mmarshall

Sometimes it flies and sometimes it doesn't. Even with computer-design, lighter doesn't always mean stronger....especially if you aren't using super-expensive materials like titanium.

One of the main reasons we're seeing lighter-weight parts in vehicles is an attempt to get mileage up...brought on by the upcoming CAFE standards. I personally think that, while there's nothing wrong with getting good mileage, the latest requirements have simply gotten out of hand. Politicians seem to think that all they have to do is wave a magic legislative-wand and cars will simply transform, like magic, into what they want.

I'm getting a little off-topic, though...the issue is small-SUV crash-protection.

mitsuguy

iTrader: (2)

Though generally thought true, not quite...

Two cars travelling 20 mph each does not equal one car hitting an immogable object at 40 mph. Both cars absorb their own portion of the impact, so its like hitting an immovable object at whatever speed they are travelling, so long as they are travelling the same speed... if they arent travelling the same speed, add their speeds, divide by 2 and they get equal amounts of force...

Big Andy

Forget titanium, find out about the use of ultra high strength, low alloy steels and boron steels used by major manufacturers now. Lighter and stronger than the cheap steels used by auto makers in the past they have revolutionised the crash performance of vehicles.

ydooby

This is getting embarrassing. Asking for a delay only to "improve" to a Poor rating!!?? WTF are the Toyota engineers doing? As a Toyota loyalist I find it harder and harder to defend for Toyota in other forums by the day. NOT A SINGLE ONE of the Toyota/Lexus models has got anything better than POOR in the small frontal overlap test to this date. NOT GOOD, ACCEPTABLE, OR EVEN MARGINAL, BUT POOR, ACROSS THE BOARD, FROM TOYOTA TO LEXUS! STOP cost cutting and engineering your cars only to barely pass the existing standards Toyota. This is absolutely unacceptable.



http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr071113.html

Redesigned Toyota RAV4 earns poor rating in small overlap test

Toyota RAV4 earns poor rating in small overlap front crash test

ARLINGTON, Va. — The 2013 Toyota RAV4, a small SUV, earns a poor rating for performance in the IIHS small overlap front crash test.

Toyota redesigned the RAV4 for the 2013 model year. The automaker made additional changes to models built after April to better control the stability of the steering column and to provide extra padding under the footwell carpeting.

The changes, however, weren't enough to lift the RAV4's performance in the small overlap test. A combination of poor structure and inadequate control of the dummy's movement prevented the RAV4 from earning better than a poor rating overall.

The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure, and the dummy's left foot was trapped by crushed and buckled sheet metal in the footwell. Injury measures on the dummy indicated a high risk of injury to the lower left leg. The dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved more than 7 inches to the right, resulting in little airbag cushioning for the chest. Additionally, the safety belt allowed excessive forward movement of the dummy's head and torso, contributing to the head hitting the instrument panel.

IIHS in May released results for 13 other small SUVs but delayed testing the RAV4 because Toyota was making changes to the redesigned model. If design changes are imminent, the Institute delays tests to ensure that IIHS ratings don't soon become obsolete. The practice also encourages automakers to improve designs more quickly.

In the earlier tests of small SUVs, only the Subaru Forester and Mitsubishi Outlander Sport earned a good or acceptable rating for occupant protection in a small overlap crash and qualified for the IIHS TOP SAFETY PICK+ designation. Eleven other small SUVs are rated marginal or poor (see full ratings here).

"This is a challenging test," says Institute President Adrian Lund. "Most manufacturers are going to need to make significant changes to their vehicles in order to improve protection in these kinds of serious frontal crashes."

The Institute added the small overlap test to its lineup of vehicle safety evaluations last year. It replicates what happens when the front corner of a vehicle strikes another vehicle or an object like a tree or a utility pole. In the test, 25 percent of a vehicle's front end on the driver side strikes a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 mph. A 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy is belted in the driver seat.

The 2013 RAV4 previously earned the TOP SAFETY PICK award for good ratings in the Institute's four other tests — moderate overlap front, side, rollover and rear.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Toyota just won most innovation patents for the year. Didn't any of them include safety?! This really is just terrible. Love my IS but that worries me a bit

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

This type of test or actually hitting a tree or utility pole in real life? I know a lot of accidents where people hit poles and tress. I fell asleep briefly and almost hit a pole when I was a teenager. Lucky my friend woke me up. We report on a lot of accidents where people die because they hit a tree. A classmate of mine died after the driver hit a tree failing to negotiate a turn. I think it happens all the time.

