By Robert Emslie[youtube width=”720″ height=”514″]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk5cp93zefk[/youtube]
You know, there’s one aspect of our automobiles and trucks that all of us never like to consider, but which still remains in the backs of all of or minds, and this is how our vehicle might hold up in a significant crash. Fortunately there are people – notably the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety or IIHS – who not only take these aspects of auto operation into account, they are also cool enough to slo-mo video the work that they do.
Now, I will admit to being hypnotized by these 40-mph off-set crash tests. The flying mirrors, shock waves rippling through steel bodies, and complex crash test dummies ping-ponging around the interiors at 500 frames per second are strangely mesmerizing. Despite the deconstructive art inherent in these car vs concrete battles, there are still ones that simply make you catch your breath as some vehicle meets its end in a particularly ignominious and alarming manner.
One thing’s for certain, no matter what the car or truck, I would never want to trade places with one of those crash test dummies. Still, while most cars and trucks these days perform admirably, there are those that do call into question their engineers’ dedication, and or sobriety. Those are the ones that I’m interested in today, the really scary ones. Have you ever seen a crash test video that really scared the crap out of you and possibly made you think twice about ever setting foot inside that particular model? What’s the most alarming crash test video you’ve ever seen?
Lede video source: YouTube
Kamil Kaluski 
Jeff Glucker
This Army Jeep crash test with the flying arm. [youtube tI__i6Exzw0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI__i6Exzw0 youtube]
Flying arms galore
[youtube XHFsmsGPDVc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHFsmsGPDVc youtube]
Is it hilarious or horrific?
It's both. Was going to post this one. I cringe and laugh every time I see it, with two different parts of my brain.
Likewise, on both counts, actually.
I'm curious what they were aiming to prove by not buckling any of them in…
We still, in 2013 no less, need ammunition against that boob that thinks they'd rather be thrown clear than trapped in the wreckage.
[youtube tWe4pC-zbMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWe4pC-zbMw youtube]
No kidding.
Is he… reaching down to pick-up his hat?
However…landed on the wheels…can it finish the stage?
<DIV> <DIV>Landing on its wheels is amazing.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>/good morning!</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
[youtube INsrUGV3rww http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INsrUGV3rww youtube]
Geely
Exactly the one I thought of when I read the headline.
On every Geely, weaponized crumple zones are a built-in feature!
Volkswagen Vanagon Crew Cab:
http://youtu.be/TPpU5azjCB8
Not a real crash test. They were testing the machine that does the crash test. This was an old used truck with a large concrete block in the back, being run at twice the normal test speed.
Huh, I didn't know that. Certainly adds some perspective to things, but it's still an impressive video.
Kind of glad to hear that as I've always liked these. Just have to make sure I'm not carrying concrete blocks if I get one.
Also, avoid driving 80 mph into solid concrete walls.
All it really needed was to have the spare mounted to the front, for that extra safety.
And don't forget the squished remains of insects layered all over the front: http://www.cartalk.com/content/volkswagen-bus
I wish I could find it now, but it's a 1961 Chevy hitting a light pole. The Chevy hits the pole head-on, and the pole goes about 3/4 of the way through the car. Unreal.
[youtube fPF4fBGNK0U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U youtube]
This is pretty eye opening for those who think big old boat cars were safer because there's a ton of metal in them.
I really think that all they accomplished was proving that the x frame wasn't the greatest idea, especially in an offset collision.
I would like to see the same test with the traditional 4 pretty much straight frame rail car. Not saying it would be great, but I don't think it would fold in the middle like the Bel Air did.
I agree. I would like to see a post crash shot of the underside of the Bel Air, if it exists. I have the impression that the offset crash nailed the left front frame rail, and the momentum of the rest of the car caused the frame to bend around the X. It would explain how the floor buckles under the driver, pushing the driver towards the roof, while on the passenger side of the car the front fender is pulled away from the door and the gap widens between the doors at the B pillar.
