No one wants to think about being in collision, but it’s something that impacts us, whether we’re involved in one or not. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently decided to implement a more rigorous side impact test better suited to account for real world crashes. The new standard will allow researchers to more accurately determine how sedans are affected by a side impact involving a crossover. As a response to the rise of SUVs, the original side impact testing regime debuted in 2003. Seems like it’s time for an update.
IIHS is moving to a new standard partially because the current one has been so successful. According to the organization, 99 percent of new vehicles earn a good rating. Problem solved? Not really. For starters, the NHSTA hasn’t updated their side crash tests since the IIHS developed the first standards fifteen years ago. The American government uses a movable barrier that adjusts for the height of the vehicle, which neglects the impact a crossover or SUV can have on a sedan or shorter vehicle.
You may be wondering why the IIHS needs to update their test at all. Side impact crashes represented 23 percent of all vehicle fatalities in 2018. So there’s still room for improvement. The data IIHS compiled over the years came to several conclusions about those deaths. For every additional centimeter of B-pillar intrusion, IIHS researches estimated that occupants are 3 percent more likely to be killed in a collision.
They also analyzed data from actual car crashes. Real-world impacts tended to be more severe and were located farther away from the B-pillar than laboratory tests. Harsher impacts probably resulted from heavier vehicles not being accounted for in the current testing regime. The IIHS currently uses a 3,300 barrier in their crashes. That’s about as heavy as your average mid-size sedan. With the rise of crossovers, the organization will most likely switch to a heavier one when the new standards are finalized.
The IIHS is also considering raising the speed of their side impact test to 37. That’s a 6 mph increase from the current standard. Paired with a barrier that’s 500 pounds heavier, the crash energy of the proposed test is increased by 82 percent. That new barrier will need to be redesigned though, because it turns out the uniformity of the front portion of the barrier contributed to crash damage that failed to mimic real-world collisions.
No test can be perfect. The NHSTA and IIHS still use outdated and heavily biased crash test dummies in their tests. That’s extremely unfortunate, especially when the data clearly demonstrates the need for dummies with different dimensions. In any event, it’s probably the right time for an updated side impact standard.
Can’t wait to see how much smaller they can make the windows on cars as the sills are raised ever higher!
(IMO) Smaller windows only create/increase the perception of safety; unless the reason for making them so is to allow for wider and sturdier side impact beams. Increasing the size of potential blind spots does NOT increase safety. 🙂
You’re preaching to the choir my friend
As always, a change in method will have good and bad effects. First it is clear that new cars are safer than ever. A side impact in a modern car compared with one that is 15 or 20 years old is a hugely different thing. So, we are not starting from a bad place and making it better, we are starting from a very good place and making it better.
The law of diminishing returns will be on full display here. The initial, say, 80% of the way to perfection is relatively cheap and easy. It is that last 20% where things get hard and expensive. And the result is that with standards going up (a redesigned test in which most cars will fare worse is the same thing) is that the car is going to be more expensive – or costs will be cut elsewhere, such as less robust mechanical components. At what point will an individual decide to forgo a new car and keep the old (more dangerous) one?
I’m not arguing that the change is a bad thing, but we must be ready for the law of unintended consequences to be at play as well.
This industry has never shown a sign of doing anything until forced. And when forced, the resulting tech spreads to all, the cost diminishes, whether anything from airbags to pollution mitigation to active safety – and yet cars are at their most affordable right now.
No doubt the industry moaned to regulators that they’d already got cars to run on unleaded fuel in 1971, and that final 20% to get them to run well and cleanly was going to make the cost of each unit prohibitive.
Stripped of any romance, cars are just a way to get about, and a very dangerous one for soft humans designed for 7mph jogging speeds. Anything possible to reduce that risk should always be pursued. And resistance from the industry should always be itself resisted: history has proved the industry to have irredeemable credibility issues.
My 1968 el Camino didn’t have shoulder belts, just lap belts. Why? Because they weren’t required yet, despite the proven life and injury savings they provided. Chevrolet made a calculated cost decision that the original buyer of my car might have gone down the street to the Ford dealer for a Ranchero because including the belts made the Chevy $3 more expensive.
Let’s look at how much they cost. Mine was very basic, the only option was an AM radio
Base price of a 1968 Ranchero: $2,540
Base price for a 1968 El Camino: $2,505
So I’m wondering if the Ford had shoulder belts or not for that extra $35.
