Sunt masinile mici sigure?... Nu chiar... Options

[Rebel]

Imi amintesc ca in Martie, inaintea deschiderii unui salon auto, am avut o discutie oarecum contradictorie cu unul dintre managerii Ford Canada.
Eu sustineam ca desi au totusi elemente de siguranta pasiva, masinile mici nu sunt chiar atat de sigure intrucat masa joaca un rol extrem de important intr-un accident. In contradictoriu, el sustinea ca vremurile cand "mare inseamna sigur" s-au dus si ca in ziua de astazi o masina oricat de sifonata ar iesi dintr-un asemenea accident, ocupantii sunt protejati.
Este adevarat, masinile de astazi au o siguranta pasive net superioara celor din trecut si sunt construite avand la baza tehnologii menite sa inlature pe cat posibil pericolul: motorul este in asa fel amplasat incat sa fie impins sub habitaclu, nervuri bine gandite menite sa absoarba pe cat posibil orice forma de impact, design special facut sa aibe o deformare controlata si sa directioneze materialul in exterior, structura "cusca", elemente de protectie laterala incluse in usi, etc.

Cu toate acestea, in conformitate cu legile fizicii, consider ca masa are si va avea in permanenta un cuvant de spus.

Astazi, am gasit pe yahoo un articol interesant care sustine aceeasi teorie pe care si eu la randul meu o imbratisez. Imi cer scuze celor care nu stiu engleza.
___________________________________________________________


Small cars won't keep you safe

Forbes.com - Hannah Elliott


While environmentalists push laws requiring automakers to sell smaller, lighter cars in order to meet higher fuel-economy standards, safety advocates worry that meeting those demands will result in cars that are less safe in a crash.

They might be right. A report released today by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) praises President Obama's plan to boost fuel economy standards for cars by using a size-based system that removes incentives for automakers to manufacture only tiny cars. The report also says mid-size and large sedans must have a place on the nation's highways because--even with airbags, electronic stability control and strong front-crash ratings--small cars are much more dangerous in head-on crashes than larger vehicles.

'A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings,' says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. 'So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car.'

The statistics support Zuby's claim. Death rates in minicars involved in multi-car crashes are nearly twice as high as those in large sedans, according to IIHS data. In single-car crashes, 11 people per million were killed in large sedans in 2007, compared with 35 per million killed in small cars. In mid-size cars, the death rate for single-vehicle crashes is 17 per cent less than for minicars.

The new report is especially noteworthy because normally the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) crash tests are performed using a stationary wall and a single car--not two cars being crashed into each other.



The Laws of Physics

The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.

Vehicles from Daimler, Honda and Toyota earned study slots because they have small models with 'good' ratings--the highest that the IIHS awards--in a 40-mile-per-hour frontal (stationary barrier) crash. But the Fit, Fortwo and Yaris performed poorly in frontal collisions with midsize cars, according to the new report.

Size is important because mass, coupled with acceleration, determines the force of a crash. Injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants in the car, not on how much external damage the car sustains. The force of a crash turns on two key attributes: the weight of the crashing vehicle, which determines how much speed must be absorbed during the impact, and the size of the vehicle, which often determines how close the front of the vehicle is to the driver--an essential indicator of the extent of injuries to the legs and torso.

'When we run our crash tests, we see that the vehicles that crush up more when we crash them are ones in which the forces on the dummies inside ... are much higher,' Zuby says. In other words, the occupants of the smaller car are at greater risk of injury.

In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area.

Granted, the IIHS tests are much more severe than government safety standards mandate, as small-car proponents often note. The Smart Fortwo meets all U.S. government crash-test standards, including a five-star side-crash rating, notes Dave Schembri, the president of Smart USA. It also earned the highest scores for front- and side-crash worthiness from the IIHS itself.

'People drive small cars for many reasons, not just fuel economy as the IIHS states,' Schembri said in a written response to the report. 'People choose small vehicles because they are generally more environmentally friendly, a great value, they provide for greater driving and parking options in congested urban areas, and many consumers tell us they are simply more fun to drive.'

The IIHS report also notes that advanced crash-avoidance and crash-protection safety systems, like the electronic stability program and a reinforced steel safety cage found in the Smart, do help mitigate crash results.

Honda's Fit fared slightly better in its crash with the Accord (the Fit is the safest minicar sold in the U.S., according to IIHS safety ratings), but the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag, and Institute testers recorded a 'high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity.'

A written statement from Honda in response to this report said Honda has specifically addressed frontal crash compatibility between vehicles of different size and ride heights. It has done so by developing a body structure placed in all 2009 vehicles that helps absorb the energy of a frontal crash by channeling energy through both the upper and lower structural elements.

The statement also pointed out that the IIHS tests are under 'unusual and extreme conditions' conducted 'at higher speeds than most real-world vehicle-to-vehicle crashes.'

The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported.

Brian Lyons, the safety and quality communications manager for Toyota, says the real question for a 'comprehensive safety assessment' is how well the vehicle's safety systems perform in real-world accidents. According to NHTSA data, he says, less than 0.06 per cent of all frontal crashes occur at the crash severity selected by the IIHS.

'The IIHS test is equivalent to an 80-mph closing speed (with opposing vehicles traveling at 40 mph), a speed and energy higher than 99.1 per cent of all real-world crashes,' Lyons said in a written response to this report. 'According to NHTSA, vehicle safety in all car classes continues to improve, in part due to the active and passive safety features developed by the automotive industry.'



A Happy Medium

Minicars have many admirable qualities: they're affordable, they use small amounts of gas, they emit less carbon and they're easy to park. But if you're concerned about safety, there are other ways to save gas than buy a Smart Fortwo, says Christie Hyde, a spokeswoman for AAA.