Plus how hard the passenger side front wheel turns after impact. The steering wheel didn't really seem to turn, but that wheel jerked hard. I would think the impact would have broken the linkage but I'm just guessing.
Wow. I used to be one of those who thought older cars were safer. Not anymore. Did you see how much damage was in the cabin of the Bel Air vs the new Malibu?!
Watch the video closely, and you can see the air cleaner fly out of the '59. It's a six-banger three-on-the-tree car. Oh, and fuzzy dice FTW. After I saw that test, I wanted some better still photos, so I emailed IIHS, and they sent me a link to download some excellent hi-res photos.
Yeah, there would have been a huge outcry if they used a V8 2 door.
And somehow I missed the fuzzy dice until you pointed them out.
This was the first one that popped into my mind, too.
What a truck does to cars at the back of a tailback at 70 km/h…
[youtube eG-mbHtLjiQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG-mbHtLjiQ youtube]
I’ve driven several vehicles that would fare poorly in a crash test. Crash test videos really only serve as an illustration of vulnerability even when driving a cage. The car I drove in high school was a ’76 Triumph Spitfire, and on multiple occasions people had said to me that I was certain to die in that car. My response was invariably “Only if I hit something.” The crash test videos that scare me are the ones showing semis disintegrating passenger vehicles. Those are the ones that are illustrating my vulnerability to what other drivers do.
[youtube OIjTJXK1PU4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIjTJXK1PU4 youtube]
[youtube f7rrk3ZjN-I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7rrk3ZjN-I youtube]
The Chery Amulet, a clone of the SEAT Toledo, based on tooling that Chery bought from SEAT/VW, but not actually licensed. It's an oddball to say the least.
For comparison, here's the 1984 Mk2 Golf, which is the same structure (although US-spec Mk2s had a better crash structure, that was added to European Mk2s circa 1989, IIRC, and actual Toledos always had it). You can see the similarities in HOW the structure deforms, but the Chery deforms far, far more:
[youtube CyzCswJ_tkk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyzCswJ_tkk youtube]
Two videos in a single comment doesn't work. You might want to put the second video in a reply.
Well, damn.
Second video here:
[youtube CyzCswJ_tkk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyzCswJ_tkk youtube]
That isn't really any better than the '59 Bel Air.
That Chery Amulet is disturbing.
[youtube qBDyeWofcLY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY youtube]
It's nice to see how a modern small car can hold up in a crash against a much bigger car, but it's really alarming to see how the big Volvo performed in this test.
This video made me think that bigger is not always better.
Honestly, I'm still confident about the Volvo. The way it was struck, it was hit offset – in a straight on hit, because of how the crush zones were designed, I'd bet on everyone walking away, or at least limping. Still, old technology.
Not to say an offset hit is exactly uncommon, mind. What that really illustrated to me, the first time I saw it, was that newer French shitboxes were safer than they look!
The Volvo has no engine? How is that a fair test?
The Volvo does have its engine. The front end of the car would be positioned much higher off the ground if the engine were missing, unless they also spent a while restoring ride height to make up for the missing weight of the engine.
A whole bunch of commenters repeating "but but but NO ENGINE IN IT!!" doesn't make conjecture into fact.
Not very horrific, unless you're a Volvo marketing executive. Then it really, really terrible.
[youtube aNi17YLnZpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg youtube]
To be fair, it did stop.
It minimized brake wear, too.
Eh, seems easy enough to spin – "as effective as our technology is is reducing collisions, it's no substitute for an observant driver," or something to that effect.
Here are some of the worst ones all wrapped up in one video. Check out the ones starting at around the 2:30 mark.
[youtube kuOj-Ssf4y8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuOj-Ssf4y8 youtube]
Nice collection!
Some of these make riding a motorcycle, naked, look safe.
Batshitbox? You there for this one?
[youtube aSVfYwdGSsQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ youtube]
You can always count on Mythbusters to go a giant leap beyond. But I can't call this alarming in the least; it's just pure, delicious awe.
