Crash Test, 1959 Chevy Belair vs 2009 Chevy Mailbu, not what I expected.

[Atl-Jerry]

Sometimes it's a good thing they don't build 'em like they used to.

► CRASH TEST - 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air VS 2009 Chevrolet Malibu	powered by Aeva

[jer0177]

I call BS.

1.  That isn't a square collision (granted, not all collisions in the real world are square), but the Malibu hits the Belair outside the framerails.

2.  Age.  The Belair is 50 years older.  In the "malibu from the left" sequence, you can see the cloud of "rust dust" emanating from the Belair.  How much weaker is that car now, 50 years old, than it was new?

3. "Safety engineer's" claims that the Belair driver would died instantly?  If not wearing a seat belt, probably, but not definitely. 

I would take my solid steel bumper trucks over these tin-foil bumper trucks any day.  I've had 2 of them rear-ended and neither suffered any damage from the collisions where the other car (escort and some suzuki thing) had to be towed away.

[..]

I call BS.

1.  That isn't a square collision (granted, not all collisions in the real world are square), but the Malibu hits the Belair outside the framerails.

Did you see the overhead video which starts at 1 min 20 secs? Methinks not.

[cookiedough]

yah, at about the 1 minute 30 second mark, both cars from overhead took a big hit on both drivers sides.  If you think about it, cars made nowadays are made to crumple upfront to take the grunt of the impact away from the passengers.  Not so back in the 80's and prior with real solid steel bumpers and fenders.  I would still take my former 1978 buick skylark or better yet my current 1986 caprice classic if got hit head on but unfortunately no air bags back then.  I ran into my parents wooden framed garage door with the bumper of my 1978 buick skylark coming home tipsy one night.  Not a scratch on the metal bumper, but took a nice gouge out of the wooden door frame - oops.  Still there today never told anyone - oh well.

[The Anvil]

I would still take my former 1978 buick skylark or better yet my current 1986 caprice classic if got hit head on but unfortunately no air bags back then. 

That would be an extremely unwise decision. But whatever.

[RainMaker]

The worst part is, they took out a nice looking '59 Belair!

I'd have run my '65 Chrysler Newport against that Malibu and cut thru it like a hot knife through butter.  It was a tank!

[The Anvil]

The worst part is, they took out a nice looking '59 Belair! :'(

I'd have run my '65 Chrysler Newport against that Malibu and cut thru it like a hot knife through butter.  It was a tank!

Notsomuch...

Thoughts on the Impala Crash - 1959 vs. 2009 V8TV	powered by Aeva

You see, there was a lot of space inside of those big old cars. Ever wonder WHY it is that today's cars are smaller yet the WEIGHT of the vehicles made today is actually much closer than it would seem? Your Newport would lose as madly as the Belair.

Seriously. Look up the curb weight of these old "tanks" versus today's cars. Today's cars are dense, carefully engineered vehicles. Those old "tanks" were made of thin sheetmetal and C section frame members (rarely if ever "boxed") with virtually NO thought to the safety of the occupants in a crash. Vestigial restraints, no air bags, no crumple zones, no reinforcement beams in the doors...

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that today's cars are worlds better than old Detroit iron.

[jer0177]

The worst part is, they took out a nice looking '59 Belair! :'(

I'd have run my '65 Chrysler Newport against that Malibu and cut thru it like a hot knife through butter.  It was a tank!

Notsomuch...

Thoughts on the Impala Crash - 1959 vs. 2009 V8TV

You see, there was a lot of space inside of those big old cars. Ever wonder WHY it is that today's cars are smaller yet the WEIGHT of the vehicles made today is actually much closer than it would seem? Your Newport would lose as madly as the Belair.

Seriously. Look up the curb weight of these old "tanks" versus today's cars. Today's cars are dense, carefully engineered vehicles. Those old "tanks" were made of thin sheetmetal and C section frame members (rarely if ever "boxed") with virtually NO thought to the safety of the occupants in a crash. Vestigial restraints, no air bags, no crumple zones, no reinforcement beams in the doors...

