Citroen GS GSA 2CV safety promotional video 

Its not unbelievable. Science shows its point of mass is beneath the middle of the axles. This makes that car so extremely stable, that even heavy bodyroll is unable to topple that car over. Not to mention the very, very, very long suspensionway of each tire on the road. Those cars maybe were very basic and simple designed, but they were and are still today way ahead against modern cars. You dont need much to get the most out of it. The 2cv was and still is solid proof of that

Sorry to be so offtopic but does anyone know of a tool to log back into an Instagram account?? I somehow forgot the password. I appreciate any tips you can offer me.

@Tristan Jaxen instablaster =)

@Wyatt Easton thanks for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

@Wyatt Easton it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy! Thank you so much, you saved my account !

@Tristan Jaxen You are welcome =)

You are totally deluded if you think SM would be up to today's crash test standards.

Yes, not as good as a modern car in a crash event, but as good in crash prevention, taking in consideration the SM has no electronic aids and it's almost 50 years old. The most secure car is the one that has no accident in the first place.

No way. Taking in consideration SM has no electronic aids and it's 50 years old, it's NOT nearly in the same ballpark with the level of active safety cars have today. You're just being deluded even more. Sorry. It's a great car and very advanced for it's day, though.

Good answer, but I don't know if you have driven a citroen with hydropnematic suspension or a new car with all the new electronic aids, so I'm just gonna explain my point of view. I've driven both, the hydro citroens very fast in different conditions, never having an issue with stability and comfort, and they are very easy to drive, to the point I've never felt the need of something to aid me. Modern cars (standard cars, not sports cars) they won't let me drive fast or even try to reach the limits of the chassis, I guess this will give security to an average driver, but maybe the solution to a problem is also the cause. If people don't know how to control a car in a possible crash situation, they need the car to drive for them? Wouldn't it be better if they knew what their machine can and cannot do before going out to the road? Vicious circle, governments complain abouth road deaths but don't want to invest in better driving school systems, so they blame car manufacturers by making stringent safety standards to be able to sell a car, and then people doesn't need to know everything about driving because their car would drive for them (or protect them) in risky situations. My current car has ABS, stability control, 6 airbags, seatbelt tensioners, etc... Although these systems are good, in my daily driving they won't even show a hint of work, just because when I'm driving, I'm driving, not texting, or watching people walk down the street, or even talking with my passengers. I use my mirrors and respect driving law in the means of possible. I do like to drive fast, but not everyday, or in the rain, or through town. I wait till the night and choose an open road in a lonely place to enjoy driving (we don't have race tracks here). YMMV, but following common sense and knowing how a car works it's the best aid you need when driving. I know having security sistems in case of an accident it's better than having none, but again I can't speak for that, as I've never had an accident. Well, that's my point of view, and why I think adding systems that interfere with the commands a driver give to the car it's not the best idea, creating dependance of the said systems and causing more harm than good if they decide to fail, they are still machines and haven't got common sense yet.

Well written, but you know, I think that you have to deal with problems as they arise. One of the main problems with traffic is that it's density is increasing. Average driver now does much more mileage a year than 30 years ago. Given that probability of accident is a function of both traffic density and distance traveled, policy makers and car manufacturers were faced with the problem of increased rate of accidents and on-road fatalities. This is a problem that you have to face in real time. You can't just hypothesize, that if people were better drivers, there would be less accidents. Yes, it's true, but this is something terribly difficult to change and as always, when behavioral change on the scale of whole society is needed, this is a matter of generational exchange. While I agree that better education is needed, I think it's a good thing that policy makers and car engineers focused on car safety to bring change within a much shorter timescale. For instance, since organizations like EuroNCAP were established, standards of passive safety improved immensely. As I remember it from 20 or even 10 years ago, the overwhelmingly prevailing narrative was that every year, number of deadly accidents increases. Now, for several years, at least in my country, the trend is reversed. I have not checked the statistics, but I am pretty sure this is pretty much correct. Given that traffic density doesn't change for the better and on-road behavior changes for the worse with the increased amounts of stress, this indicates that the engineering efforts were overwhelmingly successful. The technical advancements that you mention are a big part of the progress that was this successful, although it's downside is paradoxically the fact that people become psychologically more assured and care less and less still about the core driving skills. But that's how the world is; you come up with what appears to be a good solution to a problem - which the technical development in the car safety department demonstrably is - yet you arrive at unintended consequences that relate to basic human psychology. I agree though that Citroen's hydropneumatic suspension, along with other innovations like turning headlights etc., were great solutions at the time and it is incredible that even now, this is by far not an industry standard. On the contrary, they're still considered luxury items. That said, I am baffled by the stupidity of the current Citroen management that decided to drop the tech solutions and indeed that whole philosophy that made Citroen the unique brand it once was. But on the other hand, there are exciting developments in the car industry right now. What Tesla is doing, is just amazing. This is another revolution in the car industry unfolding before our very eyes. Have a great day.

