IIHS Destroys 2016 Muscle Cars

yeah because that's the only thing they're good at lol.

your mum sucks in recreational areas

Here's all of the small overlaps (Challenger, then Camaro, and finally Mustang) for comparison:
youtube.com/watch?v=LHXoxZRSv-I
youtube.com/watch?v=_Xu9DoG3Gak
youtube.com/watch?v=LTj4yDKcRJk

Side impacts (same order):
youtube.com/watch?v=q2jwcgP8YBk
youtube.com/watch?v=9ucu4cQauJY
youtube.com/watch?v=ZP_zqKaBRB0

Moderate overlaps (no Mustang published):
youtube.com/watch?v=EnQirxuGh8g
youtube.com/watch?v=dVh3wkuTzg4

>2 cents have been deposited to your Challenger upgrade account
Your car could cost an arm and a leg, or in this case your foot!

An amputated lower leg more like. Those crash test dummies are about eighty times more sturdy than the human body.

To me it looks like it was luck of the draw that the Challengers wheel stayed on and crushed the floor/firewall.
I bet if they did it again the wheel might detach like the others and the outcome might be different. Same goes for the other cars, if the wheel stayed on, the damage could be similar to the Challenger.

IIHS makes up new tests every few years to make sure most cars have poor to average test results.

By 2030 they'll be dropping main battle tanks on cars.

All so insurance companies can justify screwing you on rates and pay outs.

>By 2030 they'll be dropping main battle tanks on cars.
I want to see this

>New IIHS safety test for 2020, vehicle must survive a front quarter impact with a 5 ton wrecking ball

>New IIHS safety test for 2030, car must survive being doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and having a MBT dropped on it from a height of 3 stories

>New IIHS safety test for 2040, car must survive direct hit from a buried IED using 200lbs of high explosives and still be driveable for 40 miles afterwards

>Veeky Forums complains about safety regs making cars fat
>Veeky Forums complains if the cars under the current safety regs aren't utter perfection

>Veeky Forums

why doesn't the IIHS test crash avoidance capabilities?

Because that would invalidate their constant forcing cars to become bigger and heavier.

Safety is something I don't even bother looking at when buying cars. My current dd has its airbags disabled.

>New IIHS safety test for 2120, car must survive 10 feet from a nuclear detonation

Ten year old platform doesn't perform as well as two new ones. Shocked.

>cars in 2120 are all required to have 9000lbs of lead shielding and get over 1000mpg

This
Why not promote accident avoidance instead of accident safety?

*while producing 0 emissions

*while activley cleaning the environment

even better! how would you like a job at the EPA? I think you'd fit right in.

...

*while producing clean energy for the nearest 40,000 homes via cold fusion

They are promoting "accident avoidance" though, didn't you watch the video and hear the guy talking about "front crash prevention/alert/warning systems"?

Stating a fact is not "moving the goalpost". Feel free to try again though.

Who cares as long as you don't crash?

>Safety is something I don't even bother looking at when buying cars

Same here, most cars I buy are used models that are 7-10 years old.. even if they performed well in crash tests when they were new I know that due to constantly changing test methods they would perform poorly in current crash tests. I just figure that if I get in a bad enough wreck then I'm gonna be fucked up no matter what I'm driving so I try to be a safe driver and hope for the best. I also ride motorcycles which are hilariously dangerous when involved in a crash so the same mentality carries over there as well.

who do I need that? it honestly makes drivers seem okay with not paying attention in the long run, and everyone pays up for it, also why the fuck do I need a big ass infotainment lcd screen in the center? fuck that shit.

>it didn't perform well
>THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OLDER
Goalposts status: moved
You status: called out
Your butt status: hurt

I think more people that own these modern shitheaps need to die. So this is encouraging.

Small overlap crash test is a bull shit test anyway. What real-world accident does hitting an immobile non-deforming barrier with just the front corner of the car represent? Do we have a epidemic of people crashing into stuff like this?

I think it's made to simulate someone drifting over the center line and getting into a small-overlap head on collision with a driver traveling in the opposite direction in another lane.

Giving a reason why something failed is not moving the goalpost. Demanding that the results or the test itself be altered because of that reason is moving the goalpost. I hope you learned something today.

I dont see the problem here. I mean your stereotypical Challenger owner is probably going to lose that foot to diabetes anyway so...