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that today's cars are worlds better than old Detroit iron.

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

[The Anvil]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

But I don't really have to "trust" anyone's opinion but my own. Being a structures specialist in aviation means that I have a little bit of insight into this kind of thing.

Would you say that an F15 is structurally weaker than a Boeing B17? If you can't figure out how they relate then say so and I'll explain it.

[jer0177]

Would you say that an F15 is structurally weaker than a Boeing B17? If you can't figure out how they relate then say so and I'll explain it.

Apples and pine cones. A head on collision between those at speed nobody could survive. Ever.

[FPG52]

So Anvil... Not because I disagree with you... But for my curiosity/general knowledge.  My dad was ground crew WWII for P51 and some 17's on his base.  Grew up reading about them and hearing great stories.  I am not an engineer but as salesman sell electronics into number Mil companies and appreciate  some technology I see. So... If you would explain the structure differences betweenF15 and the flying fortress I would love to hear it?

[The Anvil]

Would you say that an F15 is structurally weaker than a Boeing B17? If you can't figure out how they relate then say so and I'll explain it.

Apples and pine cones. A head on collision between those at speed nobody could survive. Ever.

You're missing the point. They're airplanes. I know that they're not surviving a head-on collision. The point is about advancements in technology.

Take a wild guess what the difference in the weight of the Bu and the Belair is. Hold it in your mind because I'm going to tell you...




LESS THAN 200lbs. That's right, that "big tank" had a weight advantage over the Malibu that was about the weight of an average adult male. Considering it's mammoth size that's not very much, is it? Where do you think all that weight ended up?

As far as the planes go, a B17 is considerably larger (more than double the wingspan and more than 10 feet in length) than an F15 but has a lower maximum takeoff weight. But most importantly (and tellingly) the F15 is capable of almost DOUBLE the wing loading of the B17. Bottom line; it's physically smaller but much, much stronger in every imaginable way. Why? Advancement in design and materials that occurred over 40 years of development.

[Patrick]

Just a little background, I was born in the auto repair business.. My mother didn't make it to the hospital..  As a result I was taken on tow calls before I could walk.. The vehicle in the video[ 59 Chev] with the wonderful GM X frame with the steering box hung in front of the K frame.. The poor little test dummy in the old Chevy was dead, more than dead.. I've pulled too many people off those steering shafts..
As far the aircraft analogy, I probably don't know that much about aircraft structure, and I haven't flown an F15, but, I have flown F5, F16 and B17.. The B17 is some kinda small, but, I enjoy spending time in all of them..

[The Anvil]

So Anvil... Not because I disagree with you... But for my curiosity/general knowledge.  My dad was ground crew WWII for P51 and some 17's on his base.  Grew up reading about them and hearing great stories.  I am not an engineer but as salesman sell electronics into number Mil companies and appreciate  some technology I see. So... If you would explain the structure differences betweenF15 and the flying fortress I would love to hear it?

Well the techniques used in the building of the two are quite similar. Both are semi-monocoque designs with spar and rib wings. How the wing and fuselage are joined is different but the basics of construction are the same. The big difference between those two examples would be the material strength and the DENSITY of structure. In other words, stronger metals and more of it. More wing ribs closer together made of thicker/stronger metals (titanium for instance) etc.

Now, more recent aircraft are being made of composites. Those techniques are very different from aircraft made of metallic structures. If you're wondering why I picked the F15 to compare to the B17 it's because the B17 was originally designed and developed in the early 1930's while the F15 was developed in the early 1970's so it's a 40-ish year span. Close enough to the difference between the Belair and the Malibu with popular aircraft that people will recognize.

[Thulsa Doom]

I don't think there's any question that the Malibu is structurally superior. I just wonder if there was an engine in that Impala. Thinking that as easily as the sheet metal and frame contorted maybe a big ol engine block might have been the most structurally rigid thing in that car.

