Split thread: Older cars and safety

[Resurrection]

Originally Posted by imugli

Click here

Oh the humanity!

[pottery beige]

given a choice of having a stack in my BA or XA.... pfffttt.. give me a cuddle with all that airbag crumple zone goodness please......

[OzJavelin]

Originally Posted by flappist

You all also seem to have this fixation that every prang is your steel monster vs a 800kg plastic bubble car.

Here is a bit of a newsflash. The majority of vehicles on the road weigh MORE than your ZJ and trees/walls/rocks/posts do not care how much you weigh.

Yep .. even my old Dodge Phoenix which will dwarf a ZH Fairlane weighs less than a modern FG / VE. I've looked at the superstructure in my C-body Mopars and a XC (I owned a GXL) and the Mopar wins over the XC for sheer strength hands down. But I wouldn't be in it in a major crash. I'd rather be the guy in the FG who crashes into it ..

[JimNiki]

Guys, just out of curiosity, in 20 or 40 years, will we look back at the current 5 star rating cars and think of them as death traps waiting to happen...?

what other possible new technology will evolve to take car safety to the next level?

off the top of my head

1 - highly sofisticated accident avoidence systems
2 - complete cockpit cushioning protection (as a last resort)
3 - ?
4 - ?
5 - ?

lets remember that even on 50 years, there'll be good cars and budget buys and I am talking about the average car ...

[svo supporter]

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Got to love the crumple zones, don't you.

If any car is hit in the drivers side door, you're going to be hurt. No matter what era the car is made. But, when it comes to the other parts of a car getting hit, I'd prefer to have plenty of car round me, in the form of an old tank. Less chance of being hurt.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Got to love the crumple zones, don't you.

If any car is hit in the drivers side door, you're going to be hurt. No matter what era the car is made. But, when it comes to the other parts of a car getting hit, I'd prefer to have plenty of car round me, in the form of an old tank. Less chance of being hurt.

If you were in the Au, you may not have got that bump on your head. Just remember, a 'Bump on the head' can lead to concussion and bleeding/fluids on the brain.

Also, if it was another Au that hit the door, chances are the other driver may have escaped without injury, as crumple zones work both ways, the impact of your car yould have been less if it had modern crumple zones.

I think i can recall a test where an egg was placed in a block of wood, one block had a 'crumple zone' the other didn't, the Egg without a crumple zone could not be put together with all the kings men...

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Got to love the crumple zones, don't you.

If any car is hit in the drivers side door, you're going to be hurt. No matter what era the car is made. But, when it comes to the other parts of a car getting hit, I'd prefer to have plenty of car round me, in the form of an old tank. Less chance of being hurt.

ahhh NO.

No side intrusion bars would = you not writing this if the roles were reversed...

old cars are great to collect absolutely CRAP at crashing and or avoiding crashing, there is a reason cars are SAFER today then even 10 years ago.

Fact is, while you have ALOT of sheet metal, new cars have crumple zones front/rear to take the impact while having a safety cell A pillar to C pillar which is stronger than any 1940-1980s car you care to name.

if the car doesn't absorb the impact YOU do, you see cars are replaceable and YOU aren't simple enough?

from break away engine mounts (so you don't wear the engine in the cabin) side intrusion bars (ref what I started talking about) safety cells, ABS, bigger disc brakes, better tyres, better suspension components, airbags including knee airbags in a few models now I know what Id rather crash in and its not something even pre 2000.

don't even get me started on the fact you'd be less likely to crash in something new....

no a ZH fairlane is NOT a clunker that needs to be crushed, but don't crap on about it being safer than an FG your just PLAIN WRONG.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

ahhh NO.

No side intrusion bars would = you not writing this if the roles were reversed...

old cars are great to collect absolutely CRAP at crashing and or avoiding crashing, there is a reason cars are SAFER today then even 10 years ago.

Fact is, while you have ALOT of sheet metal, new cars have crumple zones front/rear to take the impact while having a safety cell A pillar to C pillar which is stronger than any 1940-1980s car you care to name.

if the car doesn't absorb the impact YOU do, you see cars are replaceable and YOU aren't simple enough?

from break away engine mounts (so you don't wear the engine in the cabin) side intrusion bars (ref what I started talking about) safety cells, ABS, bigger disc brakes, better tyres, better suspension components, airbags including knee airbags in a few models now I know what Id rather crash in and its not something even pre 2000.

don't even get me started on the fact you'd be less likely to crash in something new....

no a ZH fairlane is NOT a clunker that needs to be crushed, but don't crap on about it being safer than an FG your just PLAIN WRONG.

Awesome post, you hit the nail right on the head.

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Got to love the crumple zones, don't you.

If any car is hit in the drivers side door, you're going to be hurt. No matter what era the car is made. But, when it comes to the other parts of a car getting hit, I'd prefer to have plenty of car round me, in the form of an old tank. Less chance of being hurt.

