Archiving crash tests since 2009. Active since 2006 (carpro1017). This channel is to share my hobby with the world, educate people, and to interact with people who have an interest in automotive safety and crash test research.
This is a NON-PROFIT RU-vid channel specializing in Automotive Safety Research. Videos are NOT monetized and are owned by their respective owners. (NHTSA, IIHS, AGU Zurich, etc.) **This channel is not affiliated with any testing agency.** *DISCLAIMER* Use of videos from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does not constitute or imply the Institute's endorsement, recommendation, or approval of the RU-vid channel CarPro1993.
Videos I've uploaded can be found as: "CarPro1993 - Crash Test Archive" "CarPro1993" "ToyotaSubaruCrashTests" (Defunct) Content I've uploaded is exclusively for RU-vid or my related channels, content found on other channels or other media platforms were used without permission unless otherwise stated.
And this is my dog is in her seat belt n harness in the back seats, on her dog seat blanket and not the boot. Why do ppl put their most treasured there is crazy to me
I still think that Vinfast would have better success here in the States by starting with a proper people's car. Make a good, quality product for We the People, that is both affordable and either innovative or high quality, and you might have our attention.
Kết quả kiểm tra va chạm toàn diện trực diện (Full-Overlap Frontal Crash Test) do Cơ quan Quản lý An toàn Giao thông Đường cao tốc Quốc gia Hoa Kỳ (NHTSA) thực hiện ở tốc độ 35 dặm/giờ (khoảng 56 km/giờ) trên mẫu xe Vinfast VF8 Eco AWD năm 2024. Phân tích kết quả kiểm tra: 1. Điểm đánh giá tổng thể: - Người lái xe: 4 sao (trên thang điểm 5 sao). - Hành khách: 2 sao. - Đánh giá tổng thể: 2 sao. Điều này cho thấy mức độ an toàn cho người lái là khá tốt (4 sao), nhưng mức độ an toàn cho hành khách phía trước là rất thấp (2 sao), kéo theo đánh giá tổng thể chỉ đạt 2 sao. 2. Chỉ số chấn thương (HIC - Head Injury Criterion): - Người lái: HIC = 133 (Dưới mức tối đa cho phép là 700). - Hành khách: HIC = 823 (Vượt mức tối đa cho phép là 700!!). Chỉ số HIC cho hành khách vượt quá giới hạn cho phép, điều này cảnh báo khả năng cao xảy ra chấn thương đầu nghiêm trọng đối với hành khách. 3. Chỉ số Nij (tỉ số nguy cơ chấn thương cổ): - Người lái: Nij = 0.34 (Dưới mức tối đa là 1.0). - Hành khách: Nij = 0.98 (Gần chạm mức tối đa là 1.0!!). Chỉ số Nij của hành khách rất gần với giới hạn, cho thấy nguy cơ cao về chấn thương cổ. 4. Gia tốc ngực (Chest G's): - Người lái: 48 G. - Hành khách: 45 G. Cả hai chỉ số gia tốc ngực này đều tương đối cao, nhưng không vượt quá mức nguy hiểm. 5. Độ nén ngực (Chest Compression): - Người lái: 32.1 mm. - Hành khách: 20.3 mm. Độ nén ngực của người lái là cao hơn, nhưng vẫn trong mức chấp nhận được. 6. Lực tác động lên đùi (Femur Load): - Người lái: 2011 N (chân trái) / 1777 N (chân phải). - Hành khách: 1577 N (chân trái) / 1298 N (chân phải). Lực tác động lên đùi đều dưới giới hạn chấn thương nghiêm trọng. Tổng kết: - Điểm số kém an toàn của hành khách phía trước (2 sao) chủ yếu là do chỉ số HIC cao, cho thấy nguy cơ chấn thương đầu rất lớn trong trường hợp xảy ra va chạm trực diện. - Ngược lại, người lái có mức độ an toàn tốt hơn, với điểm số 4 sao, nhưng vẫn có các chỉ số như gia tốc ngực ở mức cao. Phân tích bởi Chat GPT
The doors stayed shut. Considering the year not bad. Imagine if this was a 914 Porsche with the mid engine 😮. I had a 1985 GT mustang with the five speed with tee Topps. Can't see my mustang surviving this kinda wreck at all.
