All these small overlap tests are really making me wonder though. The manner in which cars get good versus the final outcome is quite radically different, not like the moderate overlap. Where does the car finally come to rest?
In this new XC90 test, something really stuck out to me. It really keeps moving after the impact more so than any other small overlap I recall. Maybe it's just me but I think I'm hearing a 2nd accident in the background. You can see the reflection of the XC90 in the garage door hitting the wall and coming to a hard stop. Airbags have already gone off though. How did the dummys do against that wall? The irony of how this test highlights what can happen in real accidents.
Some cars appear to basically bypass the barrier deflecting out, others end up coming to rest kicked out from the barrier at 90. If we could control that, which is better?
Accidents are accidents and there are a bazzillion ways for them to happen and there are more things to still hit or get hit by. In the case of the cars that bypass the barrier, some of these cars are still rolling forward at speed and I can't help but wonder that one survives the 1st hit easily, but now the airbags have gone off, and now there's a 2nd worst hit without air bags.
The new MDX also gets a good, but with a complete different outcome, the barrier brought the mdx to a full stop and spit it out right there sideways at 90. The Q5 is similar, a good, but the car comes to a rest almost in the place where the accident occurred. Is this good or bad? One could argue that they will get tboned or rear ended, but then it's still more similar to a moderate overlap test.
I think the small overlap has pointed out some serious issues with other brands car. It does not appear as hard for them to make things safer though. After the IIHS released the 1st small overlap results, next year many brands improved. Some went from the bottom, poor, right to the top , good. Once one puts in structure to get the car moving sideways and out from the barrier, it's not hard to pass this test.
At some point, will they slowly start overlapping just a little more? IMO, it seems to boil down to how far in can the cars overlap and still deflect sideways.
I also would like to see an exact small overlap test done but with two of the same car hitting each other and then comparing that to the rigid barrier vs same car. In the case of the small overlap, I have to wonder that the rigid barrier kicking the cars out from it is skewing results, it almost seems like the rigid barrier is the best case scenario of a small overlap. For example, some cars that have failed the small overlap did so because the barrier made it all the way to the A pillar and the barrier halted all fwd motion. What happens when a good car hits a poor car? Is the good car still going to bounce out like the video's show? I guess my point is I'd like to see non rigid barriers. I thought they use to have these, but maybe I just remember wrong or they cost too much?
On another note, what does IIHS do with the wrecked cars? One of my daughters friends was in a head on collision, (another car was hit by a truck and that car was spun into them) and I was thinking there are a lot of accidents that involve multiple cars and MULTIPLE hits. A lot of times it seems the 2nd hit is a tree or pole and it's the 2nd hit that causes more injuries.
All of these tests the passenger side of the car isn't really wrecked. Yes, depending on how well the car survived the first test, the passenger side structure may be affected.
I think it would be interesting for them to take some of these wrecked cars and simulate an angled side impact into whateever is left of the passenger side. Maybe even simulate a pole into the front passenger door of the wrecked cars.
When IIHS first came out, very few cars were high up on the list. We have the IIHS to thank for getting more brands to step up and take safety more seriously. At the same time, I feel like a lot less people even really care about IIHS results anymore since so many more cars are high up. It's boring now when the typical IIHS results get their 30 sec blurp on the evening news.
I think it's time to shake things up on everybody. I don't want them spending time simulating rare accidents but there's got to be a way to in some slight way change these simulations and maybe even get a 2nd test out of these wrecked cars. While small overlap may be a common occurrence, both cars approaching at exact opposite angles doesn't seem likely. I think it's time for the barrier to start also getting pulled in the opposite direction and at the last moment, they somehow introduce an angular component.
It would be REALLY awesome for them to come out with a more realistic version of a common type of accident where most likely Volvo will still be in the top, but also shorten that list and once again highlight safety more.
Absolutely, I agree. But in reality, the ultimate final outcome is what really matters. One doesn't get to pick the best part.All things being equal and the cabin staying intact, the less abrupt deceleration you have in a crash, the better. That is the whole concept behind crumple zones, absorbing energy and slowing deceleration. Very impressive result.
Possible, but this type of thing already happens in real life. The whole point of testing is to see what happens and improve.That the vehicle keeps moving is just an idiosyncrasy of the test procedure.
Sounds great, until it hits something else, which in this case, it did. I don't recall any other crash test that resulted in a 2nd collision. We have no idea if it hit the wall on it's side of the road or the other.I have to say that seeing the car continue forward is the best possible result from my perspective. Much better than being spit side-ways into possible oncoming traffic with the exposed driver's side compartment open to a second strike. It is more reassuring that in the case of such an accident, the vehicle will remain on a predictable trajectory, which can more easily be averted by following traffic. I think nothing would be worse than being on a two lane road, being struck, then ending perpendicular in the second lane and being struck again in the driver's side. I would rather bounce off and continue forward and get rear-ended where protection still exists.
According to this Motor Trend article, this also appears to be an intentional part of the design....I have to say that seeing the car continue forward is the best possible result from my perspective. Much better than being spit side-ways into possible oncoming traffic with the exposed driver's side compartment open to a second strike. It is more reassuring that in the case of such an accident, the vehicle will remain on a predictable trajectory, which can more easily be averted by following traffic. I think nothing would be worse than being on a two lane road, being struck, then ending perpendicular in the second lane and being struck again in the driver's side. I would rather bounce off and continue forward and get rear-ended where protection still exists.