The radial tyre was specifically developed FOR Citroen, by Michelin. The Traction Avant pushed far beyond what crossply could deliver.

And china bought volvo for safety.

SAAB was not close to Citroen at all which is understandable considering the lack of resources.Till the late 90's all cars were pretty terrible in terms of passive safety.What could save lifes was great roadholding which was Citroen's specialty.Having a strong chassi won't save you if you fall off a cliff,good brakes and steering system can.

@@dickn.ormous1064 Well, Saab was one of the very few cars that could take a moose at the A-pillars and survive that. Saab was good in some areas of safety, and understandably not so good in other areas.

Even the 2 CV could handle this roads. Wow!

Up

Suspensions nowadays is just Sport, sport, sport. That's the result of usign 20 years old test drivers. Put some 50 or more years old test driving these cars and we'll get these supensions again. Why having a sport car suspension if 99% of the time we are banging on potholes and speed bumps?

De l'avance, pas tellement, il s'agissait d'expérimentations et à cette époque d'autres constructeurs (Volvo, Mercedes et Saab nottament) menaient les mêmes expérimentations. On peut parler d'un pelotons de visionnaires !

faut pas tout mélanger: volant réglable et direction à assistance variable avec la vitesse(Diravi) étaient des équipements de série, l'airbag c'était seulement des expérimentations...la Diravi équipait ensuite les CX ...

Sure la Xantia le volant se régle que en hauteur. La SM, comme pleins d'autres Citroën, était très avancé.

I meant I not he stupid autocorrect

pioneering time is over

Yes but it remains controllable, keeps its track and stays on the road. A 2V would stand a lot of abuse on road and off road, and do not care of rain, mud, ice and snow.

Designed in 1936, they changed next to nothing in 40 years of production. A much better car all round than a post war VW Beetle.

Good ol' hubnut

Produced for a Very Singular purpose, unlike the multifaceted requirements of what you are comparing.

Les SM3, SM5, SM7 ça existe, ce sont les Samsung Motors en Corée, l'usine appartient à Renault. La SM3 c'est la Fluence, SM5 la nouvelle Safrane vendue dans quelques pays, avec un train arrière amélioré et le tableau de bord de la SM7 c'est la Latitude. Tandis que la SM7 est une Latitude rallongée et plus luxueuse. L'usine a produit aussi l'ancienne Koleos. En Corée c'est la marque aux petits oignons pour les clients qui aiment leur confort.

@@HenriBourjade tu racontes n'importe quoi: la SM c'est la Citroën SM, et il n'y en a jamais eu d'autre, la seule qui ait été baptisée SM2 est une SM normale , restaurée et modernisée (notamment moteur Maserati fiabilisé, injection+ allumage programmable moderne à pilotage lambda+ catalyseurs...)

The GSA rusted like all its contemporaries designed in the 70's, it is indeed certain that it could not have a life span higher than a few years in normal use in wet and northern conditions. The xantia was a remarkably well built car and well protected against corrosion (less true in the Estate version). That the repairers are incompetent for something that is not complicated but specific (and that they are not interested in) is unfortunately another problem.

+Alessio S 2cv speeds depend on what year it was made in but the early ones had a top speed of 39, mid ones had a top speed of 48 to 63, and the final ones had a top speed around 70. Im not sure about Diane

Hello There still in a crash against any other car the cabin will be ripped off it's underbody and the occupants... you can make that up ... ofcourse it is a 1939 design

@@stormtrooper8431 MPH are unknown on continental europe...

