Poll regarding new and old cars

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by CFOUR

I don't see a buzz box surviving more than a single roll.

I have.

[Franco Cozzo]

Whats the deal with commercial vehicles being very unsafe?

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by xy500

I think you mean alloys and steels. And you will find cheaper substandard steels are more prolific now than ever across the board.

No, that is incorrect.

I've been to a course dealing on the materials in cars.

The boron steel hasa yield point of about 1,350–1,400 N/mm2 (196,000–203,000 psi), That’s about four times stronger than average high-strength steel, and are less likely to rust then the cold rolled steel used in older cars.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by xy500

lets keep the superiority debate out of it.
But on the subject of metals, what the heck? iron hasn't changed since it was formed in the star it came from. I think you mean alloys and steels. And you will find cheaper substandard steels are more prolific now than ever across the board.

I work in the oil and gas industry and deal with a lot of major (international) metals suppliers, and I can tell you, pretty confidently, that your last statement just does NOT hold any weight whatsoever, sorry!
(Ps Sorry again as this is off topic)

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Isn't it always the case in a head on involving a truck, the truck driver always ends up with leg injuries?

(The other people are dead but the truck drivers don't get out of it without a scratch).

Not always the case. In fact I would say the truck driver is rarely with anything beyond minor injuries in 90% of crashes I attend when they hit a smaller vehicle (car size).

Car (large sedan) v B double at 100 km/h for truck and 120 km/h+ for car head on, driver dead and ejected from car, truck driver not a mark (impact snapped bull bar off the truck and took off the right front wheel and snapped the suspension.

Porsche v semi trailer, truck approx 60 km/h, Porsche unknown but 60 km/h + is highly likely, two dead in porsche, not a mark on the truck driver.

80's model Landcruiser head on into road train (Landcruiser approx 100, road train approx 90), two dead in Landcruiser, truck driver without a scratch. The Landcruiser debris was spread over 200m.

They are the larger cases that I have attended involving trucks with prime movers (cab over trucks LR to MR class are different and in many cases your comment would be true).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 4vxc

thats a light Fairlane, my 351 ZF weighed 1792kg. Here are specs of the 1977 ZH and P6 LTD

Dimensions:
Length:
Width:
Height:
Wheelbase:
Front track:
Rear track:
Kerb weight:
Turning circle:
Fuel tank:
Boot space: Fairlane
5196mm
1956mm
1367mm
2946mm
1537mm
1524mm
1768kg
12.6 m
79.5 litres
494.7 litres LTD
5364mm
1956mm
1366mm
3074mm
1537mm
1524mm
1832kg
12.9 m
79.5 litres
494.7 litres

Depends on your reference. From "Ford Falcon" 2nd edition, Ewan Kennedy, Marque Publishing with forward by Geoff Polites and sold at the Ford Discovery Centre (that is where I bought it). This book makes the statement that all specifications are from the manufacturer records. This book lists the ZH kerb mass as 1651 kg for Fairlane and 1768 for Marquis. P6 was listed as you quoted.

[BENT_8]

This is giving me a headache...

So basically the story goes that your safer in the small car unless you hit a larger vehicle head on??
Surely a head on capable of killing passengers in a new vehicle would have just as much impact on the old car driver via lack of safety features

What id like to know is the percentage of accidents that are head on.
I would think that headons are quite rare and so the chances of being involved would be less.
With this in mind, the small car must be safer as it is designed to withstand the majority of accidents.

Side impact- both lethal, but atleast modern cars have safety features.
Rear enders- both survivable to a point but modern head restraints work much better when adjusted correctly
Roll overs- both lethal but safer in modern cars
Head ons- safer in the modern car unless the other vehicle is a larger new vehicle which wins on weight/safety combined.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Whats the deal with commercial vehicles being very unsafe?

What makes you ask that?

In my experience the commercial vehicles on sale today are very good, many to the standard of current cars (eg Mercedes Sprinter).

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What makes you ask that?

In my experience the commercial vehicles on sale today are very good, many to the standard of current cars (eg Mercedes Sprinter).

cheaper vans and dual cab utes tend to not be very good. I'm not sure if its the Mitsubishi Express or the Toyota Hiace which gets the low score on safety.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

This is giving me a headache...