Hybrid technology and turbochargers, which enable smaller engines to produce more power, can help larger cars run just as efficiently as smaller ones, she says.

'There are definitely a lot more options' than buying a Smart, Hyde says. The $14,500 coupe gets 14.03 km per litre in the city and 17.43 km per litre on the highway.

The $17,130 Hyundai Elantra (10.20 km per litre city/14.03 km per litre highway) and $16,130 Suzuki SX4 (29.35 km per litre city/12.33 km per litre), not to mention the $35,385 Acura TSX (8.93 km per litre city/12.75 lm per litre highway) and $31,822 Chevrolet Malibu hybrid (11.05 km per litre city/14.45 km per litre highway), all offer generous gas mileage coupled with a four-door sedan body.

Choices do abound, and no one car is right for everyone, Zuby concedes. But there are enough, he says, that deliver on fuel-efficiency as well as safety.

SURSA: yahoo.ca
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/1368/small-car...t-keep-you-safe

This post has been edited by Rebel: May 10 2009, 07:41 PM

[ozz86651]

Fordul e CAMION. Camioanele nu stau "bine" pe sosea din constructie, pentru ca sint echilibrate altfel, spatele e mai usor ca sa poti sa pui si o tona in bena. Nu conteaza ca e camion facut de ford sau de audi. Pe de alta parte camioanele sint nesigure la impact, iarasi din constructie, pentru ca au sasiu rigid. Scopul lor e sa care mase mari pe teren accidentatt, si sa fie robuste, nu sa ia curbe de 100 de grade cu 150 la ora. Da ce, cu A3-ul poti sa tragi barci cu motor, rulote sau sa tranporti o tona de bagaj prin noroaie si ripe pe un deal?

Acum lasind astea la o parte genul asta de camion sta cit se poate de decent pe strada pentru un camion. Fac pariu pe ce vreti voi ca sint destui care va dau fum pe serpentine cu un camion din asta (numai eu citi padurari si rangeri am vazut care conduc camioane din astea pe sosele inguste prin munti cu viteze de nu te poti tine dupa ei).

[Baby Blues]

Da ce, cu A3-ul poti sa tragi barci cu motor, rulote sau sa tranporti o tona de bagaj prin noroaie si ripe pe un deal?

Pai m-as cam incumeta sa trag o rulota sau/si o barca cu motor dar... nu pe dealuri si rape.
@Air_wolf: Eu nu ma refeream la ce se intampla cand calca iepurele, eu me refeream la ce se intampla cu mastodontul daca ia soferul de volan stanga dreapta brusc?

This post has been edited by stefan_adrian: May 14 2009, 09:47 PM

[air_wolf]

Da ce, cu A3-ul poti sa tragi barci cu motor, rulote sau sa tranporti o tona de bagaj prin noroaie si ripe pe un deal?

Pai m-as cam incumeta sa trag o rulota sau/si o barca cu motor dar... nu pe dealuri si rape.
@Air_wolf: Eu nu ma refeream la ce se intampla cand calca iepurele, eu me refeream la ce se intampla cu mastodontul daca ia soferul de volan stanga dreapta brusc?

pai ce sa se intimple, masina o sa mearga la stinga sau la dreapta. e greu sa apreciezi ce se intimpla cu masinile astea pina nu ai mers cu ele. practic trebuie sa ai termen de comparatie. eu gasesc mai nesigure la anumite manevre o gramada de masini mici. trebuie sa tii cont de urmatoarele: suspensiile sint mult mai tari decit aveti voi pe piticanii, cauciucurile sint mult mai late si cu o pata de contact mult mai mare, motorul - caii si cuplul sint mult mai mari, majoritatea timpului e RWD, ecartamentul bate lejer 2m.

totusi, pentru ca de la asta pornisem, o masina mare cum e nissanul acela poate sa para mica pe linga alta masina si mai mare decit el. voi considerati nissanul un soi de crucisator iar fordul ceva de genul portavion. ce sanse are o vedeta rapida in fata unor astfel de monstrii?
eu sint convins ca masinile (mici sau mari) pot fi sigure atita timp cit le compari cu masini din aceeasi clasa. cind treci la comparat tico cu fordul de mai sus cred ca deja depasim limita bunului simt. chiar si comparatia intre tico si un A8 sau un 7 sau un S este aberanta. masini de 1 tona comparate cu masini de 2.5 tone.
iar pentru pietoni... e ca si cum ai intreba ce preferi sa-ti cada in cap: un ghiveci de la etajul 10 sau tot blocul. eu zic ca rezulatul e acelasi in ambele cazuri.

lumea cumpara masini mici, eu m-am surprins uitindu-ma la un lupo sa la un polo. de ce? pentru ca eu ma strecor linistit si cu toyota, dar am impresia, poate gresita, ca intr-un lupo as ajunge mai repede unde am nevoie.

[FAR EASTERN]

[lumea cumpara masini mici, eu m-am surprins uitindu-ma la un lupo sa la un polo. de ce? pentru ca eu ma strecor linistit si cu toyota, dar am impresia, poate gresita, ca intr-un lupo as ajunge mai repede unde am nevoie.

Perceptia asta e gresita, pentru ca, daca te respecti si il respecti si pe celalalt din trafic, nu o sa faci slalom, caz in care, urmezi traficul la fel ca si cel din spate/fata care are ditamai mastodontul. Din pacate un alt sport national practicat pe sosele, este "strecuratul" printre ceilalti "fraieri"... practicat mai ales pe doua roti...