Good thing they don't build 'em like they used to

[davepl]

I know it's a not a truck, but since our truck probably never were crash tested, I bet they're worse.

This is not an accident scene, it's a crash test. Talk about crumple zones!

[TBONE1964]

Dave,

I am not 100% sure when GM started doing crash test but they do now and have for many years. It is the reason why newer vehicles are so much safer. Most think that all of that sheet metal is going to help them in an accident when it is the furthest thing from the truth.

Keith Seymore can also chime in as he works at GM Proving Grounds in Milford, MI where they do crash test. I worked there in the late 90's and there was a lawsuit involving a 1959 Impala. They crashed like 4 of them, all clean sheet metal cars from California for a law suit. It was actually sad to watch.

You are correct, it is a good thing they don't build them like they use to but they are so much more fun to drive than they are now.

Take care,
Tom

[davepl]

If you want to be really convinced, check out the 1959 BelAir vs 2009 Malibu (best watched fullscreen, click on it):

Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009...

And you're not allowed to complaint about them wrecking a Bel Air unless you were really going to restore a brown FOUR DOOR. It's not a ZL1, folks.

[boraxman]

Ouch^^^^^

[JoetheMobster]

Originally Posted by davepl

If you want to be really convinced, check out the 1959 BelAir vs 2009 Malibu (best watched fullscreen, click on it....

Holy crap!

[imjeff]

The first post is interesting and probably a very high speed test. Since crumple zones are designed to crumple, I'm sure a new car would have been as bad or worse. It would be interesting to see a post 67 car in that crash video. Mass still generally wins. Crumple zones and air bags certainly decrease injuries and fatalities (provided the bumpers line up), but so do divided highways, seat belts and collapsible steering columns.

[davepl]

The first photo was 100mph into a wall. I'm not sure what they were trying to prove. It's unlikely any current vehicle could make that scenario survivable. I mean maybe, but I doubt it.

Mass does help, but I don't agree it wins. The Bel Air vs Malibu proves that one, I think. When the passenger compartment is the crumple zone it's never good.

We had a tragic head-on last week by my house. Killed the 16-year-old that caused it, the retired Chief of Police, his dog, and the wife is still critical. Word on the street (from firemen) is that the closing speed was 160mph. Partial offset collision, the worst kind to try to design for.

I wonder why lifting trucks is even legal? I know I'll make some people angry by saying it, but it's not safe for the other people when the bumper is so far out of height spec. Especially when I'm the other people and I'm in a Corvette...

[TBONE1964]

The thing that is easily misunderstood for new smaller compact cars is that they are designed to absorb all of that impact in the front/engine compartment area. Kind of like the safer barrier walls that nascar uses at there tracks now. Instead of having a great big hunk of metal that will not absorb anything, the new cars will and that absorption is why a driver can walk away from a head on now.

Run your 1972 Chevy pick up into a non movable object like the charger in the first post even at 20 MPH and see what absorbs all of that crash energy. See you in the hospital

[imjeff]

Originally Posted by davepl

The first photo was 100mph into a wall. I'm not sure what they were trying to prove. It's unlikely any current vehicle could make that scenario survivable. I mean maybe, but I doubt it.

Mass does help, but I don't agree it wins. The Bel Air vs Malibu proves that one, I think. When the passenger compartment is the crumple zone it's never good.

We had a tragic head-on last week by my house. Killed the 16-year-old that caused it, the retired Chief of Police, his dog, and the wife is still critical. Word on the street (from firemen) is that the closing speed was 160mph. Partial offset collision, the worst kind to try to design for.

I wonder why lifting trucks is even legal? I know I'll make some people angry by saying it, but it's not safe for the other people when the bumper is so far out of height spec. Especially when I'm the other people and I'm in a Corvette...

If you don't believe mass wins, try Bel Air vs train...mass always wins. Head on collisions often end in fatalities, regardless of the size of your crumple zone. The whole issue of survivability rests solely on HOW FAST you decelerate. Crumple zones give you a few inches which makes a significant difference. If an old truck has a head on with a tiny "Smart Car" or some other similarly lower mass vehicle, the occupant of the truck will have more distance to decelerate as it destroys and throws the smaller car out of the way. An obvious extreme example is a bycycle vs car.

Your comment about bumper height could just as easily be thrown back at you. Why should you be allowed to have a bumper height so low? Maybe you should have a giant semi front bumper on the front of your vette? It could be argued that a bumper that low during hard braking is just a really fast wedge waiting to jack up another car! Lol! I've seen plenty of stock, newer cars miss bumpers during collisions. Kind of negates most of the safety systems. For the record, I would never outlaw mods due to bumper height. We live under enough rules as is.