[The Anvil]

I don't think there's any question that the Malibu is structurally superior. I just wonder if there was an engine in that Impala. Thinking that as easily as the sheet metal and frame contorted maybe a big ol engine block might have been the most structurally rigid thing in that car.

Apparently it was a straight six, so very narrow. But remember that the engine's biggest asset in a crash like that is it's mass since they're attached to the frame in a relatively flimsy manner. It could even end up being a missile under certain conditions.

[czuch]

I need parts off that belair.

[..]

The worst part is, they took out a nice looking '59 Belair! :'(

I'd have run my '65 Chrysler Newport against that Malibu and cut thru it like a hot knife through butter.  It was a tank!

Notsomuch...

Thoughts on the Impala Crash - 1959 vs. 2009 V8TV

You see, there was a lot of space inside of those big old cars. Ever wonder WHY it is that today's cars are smaller yet the WEIGHT of the vehicles made today is actually much closer than it would seem? Your Newport would lose as madly as the Belair.

Seriously. Look up the curb weight of these old "tanks" versus today's cars. Today's cars are dense, carefully engineered vehicles. Those old "tanks" were made of thin sheetmetal and C section frame members (rarely if ever "boxed") with virtually NO thought to the safety of the occupants in a crash. Vestigial restraints, no air bags, no crumple zones, no reinforcement beams in the doors...

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that today's cars are worlds better than old Detroit iron.

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

Simple question

Answer my question

Quote from: jer0177 on Today at 02:06:06 PM
I call BS.

1.  That isn't a square collision (granted, not all collisions in the real world are square), but the Malibu hits the Belair outside the framerails.



Did you see the overhead video which starts at 1 min 20 secs? Methinks not.

[FPG52]

Hey Anvil,
Thanks for the insight... very interesting...appreciate your time and information
Frank

[RP#62]

So Anvil... Not because I disagree with you... But for my curiosity/general knowledge.  My dad was ground crew WWII for P51 and some 17's on his base.  Grew up reading about them and hearing great stories.  I am not an engineer but as salesman sell electronics into number Mil companies and appreciate  some technology I see. So... If you would explain the structure differences betweenF15 and the flying fortress I would love to hear it?

Well the techniques used in the building of the two are quite similar. Both are semi-monocoque designs with spar and rib wings. How the wing and fuselage are joined is different but the basics of construction are the same. The big difference between those two examples would be the material strength and the DENSITY of structure. In other words, stronger metals and more of it. More wing ribs closer together made of thicker/stronger metals (titanium for instance) etc.

Now, more recent aircraft are being made of composites. Those techniques are very different from aircraft made of metallic structures. If you're wondering why I picked the F15 to compare to the B17 it's because the B17 was originally designed and developed in the early 1930's while the F15 was developed in the early 1970's so it's a 40-ish year span. Close enough to the difference between the Belair and the Malibu with popular aircraft that people will recognize.

I was wondering about the choices. I was thinking a more appropriate comparison would have been aircraft with similar mission requirements, like an F86 and an F15, rather than compare a sports car with a truck.  But I see where you were going.
-RP

[The Anvil]

So Anvil... Not because I disagree with you... But for my curiosity/general knowledge.  My dad was ground crew WWII for P51 and some 17's on his base.  Grew up reading about them and hearing great stories.  I am not an engineer but as salesman sell electronics into number Mil companies and appreciate  some technology I see. So... If you would explain the structure differences betweenF15 and the flying fortress I would love to hear it?

Well the techniques used in the building of the two are quite similar. Both are semi-monocoque designs with spar and rib wings. How the wing and fuselage are joined is different but the basics of construction are the same. The big difference between those two examples would be the material strength and the DENSITY of structure. In other words, stronger metals and more of it. More wing ribs closer together made of thicker/stronger metals (titanium for instance) etc.

Now, more recent aircraft are being made of composites. Those techniques are very different from aircraft made of metallic structures. If you're wondering why I picked the F15 to compare to the B17 it's because the B17 was originally designed and developed in the early 1930's while the F15 was developed in the early 1970's so it's a 40-ish year span. Close enough to the difference between the Belair and the Malibu with popular aircraft that people will recognize.

I was wondering about the choices. I was thinking a more appropriate comparison would have been aircraft with similar mission requirements, like an F86 and an F15, rather than compare a sports car with a truck.  But I see where you were going.
-RP

Yeah I guess I could have put an F18 against an F6F but I was trying to illustrate the overall point that outright size does not equal strength.

[Full_Throttle]

The worst part is, they took out a nice looking '59 Belair! :'(

I'd have run my '65 Chrysler Newport against that Malibu and cut thru it like a hot knife through butter.  It was a tank!

Notsomuch...

Thoughts on the Impala Crash - 1959 vs. 2009 V8TV

You see, there was a lot of space inside of those big old cars. Ever wonder WHY it is that today's cars are smaller yet the WEIGHT of the vehicles made today is actually much closer than it would seem? Your Newport would lose as madly as the Belair.

Seriously. Look up the curb weight of these old "tanks" versus today's cars. Today's cars are dense, carefully engineered vehicles. Those old "tanks" were made of thin sheetmetal and C section frame members (rarely if ever "boxed") with virtually NO thought to the safety of the occupants in a crash. Vestigial restraints, no air bags, no crumple zones, no reinforcement beams in the doors...

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that today's cars are worlds better than old Detroit iron.

Anvil, I agree 100%.

What he said!

[Rams]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

While I do agree with Anvil, I don't really see a reason for the condescending remark.  A more appropriate response would have been an explanation similar to what others received.   It simply wasn't necessary to make the points.  I suspect there is more to the background on this than I am aware of but, if so, such reponses only tend to stoke the already hot furnace.

Folks could accept the explanation or not, their choice.   Just my opinon. 

Ron

[Bob E.]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that today's cars are worlds better than old Detroit iron.

Not that it has anything to do with crash tests, but I saw a head to head race of an old Dodge Daytona (the one with the pointy nose and big wing on the back) versus a new Dodge Grand Caravan on one of those parking lot street courses.  The Daytona got SPANKED!  It was pretty funny.  The Daytona definitely had more hp, but the handling and braking of the mini-van was so superior.  It wasn't even close.

[The Anvil]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

While I do agree with Anvil, I don't really see a reason for the condescending remark.  A more appropriate response would have been an explanation similar to what others received.   It simply wasn't necessary to make the points.  I suspect there is more to the background on this than I am aware of but, if so, such reponses only tend to stoke the already hot furnace.

Folks could accept the explanation or not, their choice.   Just my opinon. 

Ron

Well the remark about "trusting the NTHSA" was kind of condescending, wasn't it?

But you know what? You're right. I should have taken the high road. I apologize.

[3fan4life]

But you know what? You're right. I should have taken the high road. I apologize.

WOW,  It has finally happened....................................





There might be hope for you yet. 

[Rams]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.  

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

While I do agree with Anvil, I don't really see a reason for the condescending remark.  A more appropriate response would have been an explanation similar to what others received.   It simply wasn't necessary to make the points.  I suspect there is more to the background on this than I am aware of but, if so, such reponses only tend to stoke the already hot furnace.

Folks could accept the explanation or not, their choice.   Just my opinon.  

Ron

Well the remark about "trusting the NTHSA" was kind of condescending, wasn't it?

But you know what? You're right. I should have taken the high road. I apologize.

Although the inital response was not directed at or to me, I do appreciate this response and the effort.  Thank you, ride safe.

Ron

[bscrive]

I would still rather have the Belair, helluva lot nicer looking car.  Malibu's suck.

[The Anvil]

I would still rather have the Belair, helluva lot nicer looking car.  Malibu's suck.

Now see, THAT is an opinion I can understand. 

[3fan4life]

Safety standards have definitely improved in the last 40-50 years.

This is also why we have so many "Idiot" drivers on the road.

Years ago if you couldn't drive you succumbed to Darwin's law.