So basically the story goes that your safer in the small car unless you hit a larger vehicle head on??
Surely a head on capable of killing passengers in a new vehicle would have just as much impact on the old car driver via lack of safety features

What id like to know is the percentage of accidents that are head on.
I would think that headons are quite rare and so the chances of being involved would be less.
With this in mind, the small car must be safer as it is designed to withstand the majority of accidents.

Side impact- both lethal, but atleast modern cars have safety features.
Rear enders- both survivable to a point but modern head restraints work much better when adjusted correctly
Roll overs- both lethal but safer in modern cars
Head ons- safer in the modern car unless the other vehicle is a larger new vehicle which wins on weight/safety combined.

Go to this web site, it is the QLD crash statistics and gives a breakdown of the angle of crash and totals for hospitalisations and fatals for each type. In the table "angle" crashes involve any crash where impact occurred on the side surface (eg t bone and 3/4 angle etc).

Have a look at table 4.2 on page 33. There are some very interesting statistics such as the disproportionately high number of fatalities from head on compared to the number of these crashes. polar opposite to rear impacts which have a very low proportion of fatalities to a high number of crashes. Angle are a high percentage of crashes and pretty high number of fatalities.

QLD crash statistics 2004

I know this is only queensland and quite old figures but it gives a good idea of the stats you are after and they were all I could find without spending too much of my life on it, hope it helps.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

cheaper vans and dual cab utes tend to not be very good. I'm not sure if its the Mitsubishi Express or the Toyota Hiace which gets the low score on safety.

Express is 1 star but the last tested was 2003, report is here

Toyota Hiace scored 3 star, report is here

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Whats the deal with commercial vehicles being very unsafe?

Still not there but some are starting to get better. The Merc van just got a 5star rating. The Holden and Ford Utes are 5 star as well.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

No. It's because anything I say you don't believe anyways. So it's pointless trying to convince someone that's set in their ways.

I cant think/pin point one thing you have said that has an ounce of fact or truth, hence no I don't believe you, id rather listen to experts and make informed decisions.

[geckoGT]

I think it is time to chill out a bit guys, don't want the poll closed because of this sort of thing.

[UNR8D]

accepted, Ive posted my thoughts in the other thread, not going into writing essay's in here.

I believe that some of the video links could be useful to this poll, to let people have an educated decision though?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

accepted, Ive posted my thoughts in the other thread, not going into writing essay's in here.

I believe that some of the video links could be useful to this poll, to let people have an educated decision though?

I am working on the assumption they will do a little research, perhaps read the other thread. At least that is what I am hoping is happening.

I think it is reasonable to post links to video, references or statistics but lets keep debating each others points out of it. If you post a link, please feel free to make a comment, just please don't pick faults on other people's posts.

I think that is the only fair way to keep the play here civil on what can be a rather emotive subject. I hope everyone considers that fair.

By the way, my comments are not directly aimed at you UN8D, there have been a few instances so far and I am addressing all of them.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, that is incorrect.

I've been to a course dealing on the materials in cars.

The boron steel hasa yield point of about 1,350–1,400 N/mm2 (196,000–203,000 psi), That’s about four times stronger than average high-strength steel, and are less likely to rust then the cold rolled steel used in older cars.

doesn't necessarily make it a wonder material though does it, that's tensile yield strength? what about the elastic modulus, or shear modulus? too stiff and it won't help you much. Then even if they only use a miniscule amount of boron in the steel, it is quite expensive stuff. So even if it is as great as you make it sound, you wont see much of it in competitively priced cars. Just like you don't see much chromoly steel.
If your steel is properly prepared and coated rust shouldn't be an issue, you'd be a fool to rely on steel to protect itself from the elements.

My point was, as many advances in metals technologies there have been (which is very few as compared to the early 1900's). The better materials will always cost more, and car manufacturers would rather use the cheapest imported steels and plastics. Than invest serious money in materials that only improve the overall properties of the vehicle by a few percent. So I wouldn't count on your next falcon being made solely out of the next wonder alloy or plastic composite.

[geckoGT]

The aim of this thread is not to debate theory on the manufacture of cars. If you have some evidence of the strength of the cars you refer to, then please post it up. If it is theory then how about we keep on topic.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The aim of this thread is not to debate theory on the manufacture of cars. If you have some evidence of the strength of the cars you refer to, then please post it up. If it is theory then how about we keep on topic.

