[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
NSX prototype smolders at the 'Ring
More.......................
2016 NSX Spied at the 'Ring, Part II
More.......................
Production 2016 Acura NSX caught testing at the 'Ring!
More.......................
2015 CR-V MMC info, with color list. CVT confirmed
More.......................
2015 TLX Pricing info released over the holiday weekend
More.......................
American Honda Reports June 2014 Sales
More.......................
This is probably the very first look at the 2016 Pilot. Spied by a TOV member in So Cal.
More.......................
Commentary: Why are kids and pets still dying in hot cars? It's 2014 already.
More.......................
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Acura #2 Least Appealing Luxury Brand
Join Discussion......
Amateur Racing & Driving --> Re: How to get started??
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: S660
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 12 reasons why I prefer Manuals
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: TLX Production
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Dealing with phone companies.
Join Discussion......
TLX --> Re: Acura informational TLX Video
Join Discussion......
NSX --> Re: NSX Nurburgring Prototype caught on fire and burned
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: 2015 Accord
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: Civic Tourer - Facelift Spied
Join Discussion......
Fit (and Jazz) --> Re: One week with the Fit
Join Discussion......
Photoshops --> Re: Acura Boat
Join Discussion......
NSX --> Re: NSX first public test notes.
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: Honda F1 engine progress - drivers
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: 2015 Hyundai Genesis: C/D and Automobile both like it
Join Discussion......
TOV Photo Gallery: 2015 Honda Fit
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery: 2015 Honda Fit
Read Article....................
TOV Dyno Test: 2014 Accord Hybrid
Read Article....................
TOV Video: 2015 Acura TLX design Overview by Jared Hall
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery: 2014 Acura RLX Sport Hybrid
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery: 2015 Civic Type R Prototype
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > Accord CrossTour > > Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
  Post New Thread
dbthompson
Profile for dbthompson
Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 13:01
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
“First results show that automakers are making progress in rollover protection, but it’s disappointing that a new design like the Crosstour didn’t perform better.”
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr060210.html
Phil17
Profile for Phil17
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 15:41
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I personally think Acura/Honda's perform well in "typical" crash tests but are not as good in more extreme situations (roll over etc). They seem to have the design down right for the frontal, offset, side impact tests and now its time to go beyond that. They are still safe vehicles but the first thing i noticed between our Acura and Mercedes is that the Benz's door is at least 20% thicker. even the door hinges are much beefier...
PGH
Profile for PGH
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 16:59
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I'm a big fan of Honda's safety program. G-con then ACE they have shown they can produce very safe cars. I'm also confused why they can't take it all the way. You know, like Subaru has. Also, I should not have to buy a loaded Fit or Civic to get VSA or why can't I get disc brakes on a Civic DX? Don't tell me it's a money thing. This gen Civic had been bought and paid for years ago. Sounds like Honda sales and marketing and the been counters rule the roost. I'm at a lost why Honda did not beef up the roof strength to meet the requirements. I thought after the CRV got a marginal rating they would have made some changes for the MMC but I don't think they did. Perhaps Honda's in house testing shows something different in a real world crash.
eneka
Profile for eneka
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 17:02
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
At times i don't really find some of the tests conducted by IIHS to be significant enough. I.E. the roof strength test should be done by launching a car off a ramps that "rolls" the car over and have it impact the ground instead of this big slab of concrete slowly coming down on the roof. By having the car launching, they can evaluate the effectiveness of the SAB and passenger control.
Same with the rear "crash" test when it only tests the head restraints. What the use of good head restraints if your car get smashed up behind? They should test how the car performs when it is actually hit from the back, not just the seat on a sled.
aznstuart
Profile for aznstuart
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 17:15
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The way IIHS tests the roof strength offers concrete and comparable numbers, where as doing a real world test may not show as much.

This way, you know that a Toyota Venza can withstand 4.7 times its weight while the Honda Crosstour can only withstand 2.8 times its weight. With the data collected from the crushing machine, one should be able to gage the results of a rollover in the real world.

The rear impact test is just named wrong. They don't actually test rear impact safety. They should name this test the whiplash test or something to that extent, since that's what it really tests when they put the seats and dummies on rails.