Then there are times that safety features have nothing to do with someone surviving a wreck, sometimes "Blind Luck" prevails:

Extra Footage of 675 wreck Car goes airborne 100 mph crash hits bridge caught in Ohio	powered by Aeva

   

[The Anvil]

When that car goes airborne trailing a cloud of dust am I the only one who hears a banjo?

"JUST TWO GOOD-OL' BOYS..."

[czuch]

I live in a points and condenser world. My Valk has carbs. Life is good.

[Serk]

I live in a points and condenser world.

I read about those once!

...in a history book...

 

[The Anvil]

I live in a points and condenser world.

I read about those once!

...in a history book...

 

Aeroplanes still use magnetos.   

[Patrick]

You live in a points and condensor world and ride a Valkyrie ??!! I've looked these bikes over pretty good over the past 15 or so years and I haven't found a set of points yet..    I guess I'll keep looking thou..  I know what you mean thou, I still use quite a few things that have those old pointy things..

[jer0177]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

Sorry for the delayed post - I've been out replacing a tail panel on my 1996 sedan which received $2800 worth of damage from a 5 - 10 mph rear end collision (from an uninsured, unlicensed driver), where my 1979 pickup has survived 30+mph hits with no damage (to it) whatsoever.

I'm not "some keyboard jockey living in the past" - I wasn't even alive when that Belair was made, and honestly, my parents weren't even driving yet, I just don't think that that Belair was in the same condition for the test as it was when it was made.  Nobody else has remarked about the cloud of rust dust that billows out from the '59 upon impact.  That, in my book, is an important detail.

[Serk]

Because we all know we can trust the NHTSA.   

I trust it more than I trust some keyboard jockey living in the past.

Sorry for the delayed post - I've been out replacing a tail panel on my 1996 sedan which received $2800 worth of damage from a 5 - 10 mph rear end collision (from an uninsured, unlicensed driver), where my 1979 pickup has survived 30+mph hits with no damage (to it) whatsoever.

I'm not "some keyboard jockey living in the past" - I wasn't even alive when that Belair was made, and honestly, my parents weren't even driving yet, I just don't think that that Belair was in the same condition for the test as it was when it was made.  Nobody else has remarked about the cloud of rust dust that billows out from the '59 upon impact.  That, in my book, is an important detail.

The difference being, the older vehicles might stay in better shape in a collision, but the occupants wouldn't. The damage to the vehicles involved is quite likely worse on a newer vehicle as opposed to an older one, as newer vehicles are designed to sacrifice themselves in order to protect the people in them...

Personally, I'd rather replace a vehicle then replace one or more occupants riding in it...

[The Anvil]

I'm not "some keyboard jockey living in the past" - I wasn't even alive when that Belair was made, and honestly, my parents weren't even driving yet, I just don't think that that Belair was in the same condition for the test as it was when it was made.  Nobody else has remarked about the cloud of rust dust that billows out from the '59 upon impact.  That, in my book, is an important detail.

I apologized for the keyboard jockey comment. That was over the line on my part.

Serk beat me to the point about the occupants. Modern vehicles sacrifice themselves for their occupants. Having lived through a 45mph collision (I hit the other vehicle it the right rear quarter destroying the front of my car) that totalled my Nissan Sentra I can tell you that it works.

But do you know that "cloud" to have been rust? I don't. A 50 year old car collects a lot of dirt and junk that could create that cloud in a collision. I'm sure corrosion existed (although it may have been a southwest car in which case it may have had virtually none) but it's by no means a given that it's "rust".

[Patrick]

I've been 'pulling' on vehicles my whole life.. Newer cars 'pull' a whole lot harder than the old ones.. Cars are built much better today than in the past.. That certainly doesn't mean I like working on the newer stuff.. The toughest frame I ever pulled was a 2009 ZO6 Corvette, I've never seen aluminum that tough..

[Jess from VA]

OUCH.... even if the Lexus driver survived the accident, she should not have survived the post-accident discussion with the owners of those two classic automobiles. 
.