Seeing as we've had at least two similar threads on this topic I'm not sure what the aim is.
Except to help increase members post counts.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Seeing as we've had at least two similar threads on this topic I'm not sure what the aim is.
Except to help increase members post counts.

Read the opening post and you will find that was quite clear, to get an idea of what the general opinion for both sides is in terms of a percentage of who believes what. Personally I see no need to increase my post count, its not like there is a prize.

By your logic, why do we need millions of threads asking what the best CAI or exhaust is for a Boss or which fuel is best?

Might be because it is a motoring forum and people come on here to talk mainly about motoring related topics (of which this is motoring related).

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Go to this web site, it is the QLD crash statistics and gives a breakdown of the angle of crash and totals for hospitalisations and fatals for each type. In the table "angle" crashes involve any crash where impact occurred on the side surface (eg t bone and 3/4 angle etc).

Have a look at table 4.2 on page 33. There are some very interesting statistics such as the disproportionately high number of fatalities from head on compared to the number of these crashes. polar opposite to rear impacts which have a very low proportion of fatalities to a high number of crashes. Angle are a high percentage of crashes and pretty high number of fatalities.

QLD crash statistics 2004

I know this is only queensland and quite old figures but it gives a good idea of the stats you are after and they were all I could find without spending too much of my life on it, hope it helps.

Thanks gecko

The results show that only 2% of all accidents are head on collisions.

With this in mind, and using the theory given by some that a large, heavy? vehicle is safer in a head on than the Focus, the result shows the Fairlane is only safer in 2% of all crashes.
Meaning the Focus is safer in 98% of all crashes give or take.

The stats also supports the theory that both parties are in trouble in this type of crash.

[Quicksand]

I voted that new cars are generally safer. If i can be honest, prior to reading these two threads, i incorrectly assumed 'bigger is always better'. I put this down to my lack of understanding of the basic physics and of how far motor vehicle technology has come. So if this thread (and the other) has achieved anything, it has furthered my understanding on the topic based on the evidence provided.

To summarise the evidence provided so far in both threads (that has led to my improved understanding on the topic):

Evidence towards New Cars being safer:


Video Evidence

Crash Test 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXV...eature=related

Fifth Gear - Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 crash test - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

Smart ForTwo Coupe Crash Test @ 5th Gear - Crash Test Dummy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RAN4gTtc4s

9 family cars battle it out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQH6MLTSDZ4

Mini Car Crash Test - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avc70WVqqKg

Crash Test 2008 Subaru Impreza - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iqSevctl1I

Crash Test ADAC Volkswagen Golf VI (2008) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SLTLfEb9F0&feature=fvst

Crash Test Ford Focus II 2005 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC71R-vdbtI

Crash Test 2004 - 2009 Mazda 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHMN4wH9a6w

ANCAP Ford FG Falcon crash tests - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3DGo3eqlZY

1980's Australian Holden Commodore Crash Test - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoFisLsrBjo

Crash Test Betwen old and new cars - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l4YBf2tjag


Textual Evidence

Australian 2009 Road Toll Report - http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...pdf/rsr_04.pdf

Accident Statistical Data - http://fordforums.com.au/vbportal/mo...category&cid=5

AFF 2005 Brake Test - http://fordforums.com.au/vbportal/mo...article&id=220

Chances of dying in an automobile accident in 1953 vs 2003 - http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...&postcount=318



Evidence towards Old Cars being safer:


Video Evidence

The Influence of Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety in Crashes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESXI...eature=channel

ABS vs. No ABS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly62FoZH_Dc


Textual Evidence

Casual Influence of Car Mass and Size on Driver Fatality Risk: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi.../91/7/1076.pdf

Volvo's crash-avoidance technology fails: http://www.news.com.au/technology/vo...-1225864345113


Other

% of 5 most common crash types - http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...rashtypes.html

AU SWB ABS Wiring Diagram - http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/UNR8D/abs.jpg


Review the evidence folks and make your own minds up.

[Quicksand]

Not to mention the eye witness testimonies provided by geckoGT provided in both threads.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Thanks gecko

The results show that only 2% of all accidents are head on collisions.

With this in mind, and using the theory given by some that a large, heavy? vehicle is safer in a head on than the Focus, the result shows the Fairlane is only safer in 2% of all crashes.
Meaning the Focus is safer in 98% of all crashes give or take.

