2011 Ford Fiesta nabs IIHS Top Safety Pick

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
...
I'm curious why they picked a car with an X frame instead of comparing against the much more typical and far more common ladder frame with outside rails.

How much of a difference could that have made.
Not much difference, I suspect. With ANY structure not properly designed to yield to overwhelming "incoming" force, you're likely to get a poor result.

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I do agree with you though, a modern unit body with crumple zones of lets say 3,500 lbs is safer than an old frame car of the same 3,500 weight. Crumple zones DO work, but in a Smart or other sub compact sized car, they are just too small.


But let's consider perspective. As an alternative to a motorcycle, the Smart is a superb choice. For a larger vehicle, maybe, maybe not. You have to remember that it's not just mass/size that's at play when vehicles collide -- there are probably thousands of other factors contributing to the outcome too. So long as your occupant space remains relatively undisturbed, and your decel forces are not too severe, you will survive a collision. A Suburban rolling over has as much potential to kill its occupants as does a small car hitting an obstruction.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk


But let's consider perspective. As an alternative to a motorcycle, the Smart is a superb choice. For a larger vehicle, maybe, maybe not. You have to remember that it's not just mass/size that's at play when vehicles collide -- there are probably thousands of other factors contributing to the outcome too. So long as your occupant space remains relatively undisturbed, and your decel forces are not too severe, you will survive a collision. A Suburban rolling over has as much potential to kill its occupants as does a small car hitting an obstruction.


Of course, among all the myriad of variables you can always construct a scenario where the smaller car may be safer. But, we dont pick and choose our accidents. Taken as a whole the 3,500 lb car with crumple zones is safer than a 2,500 lb car with crumple zones....unless you pick and choose the possible accident scenarios.

The Smart is a unique vehicle. It demonstrates very well that a very strong passenger cell, even though it doesnt deform is still a death trap for those people bouncing off hard points inside of it once the very small crumple zones have been depleted. If that linked video above were to have a dummy in the drivers seat it would clearly demonstrate that fact of physics.....like this one......

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/smart-usa-responds-to-iihs-crash-test-results/

Or this testing of mid size vs compacts.....

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/


FTR, I agree with you on the whole, I drive a couple of different small cars. And will always maintain that my driving and my common sense are the largest factors in any crash incident or avoiding same. I dont feel ANY less safe in my HHR over when I drive my F-250 but that may be just false security?

I also think that NHTSA should do more cross platform testing. Giving Good or Acceptable ratings based solely on how a car would fair against a similar sized car is misleading at best. A better and more realistic testing procedure would quantify how a certain car would fare against a different size(larger and smaller) opponent imo.

 

[SteveSRT8]

The big deal is not sheer size/weight, but how it's used to absorb energy. But X2 on a smaller car having to use less to deal with MORE energy.

My father-in-law recently passed away in an auto accident. He ran the red light and was hit by a step van. He was driving a 49 Buick.

No seat belts and an all metal interior will surely hurt worse than any imagined 'size' advantage! Anyone in that Bel Air would be dead for sure.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Assuming equally adequate engineering in crumple zones and other crash safety features....the two biggest factors are in fact size and weight. Cant get around it.....


"Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance.

Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.

Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.

"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."

The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact."

Of course if you throw in a red herring like a car from the 40s or 50s back before crumple zones were a regular feature on any car, then it's just an apples to oranges comparison. My point is a modern 3,500lb car with crumple zones is safer than a 2,500lb car with similar/equal safety engineering. The crash statistics bear that out, they are twice as likely to be invoved in a deadly accident....Twice as likely. Not conjecture or hypothetical assumptions, real data taken from the real world.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
As a confirmed car lover, I see this test as being almost as immoral as running the test with a live human inside one of the cars.


I can think of a few live humans I'd Love to see in a crash test or two!!

