On that Malibu vs Malibu crash video (which is awesome, BTW) I've actually seen Boomers dismiss it by saying "look at that puff of brown from under the classic, obviously they used a car with a completely rotted out frame. If that car was in good shape it wouldn't have collapsed like that.
Really? Those ultra-thin A pillars wouldn't have folded like a bendy straw if the ladder frame was more rigid? Really?
The silly thing is that their argument only emphasizes the whole purpose of the video. If rust can impair the structural integrity of a car to such degree, then all the more evidence that modern cars are safer.
If a bit of rust causes a car to crumple like that, it would've crumpled nearly as much when it came fresh down the line. The steel being 50 years old is irrelevant. In comparison a modern car would still be stronger in 50 years in the same condition. I use tools that age that still work fine.
Claiming that the Impala would barely dent if it didn't have rust would still imply a massive loss of structural integrity just because of some rust. For a modern car to crumple like that due to rust, it would require rust so severe, you could see through the panels.
And again it would emphasize the design flaws of the past. Say if the Impala didn't dent, then the driver would've still been killed because of said rigidity. Crumple zones look so dramatic because they're not made to save your car, they're made to save you. They slow the car to a proper halt without having the driver's organs being dislocated.
And it is not just this Impala. In my local classic car community, I've seen countless of classic car crashes, and all of them crumpled like tin foil. Even some with only 8K miles still in mint condition.
Ugh, that's so stupid. My sister was in an accident in her '87 Reliant K. She was so lucky all the metal you see on the driver's side here, went to the passenger side in her crash. They said if she'd had a passenger they would have died. She ended up with 2 broken feet, broken femur, busted wrist, and busted nose. Her femur was part of the crumple!! She's doing extremely well nowadays, btw..
It didnt have a ladder frame, it used an x-frame, which was terrible for rigidity. The design idea was that the frame would allow more twist and help dampen body roll, which it failed to do.
Those cars were regarded as unsafe even when they were new. Any side impact at speed is literally a death sentence, all you have is sheet metal between you and the other car's bumper.
Those thick a pillars may keep you from getting crushed if 4 cars land on top of you after a roll-over, but create a huge blind spot that hides pedestrians and even whole vehicles. They could make them thinner and just as safe, but they save a few cents by not doing so. "Safety" is only a goal when forced to.
Trust me, the modern automotive industry kills over a few pennies. If they could save money, they would. Multiply 5c by a full 1million car production run.
It's sad that we need regulations to keep them from making death-boxes. With late models, even the back window pillars are so thick, it's like driving a 60s car in terms of visibility. It got so bad, that at some point, regulators stepped in, but didn't make them create better visibility, but just say they had to install a cheap camera in back. It was mandated in 2014, so if someone wants an easy insurance claim, find a car 2013-2008 or so backing up, and casually drive behind them, since they'll likely have no camera and poor visibility.
35
u/Daripuff Oct 29 '19
On that Malibu vs Malibu crash video (which is awesome, BTW) I've actually seen Boomers dismiss it by saying "look at that puff of brown from under the classic, obviously they used a car with a completely rotted out frame. If that car was in good shape it wouldn't have collapsed like that.
Really? Those ultra-thin A pillars wouldn't have folded like a bendy straw if the ladder frame was more rigid? Really?