Jeff

[davepl]

Originally Posted by imjeff

If you don't believe mass wins, try Bel Air vs train...mass always wins. Head on collisions often end in fatalities, regardless of the size of your crumple zone. The whole issue of survivability rests solely on HOW FAST you decelerate. Jeff

You're right and wrong. You're 100% right that the major determining factor in your survival is your rate of deceleration.

What's important is your rate of deceleration relative to what you're about to hit: the interior of you're own car. That, however, is not solely a function of mass. Otherwise they'd build cars with big beefy frames and make them as strong and tough as you can. That's what they USED to do, and why I made this post.

All that does it transfer the energy TO YOU. The stronger the car, the WORSE it is for you. Imagine you had a C10 made of carbon-fibre-diamond-titanium-whatever. Unbreakable.

All they would have to do is hose off the interior and sell it to the next guy.

Unless your mass was SO much higher that you didn't decelerate (train vs car, like you said), it's not the only factor. And you're not driving a train or a semi. That's reductio ad absurdum logic and it's a fallacy.

[imjeff]

Originally Posted by davepl

You're right and wrong. You're 100% right that the major determining factor in your survival is your rate of deceleration.

What's important is your rate of deceleration relative to what you're about to hit: the interior of you're own car. That, however, is not solely a function of mass. Otherwise they'd build cars with big beefy frames and make them as strong and tough as you can. That's what they USED to do, and why I made this post.

All that does it transfer the energy TO YOU. The stronger the car, the WORSE it is for you. Imagine you had a C10 made of carbon-fibre-diamond-titanium-whatever. Unbreakable.

All they would have to do is hose off the interior and sell it to the next guy.

Unless your mass was SO much higher that you didn't decelerate (train vs car, like you said), it's not the only factor. And you're not driving a train or a semi. That's reductio ad absurdum logic and it's a fallacy.

Never said it was the only factor, but to completely dismiss it is foolish. My family travels in a newer Tahoe because it has safety systems, mass and height. I've spent the bulk of the last thirty years cutting people out of cars, treating their injuries, transporting them and teaching others my trade. Hundreds of hours cutting cars apart can teach you a couple things. Seeing the difference between divided and non-divided highways makes a huge dent in the reduction in fatalities. Requiring seatbelts, collapsible steering columns and Nader pins in the late sixties made a difference as have the remainder of the post 67 DOT changes. Since the formula mass X velocity squared is what we live and die by, speed is also a factor. I put a shoulder belt in my 72 DD because I've seen that they work. Showing a car that hit a wall at 100 mph without a new car next to it doesn't tell the whole story. The 59 was pre-Nader pin and old, yet it crumpled....to the point of failure. It takes more than a couple pictures to say our trucks are unsafe. BTW, a semi has enough mass to kill anyone in any car. Not an exaggeration.

[davepl]

Originally Posted by imjeff

Never said it was the only factor

To be precise, your actual words above are: "mass always wins"

So I don't know which of your two contradictory viewpoints to argue against :-)

[special-K]

The thing is,all this new safety in cars just makes people more dangerous. People still kill themselves in cars as easily as 40+ years ago. I never saw cars mangled back then as bad as I do today. Careful and conscious driving is the most effective safety device. Unfortunately,the biggest safety risk can't be engineered out of vehicles.

[ERASER5]

^ Hard to get rid of the loose nut behind the wheel, but they are trying!

On another note, I did see a 'Vette in a chain reaction wreck with 6 or 7 car pile up. The Vette had a car in its trunk and a car ON its hood and a pissed off driver inside! The wedge just went under the car in front like a ramp. I would call it funny, but I did give it a big WOW!

[Keith Seymore]

Not sure what the rationale would be for a 100 mph barrier test. Most of the testing is done at 35 mph.

It's definitely an "altered wheelbase" car now, though!

K

[ERASER5]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Not sure what the rationale would be for a 100 mph barrier test. Most of the testing is done at 35 mph.

It's definitely an "altered wheelbase" car now, though!

K

It's for those Darwin award winners. The kind of guys that strap Jeto rockets to their car and let'r rip! "This is your car. This is your car on Jeto rocket."

[davepl]

Originally Posted by special-K

The thing is,all this new safety in cars just makes people more dangerous. People still kill themselves in cars as easily as 40+ years ago. I never saw cars mangled back then as bad as I do today. Careful and conscious driving is the most effective safety device. Unfortunately,the biggest safety risk can't be engineered out of vehicles.

