Topic: IIHS Trucks test

[EV-Light]

Link to video:
https://youtu.be/_V5WGkRZQOU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BWII]

 

[tooscoops]

figured the ram would be last there.. still running on their old frame/platform... needs some updating, especially since no other truck builder is using a platform that pre-dates the minor offset crash (iirc).

still will say that i'd take a truck over many smaller lower vehicles... pretty sure the deaths/million would back up my stance there.

good work on ford for passing, plus improving the extended cab as well.

[mmret]

If they did crash tests based on a fixed mass impact object then pretty much the only things that would do well is a truck.

[rrocket]

IMHO, the IIHS tests are borderline scam...because they use their results to dictate insurance rates.

I read on report that said the 25 percent offset crash was only 3 percent of crashes.

[BWII]

If they did crash tests based on a fixed mass impact object then pretty much the only things that would do well is a truck.

Don't they do all their tests on fixed mass objects?  Real world is certain to be different, unless you hit a Kenworth maybe.  What would happen if a Ford hit a Dodge...would the result be the same as the video...or entirely different?  A new Civic would end up under almost any pickup truck, so yeah, the A pillar and/or door frame might save your legs, but would a front wheel come through the windshield and finish you off anyway? Front bumper tear the roof off?  No airbag would stop my 18's running through the interior on the way to the back of the car. 

Best practice....don't crash.

[84im]

IMHO, the IIHS tests are borderline scam...because they use their results to dictate insurance rates.

I read on report that said the 25 percent offset crash was only 3 percent of crashes.

But if you're unfortunate enough to be one of those involved in a 25% offset crash you wouldn't think it's a scam.
If I were looking to buy a new truck a passing grade in the 25% offset crash test would be an important feature.

[mmret]

If they did crash tests based on a fixed mass impact object then pretty much the only things that would do well is a truck.

Don't they do all their tests on fixed mass objects?  Real world is certain to be different, unless you hit a Kenworth maybe.  What would happen if a Ford hit a Dodge...would the result be the same as the video...or entirely different?  A new Civic would end up under almost any pickup truck, so yeah, the A pillar and/or door frame might save your legs, but would a front wheel come through the windshield and finish you off anyway? Front bumper tear the roof off?  No airbag would stop my 18's running through the interior on the way to the back of the car. 

Best practice....don't crash.

I'm pretty sure they use a mass that is equal to the weight of the car itself.

[rrocket]

IMHO, the IIHS tests are borderline scam...because they use their results to dictate insurance rates.

I read on report that said the 25 percent offset crash was only 3 percent of crashes.

But if you're unfortunate enough to be one of those involved in a 25% offset crash you wouldn't think it's a scam.
If I were looking to buy a new truck a passing grade in the 25% offset crash test would be an important feature.

It's not though. Not one car you currently own (or myself) would pass the current test. It's just not a deal breaker.

Just a way for the IIHS to influence insurance rates.

[ElectricMayhem]

If they did crash tests based on a fixed mass impact object then pretty much the only things that would do well is a truck.

Nah, if you are hitting an infinite-mass object like a bridge abutment, you want to be in a low-mass vehicle.  Less energy to be absorbed in the hood structure.

[mmret]

If they did crash tests based on a fixed mass impact object then pretty much the only things that would do well is a truck.

Nah, if you are hitting an infinite-mass object like a bridge abutment, you want to be in a low-mass vehicle.  Less energy to be absorbed in the hood structure.

I mean talking about a scenario where a smart car hits a truck, not when a smart car hits a fixed object. Much higher energy and momentum in the truck. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[rrocket]

Yep...mass wins

[ElectricMayhem]

Yep...mass wins

Only sometimes.  If an F150 hits a Mini Cooper JCW head on, the JCW will suffer higher acceleration for sure.  The JCW will end up going backwards.

But the JCW is more maneuverable, can change direction faster.   Can stop way faster.  If you look at moose-avoidance testing, or the slalom-type test videos on Consumer Reports, you can see that an F150 will more or less plow in a straight line regardless of the steering input.  That is because it weighs 5500 lb, maybe more.

So you really need to strike a balance between mass and maneuverability.

[EV-Light]

Yep...mass wins

Only sometimes.  If an F150 hits a Mini Cooper JCW head on, the JCW will suffer higher acceleration for sure.  The JCW will end up going backwards.

But the JCW is more maneuverable, can change direction faster.   Can stop way faster.  If you look at moose-avoidance testing, or the slalom-type test videos on Consumer Reports, you can see that an F150 will more or less plow in a straight line regardless of the steering input.  That is because it weighs 5500 lb, maybe more.

So you really need to strike a balance between mass and maneuverability.

'Can stop way faster...'
Are you sure?

Mini Clubman:


Ford F-150:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ElectricMayhem]

'Can stop way faster...'
Are you sure?

Yes, quite sure.  Last gen JCW stops from 60 mph in 35.0 meters per Auto Express.  2015 F150 2.7 litre, in 43.5 meters per pickuptrucks.com .

JCW stops 20% faster.

And the adhesion demand of the F150 is far higher.

[EV-Light]

'Can stop way faster...'
Are you sure?

Yes, quite sure.  Last gen JCW stops from 60 mph in 35.0 meters per Auto Express.  2015 F150 2.7 litre, in 43.5 meters per pickuptrucks.com .

JCW stops 20% faster.

And the adhesion demand of the F150 is far higher.

you can't compare numbers from different magazines, tests are done differently, etc...the numbers I posted above are from C&D, take a look again...

[ElectricMayhem]

you can't compare numbers from different magazines, tests are done differently, etc...the numbers I posted above are from C&D, take a look again...

Tell you what, you do some research into what a JCW is and correct your post. We can get into the rest of it after that.

[whaddaiknow]

Yep...mass wins

Only sometimes.  If an F150 hits a Mini Cooper JCW head on, the JCW will suffer higher acceleration for sure. FULL STOP. By that moment, the occupants are already dead.  The JCW will end up going backwards. (with dead occupants inside)

But the JCW is more maneuverable, can change direction faster.   Can stop way faster.  If you look at moose-avoidance testing, or the slalom-type test videos on Consumer Reports, you can see that an F150 will more or less plow in a straight line regardless of the steering input.  That is because it weighs 5500 lb, maybe more.

So you really need to strike a balance between mass and maneuverability.

^^There, fixed that for you.

Every few years, someone tries to resuscitate the dead horse. Deceleration, or G-force, kills. F150 vs Mini - gimme the truck every time. Nothing to discuss. Good on Mini if it can change direction faster. It means the collision may be avoided, and both cars and their occupants live to see another day, the the crash worthiness is irrelevant.

[rrocket]

Yep...mass wins

Only sometimes. 

We're not talking about accident avoidance.  The IIHS does not test that.  We're talking about a collision between 2 vehicles.  And in that case, mass wins.

Everything you list is merely a possibility.  Mass winning in a collision is a fact.

[ElectricMayhem]

Mass winning in a collision is a fact.

I'd almost agree, except in a collision with an infinite-mass object, the energy that will be (hopefully) dissipated in the front end, is m*v^2.  The higher m is, the more energy you have to dissipate.  So you really want to be in the JCW in that collision.

As for the previous comment about IIHS not testing for collision avoidance: a) clearly you haven't looked at their website in the past two years or so, because they talk a lot about automation systems to avoid accidents, and b) it goes into their ratings.  Even if it were not a factor, it is definitely a consideration to a rational person.

Pretty sure I am not the only engineer who will tell you folks that the best outcome is a totally-avoided collision.  :-)  Also, I'm not sure why so many people ride around in empty pickup trucks that can't steer and have ox-and-cart suspensions, while consuming huge amounts of fuel.  It seems to me, to be a terrible waste of transportation resources.