Crash Test

Has anyone seen this? We were considering Nissan Leaf until I found Consumer Reports can no longer recommend based on this report:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/nissan/leaf-4-door-hatchback?print-view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... kind of disturbing? Thoughts?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17499" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=402638#p402638" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=381151#p381151" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The new small overlap test is a brutal test. Per http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "Twenty-five percent of the total width of the vehicle strikes the barrier on the driver side." at 40 mph. That's compared to their former overlap test (now called moderate overlap) where "Forty percent of the total width of the vehicle strikes the barrier on the driver side." at 40 mph.

In comparison, the NHTSA frontal crash test is at 35 mph and has crash forces distributed over the entire width of the vehicle.

Some more info at http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+FAQ#thirteen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.autotrader.com/research/article/car-info/223740/crash-test-ratings-whats-the-difference-between-iihs-and-nhtsa.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

BTW, how about answering the questions that I asked at http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=417323#p417323" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; over in that other thread? The Leaf may not be the right vehicle for you or it may not be a good idea for you to purchase.

It is interesting that a number of manufactures that had cars that failed the test year before last, redesigned the structure so that they would pass last year... Apparently Nissan is one of the few that did not consider it important enough to do so... Any car that did not pass the test would get an automatic "pass" from me for consideration, so I agree with CR...

whyvon said:

Has anyone seen this? We were considering Nissan Leaf until I found Consumer Reports can no longer recommend based on this report:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/nissan/leaf-4-door-hatchback?print-view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... kind of disturbing? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It doesn't make any sense to me. Most vehicles that were made and designed before this test was thought up don't pass at all. Yet they are all over the road and things are fine. It is a brutal test but there are a bunch of other possible accident scenarios that aren't tested for today that most vehicles will also fail.

2k1Toaster said:

Most vehicles that were made and designed before this test was thought up don't pass at all. Yet they are all over the road and things are fine.

Click to expand...

As long as you aren't in an accident, even a motorcycle is fine.

This small overlap frontal crash mimics the type of head-on crash seen in real life. I'm glad to see it added, and glad to see it being addresses by manufacturers. I didn't expect to see existing models updated to cope with it - I would expect most manufacturers to wait for the next refresh cycle to address it.

Honda, and some others, immediately updated their cars to allow them to pass even though they were not near refresh... They then resubmitted them for retest and passed. Some manufactures realize how important that test is to some of their customers and that a CR "Not Acceptable" carries a big negative with many... Apparently not Nissan, though...

garsh said:

I didn't expect to see existing models updated to cope with it - I would expect most manufacturers to wait for the next refresh cycle to address it.

Click to expand...

garsh said:

2k1Toaster said:

Most vehicles that were made and designed before this test was thought up don't pass at all. Yet they are all over the road and things are fine.

Click to expand...

As long as you aren't in an accident, even a motorcycle is fine.

This small overlap frontal crash mimics a type of head-on crash seen in real life. I'm glad to see it added, and glad to see it being addresses by manufacturers. I didn't expect to see existing models updated to cope with it - I would expect most manufacturers to wait for the next refresh cycle to address it.

Click to expand...

FYP. It is not "THE" type of head-on crash seen in real life. It's A type.

Yes, some automakers did update their cars mid-cycle to do better on the small offset test. See http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/safety-gains-ground-more-vehicles-earn-top-honors-from-iihs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; under "Meeting the small overlap challenge". http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/11/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows areas modified.

I wouldn't be surprised if making these modifications is rather costly overall (due costs for R&D, validation, retooling, etc.) besides possibly creating compromises (e.g. higher weight, styling, etc.). The CR-V, for instance, sells in MASSIVE quantities compared to the Leaf, so its costs can be more easily amortized over many vehicles.

It's about optimizing cars to do better on/pass a test, which is what all of these just are, a test.

cwerdna said:

The CR-V, for instance, sells in MASSIVE quantities compared to the Leaf, so its costs can be more easily amortized over many vehicles.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It probably wasn't worth the R&D cost given the small numbers of Leafs sold.

It's nice to see this getting some attention. That's my biggest concern with the Leaf.

Kia seems to have improved the Soul crash rating, so hopefully Nissan follows up as well.