The simple fact is that the strongest part of your car (the front) hit the weakest part of the other car (the side) and the driver hit in the drivers door is statistically more likely to suffer severe injury no matter the age of the car.

What speed was the impact at? I would suggest that if you had been hit in the drivers door by a AU in your car with an impact speed of 60 km/h or above, you would not have survived.

I do not know of any other way of putting it, I guess some will never be persuaded that big old tanks are not as strong a people think. I wish you luck with your false sense of security and hope that you drive carefully. Overwhelming statistics and testing prove you are more likely to die in an accident in an older car than in a newer car with better safety standards. I have given rather graphic details of injury patterns and how they occur but it seems all the testing, statistics and real world experience can not compete with urban legend.

[Boosh Brus]

Originally Posted by JimNiki

Guys, just out of curiosity, in 20 or 40 years, will we look back at the current 5 star rating cars and think of them as death traps waiting to happen...?

what other possible new technology will evolve to take car safety to the next level?

off the top of my head

1 - highly sofisticated accident avoidence systems
2 - complete cockpit cushioning protection (as a last resort)
3 - ?
4 - ?
5 - ?

lets remember that even on 50 years, there'll be good cars and budget buys and I am talking about the average car ...

The safety devices these days are getting pretty high tech. Volvo are trying to design are car that by 2020 no one will get killed in except in the most extreme cases. They use radar and sonar to brake and steer out of the way of accidents and a laser which sees out the windscreen to predict the accident and adjust the force and timings of airbags, seat beats etc accordingly.

Pretty amazing stuff and they know a thing or two about safety. They are crash testing 400 cars per year. Imagine the expense.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

Pretty amazing stuff and they know a thing or two about safety. They are crash testing 400 cars per year. Imagine the expense.

What for, a 1977 fairlane or 1979 valiant is safer?

[Nikked]

No Crumple zones...

[svo supporter]

I may have got a bump on the noggan as a result of the impact, but the driver of the Falcon went to hospital. Doesn't that say something? Might be I've got a hard head or something silly like that

Reverse the roles here. If I was in the AU and belted the left side of the Valiant, I may have ended up without the bump on the noggan, but what injuries would I have sustained? What injuries would the Valiant driver sustained?

It was also misread by some people as to what door got belted in the Falcon. Perhaps a re-read of my posting would be in order. Then comment as to why the owner of 1 said AU falcon ended up in hospital, having side intrusions bars, whilst the (V8) Valiant that surposedly doesn't have break away engine mounts, had the motor sitting on the K-frame and only ended up with a bump on the noggan. (Do some research on 1971 to 1981 V8 Valiants, in respect to engine mounts)



We won't get into braking and handling with an old car now. I work with suspensions and alot of older cars handle and brake really well, with a few dollars thrown at them. A classic brake upgrade with a Valiant only costs $300 to $400 and then they brake alot better than an AU series 1 Falcon. Valiant conversion entails 4 spot calipers on the front and disc brakes on the rear. So we won't go down that path.

People can continue the arguing to and fro, as to a modern car being safer that older ones. I own both a modern and older car and I do feel alot safer in my older one. Call it a false sence of security if you wish, but I've had a few bingles in older cars and the other modern car driver has always come out worse for wear, health wise, than me.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No Crumple zones...

Have a search of the net back about 12 months ago and post up the picture of a WRX and Nissan Skyline that crashed as a result of street racing about 12 months ago, in Adelaide. That picture would make this picture look insignificant. I think the cars were in 3 pieces each.

[Kryton]

Have you even bothered to look at the videos posted in this thread - i suggest you do.
Your living in a world of false security.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

People can continue the arguing to and fro, as to a modern car being safer that older ones. I own both a modern and older car and I do feel alot safer in my older one. Call it a false sence of security if you wish, but I've had a few bingles in older cars and the other modern car driver has always come out worse for wear, health wise, than me.

If the crash test videos, testimonials from Ambulance Officers (you guys/gals are amazing by the way) and forum members, not to mention continuing improvements in road toll statistics don't make you at least question your beliefs just a little bit, then I can't see what will.

All we can do is collectively hope that you are careful and vigilant drivers, especially when carrying passengers, and that you never meet up with a driver who isn't. A few comments earlier in this thread about being too careful a driver to get into a big crash also scared the hell out of me. It not just about how good a driver you are, its also about how bad some others out there are.

I would think most on this Forum have a love and appreciation of old cars, and enjoy nothing more than taking them for a drive, myself and my wife included, however we are well aware that there is an increased risk we are accepting, and we are cautious because of it. I truely hope none of us ever finalise this debate with a real life experience!

In the words of the police sergeant in "Hill Street Blues", BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!

