tuna55 wrote: and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.
Not true.
Manufacturers have to self-certify to NHTSA's standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA conducts testing on some vehicles (they don't have the budget to crash everything themselves).
Apexcarver wrote:tuna55 wrote: and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.Not true. Manufacturers have to self-certify to NHTSA's standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA conducts testing on some vehicles (they don't have the budget to crash everything themselves).
But if it makes two stars, you can still sell it, right?
Why do we test for something we're not supposed to do anyway. I mean, isn't the idea of driving not to crash? These crash tests on the SUV's seems to be the big deal, I guess because of the amount of them on the road. Are they any worse than other vehicles on the road too? How about compared to small sports cars, like the Miata? People I work with always tell me they don't understand why I drive small cars. Too close to the road, too hard to get in and out of, too small, rolling coffin, etc... They don't seem to remember that some of them drove small cars when they were younger.
Yeah, good to know what would happen in case of an accident but if we based our daily lifes around it we wouldn't get out of bed because that would be dangerous.
A new car with a terrible rating is better than most of the cars that had to meet the previous set of standards, and yeah the IIHS (which has publicly called driver training useless many times) will always be jacking up the standards so they can charge the same insurance rates and have to pay out less.
racerfink wrote: But if I had to guess, I would suspect that people's tendency to drive ever faster has more to do with the reduced sensation of speed that comes with newer cars, better suspension and tires, better sound deadening and less wind noise. When it comes down to it, people will drive as fast as feels safe, plus or minus some for their willingness to risk speeding tickets. Anybody seen any studies on that?
I'm not sure I agree with the sensation of speed thing. Without the speedometer I have no idea how fast I'm going in my 68 wagon. The whole car just numbs the driving experience down to nothing, and they built them like that on purpose for decades in the US. People have always driven too fast and not realized the link between speed and kinetic energy. I'm glad that crashes are more survivable and that there are people that want to make it even better.
mazdeuce wrote:racerfink wrote: But if I had to guess, I would suspect that people's tendency to drive ever faster has more to do with the reduced sensation of speed that comes with newer cars, better suspension and tires, better sound deadening and less wind noise. When it comes down to it, people will drive as fast as feels safe, plus or minus some for their willingness to risk speeding tickets. Anybody seen any studies on that?I'm not sure I agree with the sensation of speed thing. Without the speedometer I have no idea how fast I'm going in my 68 wagon. The whole car just numbs the driving experience down to nothing, and they built them like that on purpose for decades in the US. People have always driven too fast and not realized the link between speed and kinetic energy. I'm glad that crashes are more survivable and that there are people that want to make it even better.
I believe if you take two similar cars, Miata vs Sunbeam Tiger/MG/Triumph/et al, you would see the difference readily. You have a soft marshmallow land barge, of course it is going to drive that way. 
tuna55 wrote:Apexcarver wrote:But if it makes two stars, you can still sell it, right?tuna55 wrote: and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.Not true. Manufacturers have to self-certify to NHTSA's standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA conducts testing on some vehicles (they don't have the budget to crash everything themselves).
Separate thing, there are minimum standards
Apexcarver wrote:tuna55 wrote:Separate thing, there are minimum standardsApexcarver wrote:But if it makes two stars, you can still sell it, right?tuna55 wrote: and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.Not true. Manufacturers have to self-certify to NHTSA's standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA conducts testing on some vehicles (they don't have the budget to crash everything themselves).
Where?
Not trying to be a smartass, really didn't know that. I thought the NHTSA was really just crashing them and showing the results.
mazdeuce wrote:racerfink wrote: But if I had to guess, I would suspect that people's tendency to drive ever faster has more to do with the reduced sensation of speed that comes with newer cars, better suspension and tires, better sound deadening and less wind noise. When it comes down to it, people will drive as fast as feels safe, plus or minus some for their willingness to risk speeding tickets. Anybody seen any studies on that?I'm not sure I agree with the sensation of speed thing. Without the speedometer I have no idea how fast I'm going in my 68 wagon. The whole car just numbs the driving experience down to nothing, and they built them like that on purpose for decades in the US. People have always driven too fast and not realized the link between speed and kinetic energy. I'm glad that crashes are more survivable and that there are people that want to make it even better.
I'd believe it.
