Split thread: Older cars and safety

[Dr. Feelgood]

I wouldn't trade my Fairlane for the world, even if it's not the prettiest thing to look at, I love it to bits.

As for safety regulations, I would rather be in a severe crash in my car than any modern hatch-back. I guarantee the hatch would come off second-best in any scenario.

[Dr. Feelgood]

Also...

[imugli]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

I wouldn't trade my Fairlane for the world, even if it's not the prettiest thing to look at, I love it to bits.

As for safety regulations, I would rather be in a severe crash in my car than any modern hatch-back. I guarantee the hatch would come off second-best in any scenario.

You might wanna rethink that

Click here

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

I wouldn't trade my Fairlane for the world, even if it's not the prettiest thing to look at, I love it to bits.

As for safety regulations, I would rather be in a severe crash in my car than any modern hatch-back. I guarantee the hatch would come off second-best in any scenario.

Yes it would and the unharmed driver of the hatchback would be able to buy your Fairlane from the executor of your will after they hose the remains of your body out into your grave.

[Boosh Brus]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

As for safety regulations, I would rather be in a severe crash in my car than any modern hatch-back. I guarantee the hatch would come off second-best in any scenario.

Your fooling yourself. Airbags, crumple zones, seatbealt retention systems etc all save lives. I was watching a fifth gear episode the other day where they toured Volvo's crash center. Those new cars are seriously advanced.

[Dr. Feelgood]

That Bel-Air is almost 30 years older than my car, and getting hit by an SUV.

My original point stands of wanting to be in my car rather than a hatch-back.

[Boosh Brus]

Here is another new vs old crash test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs with an "old" car newer then yours.


back on topic: IMO the cash for clunkers things is just a poorly thought out waste of money though there is merit in getting the some of the older cars off the road.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

That Bel-Air is almost 30 years older than my car, and getting hit by an SUV.

My original point stands of wanting to be in my car rather than a hatch-back.

You don't seem to get it.

When you crash there is a huge amount of energy that must be dissipated.

In your fairlane the structure is rigid so therefore the energy is released over a short period.
In a bubblemobile the collapsing frame slows the energy release.

You are basicly a big blob of water with some skin on the outside and you slow down and release your energy at the same speed as the car (or you go through the windscreen).

The faster the energy release the more deformation on the soft bit (YOU)

I bought a 1977 Falcon new and drove 250,000 km in it. You are not old enough to remember the horrors of road smashes in the 70s.

The road toll now is very low compared to then despite there being hundreds of times more cars on the road and hundreds of times more crashes.

More crashes, less deaths and despite political opinion it is not speed cameras doing it.

[Carby]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes it would and the unharmed driver of the hatchback would be able to buy your Fairlane from the executor of your will after they hose the remains of your body out into your grave.

And why would he do that? Oh thats right the Hatch back would be a writeoff................

I don't particulary care for your graphic depiction of events but I certainly would not be dismissing the claim until the type of hatch back (eg Golf or Kia) was determined. I don't get too hyped up about 5 star safety as most people think if their little Cruze has five stars and hits a 5 star or 4 star 2.2 tonne SUV like the Audi Q7 they would have the same survival rates in a head on -I know which one I'd rather be in.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by Inducted_Breeze

Thats a pretty big call, and i would be happy to review some documentation demonstrating this claim. Even if it were true, what is the Net Return on Investment (ROI) for buying a new car over keeping an older car in terms of emissions. Sure it may require more emissions to initially produce a new car, but wouldn't the overall emissions usage be less for the new car after 10/15/20 years of use on the road? Over time, wouldn't the new car produce less emissions compared to an older car? I dont have these answers, i dont know how long it would take for a new car to break even and then better the emissions usage of an older car...just thinking out loud..

Yeah there isn't a lot of material on this, but what material is available shows that for the lifespan of a hybrid car (10 years) you would produce less carbon emissions in total if you bought a new h1 diesel hummer and drove that for 10 years.
I don't think you realise the level of pollution that comes from producing new vehicles, and I'm not limiting my definition of pollution to carbon dioxide like a lot of "leading scientists". You'll find that in many cases, and certainly for family size cars such as commodores and falcons, the pollution created in manufacturing all of the plastics, energy costs in welding + refining + moulding steel; is much more than the emissions saving in driving that car for 15 years instead of driving a car from 20 years prior.
In all but the most extreme cases you will actually cause less harm to the planet simply by maintaining an older vehicle rather than purchasing new vehicles and having your old one sent to landfill (which is where all the plastics will go, even if the steel is recycled).
But we live in a consumer society where fear reigns supreme, we all apparently want new shiny crap instead of getting our hands dirty. And a lot of people still somehow believe having a 5 star safety rated car will save their children when they act like idiots. The problem isn't the motor vehicle, its the idiot.

When it comes to solving safety hazards the best option is to remove the source of the hazard - which isn't the power or safety features of a car, its the one behind the wheel that causes ALL the problems.
"somebody think of the children!"

[xy500]

Originally Posted by flappist

You don't seem to get it.

When you crash there is a huge amount of energy that must be dissipated.