Shoulder belts were required for ’68 models, but not until Jan. ’68. So early production vehicles may not have them, my friends early ’68 Cougar did not have them, but another friends later production ’68 El Camino did have them. Mounting points were in all 68’s, though.
Same with head restraints the next year. Early 69s did not have them, for the most part. They weren’t required until Jan. 1, 1969.
BTW, it was IIHS that led the charge to make head restraints much more effective, beginning with geometric ratings in the 1995 model year and later incorporating a sled test to simulate a 20 mph car-to-car rear-end impact.
And yet, the IIHS has not cared about head restraints in rear seats. One of the reasons I never considered a GM pickup is because up until 2019 they never put 3 head restraints in back. I found the same thing when looking at Traverses a while back too. GM’s far from alone on that.
With three kids, it’s been a pet peeve of mine and I don’t understand why nobody, not the NHTSA, not the IIHS, not Consumer Reports, not any reviewer, have called manufacturers out on it. Especially in pickups, where the occupant’s heads are up against the rear window.
GM is the only manufacturer left that regularly omits head restraints in center rear seating positions (second and third rows where applicable) — no doubt a cost-cutting measure.
FWIW, NHTSA has at long last upgraded the head restraint standards, so rear seat occupants do receive better protection than in the past. Unfortunately, the loophole remains where center rear seating positions are exempt from the standards.
It’s not 1970 any more – I get that it takes government intervention to get safety equipment added. I’m just saying that the incremental benefits are a lot more expensive than they used to be, and for incrementally less added benefit. I have no data to suggest we have passed the tipping point where changes will cost more than what they bring in the aggregate, just suggesting that we are closer than we were, say, 5 years ago. And of course the value flows to the guy who gets hit, so for that person value or cost doesn’t matter. But you can’t justify improving cars to the point where the most basic transport costs $100K either.
Another issue I am seeing in newer cars is how easily totaled they are in an accident. Anything that blows the air bags adds thousands to the price of the repair. Then the insurance company charges you a higher premium as it mails you a check that covers the value of your highly depreciated 7 year old ride and you get to go take on a bigger payment.
I’ll happily pay more in premiums because my car got totalled in order to save me from being totalled. However since I was not at fault mine did not increase. Way easier and cheaper for the insurance company to pay for the car than to pay ongoing medical bills for people. The last serious wreck I was in every airbag in the car deployed (the Outback). We were basically ok aside from some bruising etc. The bodyshop said that it was a close call in regard to whether it would be totalled or not, I asked them to tear it apart further to be sure they had everything as I did not really want the car back. In the end they convinced the insurance company to pay out in full for the car. They also told me that more likely than not that car would be back on the road, someone would buy the wreck and fix it for less than they could/would since it was almost new and perhaps it would end up in a different country. I can’t recall if the airbags actually did anything specifically seeing as how it was a rear-ending but we did have some abrasions from them.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2014-subaru-outback-3-6r-limited-oh-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Just, you are advocating for unlimited cost and price increases, yet I bet you are also complaining that cars are too expensive. You can’t have it both ways. And cars don’t kill… careless/reckless drivers kill.
Your last sentence hit a nerve with me. Car makers, police, and other have been saying that for decades. No one is perfect; everyone makes mistakes while driving, even if we try our hardest. We shouldn’t have to pay for these mistakes with death or permanent injury.
One word…. Darwin. Should responsible, alert drivers have to pay for Nanny State vehicle content? We need better education and behavior for restoration of personal responsibility. In the interim, all of my new vehicles will have forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and blind spot systems so I can be the most responsible driver possible (drowsiness can happen unexpectedly).
I also detest the Darwin word in this context.
We don’t know how to better educate drivers so they won’t crash. We’re imperfect; that’s human nature. Also, it’s not just education but attitude. People know they shouldn’t speed, run through red lights, text, etc. but they choose to do it anyway.
Better licensing tests won’t help, because of course while driving for the tests, drivers will be on their best behavior.
Europeans have very severe penalties for irresponsible driving. As a result, they have much fewer incidents of repeat offenders. In the US, we have a small population of repeat offenders… for which regulators and the insurance industry want a “peanut butter” approach (I.e., the rest of us have to incur costly or annoying countermeasures with marginal returns).
Technology exists to focus more severe countermeasures at the repeat offender population with very little cost. But our decentralized licensing system (state-based; not federally based) creates a hornets’ nest of hurdles to implement.
