likely to crash in my small AWD hatch than in my Falcon Ute. JP JP |
|||
10-05-2014, 06:38 PM | #182 | ||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,654
|
What do you mean 10 years ago, my 2010 February built FG XR6 Ute only had drivers & passenger front airbags.....
|
||
10-05-2014, 08:22 PM | #183 | ||
Oo\===/oO
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
|
But bigger car, longer bonnet, etc...safer!
__________________
|
||
This user likes this post: |
10-05-2014, 08:55 PM | #184 | ||
Petro-sexual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,527
|
Ford ute is actually very strong on side impact due to B and C pillar being so close in the passenger cell.
|
||
11-05-2014, 12:07 AM | #185 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 2,252
|
Quote:
Heres inside one But strong doesn't cut it when it comes to crashes, Impact absorption (crumple zones) are where its at and strong transfers load into the softer occupants rather then crumple leaving our organs as the crumple zone. JP |
|||
11-05-2014, 12:33 AM | #186 | ||
Oo\===/oO
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
|
I doubt the ute would have any significant change in side impact strength, as the majority of the protection is still from the A and B pillars, and internal door structure.
Actually seen a Fiesta get T-boned buy a Focus... Focus was a total loss...Fiesta got a new door, pillar/sill sections and away she went!
__________________
|
||
11-05-2014, 02:39 AM | #187 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ipswich QLD
Posts: 4,697
|
So from the facts gleaned so far....
No light car was found to be safe in the mentioned study. The FG falcon was found to be the safest of all cars in the study. 5 small cars were deemed 'safe picks' in the study. Ancap admits star ratings are designed against cars in their SAME class. A 5star small car isn't as safe as a large 5star car due to weight and so on... 85% of cars on sale now have curtain airbags as standard And that there are people who think their one off accident sets a national trend or safety benchmark. Be safe.....by a falcon |
||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 09:48 AM | #188 | |||
GT4.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,218
|
Quote:
Please then, go ahead and tell me what magical entity it was who miraculously held my small car interior completely intact when it hit a Navara near head on at 70km/h or so? |
|||
11-05-2014, 10:02 AM | #189 | |||
Oo\===/oO
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
|
Quote:
Hope that clears it up.
__________________
|
|||
11-05-2014, 12:56 PM | #190 | ||
Render unto Caesar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ::1
Posts: 4,224
|
Not to mention the facts he so much likes to quote were posted here which indicates that the Falcon among the safest cars assessed by Monash Uni within their study of a range of car accidents. It is an achievement for sure but one has to wonder how many times a Falcon FG was in an accident compared to other makes. It wasn't the ONLY safe car, it was among a group of them. But you know don't let the facts in the way of a misinterpretation.
Then there was the unfortunate and saddening accident where an i30 T-boned and killed the occupants of the FG G6E last year in Oakleigh. It shows that there is a limitation, where and the severity of the impact a vehicle can take. In the end all I can say is I would rather be driving any 5 star rated car from 2014 than those form the 70's in the context of accident survivability. Just look at the road toll comparing the decade 2004 - 2014 to that of 1974 - 1984. There are more drivers now but the toll is a fraction of what it was. Car safety technology has advanced hand over fist and the manufacturers are to be congratulated (in addition to crash barriers).
__________________
"Aliens might be surprised to learn that in a cosmos with limitless starlight, humans kill for energy sources buried in sand." - Neil deGrasse Tyson Last edited by Wretched; 11-05-2014 at 01:08 PM. |
||
11-05-2014, 03:07 PM | #191 | ||
GT4.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,218
|
Well all I know when I get my insurance payout is that I'm going to get myself one of those big yellow Caterpillar mining trucks.
I hear that they have a 6 star safety rating from Ford Forums. YEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW! |
||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 06:42 PM | #192 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ipswich QLD
Posts: 4,697
|
Quote:
And you certainly fit in the final criteria I added for good measure as you think just because your one off random accident resulting in good safe circumstances for you....now allows you to say small cars are safer then equivalent safe large cars! I've proved with an extensive monash university research..along with other facts people have mentioned, that at the time large cars took the gong after compiling over 1 million incidents which take damage,injuries and other things like pedestrian safety into account...amoung other things. Now CUT the BULLSHIT and provide PROOF that smaller cars are safer then larger cars or shut up....you and your campaign stooges. And your very lucky one off incident doesn't stack up to results from over 1million crashes info.....just incase that didn't SINK IN Patiently waiting |
|||
11-05-2014, 06:58 PM | #193 | |||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,654
|
Quote:
|
|||
11-05-2014, 07:13 PM | #194 | ||
GT4.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,218
|
LOL^^
That's all the "factually reply" needed. Now 1FORDUTE take a grammar lesson and a chill pill. Oh and I never said small cars were safer as such. I offered a real life account of proof (what more proof can I offer?), showing WITHOUT QUESTION (therefore no bullshit - to use your eloquent expression), that my modern small car was at the very least AS safe as a large car. I PROVED that this small car was safe in the most painful and accurate way possible - I strapped myself in and hurtled myself at 70km/h plus at a 4WD with a bullbar front on, walked away, and then offered the good people of the Ford Forums to interpret this as they wished. You my good sir, have taken it like a bee to the vagina. Last edited by Danny; 11-05-2014 at 07:22 PM. |
||
11-05-2014, 07:30 PM | #195 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,290
|
Its not AS safe as a large car tho
|
||
11-05-2014, 07:37 PM | #196 | ||
GT4.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,218
|
Wrong, I 110% believe that it was. I cannot see how hard it is to comprehend, these companies spend billions on engineering small cars to hold up well where they fall short in sheer size. After what I went through I feel some of you "scientific" masterminds are just trolling. Most of you couldn't grammatically structure a cohesive argument anyway, so take off and post somewhere else if you want to just mindlessly discount the experience I gained ever so unfortunately.
