SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,476 Posts
Not bad comparatively...there is a chart with the actual test results somewhere in the threads related to the report (S60 or XC60 forums)...there is a HUGE difference between the P2 and the current EUCD platform in favor of EUCD, but even P2 models are competitive with many other brands...


Edit

Here is

http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?179380-Volvo-Still-the-Safest
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
That's what happens when most car manufacturers tailor their cars just for the limited situations in crash-tests. Only if in-depth research of the wider array of real-life accidents is conducted (as Volvo does), do cars resist when a new test is introduced (and in real accidents). But unfortunately, people are naive. Give Audi, Mercedes, etc a few years to tailor their cars to this new test, and people will again blindly believe these cars are safe..... until yet another new test is introduced :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...sions-prove-more-dangerous-in-new-crash-test/

So much for all the safety touting BMW, M-B and Lexus have been doing....



The sad part is that while Toyota said the IIHS has raised the bar again and admitted they needed to improve and suggested they would work on improving the safety design of their car(s), Mercedes took on a defensive attitude by disagreeing with the testing / results and suggesting the situation was uncommon, even though IIHS statistics show that overlap crashes are responsible for a quarter of all fatal front-end collisions. .

As others suggested, the only effect this will have is to steer a certain percentage of buyers away from Mercedes, for safety concern reasons, if rather than working on improving this part of their design, this is their official response when a relative weakness is exposed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
Mercedes took on a defensive attitude by disagreeing with the testing / results and suggesting the situation was uncommon, even though IIHS statistics show that overlap crashes are responsible for a quarter of all fatal front-end collisions. .
I think what some of the companies (that didn't do well) may find frustrating is that the small overlap test isn't like the other overlap test in which all cars are basically impacted the same. With this test, we saw two complete different things happening.

IMO, we've seen something very interesting with this overlap test. The two cars that did very well, the Volvo and Acura, the reason they did well is because they basically bounced off to the side, and their safety cages were never really engaged by the barrier. All the cars that did poorly, they didn't bounce off, and so their safety cages took the full brunt, and to quite a degree worse than the regular moderate overlap frontal test that spreads the forces out over more area.

So, in the case of Volvo and Acura, yeah, they did absolutely awesome, BUT, we didn't really get any measure of how their safety cages could really take a more direct impact. Not that I want that, but it would have been interesting to know.

What is debatable is the percentage of overlap and the type of barrier. If you read through past documents, they have been experimenting with small overlap tests for a while and they have experimented with different percentages of small overlap and also different barrier designs. Some overlap tests are designed to simulate impacting another car, some are designed for a tree.

Now, for this particular test, with the rounded non deformable edge, IMO, they were simulating a tree. IIHS says they were simulating other cars and a tree. But other cars can bounce off (or get locked together), this barrier wasn't doing that. So this test was about hitting a tree as far as I'm concerned. Now is that really 24% of all accidents? I find that hard to believe, but I don't have any data to backup my opinion, just going with my gut feeling. I rarely see a tree by itself. And I'd think most tree impacts are by cars that are spinning out of control, not one tree hit straight on just partially offset. Or are lone trees sprouting up in the middle of roads now?

I really do wonder of all the different types of small overlap crashes, what really is the more common type. I'm quite surprised they picked the "tree" test. In their initial testing, their test cars (S60 included) did well with that one. I don't know if this most reason luxury test is the exact same as during their trial tests. The "oblique" is the one I would think is more common, and more cars did poorly on that one (S60 NOT tested for oblique), but I'd think it's more expensive to do that test as now you need to replace the barrier everytime too. What was nice to see at least across all the small overlaps test is that even in the worst case scenarios, injuries where theoretically limited to just the legs.

I am not trying to defend Mercedes lame response in any way. The test is a valid test and they did poorly. But still keep in mind what poorly really means for the purposes of this test, probable leg injuries, not death. But I don't think it's right to say that this test represents 24% of all accidents. IMO, just guessing, this test really represents a small percentage of accidents within that 24%. Mercedes, Toyota, etc, they all need to improve. It is a valid test, but this particular one, I just don't think is that common.

Unlike the other test, the fix for this is "maybe" a lot easier than the other main test. Just design into the front corners of the car a brace to help the car bounce off the pole.

Until then, Mercedes drivers just need to hope that if they do hit something, that it's a Volvo or Acura that will bounce off of them.



Interesting reading:

http://www.sae.org/events/gim/presentations/2012/sherwood.pdf
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,289 Posts
Death or no death, pole/tree or whatever, I would hate to be a driver on page 23 and face, potentially, crippling leg injuries for life...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,740 Posts
I don't disagree with you. I would think ANYBODY would hate to face any potential crippling injury for life. It's all about managing risks and making decisions on what they think the risks are. And making those decisions based on ACCURATE knowledge of what the risks REALLY are.

Don't forget, the prior gen S60 had a "marginal" rating for legs in side impacts. I wasn't scared of a potential crippling leg injury for life whenever I got one as a loaner. So I just don't see why I should be scared if I now get a "marginal" acura tsx or bmw 3 series.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
39,289 Posts
ISo I just don't see why I should be scared if I now get a "marginal" acura tsx or bmw 3 series.
I do not think you should be scared being in any of these cars. Both are quality cars but I will still take my chances in any Volvo vs. most other brands including the above. I just know (and granted, I do not work for any of the other brands so I could be missing something) the type of research and commitment to overall safety that goes into designing and building of ALL Volvos.

The only other brand I have worked at, for enough time to have in informed opinion, is Mercedes-Benz who builds their cars fairly well with regards to safety. Nevertheless, Volvo's final execution to overall safety (inside and outside the car) is something that gives me an almost total piece of mind when I (or my family) am on the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
IMO, we've seen something very interesting with this overlap test. The two cars that did very well, the Volvo and Acura, the reason they did well is because they basically bounced off to the side, and their safety cages were never really engaged by the barrier. All the cars that did poorly, they didn't bounce off, and so their safety cages took the full brunt, and to quite a degree worse than the regular moderate overlap frontal test that spreads the forces out over more area.
The Acura and the Volvo bounced off because their safety cages were so rigid that when the "poll" was just about to hit the structure that connected the A=Pillar and the front sub-frame the strength there allowed the entire car to be shoved off seeing as the attachment served as a "ramp". That pretty much tells you that the rest of the safety cage was able to withstand the forces and maintain its shape as to not have the entire dash board coming to crumple the driver's legs such as in the case of the Lexus IS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
The Acura and the Volvo bounced off because their safety cages were so rigid that when the "poll" was just about to hit the structure that connected the A=Pillar and the front sub-frame the strength there allowed the entire car to be shoved off seeing as the attachment served as a "ramp". That pretty much tells you that the rest of the safety cage was able to withstand the forces and maintain its shape as to not have the entire dash board coming to crumple the driver's legs such as in the case of the Lexus IS.
Thanks both of you, some interesting points to ponder.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top