2009 vs 1959 - Who "wins"?

[guiseppewv]

http://video.consumerreports.org/services/player/bcpid1886192484?bctid=41311737001

Very interesting video. I was amazed that the new car sustained much less damage and that the driver of the new car was much safer.

[LPMiller]

really? those old cars were big, but they were just thin sheet metal for the most part, with very little if any support structure. No beams, no crumple zones, no boosted pillar supports, no breakaways....

[Daedalus]

I was at a car museum a couple weeks ago. About 85% of their collection was built before 1950. I was amazed at how little all those old cars weighed. Less than 4000 lbs in most cases, even though the physical sizes of them were immense. The top of the hoods alone on some were almost 5' high.

[guiseppewv]

really? those old cars were big, but they were just thin sheet metal for the most part, with very little if any support structure. No beams, no crumple zones, no boosted pillar supports, no breakaways....

I would have figured that pure momentum would win out and the fact that the old cars sit higher off the ground. The new cars weigh way less than the old ones. Never gave much thought to it other than that. Once I saw this vid then I started to think about the crumple zones and the way new cars are built to protect the passenger compartments in an accident.

[guiseppewv]

I was at a car museum a couple weeks ago. About 85% of their collection was built before 1950. I was amazed at how little all those old cars weighed. Less than 4000 lbs in most cases, even though the physical sizes of them were immense. The top of the hoods alone on some were almost 5' high.

Most new cars weigh around 3000 lbs, so an old car weighing near 4000 has a significantly more mass to it.

[mechmike0034]

I don't find the results suprising given the advancement of safety technology over the last 50 years. The "good old days" when "cars were built from steel" is a myth.

My father-in-law (an ex-new car dealer) swears that any car that doesn't have a full frame is unsafe. I leave him speechless when I point out that Indy and F1 racing cars are of monocoque (frameless) construction...

Here are more details on the crash (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/iihs-2009-chevy-malibu-vs-1959-chev-bel-air-just-because-they-can/) and the car (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ask-the-best-and-brightest-is-this-the-bel-air-the-iihs-destroyed/).

There was a lot of controversy over this, with automotive conspiracy theorists stating in several online forums (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/) that the '59 had been rigged... IIHS says it was legit (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/).

Note the fifty years worth of accumulated road dirt and rust flakes being knocked out of every nook and cranny of the '59 by the impact. Kind of like holding up your doormat and beating it with a stick...

Most of the cars that IIHS crash-tests are new, purchased from a dealer. I was born and raised about 30 miles south of their Vehicle Research Center. My wife worked for a local new car dealer that IIHS purchased a truck from to test - she got to go there and watch them crash-test it live some years back.

Edit: Unrelated - I just noticed my change in rank! :cool: :thumbup:

[Daedalus]

Most new cars weigh around 3000 lbs, so an old car weighing near 4000 has a significantly more mass to it.


I don't think so. Data through 2006. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2007_fcvt_fotw475.html) But that's beside my point, which was merely that the size to mass correlation in cars has changed drastically in the past 60 years. I have 3 modern cars that weigh in around 4000 lbs each, but they're much smaller than the old cars I saw in the museum. A quick search indicates that the Bel Air has less than a 200 lb advantage over the Malibu in the video, despite carrying a larger footprint and appearing "heftier".

[Jeffbx]

It's an interesting video - probably somewhat unfair since (like Mike pointed out) all of the rust & dust that came flying out of that car upon impact. I wonder how different it would be with a fresh new one that just rolled off the assembly line.

But there's no doubt that cars today are way WAY safer than they were 50 years ago. There is, however also way more mass per sq.in. in modern cars because of all of the safety & convenience items. Strip out the air conditioner, all of the airbags, power brakes, tire pressure monitors, power window motors, all (but one!) of the speakers, traction control, ABS, stability control, power seats, etc etc. and you'd have a much lighter car.

(Also much more fuel efficient one, btw)

[guiseppewv]

I don't think so. Data through 2006. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2007_fcvt_fotw475.html) But that's beside my point, which was merely that the size to mass correlation in cars has changed drastically in the past 60 years. I have 3 modern cars that weigh in around 4000 lbs each, but they're much smaller than the old cars I saw in the museum. A quick search indicates that the Bel Air has less than a 200 lb advantage over the Malibu in the video, despite carrying a larger footprint and appearing "heftier".

Thanks for the link! Very interesting. I fully expect 2007, 2008, and 2009 to be trending downwards again once the data is released.

I wonder if they selected the Bel Air b/c it was way below the average weight for a 1959 car?

[Jeffbx]

More likey because it had pretty poor crash performance (even for 1950's standards) & they had a point to prove.

[clutchy]

man did you see the cabin intrusion on that?!? death.

the other car was almost completely unfazed.

I knew they had gotten better but wow that's shocking.