Stormwind

This is like 1997 again when iihs came out with 40 mph frontal offset crash test almost every single brand failed the test. Except for mercedes bmw and lexus. I'd give it a good 10 years before every brand catches up with this new test.

Fizzboy7

It's more like if you hit those things, but only with the front left side of the car. The odds of this happening in a front end collision are slim. First, it has to be a small object and not another car (most people hit other cars). Second, it has to be at the corner of the car (more crashes involve the entire front end). Third, it has to be on the driver's side. Considering the thickness of a pole or tree, and out of all the frontal space of a vehicle, the chances of that object striking the driver's front corner location is less than 10%.
This test will help raise the bar for more safety, but it will be advertised erroneously and over-scare most people who hear it.

ydooby

Actually this test is intended to simulate a scenario that happens often in real life, namely a head-on collision from an oncoming lane. It happens all the time that some drivers get distracted by phone, texting or fatigue and sway from their lanes, and when it happens to be on the inside lane without a divider from the oncoming lane, they can crash into an oncoming car with just a small frontal overlap, particularly if any of the two cars try to avoid a full frontal collision by swerving away but just failing to do so completely in the dying moments, which should naturally happen because at that point you can't expect anyone to try to steer the car into a full frontal collision instead just by remembering it's more likely to survive in a full frontal crash.

IIHS does this because they've seen many fatal accidents like these as they say, and I agree that it is a very likely scenario.

Fizzboy7

Head-ons happen, but not as often. T-bones, rear-enders, and swide-swipes are more common.

Sulu

The older 40% overlap front crash test was already supposed to simulate what they say is the most likely scenario (two cars, in different lanes, approaching each other), and it is the scenario used by the European and Australian testing agencies, and the American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This new test is a much harder to pass 25% overlap front crash test. The reason that the 40% offset test is what the IIHS and the other major testing agencies (Europe and Australia) use is because that is claimed to be the most likely type of accident to happen.

The American government's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration however, does not use this 40% overlap test but continues to use the full-on (100%) test, which other agencies claim is a less-likely scenario.

The NHTSA changed their test protocol a year or so ago (but still using the full-on, head-to-head test) to make it tougher, because, so they say, many automakers are now doing well in those old tests. So, if manufacturers are doing well (designing and producing safe cars), they ARTIFICIALLY make the tests harder to pass?

Is that what the IIHS is doing also? More and more automakers are doing well in their internationally-recognized 40% offset front crash tests, so they design a test that is harder to pass (25% overlap)? Does the scenario being tested happen often in real life? I don't know; I am just speculating.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

make the tests harder and harder so insurance rates can be kept high... no, surely not.

ydooby

Yes, but because these types of accidents happen more often they actually result in less fatality these days since a lot of efforts have been put into making cars safer in these situations. Small frontal overlap collisions on the other hand, currently make up around 25% of total fatal car accidents according IIHS, so by improving safety standard in this regard the total fatality rate can be reduced significantly.

MPLexus301

iTrader: (3)

^Good post, Sulu. There is a lot of different information out there about this crash test, and from what I have seen, what you posted is most accurate.

I am somewhat surprised that the CR-V did not do better with Honda's new architecture that has some type of sub frame that extends to the front of the car and in front of the engine. I forget the name of it.

Anyway, I knew about this test and quite frankly expected these results before deciding to purchase the Rav4. Coming from a car with architecture dating back to 1997, I am going to be in a safer vehicle no matter what. I applaud Subaru's efforts and standout performance, and Mazda's place as runner up. Congrats to both. I also applaud the IIHS's efforts to continue making crash testing more strenuous - it saves lives and benefits consumers.

With all of that said, I am not concerned about the Rav4's performance in this test, with all other things considered.

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

Lesson learned: don't hit trees or utility poles.


And don't let trees and utility poles hit you!


Cars are dangerous. I'm gonna ride my motorcycle more often now...