[TheZHLANE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESXI...eature=channel

awesome crashes

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

I may have got a bump on the noggan as a result of the impact, but the driver of the Falcon went to hospital. Doesn't that say something? Might be I've got a hard head or something silly like that

Reverse the roles here. If I was in the AU and belted the left side of the Valiant, I may have ended up without the bump on the noggan, but what injuries would I have sustained? What injuries would the Valiant driver sustained?

It was also misread by some people as to what door got belted in the Falcon. Perhaps a re-read of my posting would be in order. Then comment as to why the owner of 1 said AU falcon ended up in hospital, having side intrusions bars, whilst the (V8) Valiant that surposedly doesn't have break away engine mounts, had the motor sitting on the K-frame and only ended up with a bump on the noggan. (Do some research on 1971 to 1981 V8 Valiants, in respect to engine mounts)



We won't get into braking and handling with an old car now. I work with suspensions and alot of older cars handle and brake really well, with a few dollars thrown at them. A classic brake upgrade with a Valiant only costs $300 to $400 and then they brake alot better than an AU series 1 Falcon. Valiant conversion entails 4 spot calipers on the front and disc brakes on the rear. So we won't go down that path.

People can continue the arguing to and fro, as to a modern car being safer that older ones. I own both a modern and older car and I do feel alot safer in my older one. Call it a false sence of security if you wish, but I've had a few bingles in older cars and the other modern car driver has always come out worse for wear, health wise, than me.

I read your post that's why I quoted you in the first place.

you hit with the FRONT of your car into the SIDE of an AU, strongest part vs weakest *cant really have crumple zones unless you want a falcon as wide as a H1 hummer now*, so his body movement will be from side to side not front to back which by the way is NOT the natural movement of your head and side impacts are more prone to cause serious injury even at low speed due to the abnormal movement of head/neck/body in general, and granted you have less head room to move about side to side then front to back and more solid objects to hit your head on Bpiller opposed to a soft (er) steering wheel or headrest.

I usually like idea's opinions from others but really yours are like a dog with a cape.

comparing a few nose to tails between new and old cars doesn't make your point valid either, at 60+ km/h impact I would rather be in an FG than a Au, or an AU over a EA its all relative.

and you talk about brake upgrades, your forgetting you can adopt 6 piston brembos to the au, still have better structural rigidity than your val and hell if we are talking about mods a turbo kit just so its faster as well.... not relative? well neither was your point.

I'm not a old car hater, if you read my first post you will see that, but blind Freddy can see that a newer car is safer to crash than an old car *i could sound it out but doesnt work as well in text*.

I mean after all the idea is not to crash, but should the worst happen your chances of survival are alot higher when you have a cell around you that would make the entire structure of a landau look like a tin can.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Got to love the crumple zones, don't you.

If any car is hit in the drivers side door, you're going to be hurt. No matter what era the car is made. But, when it comes to the other parts of a car getting hit, I'd prefer to have plenty of car round me, in the form of an old tank. Less chance of being hurt.

prang in to me with ya dodgy old valiant i would have sore neck, bung back, dodgy knee and a fear of slipping on wet lettuce at the supermarket.........

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

I read your post that's why I quoted you in the first place.

you hit with the FRONT of your car into the SIDE of an AU, strongest part vs weakest *cant really have crumple zones unless you want a falcon as wide as a H1 hummer now*, so his body movement will be from side to side not front to back which by the way is NOT the natural movement of your head and side impacts are more prone to cause serious injury even at low speed due to the abnormal movement of head/neck/body in general, and granted you have less head room to move about side to side then front to back and more solid objects to hit your head on Bpiller opposed to a soft (er) steering wheel or headrest.

I usually like idea's opinions from others but really yours are like a dog with a cape.

comparing a few nose to tails between new and old cars doesn't make your point valid either, at 60+ km/h impact I would rather be in an FG than a Au, or an AU over a EA its all relative.

and you talk about brake upgrades, your forgetting you can adopt 6 piston brembos to the au, still have better structural rigidity than your val and hell if we are talking about mods a turbo kit just so its faster as well.... not relative? well neither was your point.

I'm not a old car hater, if you read my first post you will see that, but blind Freddy can see that a newer car is safer to crash than an old car *i could sound it out but doesnt work as well in text*.

I mean after all the idea is not to crash, but should the worst happen your chances of survival are alot higher when you have a cell around you that would make the entire structure of a landau look like a tin can.

Exactly right, your mention of side to side movement of the head causing more injury is right. The side ways movement in a side on prang causes more injury due many facts but one of them is simply hard internal structures are closer to your head (window, door frame, b pillar), which means you hit them with your head. In a front or rear the hard structures are further away and less likely to be hit. It simple crash kinetics and nothing more to it, side impacts are worse injury wise for the occupant of that car.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Have a search of the net back about 12 months ago and post up the picture of a WRX and Nissan Skyline that crashed as a result of street racing about 12 months ago, in Adelaide. That picture would make this picture look insignificant. I think the cars were in 3 pieces each.

