Titanium S1 111S (gla) wrote:I’m never quite sure about NCAT scores. For example a Citroen Pluriel scores the same for adult safety as 3 tonnes of Discovery 3.
I know there is a lot of science in safety these days but I’d rather have a big smash in the Discovery than the Pluriel.
2p
Thinks that Citroens are built like a packet of crisps faction.
There was a fascinating documentary on C4 a couple of years ago which looked at the crash safety of SUVs amongst other things.
You have to remember that the car's job in an accident is to look after the occupants, you don't die in a crash from hitting external stuff but from hitting the inside of the car. If you are in an old Land Rover and you have a crash the car will more than likely be fine, they are designed for farmers to push cows around with and are essentially one dirty great lump of metal which you sit in the middle of. You will not be fine, the vehicle will absorb little or none of the impact transferring almost all of it onto you.
Modern euro hatches are designed to crumple around a central safety cell, exactly the opposite of what you would want an agricultural vehicle to do. The car is very quickly put beyond economical repair in even a low speed crash but the cell is untouched, all the energy having been absorbed by the crash structures.
Thus the engineers have a dilemma (one of many). If the car is to be designed as a working vehicle they have one set of requirements for the very structure which is diametrically opposed to that required of a vehicle which is designed to keep it's occupants safe in the event of an impact. But UVs are supposed to
look and pretend to be the first while actually being family buses.
Modern SUVs have another problem which can only ever be partially engineered out which is that high centre of gravity. This makes them much more prone to roll in a crash, after which, from a survivability point of view all bets are off - those inertia reel seatbelts were never designed to keep you in the seat when you are inverted and serious injuries
will occur.
Obviously (anti-flame defence) this is a very simplistic view, the number of variables are huge and there will be a thousand apocryphal tales to support either side of the argument but this would explain poor accident ratings and, perhaps most importantly for me sounds logical.
Pete
'99 - '03 Titanium S1 111S.
'03 - '10 Starlight Black S2 111S
'11 - '17 S2 135R
'17 - '19 S2 Exige S+
'23 - ?? Evora
I walked away from both.