Perhaps a Smart car isn't always the smartest option…
[youtube IIsP8ulBwfg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIsP8ulBwfg youtube]
Well yeah, but it's so small, you practically have to be deliberately aiming for the other car.
Well, everything Soviet. The German-engineered cardboard car Trabant doesn't look as bad as expected:
[youtube oF4phDLfGF4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF4phDLfGF4 youtube]
The Lada Niva on the other hand…worse. Find UAZ, GAZ and the whole pride of Soviet engineering and it is some scary entertainment.
[youtube WN2HkXKmi5Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN2HkXKmi5Q youtube]
Oi, the second one was supposed to be this:
[youtube WN2HkXKmi5Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN2HkXKmi5Q youtube]
Doesn't change even if code is changed. Odd.
IntenseDebate doesn't work well with more than one video in a comment. Editing a comment which contains a video usually also produces unintended results even if everything looks okay before posting, so it's best to avoid both practices.
There seems to be a lot that doesn't work with intensedebate – how do they survive in a competitive environment!?
[youtube Ukq-UUQAcZs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs youtube]
The one of the VW T3 always impressed me
Looks like the same as above, might not be the best example.
I'm at work and can't find videos because my work computer chokes on flash.
So I'll just say that the IIHS test of the '98 F-150 has always been my go-to reply to people who tell me I should drive a truck instead of a smallish car because it's sooooooooo much safer. And those people exist, I live in SK, they're very annoying.
Here ya go:
[youtube _i5EmJBaGeQ youtube] [youtube _i5EmJBaGeQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ youtube] youtube]
[youtube bNnh7mttmwQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNnh7mttmwQ youtube]
I'm sorry, what was the question again?
Of course the dash cam pictures from Russia are way more horrifying.
Try searching for ДТП – both images and video.
Its the cryllic for RTA
This. Because it's my car. And obviously i saw this video after buying it !
[youtube M3FdnWU5ecg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3FdnWU5ecg youtube]
Salvage titles are never a good idea.
I've never seen crash-test results for anything I own, so presumably everything's fine.
Seems to hold up pretty well, surprisingly enough.
[youtube gMF_23ddXyc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMF_23ddXyc youtube]
[youtube ovMyHfvFYKQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovMyHfvFYKQ youtube]
I'd ask you not to look, but I'm curious if it's a later Metro with the beefed up safety structures that still did poorest of the class in eurocnap or the earlier model years. If you ask me, I think they judged it harshly.
[youtube _ULm6QrC428 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ULm6QrC428 youtube]
Brilliant!
Wait…no it's not….
[youtube bT3G-kcKN70 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3G-kcKN70 youtube]
It's a lot easier to buy the farm like Jayne Mansfield did than you think.
Wow that's the worst, would the charges in the shoulder belt spool pull you up even if you had the presence of mind to duck to the side?
That's why I don't crash under semi trailers.
From another aspect… mailboxes on a wooden post (~1:25) are scary.
[youtube _XXJqEY-sXk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XXJqEY-sXk youtube]
I don't think this is the one I was thinking of, but the effect is the same:
[youtube 2gvuGeRNHMU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gvuGeRNHMU youtube]
The driver's compartment is completely flattened on initial impact.
Instant penance.
This is an amazing amount of mass to stop without using proper brakes.
Plus, most of the nose is glass.
These have/will always fascinate me due to the forces involved and how man attempts to control physics.
We're only slightly successful.
I am quite surprised at how many RHD vehicles IIHS tests…
>>_>>
<<_<<
This said, I'd MUCH rather be in any vehicle I've owned in the last decade versus the FC 1967 Dodge A-108 passenger van which was my much beloved first vehicle.
I can say, however, in a side impact, that Dodge more than held its own.
This said, SRS systems are downright amazing when one examines the speed with which they deploy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qptuCDaX1wc%5Byoutub… qptuCDaX1wc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qptuCDaX1wc youtube]