BTW, you may note a high incident of alcohol and other substance abuse accidents/fatalities in Europe. But you would be wrong if you blamed those incidents on the driver. It’s mostly drunk/impaired pedestrians stumbling out of the pub into the street.
The same thing can be said about fuel economy standards. There is a lot of expensive technology of questionable longevity going into vehicles for marginal economy gains.
At least increased safety has tangible benefits. But yeah, sometimes you wonder if the IIHS is looking for ways to remain relevant. I’d like to see them start to focus on other things to drive down insurance and ownership costs, like basic repair costs. I think there is a lot that can be done there.
You have to wonder, these large regulatory agencies, whether govt or private non-profits etc, you assume they’ll ALWAYS be pushing for newer and stricter standards, new tests, etc. How do they sustain their existence otherwise, just enforcing compliance of existing ones? No, they’ll always push ever onwards, and I agree, we passed the point of diminishing returns in regard to things like emissions a while back. Don’t get me wrong I love fuel injection and think catalytic converters are great. Direct injection? On the fence as to how its currently implemented. Things like Toyota subjecting the nominally very reliable U760E 6spd auto in my Camry to undue stress with silly “flex lock” programming to eke out a fraction of MPG in city driving? Foolhardy. Low hanging airdams on GM vehicles that scrape every curb for 1mpg on the highway? More of the same.
Now, improved crash safety, that’s a harder one to argue against, yes perhaps we’re at the point of diminishing returns, but those returns still have a LOT of value. Won’t stop me from bitching about ever shrinking greenhouses and fat pillars!
JP Cavanaugh,
Very well stated, thoughtful, and measured, I commend you.
Agree 100% JP.
This offset test of Mk2 Golf/Jetta reminds me I better drive the old ’86 Jetta with care. I won’t lose any sleep over it, though.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DjGccz9o-pRY&ved=2ahUKEwjsxdav8KbnAhXPJDQIHbWbDKgQjjgwAXoECAYQBA&usg=AOvVaw1Oq4laMOUwv80YUFOPYaHB
67 Conti
WOW! Just watched the clip.
I have an 86 GTI…..
Thanks for sharing. Be careful out there.
Back in the day these cars were actually rated as being one of the safest compacts available. But a lot of progress has been made in the last 35 years, these cars were about 2400 lbs, now even the lightest compacts are about 600 lbs heavier. The Golf was considered a subcompact, the Jetta a compact due to the measurements used back then.
Scroll down on my GTI COAL and you’ll see the result of it going 30 or so mph into the side of a Lincoln Town Car.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1986-vw-gti-kick-a-little-asphalt/
Kind of related…My wife clipped a concrete column in a parking ramp with our new in 2017 Ford C-Max, scraping the door and rear quarter panel. The door would still open and close and to outward appearances looked like it just needed to be reskinned, but the body shop determined that the side impact beam had been compromised and a new door was required. So the standards have an impact (sorry) long after the manufacture.
Could this be the end of the F-150 SuperCab’s clamshell doors? Ford is the only one still using this design, and it has hurt them in crash tests.
I’ve never really liked this design, it’s a real PITA if you haul people back there and almost impossible to access in a tight parking lot. But they have been a fixture for decades, and a lot of people evidently still like them.
The supercab did just fine in the current test:
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/ford/f-150-extended-cab-pickup/2020#side
Generally, this is the type of vehicle inflicting the fatal injury in a side impact as the radiator attempts to share the same physical space as the sedan driver’s head.
Right. What happened is that, for the current F-150, Ford decided to add some structural elements to the SuperCrew (crew-cab) body style, which helped it to ace the small overlap tests. The IIHS decided to also test the SuperCab (extended-cab) body style, and got markedly different results, because it lacked those structural elements, presumably for cost-cutting reasons.
Ford’s response was that they prioritized the SuperCrew, which accounted for 83% of the F-150’s sales, but that they would add those same measures to the Regular and CrewCab models to get them to perform better. *I* think they were telling the truth, or most of it. They didn’t expect the SuperCab to get a small overlap test, so they cheapened out. When they were caught, they fixed it.
