Another common belief is that older cars are more crash-resistant than modern cars, with varying explanations. I’m not sure about this but I suspect the belief is very wrong, as can be evidenced by this crash test between a 1959 Chevy and 2009 Chevy.
My understanding is that old cars were made of stronger materials that deform less on impact. As a result, it was the content of the car who deformed on impact. The new cars are made less resistant so that the users have better chances to survive an impact. This is a definite progress (and a good excuse for making non-durable cars). In 1999 the new trend was already started. Try a 1960′ or 1980′ car.
The video makes it really hard to tell exactly what’s going on (particularly annoying is the bit at 1:32 where they show an overhead view, which would let us see what’s happening to each car without bits of the other one being in the way—and then cut away from it to yet another nigh-incomprehensible side view at the instant of contact.
But I think there are two things going on here: the newer car has a slightly more squashable front portion, and a much less squashable passenger compartment.
In a head-on collision between the cars, the former doesn’t do much to make the newer car look better (though it does make the collision less bad for the occupants of both vehicles) because what’s happening is that energy that would otherwise be used for crushing both drivers is used for crushing the newer car’s front part instead.
So part-way through 0:29 you can (I think) see that the newer car’s front has scrunched up more. But there’s still enough kinetic energy, or momentum, or whatever the relevant quantity actually is here, to keep scrunching. As we go through 0:30, the front of the older car also gets crushed. But so does the passenger compartment of the older car, whereas the passenger compartment of the newer car remains largely intact.
So the newer car
has a front portion that can absorb more energy by crumpling, which helps reduce the (other) damage to both cars
has a stronger and more rigid passenger compartment, so that once the crash has proceeded far enough that the next thing that has to go is either the front of the older car or the passenger compartment of the newer car, it’s the front of the older car that goes.
Older cars are more resistant to low-speed collisions than new cars. In a low-speed collision you can often have a new car totaled where an older car would have been fine.
(There was a period where there were US regulations requiring low-speed crashes to not cause significant damage, for one. 1970s or so. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 I believe.))
In higher-speed collisions newer cars are significantly better at keeping the passenger compartment intact than older cars, where things would fail in a haphazard fashion once things do start buckling.
Another common belief is that older cars are more crash-resistant than modern cars, with varying explanations. I’m not sure about this but I suspect the belief is very wrong, as can be evidenced by this crash test between a 1959 Chevy and 2009 Chevy.
My understanding is that old cars were made of stronger materials that deform less on impact. As a result, it was the content of the car who deformed on impact. The new cars are made less resistant so that the users have better chances to survive an impact. This is a definite progress (and a good excuse for making non-durable cars). In 1999 the new trend was already started. Try a 1960′ or 1980′ car.
I think that model would not predict the result at 0:06, fwiw.
The video makes it really hard to tell exactly what’s going on (particularly annoying is the bit at 1:32 where they show an overhead view, which would let us see what’s happening to each car without bits of the other one being in the way—and then cut away from it to yet another nigh-incomprehensible side view at the instant of contact.
But I think there are two things going on here: the newer car has a slightly more squashable front portion, and a much less squashable passenger compartment.
In a head-on collision between the cars, the former doesn’t do much to make the newer car look better (though it does make the collision less bad for the occupants of both vehicles) because what’s happening is that energy that would otherwise be used for crushing both drivers is used for crushing the newer car’s front part instead.
So part-way through 0:29 you can (I think) see that the newer car’s front has scrunched up more. But there’s still enough kinetic energy, or momentum, or whatever the relevant quantity actually is here, to keep scrunching. As we go through 0:30, the front of the older car also gets crushed. But so does the passenger compartment of the older car, whereas the passenger compartment of the newer car remains largely intact.
So the newer car
has a front portion that can absorb more energy by crumpling, which helps reduce the (other) damage to both cars
has a stronger and more rigid passenger compartment, so that once the crash has proceeded far enough that the next thing that has to go is either the front of the older car or the passenger compartment of the newer car, it’s the front of the older car that goes.
Thanks, appreciate the diagnosis!
Well now I’m confused.
Older cars are more resistant to low-speed collisions than new cars. In a low-speed collision you can often have a new car totaled where an older car would have been fine.
(There was a period where there were US regulations requiring low-speed crashes to not cause significant damage, for one. 1970s or so. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215 I believe.))
In higher-speed collisions newer cars are significantly better at keeping the passenger compartment intact than older cars, where things would fail in a haphazard fashion once things do start buckling.