>mfw Chevy BTFO Dodge and Ford
>mfw Chevy CAN turn

But in that instance the they'd be hitting a deforming object.

At a higher velocity. Energy increases with the square of velocity.

That's too hard for them to simulate in controlled lab conditions so they made up some bullshit test that they claim is "equivalent" to that situation.

says who

Says physics.

nothing of value lost

the laws of physics?

Worst case scenario testing. Also, you would have to DOUBLE the speed of the crash because you are both traveling at speed making it even worse.

>Dodge getting marginal crash test ratings

surprising absolutely no one

Not really no. Two cars crashing into each other at 50mph each suffer the effects of a 50mph collision. Its not equivalent to hitting a solid wall at 100mph. Overly simplified explanation but still.

laws can be changed

Are you implying that a car traveling at 50mph having a head on collision with a stationary car will experience the same impact and damage as two cars traveling at 50mph in opposite directions colliding head-on with each other?

are you retarded?

A car traveling 50mph and hitting a stationary vehicle suffers the effects of a 50mph collision. A car traveling 50mph and hitting another car traveling 50mph in the opposite direction will experience much more than just a 50mph collision.

meant for

if you dont get it, mythbusters actually tested it. go watch it

>A car traveling 50mph and hitting a stationary vehicle suffers the effects of a 50mph collision. A car traveling 50mph and hitting another car traveling 50mph in the opposite direction will experience much more than just a 50mph collision.

confirmed retarded

>small overlap
OF COURSE ever-fatter modern cars are going to do relatively poorly on a crash test that involves slamming a very small portion of the car into a non-deformable barrier. Pretty much any non-chinese modern car does GREAT on every other crash test, so the small overlap was created to give the crash testing guys something to do.

that isn't true if the cars have the same mass and both come to a stop. your velocity goes from 50mph to 0 and you stop at the impact point

now, if the oncoming car has 100x the mass, then you're correct, your velocity vector changes from 50 mph one way to roughly 50mph the other way

So what, if you're sitting in a stationary vehicle and someone slams into you at 50mph then you experience the effects of a 0mph collision because you weren't moving?

the effect of a collision is determined by your change in velocity. so if you're not moving at 0mph and someone hits you, causing you to instantly start moving at 50mph in a direction, you ate a 50mph hit

if you are moving at 50mph and you hit someone head on coming at 50mph and both of you come to a stop at the impact point, your velocity went from 50mph to 0

A car that impacts a non-deformable object at 50mph will suffer approximately the same damage as a car impacting an identical car in a 50mph head-on-collision.

assuming both objects weigh the same and deform in the same way it's the equivalent of a 25mph collision (with a non deformable object) each

Good thing my BRZ has top safety marks :^)

Godmachine indeed.

Veering or swerving offroad and hitting a lamp post or tree

Yeah, totally a conspiracy to generate more news. No way it's due to the 25% of all serious crashes being in the small overlap area.

spotted the guy who failed high school physics

>No way it's due to the 25% of all serious crashes being in the small overlap area.
[citation needed]
>implying a significant number of serious crashes involve small overlap with a non-deformable object

Ok nerds, whatever you say

>sports cars have bad crash ratings
>sports cars can avoid accidents better than most vehicles on the road
IIHS is just salty they don't have maneuverability tests

small overlap side impact test when? I want my car/tank to survive a 50MPH collision while sliding sideways into a telephone pole

Lel yesterday there was a guy on here wanting a challenger for his wife because it would be more safe than her old camaro. Think again lmao you probably got one already. Think again.

Carrera GT
leave no survivors

In porsches defense that was a missle that destroyed that vehicle

>broken foot

nope, those accidents are fatal or crippling, you aint hobbling away from that shit with a broken foot

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0423.pdf

It's not going to be all crashes, but 1 in 4 is still significant.

afaik small overlap test didn't exist when the challenger was being designed.
the mustang and camaro were designed to do well at these standardised tests, but if a real life impact is 2" off you could end up much worse off.
while you have to have some standardisation or it's impossible to get any meaningful data, building to the test is a thing too.
look at emissions for example. real world driving means different things to different people and a real world crash could be completely opposite to what the crash test data tells us.

> results consistently indicated that about
one-quarter of all serious frontal crashes involved loading substantially less than 40% of the vehicle’s front end.

1/4 of "serious frontal crashes" =/= 1/4 of "all serious crashes"

>looking at you

"Despite these improvements, 28,869 vehicle occupants were killed in crashes in the United States in 2007. Frontal crashes accounted for half of these deaths..."