And they’re not the only ones that routinely do that, either. Toyota, General Motors, Nissan, Volkswagen, BMW…they’ve all done it and will do it again. And then there’s the stuff that’s so big or so exotic, it never gets crash-tested, stuff like Bentleys, Rolls-Royces and Ferraris. But they’re probably not as safe as you’d think, either. I think the only automaker that truly tries to design a holistically safe car is Volvo, as evidenced by the fact that their cars will pass tests introduced ten years into the future.
However, that has nothing to do with the side impact, where both F-150 body styles did well. I’m not sure if they ever tested the Regular Cab, though.
Yes, nor was that was the first time the SuperCab fared poorly. It’s just a lot tougher design to make safe, and I wonder if the new tests will be too much to overcome with practical measures. Ford is nearly production ready on the next generation for the 2021 model year, if they kept this design it could pose a problem for them. Though I suppose it will pose a problem for everybody for awhile.
Phil, you’re mistaking this:
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/ford/f-150-extended-cab-pickup/2001
with this:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15354208/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-tests-reveal-disparate-results-between-crew-cab-and-extended-cab/
Twenty years ago the super cab was structurally unsound and folded like an accordion in forward impacts. The instance Kyree is referencing is when Ford was caught cheaping out on a simple structural brace *forward of the cab* on extended cab models that would have enabled it to perform as well as the hot-selling supercrew models in the newer IIHS small overlap. Ford chose to fit these braces to the supercrew variants but not regular or extended cab. It had nothing to do with the cab design being tougher to make safe.
Both Ford ad GM added rear access doors to their SuperCabs/ExtendedCabs in the 1996 calendar year. But only Ford incorporated a structural beam inside the door. So, please don’t accuse Ford for cheating-out.
With regard to its performance in the IIHS small overlap rigid barrier (SORB) test, please keep in mind the following:
1. The requirements came late in the development of the already challenging all-new aluminum truck. Ford should be complimented for re-prioritizing development resources to accommodate the changes… even if other bodystyles adopted the changes later.
2. Any test involving a rigid barrier is more challenging for heavier vehicles than lighter vehicles (F=MA). The disingenuous people at IIHS amp’d up the test speed (A) to get the resultant vehicle damage to emulate the damage seen in the real world. While this may seem OK to a layman, it is a big red warning flag to every man of science that the test conditions are fundamentally flawed… and creates greater technical challenges for large vehicles.
3. IIHS’s societal business case for SORB was a sham. They claimed they studied several small overlap accidents that resulted in fatalities. The truth is that the fatalities in those accidents were the result of concatenation events… a rollover or careening squarely into another object. That is, the deaths did not occur from the initial small overlap impact.
Why are we conflating 1996 door beams with Ford’s decision to exclude structural bracing from 2015 pickup trims it didn’t expect to be tested?
Regarding larger vehicles struggling with fixed barriers, I’m not sure I buy your f=ma argument. Larger vehicles have larger frontal areas over which to disperse the resulting force. Additionally, acceleration is change in velocity over time, and larger vehicles tend to have longer hoods to lengthen the time of deceleration. It doesn’t look like full size trucks have struggled with the moderate overlap test for quite some time. So what am I missing here, and how is this a defense of Ford’s decision to leave the safety structure off of non-Crew Cab F150s?
I agree somewhat that IIHS seems to snoop for additional tests by seeking out increasingly irrelevant edge cases, but your objection strikes me as equally driven by the desire to defend the brand. There’s really no need to do that, this kind of cost-cutting is seen on multiple other brands in the disparity between driver and passenger side small overlap results.
While Drew and Kyree bring up some valid points, I don’t really think Ford’s actions were defensible. It seems pretty clear they were trying to slip one by. I believe the only thing changed was added extensions on the frame. There is no reason they could not have added those on the other frames, which were otherwise identical in frontal structure.
If they told people the difference up front I would be more inclined to believe their good intentions…but I’m pretty certain they did not.
Many makers were later found to have only added the reinforcements to the driver side (the side that was tested), this was realized when they started testing the other side as well. Your spouse or whoever is in the passenger seat is SOL if you end up clipping a parked car or hit the pole with the passenger side instead of the driver side. Few makers have seriously cared about occupant safety until they get called out on it and it’s happening to this day.
This has been an issue with the Toyota Sienna for some time, although I believe that was just the regular overlap test and wasn’t due to not bracing one side. I’m not sure if they have fixed it with the last remodel or not. It surprised me that they let it go for so long without addressing it in a market segment that is probably the most heavily scrutinized by buyers.
Toyota has been sluggish in updating for the small overlap. They were caught flat-footed with the Camry in 2014 or so and had to rush some changes, but I’m guessing that only occurred for the driver side. My 4Runner doesn’t do well in that test and the Sienna is really looking its age–the only one worse is the even older Grand Caravan. Looks like the new TNGA models have caught up.
I think my point is being missed. The IIHS SORB test (and other IIHS tests) doesn’t reflect real world safety. So, the absence of “countermeasures” on the passenger side of the vehicle is NOT an indication of poor safety or OEM cheapness. Similarly, the lack of driver side “countermeasures “ may just be a reflection of the difficult technical challenge to patch-in such countermeasures on an existing architecture. These things are relatively easier to adopt when engineering a new architecture… which occurs every 6-12 years (depending on vehicle class).
My 2004 Titan has this side door arrangement, but seems to hold up well in the offset impact test.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io_w1edn8Rw&ved=2ahUKEwjGybuV9abnAhVzCjQIHe6DCVkQjjgwAHoECAcQBA&usg=AOvVaw2xX0GhXvL8ZJZgJg69pcXV
Nissan still uses the clamshell doors on the new Titan King Cab, and of course every mid-size extended cab still uses them (mostly because nobody actually sits in a mid-size extended cab; they’re only used for storage). The shift to rear-opening doors on others’ extended cabs seems to be driven just as much by a desire to share as many parts as possible between the extended and more popular crew cab as by safety. Notice that aside from their length, GM’s Double Cab and Ram’s Quad Cab are effectively identical to their crew cabs.
I will always prefer clamshell extended cabs, even though they’re not as convenient in a parking lot, because of the pillarless design.
I suppose they can share hinges and door latches and such. For my use, I don’t think I’d consider the clamshell doors. But then, that’s why I bought a crew cab.
The Big 3 sold nearly 2 million 5500lb+ pickups last year. When they blow through a red light, they aren’t loafing along. Not surprised the IIHS 3100lb barrier at 31 mph isn’t covering a lot of real world wrecks, but I’ve no idea how one designs
a passenger car that can withstand that impact when there’s about 5 inches of crush space to work with.
The key is stronger pillars, roof rails, and door sills PLUS having effective side airbags that shield the head and torso from direct impact with the either the occupants’ own vehicle or the intruding vehicle.
One thing that’s not necessary is gunslit windows. As an example, consider how the current-generation Toyota Camry performs in the IIHS side-impact test.
I agree, but there is going to be a point at which nothing more can be done. The crux of the matter is that the force of the impact has to go somewhere, and the less of it that is absorbed in deforming the passenger cabin (which is bad for occupants), the more must be transmitted into greater sudden lateral movement of the car, which is also bad for occupants. At some point you’ve used up the limited available cushioning. My main point is that three-ton pickups use up that cushioning at lower speeds than lighter vehicles and I think it would be an incredible engineering challenge to make smaller cars safer in these types of collisions.
A valid point in regard to very large, heavy vehicles striking cars in the side. However, the lateral movement isn’t the killer; everything harmful happens in about the first 50-60 ms of the impact when the side-struck vehicle’s occupants are thrown sideways toward the intruding vehicle.
I know the subsequent rebound of the dummies as the car is shoved laterally looks bad on the IIHS’s videos, but as I said, the injurious forces happen right at the start. Bottom line is you need strong side structure in combination with effective side airbags.
Our one experience with a direct side impact involved a lady pulling out in front of my wife on a 55 MPH State road in 2003, which totaled our ’98 Caravan – Beth had probably slowed to 45-50 at the point of impact. She hit the lady’s car right around the B-pillar/rear door area. Other than being shaken up and having her glasses broken by the air bag, she and our sons were fine. The other (at fault) lady went to hospital with a broken arm.
A H&R T-bone to my 2007 Fit Sport just at driver’s side mirror by a Sedan de Ville @ approximately 25 mph, resulted in deployment of the side airbags and my walking away without a scratch. Unfortunately, the Fit didn’t fare as well! 🙂
Thank goodness our cars are sacrificial (after all, the car is no good to you if you’re maimed or dead). I’m glad that in both of these stories, you were uninjured.
The IIHS is a mouthpiece for the Insurance Industry. I’ve learned to take everything they say, and re-analyze it with a mind to what they’re REALLY after: Greater profits for the Insurance Industry.
Improved safety may be a side-effect; but “people” have NEVER been the primary focus of the IIHS.
Watch them like a hawk. They’re never more than a press release away from proposing ridiculous crap that will make driving even more awful.
That’s right. IIHS is a lobbying group.
They exist to increase profits for the insurance industry.
If more crashworthy cars lower their payouts they are all for it. Of course, lower payouts should mean reduced medical bills, which should mean fewer injuries and deaths, which is good for us as individuals, if we drive one of the 5-star vehicles. That’s the POSITIVE.
The NEGATIVE: If it costs the consumer $1,000 a car, to save an estimated $2 per insured driver, the IIHS could care less.
An 82% increase in force, brought on by a heavier impact at higher speed is probably not an easy rolling change for the automakers. It will cost something…
Now, if it only costs $20-40 a car, then it might be a good thing. Perhaps I should give IIHS a break….but I won’t.
I won’t, because the insurance industry has money to burn on expensive NFL ads, instead of lowering our premiums. Those commercials aren’t cheap at all.
They will use the legislators they fund, and publicity and political correctness, to get the desired result, and car buyers will all pay. I mean, really, isn’t safety the most important thing?
Socialized benefits for the few (the insurance CEOs and top execs), with the costs dispersed widely among the many, and making it harder to afford a new car for everyone.
IIHS. Watch them (and other groups–they all operate on the same principle of maximizing their take by spreading seemingly small extra costs to the hoi polloi) and other lobbying groups, that’s how they work.
100% correct. The last 5 test procedures from IIHS had grossly flawed science and adverse consequences. But their pursuit of more rigid structure is to reduce collision repair costs. The science of saving humans lives want structures that absorb impacts via engineered crumple zones.
As an aside, has anyone noticed many of the newfangled LED headlamps are blinding to oncoming traffic? This is a result of IIHS’s headlamp ratings.
Those LED headlights aren’t nearly as bad as the yellow and white strobing brake lights that some commercial vehicles are now being equipped with. Here in Virginia I’ve seen them on contractor trucks (pickups) and paratransit vans. Some buses have them too.
These lights are insanely bright, right at eye level, and they flash continuously while the vehicle’s brakes are on. If you’re behind one stopped at a traffic light, especially at night, you’re literally blinded.
I assume some insurance industry study is behind these things, but they are the most annoying “safety” feature I’ve ever seen.
You are entirely incorrect in your guess/assumption about the effect of IIHS’ headlight ratings on headlamp design and implementation.
Yeah it’s exactly the other way around. IIHS is rating the existing headlights as to usefulness and compatibility with other traffic, i.e. if they blind others they fail. Their ratings are causing manufacturers to actually improve the headlights both for the owner as well as you, the one affected by the headlight when it comes toward you.
That’s right, Jim. It’s more complicated than that, but yours is an entirely fair and accurate quick summary. There _is_ legitimate criticism to be made of the IIHS headlight testing program, but on the whole over its three years of existence so far it’s done a whole hell of a lot more than NHTSA’s stuck-in-Park statutory vehicle safety standards to materially improve headlamps’ safety performance—for the equipped driver and the oncoming driver alike.
And that applies more broadly than just headlamps, too. This dogpile on the IIHS, dismissing them as a nefarious bunch of craven profitmongers spoiling car enthustiasts’ fun and stealing everybody’s money has no basis in fact, but nobody ever stopped believing ignorant conspiracy-theory nonsense when presented with facts, so having got on record calling it out as such (and linked to this bit of conversation from the last time these kinds of ideas flared up), I’m stopping now.
This dogpile on the IIHS, dismissing them as a nefarious bunch of craven profitmongers spoiling car enthustiasts’ fun and stealing everybody’s money has no basis in fact,
Agreed.
but nobody ever stopped believing ignorant conspiracy-theory nonsense when presented with facts,
This coming from the person who just the other day said with great certitude that M/T’s COTY award was always sold to the highest bidder.
(that’s really, truly not the case, btw, and I shouldn’t really even have to say it)
I agree with this. I’m also very happy to see that we up here in Canada have finally moved on from the US standards. In fact, we allow Matrix lighting, and automatic headlights will become mandatory in 2021. I do actually tell people to look at the IIHS headlight ratings when buying cars, as I think it is a very important thing to consider when buying cars. (We have not bought a car without Xenon or LED lights since our 1999 Audi A6 Avant.) I’m also a huge fan of Auto High Beam, which I think greatly increases safety.