The Kia Soul, a small car previously rated poor in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's small overlap front test, now earns a good rating in the tough crash test, following structural improvements for the 2015 model year.

Click to expand...

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/kia-improves-small-overlap-front-protection-of-2-small-cars-soul-earns-good-rating-qualifying-for-top-safety-pick" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hqDSRrPM-k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, unfortunately, it is A type that is most commonly seen in real-life frontal crashes...
I would not knowingly buy any vehicle that did not get at least an acceptable in that test...

cwerdna said:

It is not "THE" type of head-on crash seen in real life. It's A type.

Click to expand...

Kind of like Ford with the Pinto or GM with the pickups... They decided it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits that would result from the safety defect than to fix it...

garsh said:

Exactly. It probably wasn't worth the R&D cost given the small numbers of Leafs sold.

Click to expand...

TomT said:

Kind of like Ford with the Pinto or GM with the pickups... They decided it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits that would result from the safety defect than to fix it...

garsh said:

Exactly. It probably wasn't worth the R&D cost given the small numbers of Leafs sold.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But this isn't a "safety defect". I suspect the majority (if not vast majority) of vehicles on the road in the US would also do poorly on this test because they weren't designed for/optimized for this test nor tested against it. Unless you also considered all of them defective... And, there's the set that were tested and did poorly.

TomT said:

And, unfortunately, it is A type that is most commonly seen in real-life frontal crashes...
I would not knowingly buy any vehicle that did not get at least an acceptable in that test...

cwerdna said:

It is not "THE" type of head-on crash seen in real life. It's A type.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Most commonly? Source? It is a common type, yes.

I found http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/44/2/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and added up the numbers...
center impacts: 19%
full-width: 6%
moderate overlap: 24%
small overlap: 24%

That total 73%, so 27% was/were something(s) else.

2k1Toaster said:

It doesn't make any sense to me. Most vehicles that were made and designed before this test was thought up don't pass at all. Yet they are all over the road and things are fine. It is a brutal test but there are a bunch of other possible accident scenarios that aren't tested for today that most vehicles will also fail.

Click to expand...

Its not a brutal test, it is like all tests quite synthetic.

Different tests, TEST different aspects of the vehicle, the traditional US test, full frontal may not be representative of real world accidents, but it does test the interior cabin aspects of safety the most, its a hard stop that test the effectiveness of seat belts, steering wheels, console knobs etc, to me, its a very valid test for that reason.

Offset test are different again, they trade cabin effectiveness for various crushing of the front of the car, so a more survivable test, even though speed is faster.

To optimize for 1 test will reduce values vs the over tests, just like optimizing for one accident type will reduce values for other accident types. So car is needed to optimise for both tests.

In regards to the small overlap test, its cheap to strengthen/lengthen certain structural parts to optimize for that.
but then other parts may need to weakened so to maintain optimum performance in other tests.

ydnas7 said:

2k1Toaster said:

It doesn't make any sense to me. Most vehicles that were made and designed before this test was thought up don't pass at all. Yet they are all over the road and things are fine. It is a brutal test but there are a bunch of other possible accident scenarios that aren't tested for today that most vehicles will also fail.

Click to expand...

Its not a brutal test, it is like all tests quite synthetic.

Click to expand...

From simple physics, it is brutal. kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2

The NHTSA frontal crash tests is at a lower speed, 35 mph. Notice the velocity is squared. Kinetic energy is allowed to dissipate across the entire frontal width of the car.

IIHS moderate overlap is at 40 mph (again, see above) but only 40% of the frontal width of the is used.

IIHS small overlap is again at 40 mph but only 25% of width is used, which makes this test MUCH tougher.

cwerdna said:

The NHTSA frontal crash tests is at a lower speed, 35 mph. Notice the velocity is squared. Kinetic energy is allowed to dissipate across the entire frontal width of the car.

Click to expand...

repeat after me
trauma to the human body is worse than hurting a car
trauma to the human body is worse than hurting a car
trauma to the human body is worse than hurting a car

Kinetic energy is not dissipated across the entire frontal section width of a car, it is transferred via the frontal width of the car

When a crumple zone crushes, then there is dissipation of energy.

Yes there are limits but the general observations are
offest test emphasis the crumple zone
full frontal test emphasis the cabin safety features

both are valid
both are different
optimizing for one can have negative effect on the other.