The Good the Bad and the Ugly.

[st4]

It doesn't do much for the image of alternative fuelled transport.

I'd go one further and say it damages it. Once the market place is presented with a decent electric vehicle it will respond, but the GWiz will/has done damage to peoples perception of electric cars.

Whilst the G Wiz is a quadircylce, its primarily used as a car, and is perceived to be a car so in terms of marketability, its a flop.

As for your point about a bus, fair cop, but it will do more damage to a pedestrian on impact, given its shape and mass, and if it hits a car, it will probably do more damage too.

I have a friend of a friend who's vectra was hit by a bus and they were hopitalised with serious injuries, and the police officer told them if it had been a car or even a 4x4 the damage would not have been as great.

 

[st4]

An image.
All high value cars carry a much greater profit margin than lower value ones. In reality one is paying for image, a bit of additional luxury and a lot of additional air.

The reason why the floor ruptures is the same reason the Q7 punched through the 500. The longitudinal member doesn't collapse properly and acts as a battering ram. If it can't batter by going forwards it has to go backwards.
The Fiat is actually a better design as it does collapse properly and also has a frontal cage to spread the forces to both sides of the car, thus reducing rearward intrusion.

So, which you'd you rather be in a high speed crash in (70mph), Q7 or Fiat 500.

 

[Dieselman]

So, which you'd you rather be in a high speed crash in (70mph), Q7 or Fiat 500.

I don't know the answer to that. The 500 actually has better resistance to passenger cell intrusion than the Q7.
Don't be fooled by size being the be all and end all.

 

[nick mercedes]

It doesn't work like that for a few reasons. Busses are full commercial vehicles and are regulated as such, including a higher level driving test and ongoing training, they travel a lot slower and there are a lot less of them on the roads.
Also due to their shape they have large flat areas with solid flat sections behind them, which would help another vehicle in a crash situation.

Dunno about that, with a bus or a coach you have the chassis, and then wood or fibreglass built on top, so any car will be at about the right height to get the full force of the chassis...

 

[Ade B]

Is the Gwiz a flop? There's loads of them around London and they make a lot of sense - cheap to run, easy and free to park and congestion zone proof. Its only so called petrol heads who hate them (and people who watch Topgear).

I personally don't get the huge 4x4 thing at all.. oversize cars for 'large' people.


Ade

 

[Dieselman]

Dunno about that, with a bus or a coach you have the chassis, and then wood or fibreglass built on top, so any car will be at about the right height to get the full force of the chassis...

Won't eh chassis act more like a solid wall than a battering ram.?

I did mention that a bus is a commercial vehicle and treated as such. If size is a problem should we ban lorries, say anything above 5 tonne GVW.? of course not, but they are fewer in number and better regulated.

 

[nick mercedes]

Won't eh chassis act more like a solid wall than a battering ram.?

Cars tend to brake before impact and thus dive underneath, getting impaled on the hard bits...

 

[st4]

Won't eh chassis act more like a solid wall than a battering ram.?

I did mention that a bus is a commercial vehicle and treated as such. If size is a problem should we ban lorries, say anything above 5 tonne GVW.? of course not, but they are fewer in number and better regulated.

Right, so if I took an HGV test then I could drive SUV legitimately in the eyes of DM then?

I always thought driving licences could be banded and like a bike licence you get a big car test, and that mean big cars couldn't just fall into the hands of those without any ability to drive. It might seem overly regulated but they do it for motorbikes.

 

[Dieselman]

Right, so if I took an HGV test then I could drive SUV legitimately in the eyes of DM then?

Can you point me in the direction of where I've said that please.

This is when these discussions start getting a bit silly, when we lose sight of reality and twist what is said.

If you want a 4x4 have one, but they are more dangerous to other road users.
My initial comment was a joke, which Marcos got.

I do however find the attitude of some 4x4 drivers a bit odd, in that they know their vehicle is safer for them and more dangerous for other road users, but that's ok. Really..Nice..! In my opinion it doesn't show a great deal of maturity

 

[raymont]

Crockers is correct when he states that results can only be compared within class.

This is explained here:

http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web....aspx#faqf6e05c00-233b-438a-b41e-a4b02f4f2873

 

[RedDog]

..........In my opinion it doesn't show a great deal of maturity....

No.....but it shows a better sense of survival.

 

[grober]

I posted this because I wanted to stimulate a bit of discussion on the relevance of Euro NCAP safety ratings to real vehicle collisions. You can see the value of a standardised type test-40% offset collision into a deformable barrier at 64kph- in that its the same for all manufacturers vehicles presented for test. Together with the standardised side impact and pole test the disadvantage of a standardised test is that cars can be specifically designed to achieve good ratings for that particular situation/speed/test. Some car manufacturers prefer to develop their safety based on true car/car collisions on test rigs or by analysis of real world collisions. http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Page/3f3d8746-9a26-4201-8838-9d529274cada/technical-papers.aspx Saab is one company that uses this approach- It appears to be an effective as demonstrated by Saab's normally high ratings in the NCAP tests.