In your fairlane the structure is rigid so therefore the energy is released over a short period.
In a bubblemobile the collapsing frame slows the energy release.

You are basicly a big blob of water with some skin on the outside and you slow down and release your energy at the same speed as the car (or you go through the windscreen).

The faster the energy release the more deformation on the soft bit (YOU)

I bought a 1977 Falcon new and drove 250,000 km in it. You are not old enough to remember the horrors of road smashes in the 70s.

The road toll now is very low compared to then despite there being hundreds of times more cars on the road and hundreds of times more crashes.

More crashes, less deaths and despite political opinion it is not speed cameras doing it.

You're forgetting the most important factor in two vehicle collisions, MASS.
the car with more mass will have less resultant acceleration from the same force (f=m.a) therefore if both vehicles receive the same force, the heavier fairlane will have less acceleration which means less change of velocity. For example if the fairlane weighs close to 2 tonnes, and the hatchback weighs closer to 1 tonne, the hatchback will have twice the acceleration on it than the fairlane. This means less risk of injury. Haven't you wondered why four wheel drives when they crash with a smaller vehicle, the driver walks away while the smaller car is obliterated. The same goes for a truck versus car.

I fail to see where you get your information on the collapsibility of a fairlane versus a hatchback. You'll find a fairlane has much larger crumple zones than almost any hatch.

[JimNiki]

Originally Posted by imugli

You might wanna rethink that

Click here

I was gonna agree with the other guy until I say this clip!
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it...

[imugli]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

That Bel-Air is almost 30 years older than my car, and getting hit by an SUV.

My original point stands of wanting to be in my car rather than a hatch-back.

The "SUV" is a current model Chevy Malibu. That's OK. Hard to tell the difference

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xy500

You're forgetting the most important factor in two vehicle collisions, MASS.
the car with more mass will have less resultant acceleration from the same force (f=m.a) therefore if both vehicles receive the same force, the heavier fairlane will have less acceleration which means less change of velocity. For example if the fairlane weighs close to 2 tonnes, and the hatchback weighs closer to 1 tonne, the hatchback will have twice the acceleration on it than the fairlane. This means less risk of injury. Haven't you wondered why four wheel drives when they crash with a smaller vehicle, the driver walks away while the smaller car is obliterated. The same goes for a truck versus car.

I fail to see where you get your information on the collapsibility of a fairlane versus a hatchback. You'll find a fairlane has much larger crumple zones than almost any hatch.

a 1977 fairlane?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Carby

And why would he do that? Oh thats right the Hatch back would be a writeoff................

I'd rather be without my Fiesta instead of chillin' in the Cemetary.

[imugli]

And here's 5th Gear crashing a Smart into a concrete wall to prove the theory...here

[xy500]

Originally Posted by imugli

And here's 5th Gear crashing a Smart into a concrete wall to prove the theory...here

you can be in an impervious steel box and get thrown into a wall and say it was all fine because the box survived, let us know how that turns out for you... I'd prefer the box with added padding.

[TheZHLANE]

Originally Posted by Dr. Feelgood

I wouldn't trade my Fairlane for the world, even if it's not the prettiest thing to look at, I love it to bits.

As for safety regulations, I would rather be in a severe crash in my car than any modern hatch-back. I guarantee the hatch would come off second-best in any scenario.

good ol fairlanes

[Bucknaked]

I watched a doco on where they crash tested cars from the 60's and cars from the modern era. People may think they are safe in their good old solid cars from the 70's, buit I'd sooner be in a new car. The bit I like was to do with the dash and the steering column. In the old car the steering didn't collapse, it became a spear and the drivers head became impailed. The dash in the old car bent in towards the cabin and split so it formed a wedge slicing open the occupants head when it collided with the dash. The old cars did not have seat belts.

I'll take my modern car any day. Crumple zones, airbags an safety cell compared to a metal cofin. People are dillusional if they think they'd sooner be in a an accident in a car built in the 60's and 70's when modern technology and advances in safety have saved lives in our new cars.

[reds89]

5 star buzz box bounce of my lpg guzzling, to big for parking lots politically incorrect,no way would i part with it for a lousy 2grand F150.buzz box stays i drive away.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

I watched a doco on where they crash tested cars from the 60's and cars from the modern era. People may think they are safe in their good old solid cars from the 70's, buit I'd sooner be in a new car. The bit I like was to do with the dash and the steering column. In the old car the steering didn't collapse, it became a spear and the drivers head became impailed. The dash in the old car bent in towards the cabin and split so it formed a wedge slicing open the occupants head when it collided with the dash. The old cars did not have seat belts.

I'll take my modern car any day. Crumple zones, airbags an safety cell compared to a metal cofin. People are dillusional if they think they'd sooner be in a an accident in a car built in the 60's and 70's when modern technology and advances in safety have saved lives in our new cars.

while your at it, why not rip on model T's. Once rolled you were crushed.
You'll find most people who own these cars have fitted seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, radial tyres and other various safety features. If you think they're still driving around running on motor spirit with a fellow waving a red flag in front of them you're more likely "delusional"

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

I watched a doco on where they crash tested cars from the 60's and cars from the modern era. People may think they are safe in their good old solid cars from the 70's, buit I'd sooner be in a new car. The bit I like was to do with the dash and the steering column. In the old car the steering didn't collapse, it became a spear and the drivers head became impailed. The dash in the old car bent in towards the cabin and split so it formed a wedge slicing open the occupants head when it collided with the dash. The old cars did not have seat belts.

I'll take my modern car any day. Crumple zones, airbags an safety cell compared to a metal cofin. People are dillusional if they think they'd sooner be in a an accident in a car built in the 60's and 70's when modern technology and advances in safety have saved lives in our new cars.

+1 Whatever reasons people have for preferring new over old, or old over new etc etc etc it's undeniable that modern cars are way safer to be in come crash time.

This doesn't mean classics are death traps that should be taken off their owners, and it doesnt invalidate their love for them!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by patxbcoupe

Well, I'm glad that this his pretty much stayed on track this time. i still stand by my comments regarding the amount of emmissions released and heavy metals etc used especially in the manufacture of hybrid battery packs.
The point here was never to debate the crashworthiness of new cars versus old cars, or to criticise or pick holes in one anothers opinions,
The main concern I and heaps of my freinds have, is the erosion of more of our FREEDOM to make CHOICES based on our own financial, practical or personal reasons.

Freedom of choice.....interesting concept.

A few years ago I chose to:

Hunt with a semi auto rifle.
Camp and make a fire on a public beach.
Drink beer on a beach or in a park.
Ride unrigestered motorcycles in forestry and on crown land.
Fish anywhere I felt like it.
Build a shed on my property without filling out 1000 forms waithing 6 months for permission.
Work on my car in the street.
Advertise my car for sale on my footpath.
Drive at 200km/h on public roads (legally).
Drive with a BAC of 0.079 (legally)
Drive with a BAC of 0.149 (legally)
etc. etc.

Can't do any of this now. Do gooders have saved me from it.....

Now if anyone thinks any of the above are wrong and it is a good thing that they are all illegal now just remember there are lots of people out there who think that performance vehicles and old cars are a danger on the road and should be banned.
If you think that banning the above is right how can they not also be right........

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by flappist

A few years ago I chose to:

Hunt with a semi auto rifle.
Camp and make a fire on a public beach.
Drink beer on a beach or in a park.
Ride unrigestered motorcycles in forestry and on crown land.
Fish anywhere I felt like it.
Build a shed on my property without filling out 1000 forms waithing 6 months for permission.
Work on my car in the street.
Advertise my car for sale on my footpath.
Drive at 200km/h on public roads (legally).
Drive with a BAC of 0.079 (legally)
Drive with a BAC of 0.149 (legally)
etc. etc.

I cant believe you so recklessly endangered yourself and others by doing all that and actually survived

[Carby]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I'd rather be without my Fiesta instead of chillin' in the Cemetary.

Nothing but pure conjecture.........

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by flappist

Build a shed on my property without filling out 1000 forms waithing 6 months for permission.

If you are Rural and NSW, you can build a shed up to 3x3m without a permit.

[Bearman]

Originally Posted by flappist

Freedom of choice.....interesting concept.

A few years ago I chose to:

Hunt with a semi auto rifle.
Camp and make a fire on a public beach.
Drink beer on a beach or in a park.
Ride unrigestered motorcycles in forestry and on crown land.
Fish anywhere I felt like it.
Build a shed on my property without filling out 1000 forms waithing 6 months for permission.
Work on my car in the street.
Advertise my car for sale on my footpath.
Drive at 200km/h on public roads (legally).
Drive with a BAC of 0.079 (legally)
Drive with a BAC of 0.149 (legally)
etc. etc.

Can't do any of this now. Do gooders have saved me from it.....

Now if anyone thinks any of the above are wrong and it is a good thing that they are all illegal now just remember there are lots of people out there who think that performance vehicles and old cars are a danger on the road and should be banned.
If you think that banning the above is right how can they not also be right........

That last paragraph is right on the money!! Nanny-State-ism?? Yeah, but when I see an old mazda 323 chugging along belching Blue smoke I think "why can't someone legislate that thing off the road" as per the mooted clunker rebate or even the Japanese system. Then I realise two things:
1) The owner of said Mazda 323, even with the "clunker" rebate may not be able to afford one of the cars that subsidy would apply to and
2) Such a law could also put my Coupe off the road.

What we need is for the Police and EPA being more vigilant on ensuring the clunkers are fit to be on the road and ease up on the enthusiast. Will it happen? Only if Governments can make money out of it.

[noosacuda]

Scary crap here..... NOTHING IS SAFE!
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/...er-disables-it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmvkL...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiORh...eature=related

[Kryton]

Yeah old cars were so safe that manufacturers just decided to throw billions of dollars into advanced safety for the hell of it.
If anyone seriously thinks their rusted out (and probably full of bog) clunker is safer than a modern car, your dreaming.

[JimNiki]

Originally Posted by imugli

And here's 5th Gear crashing a Smart into a concrete wall to prove the theory...here

very impressive ...
the conclusion without a shadow of a doubt is that the heavier the vehicle you are in, the more chance of surviving...

Newtons second law wins every time...