模拟与SUV或者卡车发生茸驳慕峁っ-小型汽车普遍安全性较差

[野渡无人]

http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2005/pr030605.htm

原文:
Small cars fare poorly in crash tests
Chevrolet Cobalt, Toyota Corolla earn 'acceptable' rating
Sunday, March 6, 2005 Posted: 9:37 PM EST (0237 GMT)




Insurance Institute for Highway Safety




DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- The Dodge Neon, Ford Focus and Volkswagen New Beetle are among the small cars that got the lowest safety rating in new side-impact crash tests performed by the insurance industry, according to results released Sunday.

Fourteen of the 16 cars tested earned a "poor," the lowest of four ratings, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said. The Chevrolet Cobalt and the Toyota Corolla earned the second-highest rating of "acceptable," but only when they were tested with their optional side air bags. They earned "poor" ratings without the air bags.

Other vehicles that earned a "poor" rating were the Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mazda 3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Sentra, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Aerio.

The institute's test simulates a severe crash. A barrier designed to resemble the front of a pickup or sport utility vehicle hits the side of the vehicle at 31 mph. A "poor" rating means a high chance of serious injury in a similar crash.

Four of the vehicles tested -- the Elantra, New Beetle, Forenza and Spectra -- have standard, head-protecting side air bags. But the institute's chief operating officer, Adrian Lund, said the cars had poor structure that failed to prevent injuries to the torso and pelvis.

Several of the vehicles offer optional side air bags, but the institute will only test those vehicles without side air bags unless the manufacturer provides a second vehicle with the option installed.

Toyota Motor Co. provided the Corolla with side air bags and General Motors Corp. provided the Cobalt and Saturn Ion. But even when it was tested with its optional side air bags, the Ion got a "poor" rating because the institute said it didn't adequately protect the driver's lower body.

GM said in a statement that the Cobalt and Ion meet or exceed all federal vehicle safety standards and got higher ratings in the institute's frontal crash tests.

The institute was most critical of the Neon, saying the car performed so poorly that the driver likely wouldn't have survived the crash. DaimlerChrysler AG defended the Neon, saying it meets federal safety standards and its performance is similar to other small cars.

"No single test can determine a vehicle's overall safety performance or how the vehicle will perform in a specific crash," DaimlerChrysler said in a statement.

Lund said the ratings were similar to frontal crash test ratings for small cars in 1997. Since then, manufacturers have redesigned those cars and now most get the highest safety rating in frontal crash tests.

"As manufacturers redesign their vehicles, we expect that small cars will get better in the side-impact test too," Lund said.

[野渡无人]

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/..._overall_c.htm

茸驳牟馐阅Ｐ.

[混吃等死]

因此要买带SIDE BAG 的RAV4..

[野渡无人]

http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr041804.htm

NEWS RELEASE
April 18, 2004

Detailed side impact results: current model midsize inexpensive cars

2004 passenger vehicle models with side airbags


SIDE IMPACT CRASH TEST RESULTS:
CAMRY AND ACCORD WITH SIDE AIRBAGS RATED GOOD, MALIBU ACCEPTABLE; 10 OTHER MIDSIZE CARS RATED POOR IN TESTS SIMULATING CRASH WITH SUV

ARLINGTON, VA -- The Toyota Camry and Honda Accord equipped with optional side airbags are the only inexpensive midsize cars to earn good ratings in side impact crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Chevrolet Malibu with optional side airbags is rated acceptable. Ten other midsize car designs earned the lowest rating of poor. The test simulates what happens when a pickup or SUV strikes a passenger vehicle in the side at 31 mph.

The Camry, Accord, and Malibu without side airbags are rated poor for side impact protection. Other car models that earned poor ratings are the Suzuki Verona, Mazda 6, Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring, Nissan Altima, Saturn L Series, Hyundai Sonata/Kia Optima, and Mitsubishi Galant. The Institute's side impact test results are a relatively new addition to the frontal offset crash test ratings the Institute has been providing to consumers since 1995. This is the first set of Institute side impacts involving cars.


The Institute's side impact crash test represents what happens when a passenger vehicle is struck by a pickup truck or SUV.
"Manufacturers have made major improvements in the protection vehicles provide to occupants in frontal crashes," says Institute president Brian O'Neill. "Most new vehicles do well in the Institute's 40 mph frontal offset crash test. We believe this new test will drive similar improvements in protection for occupants in side crashes."

Side impacts are the second most common fatal crash type after frontal crashes. About 9,600 people were killed in side impacts in 2002, and in crashes between two passenger vehicles more driver deaths now occur in vehicles struck in the side than in the front. This contrasts with the past situation when there were many more deaths in frontal crashes.

"We simply haven't made the same progress in protecting people in side impacts as we have in frontal crashes," O'Neill points out.

Compared with federal test, Institute test produces higher risks for occupants of side-struck vehicles: In the Institute test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front end of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female or a 12-year-old child, one positioned in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver. This is the first consumer test program to use a dummy that represents small women.

The federal government's side impact test uses a barrier representing a car's front end. In this test, there's no chance that the heads of the dummies in a struck vehicle will be hit by the intruding barrier. But in serious real-world side impacts, people's heads often are struck by intruding vehicles, especially if the striking vehicle is a pickup or SUV with a high hood. The Institute's barrier is taller than the government's to mimic the high hood heights of SUVs and pickups.

Top performers are Camry and Accord with side airbags: The Institute tested the Camry and Accord twice, with and without optional side airbags. (If a vehicle has side airbags as an option, the Institute's policy is to test the vehicle without the option. The manufacturer may request a second test with the optional airbags if it also reimburses the Institute for the cost of the vehicle.) In the tests of the Camry and Accord with side airbags, most injury measures for the front and rear passenger dummies were low. Both cars were equipped with side curtain airbags that deploy from the roof to protect people's heads plus torso airbags for the front-seat occupants.

"The Camry and Accord with side airbags are the only good performers in this group of midsize cars," O'Neill says. "The structure of the Camry did a reasonably good job of minimizing intrusion into the occupant compartment, and the curtain airbag prevented the dummies' heads from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier. The structure of the Accord didn't hold up quite as well as the Camry's, but injury measures were low and the Accord also earns the highest rating of good. Neither of these vehicles was quite good enough to earn a ‘best pick' for side impact protection."

In contrast, the performances of the Camry and Accord without side airbags were poor. The heads of the driver dummies were struck by the intruding barrier, resulting in high injury measures.

"In a real-world crash of similar severity without side airbags, there would be a high likelihood of serious head injuries and rib fractures," O'Neill says. "In contrast, occupants of the Camry and Accord with the optional airbags would be much more likely to survive a severe crash like this without serious injuries."

Malibu with side airbags is rated acceptable: The Malibu's performance wasn't as good as the Camry's or Accord's, so this car earned the Institute's second highest rating in the side impact test. "The optional curtain airbag did a good job of reducing the injury measures recorded on the dummies' heads, but the torso injury measures for the driver dummy were too high and there was too much intrusion," O'Neill points out.

Vehicle side structure should prevent intrusion: There were major differences in how the structure of the sides of the cars performed in the test.

"In frontal crashes, well-designed vehicles have front ends that crumple to absorb energy and strong occupant compartments that resist intrusion," O'Neill explains. "This allows restrained occupants to be decelerated without injury. In contrast, there is virtually no crush space on the sides of vehicles. So in serious side crashes some intrusion is inevitable, but it should be minimized."

The Mitsubishi Galant had the best structural performance in this group of cars the Institute tested. The sill along the bottom of the doors wasn't severely crushed by the barrier, and B-pillar intrusion was less than in the other cars in this group. Still, the Galant earned a poor overall rating, largely because it lacked a side airbag to protect the driver's head and torso protection was poor. In contrast, the Dodge Stratus had the poorest performing structure. The sill below the doors was severely crushed, and there was major intrusion of the B-pillar. This contributed to high injury measures for the dummies.

[野渡无人]

作者: 混吃等死

因此要买带SIDE BAG 的RAV4..

有您这么下结论的嘛....

[野渡无人]

http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr100304.htm
October 3, 2004

NEW SIDE IMPACT CRASH TEST RESULTS:
SAAB 9-3 IS 1ST CAR TO EARN 'DOUBLE BEST PICK,'
3 OTHER MIDSIZE CARS EARN GOOD RATINGS IN
SIDE IMPACT TEST SIMULATING CRASH WITH SUV

ARLINGTON, VA -- Four of eight midsize cars earned good ratings in side impact crash tests recently conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. None of the cars received a poor rating. The 2004 Saab 9-3, 2004 Acura TL, 2004 Lexus ES 330, and 2005 Mitsubishi Galant are rated good for side impact protection. The 2004 Saab 9-5, 2005 Mercedes C class, and 2005 Volvo S40 earned acceptable ratings. The 2004 Jaguar X-Type is rated marginal.

The better performers among vehicles that earn good ratings are designated "best picks." The Saab 9-3, which also earned a "best pick" designation in the Institute's frontal offset crash test, is the first car to earn this designation in both front and side crash tests. It's a "double best pick."

"Earning a 'double best pick' is a rare achievement," says Institute chief operating officer Adrian Lund. "The only other vehicle to have done this is the Toyota RAV4, a small SUV, and then only when it was equipped with optional side airbags."

The Institute didn't test 11 other midsize inexpensive to luxury car models because the manufacturers are making design changes to improve side impact performance. The Institute will test these models in the near future.


The test represents what happens when a passenger vehicle is struck in the side by a pickup truck or SUV.
Institute's side impact test is more challenging than federal test: In the Institute's side impact test, a moving deformable barrier strikes the driver side of a passenger vehicle at 31 mph. The barrier weighs 3,300 pounds and has a front end shaped to simulate the front end of a typical pickup or SUV. In each side-struck vehicle are two instrumented dummies the size of a short (5th percentile) female, one positioned in the driver seat and one in the rear seat behind the driver.

"The Institute's test is more challenging because the top of the barrier is at the same level as the heads of the test dummies in the car," Lund says. "This is the scenario in real-world side impact crashes where occupants' heads are often struck by the intruding hood of an SUV or pickup."

The federal government's side impact test uses a barrier representing a car's front end. In this test, there's no chance that the heads of the dummies in a struck vehicle will be hit by the intruding barrier.

Saab 9-3 is top performer: All eight cars in this round of crash tests are equipped with standard side airbags with head protection. The Saab 9-3 has side curtain airbags that deploy from the roof as well as airbags that deploy from the side of the car's front seats to protect occupants' chests. All 9-3s built after December 2003 have been modified to improve occupant protection in side impacts.

"The curtain airbag did a good job of cushioning the heads of both the driver and rear passenger dummies," Lund says. "Plus injury measures recorded on the neck, torso, pelvis, and left leg of the dummies all were low. Saab can still make improvements to the 9-3's structure, but in all other areas this was very good performance."

Galant goes from poor to good: This is the second time the Institute has tested the Galant. The 2004 model earned a poor rating for side impact protection when it was tested earlier this year. While side airbags that protect only the torso were available as an option, head protection airbags weren't available. If side airbags are optional, Institute policy is to test the vehicle without the option. The manufacturer may request an additional test with the optional airbags, but in this case Mitsubishi did not request the second test.

"The structure of the 2004 Galant performed very well, but without side airbags the driver dummy's head was struck by the intruding barrier," Lund explains. "There was a possibility of a serious skull fracture or brain injury. Rib fractures and other internal injuries also were possible."

For the 2005 Galant, Mitsubishi added combination head and chest protection side airbags for front-seat occupants as standard equipment and asked the Institute to test the new model.

"The difference in the two tests is dramatic," Lund says. "This time the driver dummy's head was protected from impact with any hard structures, including the intruding barrier."

Even though there was still the possibility of rib fractures or internal organ injuries, the forces recorded in these areas were lower than in the 2004 Galant. In the tests of both the 2004 and 2005 models, the rear dummy's head hit the window frame and sill of the rear door, but these hits didn't produce high head injury measures.

The Galant improved from a poor performer to one of the better performers in the side impact test.

"Mitsubishi should be commended for making side airbags with head protection standard in this relatively inexpensive car. The results for the Galant show that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get good protection in side impact crashes," Lund points out.

Side airbags reduce risks in real-world crashes: Institute research shows that side airbags with head protection are reducing deaths by about 45 percent among drivers of cars struck on the driver side. Side airbags that protect the chest and abdomen, but not the head, also are reducing deaths but are less effective (about a 10 percent reduction in deaths). Before the availability of head-protecting airbags, there was virtually nothing to prevent people's heads from being struck by intruding vehicles or rigid objects like trees or poles in serious side impacts.

"These crash test results confirm what the Institute found is happening in real-world crashes," Lund says. "Side airbags designed to protect people's heads can prevent very serious head injuries. This test is resulting in more manufacturers adding side airbags as standard equipment."

Jaguar is rated marginal: Side airbags with head protection do a good job of protecting people in side impact crashes, but the side structures of passenger vehicles also need to be strong to prevent major intrusion into the occupant compartment.

In serious side crashes some intrusion is inevitable, but it should be minimized. The Jaguar's structure was marginal because the sill below the doors and the B-pillar between the doors were severely crushed.

"This contributed to high forces recorded on the torso and pelvis of the driver dummy," Lund points out. "Head protection in the Jaguar was good, but a real driver might have sustained serious rib fractures, internal organ injuries, and possible pelvic fractures."

How vehicles are evaluated: Each vehicle's overall side evaluation is based on injury measures recorded on two instrumented SID-IIs dummies, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact. Injury measures obtained from the two dummies, one in the driver seat and the other in the rear seat behind the driver, are used to determine the likelihood that the driver and/or passenger would have sustained serious injury to various body regions. The movements and contacts of the dummies' heads during the crash also are evaluated. This assessment is more important for seating positions without head-protecting airbags which, assuming they perform as intended, should prevent injurious head contacts. Structural performance is based on measurements indicating the amount of B-pillar intrusion into the occupant compartment. Some intrusion into the compartment is inevitable in serious side impacts, but any intrusion that does occur should be uniform both horizontally and vertically and shouldn't seriously compromise the driver or passenger space

[混吃等死]

作者: 野渡无人

有您这么下结论的嘛....

我是就事论事,和碰撞结果没关系..和某些同志买车有点关系..

[野渡无人]

作者: 混吃等死

我是就事论事,和碰撞结果没关系..和某些同志买车有点关系..

小同志要虚心学习,不要人云亦云.要敢于反对反动学术权威....

[混吃等死]

作者: 野渡无人

小同志要虚心学习,不要人云亦云.要敢于反对反动学术权威....

在理想状态下发生的碰撞实验只能说明在空气,水分,氧气,湿度,温度,车辆,人员,速度,角度等猪多因素都和实验状态吻合时, 能得出的结论....此结论,能说明问题, 也不能说明问题...

[gogo]

模拟T-51型坦克与美国产SUV及卡车发生侧撞及正撞结果证明，SUV及卡车的安全性令人发指

又经美国国家道路安全委员会最新的研究结果显示，可不发生或避免发生碰撞的车辆，其安全指数最高。。。见原文如下

".....motorized vehicles when operated in such a manner that occurrence of collisions can be avoided or no occurrence is ensued are rated with the highest safety index…"

[pdz]

结论就是side air bags至关重要，能救命。不过the Elantra, New Beetle, Forenza and Spectra 因为 the cars had poor structure，有side air bags也白搭，不能买。