So far Euro NCAP tests to date have focused on the ability of individual cars to protect their occupants. I predict however that the next focus of attention may well be an additional complete reversal of this approach where cars will be assessed on their capacity to injure the occupants of other cars. This approach has already been hinted at with the new pedestrian impact ratings -active safety and the recommended inclusion of ESC (electronic stability control) -passive safety. The test on video conducted by ADAC may mean other motoring organisations are already actively considering this new approach.

 

[fuzzer]

No substitute for plenty of mass to absorb the impact.

Crumple zones are fine but if there's only a few inches to crumple you're not going to come out of it well.

Smart cars also have a '4' rating but you wouldn't get me in one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhVXD8WVMm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnVNUvixWUQ&feature=related

 

[Defiant]

Let's feed that troop transport to a Peterbilt and see how rough and tough it is.

Crash testing is asinine.

 

[grober]

Crash testing is asinine?

And crashes between vehicles of different sizes/weights don't occur in your world ? Or perhaps you think that the excruciating pain, lifelong disability and death in motor vehicle collisions is something that can't be effectively addressed by imaginative engineering? Lets forget about safety developments we all take for granted that came from crash testing like vehicle crumple zones, safety cells, seat belts, airbags, belt tensioners, anti-whiplash head restraints, curtain airbags, child safety seats, because,---- to quote a well known phrase ------
SH** HAPPENS.

Sorry got to disagree. I'm not in favour of staging crashes simply for spectacle which is maybe what your talking about?? but the test collision on the video was obviously a careful experiment from which some valuable and perhaps some "uncomfortable " data emerged.

 

[janner]

Just goes to show that small cars are unsafe. People who can't afford 4x4s should all take the bus.

 

[Dragon]

4x4 are meant to survive hitting a bull or a kangaroo.

Then why is the Government encouraging us to buy green small cars? They want us dead and have more accidents. Another U turn for government decision. :bannana:

 

[Dieselman]

4x4 are meant to survive hitting a bull or a kangaroo.

Then why is the Government encouraging us to buy green small cars? They want us dead and have more accidents. Another U turn for government decision.

What on Earth has the Government got to do with crashing a Q7 into a 500..??

Please stop your anti establishment, political posts polluting all the threads on this forum. Not only is it against the rules, it's really....AND I MEAN REALLY...tedious.

And I've deleted your Nana as it certainly isn't a post to be jubilant about.

 

[st4]

i think the smart car did okay, but wouldn't a W211 or W204 or even ML or GL do better.

 

[st4]

Can you point me in the direction of where I've said that please.

I assumed by saying that buses and HGV's required an additional test and regulation that this was an angle you were taking. To be honest a land rover discovery with a trailer and 5 people on board would be be verging on this regulation anyway.

This is when these discussions start getting a bit silly, when we lose sight of reality and twist what is said.

Maybe a bit silly but as discussions develop we do go a bit off topic. I haven't twisted anything any more than anyone else.

I wouldn't mind discussing the merits of a "big car" test and this thread and your post about 4x4's being banned did provide the opportunity.

If you want a 4x4 have one, but they are more dangerous to other road users.

I had two, they had definite pluses, but not for someone in my personal and financial situation. At least we have a choice and that they won't be banned. They are more dangerous to their occupants in another way. I believe they are 4 times as likely to roll over in a crash than a conventional car.

However the visibilty afforded by a 4x4 does allow for a slightly better level of anticipation in avoiding a crash in the first place.

There is also a practical element, and being taller they are easier for familes to load children in and out of and the boot is a better height for placing things in. As I have an iffy back I found the X5 much more easy to put things in the boot than the E class.

My initial comment was a joke, which Marcos got.

I didn't, but I thought you were throwing a spanner into the works. You succeeded and at least a decent debate has come around.

I do however find the attitude of some 4x4 drivers a bit odd, in that they know their vehicle is safer for them and more dangerous for other road users, but that's ok. Really..Nice..! In my opinion it doesn't show a great deal of maturity

Maturity is the wrong word, it shows the "I am alright jack too bad about you attitude".

Again if you were going to be crashing into a car, would you want to be in the Q7 or the Fiat 500. A lot of collisions involve other cars, and at the time of a crash your primary concern will be about you. A SUV will give you the better chances as that video showed. Who'd you rather be in that crash, the Q7 or the Fiat driver.

SUV=mankinds primary instinct, a sense of self preservation.