I look at those NHTSA crash test and a commun mistake they always tend to do is that the front passengers seats are always ajusted way to close to the dash. In the lincoln, front passenger seat is almost ajusted way to close to the dash bord. I dont know of anybody who can be confortable sitting so close to the dash... and in the Neon same thing. In the owner manuel, it is well indicated that it is dangerous to ajuste the seat so near the dash. As you can see, in both véhicules, the passenger nees and leg have banged in the dash cause sitting to close. But in a crash of a Neon and Navigator, it is noticable that the passenger had knees enjuries... But why are they always ajusting the seats way to close to that dash board? A lot of the NHTSA are done that way, does it realy refflect's the reality of the way peaple sit in a car??? Hopping to have some answers for this..
I don't think the 'crumple zone' had yet been coined. I have my doubts this was shot at 62.38 mph. Neither vehicle looks to be doing more than 35 mph, so perhaps they meant kph? I'll crash in my 2018 vs either of these. Airbags, crumple zones etc. Cars are safer now. I had a '77 Toronado as my first car in 1980 and it was a tank. However, he lack of said crumple zones etc. meant much more bodily damage to tissues and muscles.
Crumple zones (at least in cars) were a thing beginning in the 1970s. These vehicles may have had hard front ends but they were still designed to crumple in a. Controlled way. Trucks didnt get them until the 1990s because Trucks didnt have to meet the same crash standards. It was believed back then that a truck couldn't be both safe AND capable...so they were made capable.
62.38 mph closing speed, meaning each vehicle was doing an average of 31.19 mph. Mercedes had crumple zones as early as 1951 but outside of some higher-end European cars, crumple zones weren't fitted until starting in the 1970s. I've seen a 1976 Mercedes ad that said "collapsible extremities, rigid passenger cell" so they definitely were recognized as a concept by at least some of the general public. I don't think a 1977 Toronado would have had them, because it was an older design (1971) and I think GM was just starting to fit crumple zones on their new designs around 1977, such as the B-body full size sedans redesigned for that year, including the Impala you see in this video. By the early 1980s pretty much all new GM cars had crumple zones. The van didn't have crumple zones, I don't think American full size vans got crumple zones until the 1990s. So, the Impala shown here had rudimentary crumple zones, 3 point seat belts, a padded dash, collapsible steering column, and various other basic safety features. It was a reasonably safe car for its era. The van had no crumple zones, a worse structural design, etc, though it still had 3-point seat belts. That's why it performed slightly worse than the Impala overall despite being much heavier. Full size van safety standards in general were far behind that of passenger cars back then. A 2018 car would be immensely safer. Far more refined crumple zones, airbags all around, seat belt pretensioners... the list goes on and on. September 4, 2024 9:47 am
No real footage of the interior? This crash test was so old, they didn't even know what do look at. What about intrusion into the cabin? That big dent in the sedan dash? Legs injured? Heads injured?
I agree. I would have preferred seeing more of the interior intrusions. I had a 79 Impala 2 door. It was a great car but in this collision it appears to me the engine and/or transmission may have intruded partially in to the front seat. Today's cars have improved crush zones, and airbags protecting the occupants but most would be a total even in a low speed crash.
Go ahead, lets play chicken. Ill pick a. Modern large car you take the impala. I feel my chances of walking away are "better than average" how about you?
Dodge and their self ejecting windshield, so you can be impaled by any object or thrown out of the van if not wearing a belt. Not to mention the wheel well breaking your lower leg. But but but but but but but.....old cars are SAFER!!!! 😂😂😂
I had a 79 Impala 2 door. The V8 engine was a tight fit, not much clearance between the front grill, bumper and engine. I suspect from the front end damage of the 79 Impala, the engine would be partially in the front seat. I wish there would have been more photos of the interior. I actually saw an accident similar to this and stunned the radio, heater/AC controls, parts of dash were on the front seat. Driver injured both knees and broken wrist.