Though I've always been curious how third row passengers in small and large SUVs would fair if they really test rear impact by ramming a cart to the rear.
P54
Profile for P54
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 18:02
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Phil17 wrote:
I personally think Acura/Honda's perform well in "typical" crash tests but are not as good in more extreme situations (roll over etc). They seem to have the design down right for the frontal, offset, side impact tests and now its time to go beyond that. They are still safe vehicles but the first thing i noticed between our Acura and Mercedes is that the Benz's door is at least 20% thicker. even the door hinges are much beefier...


Any price difference between the two?

Around 1977 I drove Accord 3door, me being 6'5" and 2-3 other people on board, one with crutches. Had a black out and left the road before a sharp curve. Woke up upside down airborne, then landing on the roof in the ditch gliding upside down among brush, logged trees and stumps. I saw the end of a logged tree coming straight toward me, hitting the windshield, chattering it and then the vehicle stopped. Short of penetrating the window and hitting me in the face. As we came to our senses we found out we were all alive and started to roll down (or "up" in this instance) the window. Then we heard people that had gathered on the roadside talk together. One said: "They are coming out, it must have been a Volvo since they survived the crash". I shouted back, no this is no Volvo but a Honda. None of us had a scratch, but the vehicle did not have a spot where it was not dented, it was totaled. A new demonstrator car was no more. I think it had like 3 beams in the roof that prevented it from collapsing. The Honda Importer used that car afterwards as a showcase to dealers and media how safe the Honda was.

Up through the years as new collision standards have been introduced, Honda have not always been on top in every newly adopted test, however as new standards are introduced they improve the design next time they do a model year change.

When everybody were only concerned about frontal crash, VW did some changes to their cars to be superior in off set crash, and then went to media to brag about their cars while others were slaughtered. As new standards were introduced the other brands followed up. With the new roof test not all manufacturers have had time to incorporate that in new designs, and some cars roll over more easy than others. Traditionally Honda incorporate low center of gravity in their designs, and unlike the traditional US design with wide body on narrow track, Honda have been a leader in wide track relative to body width.
notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-02-2010 18:12
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The IIHS is an insurance industry shill whose tests are questionable at best.

Read the press release carefully. They press a metal plate against a corner of the roof (which corner?) at a constant speed. They allow a minimum level of crush (5") and then measure the force it took to get there. How, in any way, does that measure impact mitigation and resistance in a rollover? The answer is, it doesn't. Controlled deformation is part and parcel of modern crash safety and I don't see any data saying that higher static roof strength (especially corner loaded) translates to better crash resistance. The IIHS is simply making a decision that higher static stiffness is better than controlled deformation in a rollover.

Even their quotation of statistics is suspect. Over 10,000 people killed in rollover crashes each year. How many of those were wearing seatbelts? I happened to find this quote from a legal site which argues that automakers aren't doing enough:

"An analysis of government safety data and accident reports by the consumer protection group Public Citizen shows that this is not true. Almost 2,000 of the over 10,000 persons that died in rollover accidents were wearing their seat belts. About 1,000 of these persons were partially or fully ejected from the vehicle.

The primary benefit of a seat belt in rollovers is to prevent ejection. Yet, in almost 20% of rollover accidents seat belts fail to perform as expected. In SUV accidents where the SUV rolled over and the roof crushed, almost half of 'all deaths and injuries occurred to persons wearing seat belts."

Let's parse this statement. First of all, 80% of the people killed in rollovers weren't wearing seatbelts. Oops. And half of all people wearing seatbelts were partially or fully ejected. That should give pause about seatbelts in rollovers, although if you look at the design of belts, they aren't really designed to hold you upside down, especially if not adjusted properly (5 point harnesses for everyone!).

That means that only 1 in 10 people were wearing their seatbelt, not ejected and possibly subjected to a crushing injury. And since that accounts for half of the crushing fatalities, that means that even without accounting for seatbelts, only 2k of the 10k rollover fatalities had anything to do with roof strength.