1/4 of 1/2 = 1/8 of vehicle deaths

Additionally, It looked like the "small-overlap" test impacted only about 15% of the car's front-end (estimated from video footage) where the abstract only makes note of crashes of less than 33% in US statistics, and 30% overlap using German statistics... So what percentage of deaths are actually attributed to a "small overlap" of ~15%? It'll be less than 1/8 I'm sure.

They do. If a car has stuff like emergency braking and lane keep assist etc. etc then it gets better ratings

Would rather have the cars being designed for the crashes than not. If you really want a car that doesn't have all of the crash worthiness, you can have one.

I'm not gonna be buying a brand new car anytime soon so I guess I'll just have to be stuck with a car that wasn't designed with this particular test in mind.

Moral of the story: same as it's always been: Dont crash.

>small overlap
Why is this allowed?

"All these cars are starting to do really well on our frontal crash ratings, insurance companies can't justify making as much money since we keep telling everyone how safe cars are nowadays."

"I know! Lets design a test where we crash a car into an immovable object in such a way that the impact completely misses all of the major structural components in the front of the car that are designed to keep people safe, surely crash test ratings will go down if we do that!"

So really it makes more sense if you can't avoid something, hit it head on instead of this small overlap nonsense.

Seems like a 50% overlap is better than a 20%-25% overlap judging by the test results. If you watch the IIHS test video you'll see that they set the test up in such a way as to barely miss the vehicle's frame so the impact only takes out the fender / wheel well area where the only semi-structural components are the wheel/steering assemblies and related components.

Yea I noticed that the impact went straight through to the wheel well, where there's really nothing to stop it. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't see many crashes hitting an immovable object at 90 degrees at a 25% overlap. It's an absolute worst case scenario.

Still got me thinking that it's better to aim for the object dead center if you can't wholly avoid it so you get the biggest crumple zone.

Well, if you moved the vehicle 4" one way then it would have the impact hitting a main beam of the frame causing less damage to the passenger compartment and 4" the other way would likely cause the vehicle to deflect off the object causing even less damage to the passenger compartment. Like you said, the test is truly a worst case scenario and you'd have to be incredibly unlucky to be involved in a crash that matches the test parameters.

>from the Camaro thread

I think a diagonal impact would be an even worse scenario

well with the way europe is letting the mudslimes flood their countries, i'd say they might want to push that 2040 date up a bit

FUCK YOU AND YOUR SMALL OVERLAP!

YOU ARE RUINING CAR DESIGN!

WHO THE FUCK HITS A BRICK WALL LIKE THAT? ITS A USELESS FUCKING TEST THAT JUST MAKES CARE MORE FUCKING PIGFAT WITH 2 FOOT FUCKING A PILLARS

FUCK YOU ASSHOLES!

what about being small and nimble?

That's shit that requires driver input for the vehicle to be safer. IIHS crash tests only looks at factors that make the car safer on its own with no driver input.

That's kind of an unbalaned test, as many of the same things that increase no-driver-input safety can also reduce safety based on correct driver input

You can't say that one vehicle is inherently safer than another when using metrics that require driver input because drivers all have different driving skill levels, reaction times, etc. An accident that one driver will easily avoid another driver might just plow into. A race-car driver might be able to whip a car around an obstacle while an average person might just spin out and crash into something else. There isn't a way to measure "how safe" a car is for EVERYONE by doing tests that are dependent on the skill of the driver so they take the driver completely out of the equation and just measure the vehicles against each other impact for impact under the exact same conditions.

What I'm trying to say is that a very nimble car with no safety features (no ABS, lane departure warnings, crash prevention systems, air bags, etc) may be perfectly safe with a F1 driver behind the wheel because he can easily avoid most accidents while it might be a deathtrap when you put an inexperienced teenage girl behind the wheel. Which crash rating do you use then? The rating showing how safe the car is with the F1 driver or the rating showing that little Stacy's teeth will likely have to be removed from the steering wheel in the event of a fender-bender?

I'm saying that an unbiased test should at least mention the extra weight added by features and the affect that could have on the car's nimbleness, braking ability, etc.

After all, it's much better to avoid an accident than get into one and survive.

> when you put an inexperienced teenage girl behind the wheel

Targeting the lowest common denominator in any product eventually makes all of your consumers exactly that.