 

[Autobahn88]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
The mazda 2 will probably have similar results. It does not surprise me that more and more small cars can handle a violent crash better than bigger older vehicles. Yes, physics do come into place, but I feel that has more to do with instant deceleration than the structure of the car itself. I know that this is not the fiesta, but here is an old test on the smart car done by fifth gear.


To bad the driver of the Smart would never see how well his car doors work after the wreck....as he would be dead. This video proves nothing.

The IIHS crash test of the Smart showed likely massive injuries to the driver in the 40 mph offset crash test. Small car crumple zones just simply arent as safe as a car with larger crumple zones. A smaller cars crumple zones just cant absorb enough energy to prevent that energy from being transfered to the passengers.


Well, I think that the video proves quite a bit. Listen to what they say in the end of the test. Does not matter what you drive, you would most likely die from massive internal damage. Many small cars are just as safe or safer than their bigger rivals.

 

[Autobahn88]

Here is a good little read on just how safe big SUVs are.
Are SUVs dangerous? . Just because it is bigger, does not mean that it is safer.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Autobahn88


Well, I think....... Many small cars are just as safe or safer than their bigger rivals.


No problem, we agree to disagree. You are free to your beliefs and I'm free to study the NHTSA data that clearly shows that small subs are twice as likely to result in death when in an accident with a much larger car. No SUV's mentioned in those stats at all. Just sub-compact against other larger cars, small car loses.

btw....Who funds that agenda driven rag you linked to? Feel free to "believe" them and their agenda over real stats from NHTSA and the IIHS.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Facts.....

"Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars."

"The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact."




Fiction....Mixed with a dose of socio/political agenda.....


http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/automotive/SUVs-Are-Dangerous.html

 

[SteveSRT8]

OMG! One of the most politically biased links I've seen?

Where are our dictatorial mods? Suppress this immediately!

Anyone who ignores physics will find that their socio-political agenda will offer little protection in a vehicle vs. vehicle accident!

 

[wapacz]

There are two different things to argue here. One what happens in an accident and two the likely hood of an accident. The first isn't so hard to figure out as a large car to get the same crash ratting has to be engineer to dissipate more energy than a small car. So in an accident hit a small car that impart less energy than hitting that solid wall means better results for the big vehicle. Where as with the small car hitting the big car imparts more energy than hitting the solid wall. In other words this is equivalent to the small car hit the wall a higher speed and that of course means more damage. Basically there is no getting around a large car faring better in a crash against a small car.
Now with that said it can be argued either way that a small car is less likely to be in an accident. Though that is not what is being tested in these crash tests so we can't draw any conclusions from these tests on this factor.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88


Well, I think....... Many small cars are just as safe or safer than their bigger rivals.


No problem, we agree to disagree. You are free to your beliefs and I'm free to study the NHTSA data that clearly shows that small subs are twice as likely to result in death when in an accident with a much larger car. No SUV's mentioned in those stats at all. Just sub-compact against other larger cars, small car loses.

btw....Who funds that agenda driven rag you linked to? Feel free to "believe" them and their agenda over real stats from NHTSA and the IIHS.

They used to have NHTSA data available online showing deaths/1,000,000 miles driven by individual vehicle.
Yes, big cars had lower numbers and in general smaller cars were more dangerous, a stand out was the miata which had a low death rate per mile driven, "physics" would tell you that its a death trap but in practice they are not.
Anyways my point is, an analysis needs to be done correcting for drivers sex, age, and experience to realistically compare death rates in different cars in real world accidents. Big cars are driven by mature slow drivers, little high hp econoboxes are driven by young males who have watched all three Fast and Furious movies...
Is it going to be a surprise which type of car has less deaths?

 

[Autobahn88]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
OMG! One of the most politically biased links I've seen?

Where are our dictatorial mods? Suppress this immediately!

Anyone who ignores physics will find that their socio-political agenda will offer little protection in a vehicle vs. vehicle accident!


Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone, just thought that the article made common sense. I think that it is called a difference of opinion. Anyway, back to the fiesta. Did not surprise me that it has a good crash rating. More emphasis is put into safety into smaller cars today then in the past.

 

[SteveSRT8]

could you feel the sarcasm?

No offense taken at all!

Nice thing about here is we don't all agree.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: wapacz
There are two different things to argue here. One what happens in an accident and two the likely hood of an accident. The first isn't so hard to figure out as a large car to get the same crash ratting has to be engineer to dissipate more energy than a small car. So in an accident hit a small car that impart less energy than hitting that solid wall means better results for the big vehicle. Where as with the small car hitting the big car imparts more energy than hitting the solid wall. In other words this is equivalent to the small car hit the wall a higher speed and that of course means more damage. Basically there is no getting around a large car faring better in a crash against a small car.
Now with that said it can be argued either way that a small car is less likely to be in an accident. Though that is not what is being tested in these crash tests so we can't draw any conclusions from these tests on this factor.


Thank you....I agree completely.

As I said before, putting all the rationilizations concerning who's driving, their experience level, their age and so forth....putting that aside, the argument that larger isn't safer is silly, it's just cant get around simple physics.

Which is why we see all these posts full of nothing but generalizations as if only young people buy small cars, or only old people buy large cars. All just hogwash to confuse the original point I made. EVERYTHING else being equal, a larger car with good engineering behind it is safer than a sub compact with equally good engineering behind it...period.

 

[Bamaro]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Say what you will, but you can't beat physics.

When that soccer Mom driving that loaded Expedition runs the red light...

I guess we should all be driving 18 wheelers

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan



They used to have NHTSA data available online showing deaths/1,000,000 miles driven by individual vehicle.
Yes, big cars had lower numbers and in general smaller cars were more dangerous, a stand out was the miata which had a low death rate per mile driven, "physics" would tell you that its a death trap but in practice they are not.
Anyways my point is, an analysis needs to be done correcting for drivers sex, age, and experience to realistically compare death rates in different cars in real world accidents. Big cars are driven by mature slow drivers, little high hp econoboxes are driven by young males who have watched all three Fast and Furious movies...
Is it going to be a surprise which type of car has less deaths?


So, lets take that assumption and run with it......

Take two drivers, one young and inexperienced and one older with much more experience.

Is the younger driver safer driving a sub compact or a larger car?
Is the older driver safer driving a sub compact or a larger car?

FTR, I do agree that the factors you mention are to be considered, but they are not nearly as "universal" as they might appear. Generalizations rarely are.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS


So, lets take that assumption and run with it......

Take two drivers, one young and inexperienced and one older with much more experience.

Is the younger driver safer driving a sub compact or a larger car?
Is the older driver safer driving a sub compact or a larger car?


I would say it depends alot on the potential accident about to occur. Assuming they are going to crash into another car, the larger car is probably safer. But to avoid hiting a deer a smaller car is more manueverable and slows down more quickly.
Remember mass cuts both ways, being heavier isn't good if you're trying to avoid an accident.
I agree too that my generalizations aren't universal, but it should be possible to evaluate different cars for their real world safety if the effects of their typical drivers are removed.
I think we would find that large cars are safest but other types of vehicles might not be too far off. I guess insurance rates show this as the rate seems to be based more on your age and driving record than what vehicle you drive.

 

[SteveSRT8]

This is what astounds me!

My car is a 170+ mph sled. Yet it has the LOWEST insurance rates I can remember.

Cheaper than my trucks. 1/2 my last Vette premium.

And I have a decent record, but far from unblemished.

 

[IndyIan]

Maybe they think SRT on a 300C stands for the Slow Retiree Touring package?

Actually when I looked up insurance rates on a SRT-4, they came out to only $100 more a year than a normal Neon... I'm old (34), married, and have no speeding tickets so I guess they figure I'm not going to do anything different in a "dangerous" higher hp small car.