Suddenly, it doesn't look like roof strength is quite the issue it is made out to be. As in virtually every case of the IIHS developing new "better" standards over the last decade or two, this is an example of resetting the bar to find fault because cars in general are well built and very safe today. Going beyond federal standards to meet IIHS standards has done little or nothing for over the road safety. We keep getting increasingly heavy, bloated and more expensive cars because automakers keep packing in marginally effective safety advances to get a top rating, 5th star, whatever on someone's safety ranking. Enough. At least make some of this stuff optional. It costs too much (in many ways) and doesn't really do crap in the real world. I'd much rather we spent all this time and money on driver training and road improvements - avoid the freaking accident in the first place. Its just like the emissions chase. We've cleansed our exhausts to pollute about 1% of what they used to (or less), but we keep getting pushed to make them cleaner with diminishing return on investment. Safety is now the same way.

Inspiration for the song Red Barchetta...

http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/links/nice.html

PGH
Profile for PGH
Re: Crosstour & Pilot perform "marginally" in IIHS Roof Strength test    (Score: 1, Normal) 06-03-2010 10:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
The IIHS is an insurance industry shill whose tests are questionable at best.

Read the press release carefully. They press a metal plate against a corner of the roof (which corner?) at a constant speed. They allow a minimum level of crush (5") and then measure the force it took to get there. How, in any way, does that measure impact mitigation and resistance in a rollover? The answer is, it doesn't. Controlled deformation is part and parcel of modern crash safety and I don't see any data saying that higher static roof strength (especially corner loaded) translates to better crash resistance. The IIHS is simply making a decision that higher static stiffness is better than controlled deformation in a rollover.

Even their quotation of statistics is suspect. Over 10,000 people killed in rollover crashes each year. How many of those were wearing seatbelts? I happened to find this quote from a legal site which argues that automakers aren't doing enough:

"An analysis of government safety data and accident reports by the consumer protection group Public Citizen shows that this is not true. Almost 2,000 of the over 10,000 persons that died in rollover accidents were wearing their seat belts. About 1,000 of these persons were partially or fully ejected from the vehicle.

The primary benefit of a seat belt in rollovers is to prevent ejection. Yet, in almost 20% of rollover accidents seat belts fail to perform as expected. In SUV accidents where the SUV rolled over and the roof crushed, almost half of 'all deaths and injuries occurred to persons wearing seat belts."

Let's parse this statement. First of all, 80% of the people killed in rollovers weren't wearing seatbelts. Oops. And half of all people wearing seatbelts were partially or fully ejected. That should give pause about seatbelts in rollovers, although if you look at the design of belts, they aren't really designed to hold you upside down, especially if not adjusted properly (5 point harnesses for everyone!).

That means that only 1 in 10 people were wearing their seatbelt, not ejected and possibly subjected to a crushing injury. And since that accounts for half of the crushing fatalities, that means that even without accounting for seatbelts, only 2k of the 10k rollover fatalities had anything to do with roof strength.

Suddenly, it doesn't look like roof strength is quite the issue it is made out to be. As in virtually every case of the IIHS developing new "better" standards over the last decade or two, this is an example of resetting the bar to find fault because cars in general are well built and very safe today. Going beyond federal standards to meet IIHS standards has done little or nothing for over the road safety. We keep getting increasingly heavy, bloated and more expensive cars because automakers keep packing in marginally effective safety advances to get a top rating, 5th star, whatever on someone's safety ranking. Enough. At least make some of this stuff optional. It costs too much (in many ways) and doesn't really do crap in the real world. I'd much rather we spent all this time and money on driver training and road improvements - avoid the freaking accident in the first place. Its just like the emissions chase. We've cleansed our exhausts to pollute about 1% of what they used to (or less), but we keep getting pushed to make them cleaner with diminishing return on investment. Safety is now the same way.

Inspiration for the song Red Barchetta...

http://www.fiatbarchetta.com/links/nice.html




Good points. Honda has made a real effort to increase passive safey in there cars and trucks. Excellent handling good visibility(in some cases) stout structures and the ergonomic thing.
Perhaps everybody needs to take and pass a driving test(written and driving) every 5 years or so and insurance companies need to reward people more with better driving records, And yes the seatbelt thing, Buckle up it's the law.

With that in place I think their should be safer cars made. They don't have be bloated just well engineered. With cars getting smaller and the need for some people to have big suv's and monster trucks overall safety is going to be very important.
 
Thread Page - [1]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2014 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy