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.
IIHS Destroys 2016 Muscle Cars
David Brown
Caleb Roberts
>from the Camaro thread
Carter Lee
I think a diagonal impact would be an even worse scenario
Nathaniel Diaz
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
Lincoln Gutierrez
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!
James Ward
what about being small and nimble?
Jeremiah Brooks
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.
Parker Hughes
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
Jason Hernandez
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?
Joseph Thompson
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.