Wrong on so many levels (yeah, harsh I know, bear with me). First off, I'm not posting photos, but go Google old car crashes. The carnage is so much worse and its worse the older you go back. Go back to the 30s and the body rarely even stayed with the frame.

Besides, the cars are SUPPOSED to mangle. This is what I can't get that people don't understand. The goal in an accident is not to reduce the amount of sheet metal damage or prevent needing to pull the frame. It's to keep you alive. The car is engineered to sacrifice its own structure to protect yours. That probably wasn't true until maybe the 70s, but it is now.

The death rate (deaths per billion miles driven) has fallen from 240 to 20.

It was 60 in 1967, now it's about 17. People drive a lot more, unfortunately, so overall it offsets it, but we're talking about the cars.

So unless you're willing to agree that young drivers are three times better than you are (and trust me, unless you suck they aren't) it's pretty clear that for the fatality rate to be cut by 2/3s since our trucks were built things had to have improved a lot.

[68C15]

Upon reading all this I am remembering a board member from Missouri who HAD a 69 C10 and was hit head on by a drunk in a 96ish Taurus (Sable). The drunk only got injured from the truck's hood hitting him in the head. The truck engine pushed back THROUGH the firewall. I'm safer in my 2000 Accord than I am in my old truck.

Cars are much safer now also due to improved abilities to avoid a collision. How do you best survive a crash? Don't get into one

Special K nailed it. "Unfortunately,the biggest safety risk can't be engineered out of vehicles. "

[67ChevyRedneck]

Originally Posted by 68C15

Upon reading all this I am remembering a board member from Missouri who HAD a 69 C10 and was hit head on by a drunk in a 96ish Taurus (Sable). The drunk only got injured from the truck's hood hitting him in the head. The truck engine pushed back THROUGH the firewall. I'm safer in my 2000 Accord than I am in my old truck.

Cars are much safer now also due to improved abilities to avoid a collision. How do you best survive a crash? Don't get into one

Special K nailed it. "Unfortunately,the biggest safety risk can't be engineered out of vehicles. "

I remember that, the truck was a purply-blue or really dark blue? He posted some hospital pics too... he got messed up pretty bad. I don't think he had 3 point belts though. I do feel a hell of a lot better in my truck with the 3 points, and my 65 mustang just got head reads and bolstered front seats in addition to the 3 points I added after I bought it.

[davepl]

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

I do feel a hell of a lot better in my truck with the 3 points

I agree. I know people hate them, but at least I mounted them out of sight and color-keyed them to the interior. Until I get tilt that wheel is literally on my lap at the bottom and too "in my face" at the top.

I did it in my Camaro too. In my Pontiac, the only really "nice" old car I have, I've left it stock and actually use the shoulder belts on the road but not in town. But I don't drive it much. 100 miles in 6 years, probably worse than driving it! But that's another thread...

[Andy4639]

This was my 07 Tahoe after the wife was hit. If it had been her car a 94 cadilac she more than likely wouldn't be here today! If it had been my truck I know she wouldn't be here today.
They hit her in the drivers side door running at 55MPH running a stop sign. They never touched the brakes. The impact flip her 6 times.
As stated you can't fix people well you can but it's always going to be after the fact.

[davepl]

Very glad to hear the outcome; quite impressed by how the truck performed!

Some friends of ours were just in an accident (minivan or SUV, not sure) and she said the most memorable parts were (a) how loud airbags are when they deploy, and (b) the amount of powder/smoke they generate.

Especially in a corner hit you'd have all the front and at least one side go, and in your wife's case rollover protection would deploy as well (my Range Rover has that, I assume most modern SUVs do). That's a lot of airbags, talcum powder (whatever they use to stop them sticking for 20 years) and explosive all at once!

[67ChevyRedneck]

Andy, I never noticed the blue car before... is that the car that hit her? It looks like a 60's Impala?

[Andy4639]

Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck

Andy, I never noticed the blue car before... is that the car that hit her? It looks like a 60's Impala?

The blue Impala was in the wrecking yard where they towed the Tahoe. It's a friend of mines place here in Liberty. I think he sold it right after I took the pictures.

[Leinie]

I don't think anyone can question the fact that new vehicles are light years ahead of the old classics we love in terms of safety, reliability, driveability and quality. They just aren't as cool and most of us like to turn wrenches better than working with computer diagnostics. We're just nostalgic old farts and old souls around here.