|
||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 07:54 PM | #197 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: On The Footplate.
Posts: 5,086
|
Sorry, but "head on" means directly head on...front to front, not offset, not a glancing blow...
If a bull bar equipped Navara had indeed been doing 70kph and hit "head on", you wouldn't be writing this thread... |
||
4 users like this post: |
11-05-2014, 07:54 PM | #198 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ipswich QLD
Posts: 4,697
|
Fair enough don't reply to me....you got nothing anyway. I just hope your as lucky next time being so cocky about small car safety. It's quite ignorant actually. At least get a 5star small car again so you stand a chance.
Parting fact....small car deaths have dropped 45%...large car deaths over 50% |
||
11-05-2014, 08:03 PM | #199 | |||
GT4.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,218
|
Quote:
1tuffute thanks for your input mate. If you think "I got nothing" then there must be something amazing you know that I couldn't have learnt myself from being a human crash dummy. Nonetheless, your enviable expertise in this field has been duly noted. |
|||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 08:29 PM | #200 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Shakey Isles
Posts: 3,428
|
Quote:
"Head on" means when the front ends of two opposing vehicles impact each other, whether they are perfectly aligned or off set makes no difference to the terminology. They are still head on collisions. |
|||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 08:30 PM | #201 | ||
Oo\===/oO
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
|
You best go crash you're car into a navara a few more times, must make sure you have a uni present to collect statistical data, because obviously you hitting a car twice the size of your own and walking away isn't enough to prove that a small car offers remarkable protection.
__________________
|
||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 08:35 PM | #202 | |||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,654
|
Quote:
I walked away luckily with lot of bruises so don't assume as every accident is different to each other with different results. PS: Both cars were written off. |
|||
11-05-2014, 08:37 PM | #203 | ||
Oo\===/oO
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tamworth
Posts: 11,348
|
Exatctly, frontal off set is still head on...and a bull bar? Those flimsy alloy things a just blingy junk...might stop a roo from breaking you headlight, but they a soft thin and have collapsible mounts as to not interfere with crumple zone and airbag operation.
__________________
|
||
11-05-2014, 08:51 PM | #204 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Shakey Isles
Posts: 3,428
|
I think a few people here have completely lost sight of the original post
Quote:
|
|||
11-05-2014, 09:10 PM | #206 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Victoria
Posts: 836
|
In a head on collision, a heavier car will always decelerate slower than the lighter car. We can all agree on that.
However that doesn't mean anything in terms of the safety of the occupants, because with the inclusion of safety cells, crumple zones and airbags, which have proven to be a life saver in this situation. If you combine both those two factors (weight and crumple zones/safety cell/airbags), and have two cars both with the same ANCAP rating, but different weights, the heavier one will come off better because of the fact it has to decelerate less, and absorbs less force because of this. This video is the simplest way of demonstrating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBesU12g58I
__________________
FG MkII G6 Ecoboost in Lightning Strike
|
||
This user likes this post: |
11-05-2014, 09:31 PM | #207 | ||
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,886
|
Pity there is no pic of the Navara.
70km/h head on in any car is way in excess of any NCAP tests and most likely not an accurate depiction. Bet my left testicle on that little fact.... |
||
11-05-2014, 09:32 PM | #208 | |||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,654
|
Quote:
The one comment I will make is that higher speed impact will lessen chances for survival & accident statistics supports this for any car regardless of size. |
|||
11-05-2014, 09:43 PM | #209 | |||
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,886
|
Quote:
The greater the deceleration the more internal organ damage. Ask Diana Spencer about ruptured aorta and internal bleeding...she died cause her hear was ripped off its engine mounts due to deceleration. |
|||
11-05-2014, 09:49 PM | #210 | ||
Experienced Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 7,654
|
Sorry, your correct I realised my error in my last post.
|
||
This user likes this post: |