Yeah, that comment was more tongue-in-cheek. The point being, how about giving us the national "favorite son" benefit and toss a picture of Kia up there first.DaveAdmin said:Agreed... though I wouldn't say "failed miserably." It's a new test and the cars weren't designed for it.
... yes, they have to design to the test![]()
Though I agree with what you're saying, even our newest utility poles are made of wood, buried in dirt and cement. Unless they're genetically engineering them...It more approximates an army tank than a modern utility pole, which by the way are now designed to breakaway in an impact.
Wood poles and trees are unbendable, but evolving standards are removing them from roadside locations or moving them underground, albeit at a slow pace, especially if you happen to be the one running into them.DaveAdmin said:Though I agree with what you're saying, even our newest utility poles are made of wood, buried in dirt and cement. Unless they're genetically engineering them...
Honestly, it probably would perform quite well. The Smart ForTwo's tridion safety cell is very well-designed. Its well-engineered structure and low weight (small amount of energy to be absorbed in a 30 mph front test) combine to earn it "Good" ratings across the board for all its front crash test ratings. The Smart cars actually appear to bounce back after a crash to prevent intrusion while safely holding its passengers inside.geraldg said:I would love to see a Smart car in this test.
I noticed the Wrangler tested did not have the optional side air bags. I guess if I keep looking at Wrangles, I'll pay extra for those.Honestly, it's scarier to know that the Wrangler was rated as Poor and Marginal (Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited, respectively) in the IIHS Side Impact test. There's a consequence to having the doors be easily removable.
While I do think these tests are relevant, I do see your point that they don't always simulate real world conditions. I would love for them to incorporate vehicle weight into the safety ratings. Otherwise, a five-star rated microcar appears just as safe as a five-star rated SUV, even though the SUV is clearly safer in a collision between the two.dak4x4 said:Given enough speed and immovability of the object the car impacts, any car can be destroyed. You can beef them up structurally and you get excess weight and more fuel consumption. These tests are interesting, but somewhat irrelevant to the real world.
Yep. You can't engineer mass...Chris Monaco said:Honestly, it probably would perform quite well. The Smart ForTwo's tridion safety cell is very well-designed. Its well-engineered structure and low weight (small amount of energy to be absorbed in a 30 mph front test) combine to earn it "Good" ratings across the board for all its front crash test ratings. The Smart cars actually appear to bounce back after a crash to prevent intrusion while safely holding its passengers inside.
However, its incredibly low weight puts it at an extreme disadvantage when colliding with SUVs.
Chris Monaco said:While I do think these tests are relevant, I do see your point that they don't always simulate real world conditions. I would love for them to incorporate vehicle weight into the safety ratings. Otherwise, a five-star rated microcar appears just as safe as a five-star rated SUV, even though the SUV is clearly safer in a collision between the two.
However, if that was better advertised, everyone would be driving around in full-sive SUVs. Shame that even the best engineering can't eliminate the tradeoff between safety and fuel efficiency in terms of mass.
Relevant:MoparNorm said:Yep. You can't engineer mass...![]()
My legs! What happened to my legs?!SouthPawXJ said: