vejlin Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Round 1, FIGHT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xwYBBpHg1I...r_embedded#t=25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Something seems...off...with the Bel Air. I'm not saying that there is any foul play (at least, I hope not), but the front end crumbled up like an accordian, while the Malibu looked like nothing happened (relatively speaking). I swear it feels rigged just to make modern cars look better. I didn't see an engine at all in the Bel Air. Where was the engine debris? If they removed the engine then the test is immediately negated as far as I'm concerned. Also, what a complete waste of a 1959 Bel Air. Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share Posted September 21, 2009 hard to tell I think. Old cars look (and overall probably are) more sturdy, but 50 years of R&D in car safety has a lot to say also. seems to me the impact pretty much collapses the passenger compartment of the Bel Air and the engine of the Malibu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dargrin Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I just hate to see a really nice old car get killed like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kataclysm Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 You also have to realize how much empty space is in the engine compartment of those older models. I'm restoring a 65 t-bird, it has a huge V8, all the extras, but I can crawl in the engine area in places. I'm 6' and 280. Newer cars have very little open space in the front end and would absorb much more of the hit, where as the older models just kinda peel apart, as you can see with the front 1/4 panel. There is a lot more engineering and crash design in the newer vehicles. At higher speeds, "sturdy looking" doesn't really help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristof65 Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 If I had to be in a high speed collision, I'd definitely want to be in the newer vehicle. But the majority of accidents I've been in, know people who've been in and/or witnessed were less than 25-30 miles an hour, usually in bumper to bumper traffic - and in those situations, the newer cars almost always come out looking worse for wear than the older cars. Try running those same two cars in a 15 mph rear ender - No matter which car is rear-ending which, my guess is that the Malibu will be the most damaged. What I'd like to see is for the auto manufacturers to figure out a way to have the crumple zones and such that protect you in high speed impacts, but still have the car be able to come away with less than a grand worth of damage for doing something stupid like backing into a pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanite Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 There was a discussion about this on Thetruthaboutcars.com The conclusion was the Bel Air was more then a bit rusty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant_Crunch Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The reason why newer cars look like they've been through a demolition derby in a low-speed collision is that they are designed to collapse. That's the crumple zones you occasionally hear about. By designing them that way the energy of the collision is dissipated. You can see in the video how the force of the impact travels right through the Bel-Air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristof65 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The reason why newer cars look like they've been through a demolition derby in a low-speed collision is that they are designed to collapse. That's the crumple zones you occasionally hear about. By designing them that way the energy of the collision is dissipated. You can see in the video how the force of the impact travels right through the Bel-Air. Oh, I know that. It just sucks when you windup paying $1000s of dollars to repair damage after doing something stupid like hitting a pole at 5 mph knowing that your old 60's automobile survived 10 and 15 mph collisions with less damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuaslater Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Glad I live in a city where I can survive without a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vejlin Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 I am too josh, but we all know what the high speed pedestrian vs. car video would look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant_Crunch Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 The reason why newer cars look like they've been through a demolition derby in a low-speed collision is that they are designed to collapse. That's the crumple zones you occasionally hear about. By designing them that way the energy of the collision is dissipated. You can see in the video how the force of the impact travels right through the Bel-Air. Oh, I know that. It just sucks when you windup paying $1000s of dollars to repair damage after doing something stupid like hitting a pole at 5 mph knowing that your old 60's automobile survived 10 and 15 mph collisions with less damage. I'd rather try and avoid low speed collisions so I can survive a high speed one if it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The sensible approach is to drive your car either on the median or on the sidewalk where there are no other cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant_Crunch Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 This isn't necessarily true. Ever drive in South Korea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not yet..but I think I came pretty close once when we got lost in Duluth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.