A truly sad fate befell this American classic car that weekend when it T-boned a taxicab on the intersection of Eletskaya and Yasenevaya streets. The damage is not as massive as in the (in)famous 2009 Chevy Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air crash test, but still significant for a relatively low speed impact. On the other hand, the opponent – a current model Skoda Octavia taxicab – also suffered major damage and is most likely beyond repair. Luckily no one was badly hurt. It was not clearly stated who is to be blamed, but – quite understandably – the public opinion is against the taxi driver.
The amount of damage to both vehicles is amazing. I’m pretty sure both are beyond repair. But the Chevy got the worst of it.
Usually when driving an significantly older vehicle, lacking of safety equipment is a problem. But in practice it could be safer depends on situation, if the traffic around the car can take pre-caution quicker.
( when I drive my ’95 Buick LeSabre, people kept hitting me every few month as if I don’t exist, to a lesser degree on Lincoln Mark VIII. The problem is solved when the car has shining hubcaps, white wall tires, a lot of dazzling chrome, hood ornament, vinyl roof and obsolete colors, or the car looks more like horse carriage so the traffic can keep a safety distance )
But when accident does happen, it could be bad. Roll over protection barely exists before the ’60s, and no wonder in some video games an instant causality would be triggered if an older ( ’20s, ’30s, ’50s ) roofless car tips over.
Out in Ann Arbor a decade ago a Duesenberg was hit by a Volvo causing severe causalties.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-02-classic-car-safety_x.htm
Isn’t that just typical. Volvo driver is at fault and the entire article focuses on how unsafe the Duesenberg was. Maybe if the Volvo wasn’t so notoriously safe the driver wouldn’t have been empowered to drive like a jag.
I agree, people tend to stay away from flashier older vehicles. Doesn’t solve t-bone type incidents where neither see each other but for tight traffic situations I’d rather be in one than my white blob at times lol
Seems like that thick steel and body-on-frame design used on older cars helps them fare better in minor fender bender-type accidents. Not so much in any crash over 20 mph or so where you have mostly unrestrained occupants flailing about and slamming into hard steel objects inside the car.
The Skoda really held up well in the side impact. From the looks of the Chevy I would have expected a lot more intrusion into the side of that compact car. Those laid back A pillars really are a weak point. it’s lucky the Chevy’s door stayed closed to help prevent total collapse and steering column penetration. I do see a steel post laying on the ground, the sharp V in the Impala leads me to believe it hit the post before (or after) it hit the Skoda. But the windshield doesn’t even appear to be cracked, amazingly enough.
The Chevy looks as if it had a Crumple Zone, which of course wasn’t in its design.
I lost track of a website which had numerous accident scene photos from the ’30s thru ’50s. No corpses, but the mangled cars speak for themselves. Many had a windshield crack in line with the drivers’ heads; one can imagine what the steering-column must’ve done.
I think this is the most optimal type of impact for old cars, either dead center on the side of another car, or dead center on the rear. Lots more metal to absorb the energy and crumple. Offset crashes like the other 59 Impala vs the Malibu are where the modern designs really shine when it comes to cabin penetration, there just isn’t any structure in the front of a frame car besides the rails, the thick fenders and hood are essentially unpredectable crumple zones
Geez poor 59 Impala 4 doors, they just can’t catch a break. Hopefully the driver and occupants are ok.
I still think an X frame Chevy is the worst car that can be used as an example of old car safety, especially using it as a broad brush.
I had an extensive discussion with Stanislav about this crash, and the presumed role of the X Frame in these cars. rather than repeat myself, here’s what I said:
The reality is this: there is to the best of my knowledge no good information about how various cars fared in various types of crashes back then. It’s almost all pure speculation at this point. As is any presumption about the X Frame’s role in any crash situation. There are so many variables. It’s completely out of my area of knowledge; I refuse to speculate.
One very important thing to keep in mind: modern “frames” are not really like frames in the very old days. And GM started down the road on that with the X Frame. The interrelationship of the body and frame, to create one entity, is very significant. Modern cars don’t just “sit on a frame” like in the 1920s and so.
In fact, the perimeter frame used in GM cars across the board in 1965 (and used earlier in some brands) is really largely just a way to strengthen the sills of what is largely a unibody structure that happens to have its sill frames attached with bolts rather than welded on. A great majority of a 1965-up BOF car’s strength is really in its body. The frame largely carries the front and rear suspension without direct contact to the body for quietness and smoothness sake.
This is often not well understood, and BOF fanatics (Panther lover, for instance) consistently overemphasize the special strengths of BOF cars. It’s just not the case.
Anyway, the X Frame was one of the first big move by GM to make the body a more important structural member. While I can see some presumed negatives in the design, I’m not really sure there are any significant ones. Central frames are still used today on a number of vehicles. I’m not really in the position to judge the X Frame. It was used in millions of vehicles, and to the best of my knowledge, it was never seriously impugned, except for the possibility of perhaps offering less side impact resistance, especially so if the body sills were rusted, which often happened back then.