Maybe so but what speed were they doing? I have seen a brand new audi ripped in two, but that was doing about 160 when it hit the power pole and went through a fence (3 survived that crash).

That pic, that holden was probably only doing about 80.

[GTP owner]

This thread has been a laugh.
The fact is that those who are arguing that the older cars are safer because they are "built solid" are living in a fantasy land.
Arguments against that stance are:
- The old xy500 weighs less than a modern camry, so most modern cars are heavier than the old stuff. So the argument about having the heavier car and therefore mass making you safer is a furphy.
- The old cars lack crumple zones, so a low speed impact makes the older car look like it came off best. Check your footwells after a small prang guys - you might find it is crinkled afterwards. That is your safety cell closing in on you. The modern car will not be crumling in the cell, but the bits around it will.
- Old cars are more likely to have rust hidden under old or new paint. Rust will weaken your car. When you have a big one - it will tear itself apart.
- New cars have side-impact bars and stronger sills. In older cars you can't even open the door when jacked up on one side. The really good modern stuff has curtain airbags.
- Old cars have skinny pillars, so crumplke when they roll over. Given that they have a higher centre of gravity, they roll more easily.
- Newer cars have abs, ebd, traction control etc, so are less likely to get into a crash.
- Newer cars are more likely to have newer parts in them, so are less likely to fail at critical moments. Older cars...well do you really know how much metal fatigue is present?

So go and drive your old car. I enjoy driving mine. But i would never fantasise that it is safer. The video of the little smart car is the best. Sure it bounced off the wall, but the driver could have survived. There would be no hope in an old car...sorry. Failing that, you can always test Darwin's hypothesis.

[Boosh Brus]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What for, a 1977 fairlane or 1979 valiant is safer?

I don't get what you trying to say? They are crash testing 400 new Volvos per year in the effort to refine and make them safer. Nothing to do with old cars.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I don't get what you trying to say? They are crash testing 400 new Volvos per year in the effort to refine and make them safer. Nothing to do with old cars.

Pretty sure that was a comment full of sarcasm and fueled by frustration. GeckoGT is one of the best safety advocates here.

[Boosh Brus]

Ahh... I am too slow today.

[Bad Bird]

EDIT: Beat me to it...

[LOCO XP]

Is this thread still going?.... The reality is very depressing. Without a doubt new cars are safer, the case is proven, although a select few will continue to live in denial. I drive a 46 year old car 6 days a week (EH Wagon) and although the reality of the unforseen is frightening, I accept the risk and will continue use it regularly. There are more cars on the road than ever, and as such, more stupid complacent and distracted drivers relying far too heavily on the ABS, traction control, creature comforts and 5 star safety rating of their late model cars, as such I am always doing my best to avoid such drivers that are flying up to intersections and braking late, distracted and veering across onto my side of the road etc.....

[GS608]

Unfortunately when the public see a new car more damaged than the old car they think it's safer.

Last year Mum had a crash in our FG, an 87 Camry hit the drivers side just infront of the wheels, Camry had a broken headlight and a bent bonnet/bumper and our FG had $14k worth of damage, every single person who stopped commented on 'how well the old Camry held up, that Falcon doesn't look like 5 star safety to me" Mum had to go to hospital as she had whacked her head on the B pillar. Sure it didn't look good but people just don't realise that it is suppose to damage like that to protect people inside.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I don't get what you trying to say? They are crash testing 400 new Volvos per year in the effort to refine and make them safer. Nothing to do with old cars.

I believe volvo recently tested a new car with crash avoidance. Didn't avoid very well.

Volvo crash avoidance technology

[svo supporter]

I love it how some have mentioned about head and neck injuries as a result of an accident I had, where the head and neck has gone side ways etc etc. Strange how the driver of the car I hit had rib injuries. No neck or head injuries RIB. I had a bump on the head as a result of hitting the steering wheel.

IMA. I wasn't at fault in the said prang. I was travelling along a back street and the other driver came belting through a stop sign. The only option I had was hit the other car.

My quoting about the brake upgrade. That was a generalisation, whereby older cars CAN be upgraded, with safety items fairly cheap and be better than newer factory items. ALA brakes. Yeah, you can upgrade an AU to 6 pot calipers, but the same can be done to an older car too. So, that discussion isn't going to go real far now.

Sure newer cars have safety cells and crumple zones etc etc, but I'd prefer to have some space around me, in the event of an accident, rather than crossing my fingers that these "crumple zones" are actually effective.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Sure newer cars have safety cells and crumple zones etc etc, but I'd prefer to have some space around me, in the event of an accident, rather than crossing my fingers that these "crumple zones" are actually effective.

You don't get it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

that is how crumple zones work...