When I had my '13 GT Mustang, I frequently found myself accidentally cruising the highway at near triple digit speeds. Effort-less power, a smooth ride, and lots of sound deadening........meant watching the speedo or using cruise control.
tuna55 wrote:Apexcarver wrote:Where? Not trying to be a smartass, really didn't know that. I thought the NHTSA was really just crashing them and showing the results.tuna55 wrote:Separate thing, there are minimum standardsApexcarver wrote:But if it makes two stars, you can still sell it, right?tuna55 wrote: and we can sell anything here, there isn't a "minimum" crash test really, even the sucky ones can still sell.Not true. Manufacturers have to self-certify to NHTSA's standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA conducts testing on some vehicles (they don't have the budget to crash everything themselves).
check 201-210 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=886fde623d91cf640840d5dee0d8afe7&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr571_main_02.tpl
As it stands, the US has the most stringent safety standards of anywhere in the world. Case in point, do a parts search on an impreza or something and compare a US-market bumper beam with a JDM one. You will find that the JDM beam is about 40lbs lighter or thereabouts.
Especially, cars manufactured after 2006, when the US mandated "smart airbag systems". They tie sensors into the seats now that detect the weight of occupants and either prevent or limit deployment.
wlkelley3 wrote: Why do we test for something we're not supposed to do anyway. I mean, isn't the idea of driving not to crash? These crash tests on the SUV's seems to be the big deal, I guess because of the amount of them on the road. Are they any worse than other vehicles on the road too? How about compared to small sports cars, like the Miata? People I work with always tell me they don't understand why I drive small cars. Too close to the road, too hard to get in and out of, too small, rolling coffin, etc... They don't seem to remember that some of them drove small cars when they were younger. Yeah, good to know what would happen in case of an accident but if we based our daily lifes around it we wouldn't get out of bed because that would be dangerous.
You're right, the idea is to never get in a crash. But that's a utopian world. The reality is that crashes happen. They've happened since the advent of the automobile, and always will. So the goal is to make them as safe as possible if/when it happens. SUVs are worse simply because they have a strange fondness for trying to drive shiny side down, and also often don't hold up as well in a crash as you'd think given their size.
Gameboy,
Insurance companies are actually paying out more, not less. All these safety features, while I'm in huge favor of them, don't come free. When I started in the auto claims world, it was just replacing hoods, fenders, etc... Now when a car crashes, I'm buying 7 airbags, 13 sensors, a headliner (the deploying curtain airbags ruin them), a dashboard, etc... Plus the fancy parts ain't cheap anyway.
Josh wrote: It's worth noting that the IIHS is not a government agency as a lot of people incorrectly presume, it's a consortium of the insurance industry that exists mostly for scaremongering about vehicle safety and creating excuses to jack your insurance rates.
Thank you.
In reply to z31maniac:
Ok, that's probably true. I have to admit that I haven't really driven a modern car that has actual power. 80 mph in my 2 is very noticeable. My point was mostly that we've been building numb cars for a long time though and for much of that time it's what people wanted. They wanted to be insulated from the feeling of speed. I still drive behind people every day that take corners at 12 mph and then scream past me on the freeway at 85, same as always.
Even in my 2011 Fiesta I have to watch the speedometer Speed will creep up unnoticed. Yes it will go over 80.
As for sensation of speed, there is a huge difference with some cars. My old van (1987 E-150) becomes deafening above 80mph and increasingly difficult to keep in a straight line, whereas my dad's 2011 E-350 is far more stable and quiet at higher speeds. It's a VAST improvement in refinement, even when that type of truck is more about work than luxury.
My parent's purchased a VW phaeton back when those came out. On the drive home, my dad kept creeping from 60 (55 limit on country roads) to 90. He'd look in the mirror at my mom following us and say "Why is she so far back?... OH E36m3 i'm going 90!" Happened about 5 times. For the record he drives the E-350 box truck most of the day, so I'm sure it's as night and day as a comparison can get. That phaeton feels rock solid and safe at over 100, but I'm quite sure it would result in insta-death if it hit a tree at those speeds. It may be unsafe in just how safe it feels...
My dad once got pulled over for speeding in a newly purchased work truck (none of his crap was in the back yet) and got out of the ticket by telling the officer he didn't realize how fast he was going because he's used to crap banging around and falling out of shelves if he went above 70, but that's unrelated to the original topic of this thread... I would assume the sensation of speed thing has changed more in certain segments than in others.
Klayfish wrote: The IIHS is not just in existance so insurance companies can sit in some dark room and make a conspiracy on how to get more money.
In case you missed it, I wasn't saying it was a BAD thing that the IIHS is motivated by the desire to increase revenues/reduce losses for their constituent insurers. Those goals actually line up often with the motivations of their customers, who benefit from safer, cheaper to repair cars. I was mostly responding to a few people in the thread that were assuming the IIHS to be "bureaucracy run amok" or were upset that the IIHS pushes unrealistic standards. Of course they push unrealistic standards, that's kind of the point! As an agent of the insurance industry, the IIHS represents only one side of the vehicle safety equation, unlike an (ideally) impartial government agency who would have to balance the goal of improved safety against the auto industry's ability to profitably build cars that people can afford.
You'll need to log in to post.