If anyone can find solid evidence of the X Frame being decidedly inferior in crash situations, other than side intrusion, especially when the body sills are rusted, I’d like to see it. Frankly, I’m rather impressed as to how well the Chevy did in this particular crash, as its complex and weak windshield is still intact, despite considerable forces on the front end. As Matt said above, this type of accident was the best type to have in these older cars.
Excellent points Paul. I agree that the X-frame or cruciform frame GM cars brought the body and frame closer to being a unified structure and it was an important evolutionary step. That said, the primary reason GM switch this design was to allow the body to sit lower. It was because of this frame design that GM had it strengthen the rockers and ad extra underbody braces to make the body shell closer stiffer and stronger and less reliant on the chassis to give it strength.
As you already pointed out, the 1965 Perimeter frames by Chevrolet (and Ford) really were essentially unitized body structures sitting on the frames. This was really the final step in BOF evolution. I recall both Chevrolet and Ford boasting that they had stiff body structures which sat on “flexible frames” isolated by rubber cushions. The idea being that the chassis, while also strengthening the body somewhat, was really there to support the suspension and drivetrain while isolating the body from road harshness. The perimeter frames them selves are not overly strong or heavy compared to earlier designs and certainly don’t have much torsional strength when they aren’t tied to the body.
Back to the topic at hand, I think that the ’59 Chev did very well in this collision, taking into account it’s age. The fact that I don’t see any deformation of the car’s passenger compartment shows that at least all the collision impact was absorbed in the front end. And while the taxi appears to have minor damage, the Chevy did hit it in the front wheel area and cowl area from the side, which is the strongest and least likely area to deform. I have seen many crashes of this nature with modern cars, and the results are similar, the one that hits the other in the axle area from the side has far more damage. In a direct front end collision, I don’t see the X-frame offer and more or less crash resistance compared to say Ford’s cow belly chassis of the same era. And even if an X-frame car, with it’s extra body reinforcements, didn’t offer the same side crash protection as a Ford cow belly, I think we can all agree both designs would be far substandard by modern standards.
OMG poor Chevy this is almost too painful to look at.
This is prompting me toward writing up a history (of sorts) on crash testing. A few years ago I saw a presentation of cars from the 1920s being crash tested to see what roadway appurtenances would do to the car. Knowing the presenter, I was able to get copies of the pictures.
Perhaps it’s time for me to do something with these pictures. Sadly, I’m at work at the moment or I would post one as an example. They are quite interesting in methods used for crash testing as well as what the final result was to the car.
Ouch. Looking at pictures like this are a grim reminder of how far we have come in building vehicles to withstand crash forces while keeping occupants safe.
The ’59 was soft as paper. My first car was a ’59 Biscayne. On my first day of licensed driving I stupidly tried to park in a tight parking space on icy pavement. Result wasn’t nearly as bad as this, but still a LOT more crush than you’d expect from a 3 mph collision. The other car wasn’t even scratched.
This is a high-speed crash with an X-frame car (’62 Cadillac). The body remains surprisingly intact. Even the doors still open. Driver wouldn’t have stood a chance of surviving though…
https://youtu.be/O-WYKYrq5FI
If you want to have an hour or two of horrified amazement, look for ‘russian drivers’ on You Tube. There would be no way I’d own a car there, plus the cops are plenty corrupt and no one has insurance.
The old Chev held up quite well in whats actually a low speed impact likely less than 30mph/50kph, Ive seen several in wrecking yards that were highway crashes that were much worse these cars didnt have burst proof locks which Nader with his rant prompted into being but the doors have remained closed to offer some passenger cell rigidity, The Skoda would be totalled the A pillar looks to have moved so thats it for that bodyshell.
The IIHS crash was a high offset impact which concentrated the entire impact on the left frame rail of that ’59. You can see that the result there was the center of the X became a fulcrum point around which the car bent, crushing the driver dummy. In the Russian crash there was little or no offset, so the forces got dispersed more and the passenger compartment stayed mostly intact. The windshield is still there. I can’t tell from the video if the steering wheel was pushed back.
Seems a lot of topics have come together vehicle wise this week, vintage VWs and vintage car crashes. Here’s a rather angering tale from my hometown. 70 year old guy hit head-on by Oxy-zonked kid in a Fusion, fresh out of the courtroom where the judge refused to hold him, despite protests by his mother.
I knew there was a reason I didn’t like bugs.
http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/one-person-dead-multi-vehicle-collision-circle-drive2
This bug has all the front structure cut away and replaced it with a fiberglass front end assembly. So the upright spare tire and structure and front of the side panels are all cut away, along with no steel hood and fenders. Basically what protection an old Beetle has is missing in this car. It’s hard to tell for sure, but it looks to have had it’s axle beam reversed for the extended wheelbase hotrod look as well. Would have held up much better stock. Could have made the difference for survival. Very sad incident. Hope the reckless loser pays big time for this.