The stats also supports the theory that both parties are in trouble in this type of crash.

Be careful with statistics, this is a very good example of how they are often maligned,often times in these forums. It does not mean (necessarily), that the focus is safer in 98%of all crashes.
(I do understand where you are coming from though)

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

why? because you still have no evidence to back up your claims?

No. This thread doesn't need a to and froing that interlinks with a closed thread.

So I think it's time you moved on from this line of querying

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Nikked

So, can you prove that all the wires, to all the tone wheels are going to fail a split second before a crash, along with the airbags, and seatbelt pre-tensioners?

And that, crumple zones, Side intrusion bars, modern metals are in-effective at passenger protection?

Only needs one item to fail for injuries to occur. Now I'd really suggest you drop this line of querying, as it's only going to get this thread closed.

GECKO and MODS. I do apologise if I am taking this thread off topic. The replies directed at me seem to be aimed at taking this thread along the path of the previous thread, which is now closed. I'm hoping the end of this nitpicking will cease right here and now. I have case my vote and a real brief explanation behind my vote. Surely that should be sufficient

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Only needs one item to fail for injuries to occur. Now I'd really suggest you drop this line of querying, as it's only going to get this thread closed.

In other words, you have been proven wrong, you can't provide any helpfull reasoning to some of your theories.

Inducted_Breeze has provided a well researched post, covering both sides of the topic, providing some in depth info onto the reasoning's why a newer car is safer, both in active and passive safety.


This graph (from wiki) give a good indication on the matter.



(Note Australia as almost halved, while america has only dropped a small 1o%, or there abouts...lack of inforced seatblet use?)

The reduction in road toll, while more cars are being used suggest that there is something right happening.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Be careful with statistics, this is a very good example of how they are often maligned,often times in these forums. It does not mean (necessarily), that the focus is safer in 98%of all crashes.
(I do understand where you are coming from though)

Agreed, statistics can be a double edged sword that can paint a different picture depending on the view point of the observer.

Also, vehicle mass can in some circumstances work against you, sometimes it may be advantageous to have light weight that changes direction easier and bounces back off the other object during the impact rather than trying to push through it, as was seen in the 5th gear crash test with the smart into the concrete block at 70 mph (an impact type no vehicle short of a FI race car is likely to be survivable). Remember the commodore into the barrier at roughly the same speed, its butt tried to push through its head like a fly on the windscreen, momentum can be a bad thing.

Something I have noticed so far is the majority of people here when discussing crash safety are primarily focussed on road toll statistics. I think there are many reasons for this such as this is what is featured in the media the most in regards to road safety. This is also the area that is easiest to find statistics on with only reasonable effort. It is also the "worst case" scenario and therefore the forefront of most peoples mind (people by nature have a fascination with disaster).

My focus is a little different and I am going to d a bit more research by taking the focus away from death statistics and instead look at hospitalisations (ie significant injury). This may take some time as I am on night shift at the moment and likely to be in and out all night and then sleeping during the day but humour me.

I think it is more effective when comparing car safety over the decades to look at serious injury as this is perhaps a better indicator of safety improvements rather than death rates. It is my experience and certainly the experience of just about every paramedic, ED nurse and ED doctor in the world that in the vast majority of crashes that involve deaths, the forces involved were beyond the realm of where survival can be expected. Of course there are always exceptions and occasionally we see someone walk out of a wreck that should have contained a body, I have seen this many times. The thing is we rarely see a body in a wreck that they should have been able to walk out from, normally when we see the car and hear the conditions of the crash, the fatality is no surprise.

In terms of car safety, the developments are focussed in both raising the threshold of crash severity before deaths occur and lowering the injury rates in "survivable" crashes. My theory is that it is the lowering of injury rates and severity in survivable crashes that the greatest improvement has been made rather than increasing the survival rates of the more severe crashes. Stick with me and we will see what I come up with.

[BULFALC]

I'll admit i chose the Fairlane only because of the fact that i wrote off the same ZB Fairlane twice in the 1980's & both times i was ok without a scratch.Both were front end hits. I'll also admit that the video of the two chevs opened my eyes up & shows how safe the modern car is.

[Monkey]

I was wondering how much the statisics have changed due to societys views on drink driving rather than the cars being safer?
Even though i prefer to own classic cars and allways will, i know new ones are designed to protect the occupants