I was reading the "enlighten me on Saturns" thread and it got me thinking: how possible is it to retrofit better structural strength into some of the older cars we like? I understand subframe connectors and other braces for better chassis rigidity to improve driving, and I understand cages for tracking, but what about street-worthy upgrades to improve crashing – being T-boned, for example? P71s/Panthers are supposed to be tanks, but Jack Baruth bent his Town Car around a light pole and people got hurt, while the other car (newish Elantra, IIRC) was basically fine.
I know that crash protection engineering, as well as metallurgy, have been improving hugely and quickly in recent years. I know that nobody can turn a Sprite into an S-Class. I also know that I am asking a "How long is a piece of string?" question. However, I figure that since I know absolutely nothing about the subject right now, I'll know at least a little bit more after the hive chimes in.
So how about it? Suppose I have a (P71/Saturn/Caprice/80-90s pickup/whatever): Can I make it structurally safer, and, if so, how?
My first thought would be no, that would likely be impossible to do without risking making things worse. The biggest safety upgrade in my opinion is better brakes (and wider tires for more grip, etc). I don't think cars much older than mid 80s are really safe to drive in traffic anymore with how fast newer cars stop now.
^Not impossible but VERY very difficult...you'll have more work ahead of you than the car's original chassis engineers did in the first place. The practical options are "track-style upgrades" and "get a new car."
Short of caging it, the only thing that's realistically changeable is adding a collapsing steering column to pre 68 cars, and shoulder belts if not present(and new ones if worn out). Most cars from the late 60s on up aren't really THAT bad anyhow. People always bring up the video of that X frame 50s Chevy, but if you look at historical footage from the late 60s onward, they aren't terrible. After the mid 70s (model year) or so, I'd hazard a guess that increased seat belt enforcement and use probably had more to do with a reduction in fatalities than the cars themselves.
Most important piece of safety equipment is the driver. After that properly maintained tires, brakes, etc. I wouldn't worry about the safety in cars this new. Had a friend who rolled a SL1 and walked away with a few bruises.
Kenny_McCormic wrote:
Short of caging it, the only thing that's realistically changeable is adding a collapsing steering column to pre 68 cars, and shoulder belts if not present(and new ones if worn out). Most cars from the late 60s on up aren't really THAT bad anyhow. People always bring up the video of that X frame 50s Chevy, but if you look at historical footage from the late 60s onward, they aren't terrible. After the mid 70s (model year) or so, I'd hazard a guess that increased seat belt enforcement and use probably had more to do with a reduction in fatalities than the cars themselves.
In addition to seat belts and collapsible steering columns, improving side impact protection by welding a horizontal steel bar inside the doors looks like it could be a fairly straightforward improvement with a decent pay-off.
Not sure I'd try much beyond that.
And of course, beyond door bars and such, it's not very practical to design something, install it, and then test it out on your own car. ("Just aim for the B-pillar, Bob!")
Is there such a thing as civilian-grade modelling software that would work for this sort of task? (Again, asking out of complete ignorance.)
Kenny_McCormic wrote:
Most cars from the late 60s on up aren't really THAT bad anyhow. People always bring up the video of that X frame 50s Chevy, but if you look at historical footage from the late 60s onward, they aren't terrible.
As a fellow lover of old cars I'd love to agree with you, but this simply isn't true. It's tough to compare cars from different decades because the crash tests themselves have evolved, but a couple hours on YouTube should still be enough to convince anyone that today's cars are much safer that 90's cars, and I imagine those 90's cars were similarly light years ahead of 70's cars. I don't have time to cite a bunch of examples, but this should be good for thought: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY
I'm not saying older cars are unsafe--many of us here have spent years on two wheels, even a rusted out chevette is better in a head on collision than my xt225--but we should be honest with ourselves about the compromises that we are making.
JThw8
PowerDork
6/19/15 11:53 a.m.
Not possible. Everyone keeps talking about strength but its not about making things more "impact resistant" or caging it up and making it stronger. What makes modern cars better at safety is being weaker. SELECTIVELY weaker. They collapse and give way in all the right spots to absorb the energy of the impact. You can't add that into an old car unfortunately.
In reply to ShadowSix:
As I said "not terrible", as in, you have solid odds of making a full recovery, maybe walking away from, from most sub ~35mph stuff. Nothing after 68 was, by law, splatter your brains on the chrome dashboard or impale you on the steering column bad. A modern car is obviously much safer, but stepping into an older car isn't an automatic death sentence like many seem to believe.
You could put any older car, including some pretty "modern" ones (like a 900 series Volvo, which is structurally a early 80s design IIRC) in an offset frontal crash at 40mph and you'd always get the same result, a nasty one like that, because they weren't built to pass a test like that. Despite looking radically different, I suspect that Volvo weighs about what that Renault does, even though you're all pumped up to see the big heavy Volvo plow through the flimsy E36 M3can it's put up against. Until recently Volvo wasn't really that big on making the best car to run into something (look at NHTSA ratings of their stuff), they were all about avoiding the crash to begin with(e.g. moose test). I suspect the 940 would still keep up in that department. Most videos like this are purposely set up to get a reaction, it's hard to find good, objective, data aside from historical stuff.
Stealthtercel wrote:
Is there such a thing as civilian-grade modelling software that would work for this sort of task? (Again, asking out of complete ignorance.)
About the only thing I can think of that might work on a budget would be to build a scale model out of very thin metal or paper, and crashing them into things. Which may not be super accurate, but it should at least be entertaining.
Weird. I just got off the phone with my insurance company (adding the '94 Ranger to my policy) and they told me I get a small discount for "occupant safety" on the '97 Miata and the Ranger. But not for the Suburban or the tanklike Passat. Silly statistics apparently.
Even "door bars and stuff" is really playing with fire. Make one spot too strong and you risk making the whole thing weaker as the surround areas fail easier. There are a few no nonsense, reasonably predictable things I can think of, like beefing up the sills of a VW bug, but for the most part you will have no idea what the end result will be short of buying, modifying, and destroying a dozen of them. EDIT: Or caging it, that's generally accepted as a good move.
Such things are damn near impossible to model with civilian grade software (you need more like a blank check to Dassault Systèmes) and a one man operation, automakers certainly spend billions on this stuff to save on how many cars they have to wreck in real life.