@@215alessio no: the 1939 2cv's had a aluminium bodywork, the 1948 a steel bodywork, much stronger...the 2cv hold much better accidents as many did expect because the energy is dissipated from tires sliding...and the strong chassis is at height from the bumpers from other cars...

Great Cornholio It's safer than you would think. The following articles explain it: carcynic.com/archives/00000013.html carcynic.com/archives/00000014.html

Csuzdi Gábor well,. i once saw a mercedes 300e crash into a 2cv at 50km/h,....he drove through it,..he crushed the engine,. drove through the interior,. pinning the floor to the ground,. drove throught the front and back seats and came out through the tailgate,...needless to say no-one inside the 2cv survived the crash,..

Csuzdi Gábor and in you article,. they say "avoid crashing it!",.... "The 2CV lacks many safety features that we take for granted in a modern car" its a death trap dude,. some dont even have seatbelts,. no crash zone,. a very weak chassis,. and almost everything is bolted,. not welded,..

Great Cornholio"He drove trough it". Yes, because in these tests the car is fixed to the ground or moves on a fixed path. In the reality a 2CV would be pushed away when the Mercedes reached the chassis, because it is so lightweight. And in a frontal accident, the engine slides under the passenger compartment. But the 2CV's real strength is in avoiding the crash, it's the primary safety. And there's a reason why they call it primary. It is more maneuverable than big cars, it has precise steering, a suspension that provides good roadholding, and it doesn't have airbags. Which is good because in many accidents the airbag deploys when the vehicle is moving. And with the deployment you lose the control over the car, and this decreases the chance of survival. The 2CV won't do that. And it also won't shoot you with little pieces of metal, like those Takata airbags. So in a hand of a good driver, a 2CV is lot safer than a modern economy car. On the other hand for a bad driver any car is a potential 'death trap' and also a ticking bomb for the others in the traffic around it.

Csuzdi Gábor well,.. most drivers are not so good at driving,... so making the "avoid the accident" the greatest benefit of this car,... isnt going to work,... no abs,. those skinny tires,...that extremely weak suspension,... in the winter,. to avoid a crash on a narrow road,.. it will almost flip on its side,. you will have no braking power,. and probably crash into a tree,... without airbags,.. and probably without a seatbelt,..this car probably should be banned from public roads,... i would love to see a euro-ncap crash test with this model :)

these cars were completely in tune with their time. The 2cv has a lot more engineering than its apparent rusticity suggests. The platform is not just made any old way. Of course, there is no question of comparing these cars with what will be done later, especially from the 80s on. Concerning the 2cv, a test from the 70's which I don't remember the origin, had made equivalent crash tests between a 2cv, a vw and a Fiat... 126 I think... the 2cv has nothing ridiculous then. That the owners maintain their vehicles badly or that the repairers are incompetent is another problem... concerning the DS, if it was impossible to dose the braking very finely it is thus that there was a real problem, most certainly of bleeding of the brake circuits. The rest is caricature, if not preconceived ideas... or comments from people who are not used to this control with just a force to apply.

Considering the other contemporary cars... there was not one to lift the other. But it's really around 1972/73 that it got really bad, for everyone, we're talking about recycled scrap metal of marine origin.

No lies (except for the accelerated images of the dynamic tests^^). As far as crash tests are concerned, we can obviously only compare tests that are identically organized. A SM has no reason to do worse than a car that is contemporary to it, and that's all we ask. The impressive deformations are what they are... an absorption of energy, the only thing is to master these deformations as well as possible, that's the (almost perpetual) goal of this kind of research, and it's much more desirable than older vehicles that are clearly too rigid and that keep a look confirming their prejudged robustness... and which in fact kill all their occupants of internal lesions because of the too brutal deceleration at the time of a shock... assuming that the passengers have their seatbelt, which is very rare if not never the case, after all in these not so distant times one dies also much ejected from the car or of a simple fatal cranial shock in the car... and not needing a big shock nor of high speed