“The last 5 test procedures from IIHS had grossly flawed science and adverse consequences. But their pursuit of more rigid structure is to reduce collision repair costs. The science of saving humans lives want structures that absorb impacts via engineered crumple zones.”
I don’t agree with you at all if you are saying their main objective is to make it cheaper to repair a car. The IIHS members (auto insurance companies) are by default on the hook for physical injuries to humans as well as damage to automobiles. The cost to repair or replace whole a motor vehicle absolutely pales in comparison to the cost to repair or make whole the loss of a human inside a vehicle. The IIHS could not care less if every single minor accident results in a total loss of the vehicle as long as the human occupants emerge entirely unscathed. That is their mandate. Given the choice I have the exact same mindset. Any of my cars can be easily replaced. Any of my family (and yours as well from my same viewpoint) can not.
+1 for you Jim, as well as Paul and Daniel. (So make that +3!)
Well said Jim. Some valid points have been brought up about their methodology and need to find ways to keep themselves funded, but the fact is that all the cars they crash test are totaled so cost of repair is a moot point.
I remember when the 2015 F-150 came out I was curious if the aluminum body would raise insurance rates. But in the forums it turned out insurance rates actually went down for most owners due to better safety measures. People may sarcastically claim the IIHS is only interested in insurance profits, but the fact is that lower insurance costs and better safety are in everyone’s best interest.
Check the facts… the vast majority of insurance claims and dollars are for property damage. Injuries are tragic, but are a very small percentage of claims and similarly small percentage of $ outflows for auto insurance companies. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
It may just mean things are working. In the 50’s when you ran into a wall at 30mph without your seatbelt there was no injury payout either since you impaled yourself, bled out in a few minutes, and were buried a few days later. Now you can do the same thing in a new car and likely walk away but the car is usually totaled.
I’m not sure exactly what your argument is. I don’t find my insurance premiums objectionably high considering what my coverage is in return, nor do I think that the costs of the safety equipment is absurdly high either since a car is measurably cheaper today than in the past even when including these devices. I don’t particularly care that my car is totaled as long as I walk away. I also don’t want the car to be “repaired” and returned to me if it’s in a serious wreck.
Most every single safety “nanny” is defeatable by the driver. Turn them off if you want. Whatever, it’s like those people in the 80’s who thought that ABS was a stupid idea since they “know how to brake”. Same with stability systems. And now with newer technologies.
But circling back to one of your original points above, if you really believe that the reason LED headlights are blinding to oncoming traffic is BECAUSE of the IIHS you really need to do a little more research and then cite your findings. Until then I’m just done engaging here as that position makes every other statement suspect as well.
I feel like this will be the nail in the coffin for what sedans and sporty cars are left on the market. Now there will be a “death trap” stigma attached to those once their current ratings plummet from five stars to four or three, and to get them backup to five will take substantial structure changes that may well be considered too burdensome for automakers to continue.
The future is seeming more and more like the song red barchetta describes every year
“The future is seeming more and more like the song Red Barchetta describes every year.”
Except I think it will be the ecological argument rather than the safety argument that drives the implementation of “The Motor Law”….
Side note, I’m 99% sure the wheels on the IIHS crash cart are 1992 Cougar anniversary wheels(also optional on 95-97). It warms my heart seeing a piece of PLC goodness trashing a Telluride:)
“It warms my heart seeing a piece of PLC goodness trashing a Telluride:)”
LOL that’s great
+2!
To me, they look like the 15-inch alloy wheels available on the 92-95(?) Crown Vic. Same as on the Cougar?
The bolt patterns and offsets are different between them, but you may be right. They appear identical in design, right down to the ribs in the center, but the Crown Vic’s do seem a little bit deeper in that area (due to the reduced offset) than the Cougar ones.
IIHS has become significantly more relevant to the marketplace, vehicle safety, and vehicle design than the NHTSA. As they should since it directly affects their members’ bottom line. As far as the public goes, they are doing exactly what the NHTSA really SHOULD be doing.
NHTSA has been asleep at the wheel for the better part of two decades, at least (no matter which political party is in power).
It’s a shame that IIHS is perceived as advancing safety more than NHTSA. I worked with both agencies. NHTSA is mandated to have a foundation of science and facts, along with comprehensive external reviews. It’s only when Congress enacts emotional legislation when NHTSA can deviate from such rigor.
IIHS May come across are being scientific, but their analysis is often anecdotal. For example, their analysis claimed an effectiveness of auto high beams (I personally love auto headlamps) in reducing accidents. But, they did not isolate the influence of other safety content that is often bundled with auto high beams (e.g., AEB). The big red warning flag was that their data identified urban locations as having the greatest benefit. Common sense would ascribe auto high beams as having benefit potential in dark rural or suburban environs…. not in an urban setting with a high density of street lights.
I don’t have anything to add, but I am impressed by this comment thread and the knowledge, critical thinking and passion that so many brought to the table.
The CC All-Stars debates make for great reading.
How does IIHS get around the problems of sampling error and stochastic variability? They can’t use replication in these crashes, which would be the normal way of addressing this.
I’m curious how much variation would occur between identical tests. I wouldn’t expect large changes in vehicle structure deformation, but I wonder if the very specific injury measures from forces on the dummies would vary enough to make a difference.
Pretty darn close when multiple tests were run on the same model. Here’s an example from nearly 20 years ago, when 3 tests were run on the 2000-01 Isuzu Trooper, because there were fuel leaks in the first 2 tests. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/Isuzu/trooper-4-door-suv/2001
If you click on “technical measurements for this test,” you’ll see both the structural and dummy injury measures are very close.
You’ll generally find the same thing when a vehicle is tested by the manufacturer and then IIHS performs an audit test of the same car.
Great find, and surprisingly close results, particularly in the head impact criteria.
Fact, in the small overlap test, we saw results vary depending on the position of wheel spokes at impact… if a spoke was at 9:00, the wheel was less likely to collapse and would be more likely to intrude into the passenger footwell. If the 9:00 position was a gap in the wheel, the wheel would breakaway and not intrude into the passenger space.
Test variability also exists as the impact lateral position changes (the propulsion sled cannot Control all of the lateral drift before impact).
Such variability drives engineers nuts. Some variability can be accommodated, but random variability cannot. There are hundreds of millions of unique crash scenarios. A test standard picks a relevant handful of scenarios in a REPEATABLE, CONTROLLED environment for fairness in comparisons across different vehicles.
For further enlightenment, in IIHS’s head restraint evaluation, their injury algorithm still records a neck force (nj) at V=0… at no velocity. We spent over a year pouring over the data and developing a more accurate algorithm. At the end of it, IIHS agreed with us, acknowledged the error in their algorithm, and declined to fix it. Sensationalism won over the science of real physiological injuries. If you think there was no harm in this, think again. Head restraints had to be positioned with very little set-back to the occupant’s head. The resultant discomfort sent customers with a variety of hairdos looking for a way to remove their head restraints or flip the head restraint backwards (rendering them much less effective). Please don’t misunderstand, I greatly value head restraints, but IIHS did us all a disservice.
Thanks for the inside information, Drew. In my field of science, this kind of variability is expected and rarely problematic. If I had to deal with it as an engineer, it would make me bonkers. Wheel spoke position–never would have thought of that.
The reversed head restraint is a classic.
I’m thinking you’ve given yourself away as working for Ford, both by this comment and by your earlier references to “SORB” (small overlap rigid barrier). Ford is the only manufacturer that uses the latter term to my knowledge. So it explains the “sour grapes” attitude toward IIHS, especially in light of the omission of the frame rail side extensions on the 2015 F-150 extended cab to guard against wheel intrusion. As I understand it, a Fiat Chrysler employee tipped off Automotive News about the omission, which is how IIHS learned about it.
I intended my last comment as a response to Drew.
Regarding wheel spoke position, it seems that is the duty of the automaker to ensure that the wheel does not intrude excessively into the occupant compartment regardless of which way the wheel happens to interact with the barrier. It’s not an indicator of the failure of the small overlap test to replicate a tree, utility pole, or the front corner of an oncoming vehicle, none of which alter THEIR shapes or stiffnesses to interact precisely with a gap between wheel spokes of the vehicle of interest.
For side impact, I’m sure the IIHS has tolerances for how far out from spec the moving barrier can be at impact. Based on their videos, there appears to be little variability, made easier by the fact that the target car is stationary until the moment of impact.
I have no knowledge of the head restraint issue you brought up, having never seen it discussed in any technical papers by Ford, IIHS, or anyone else.