A 2009 car vs. a 1959 car in a crash test.

[Pat Donnelly]

CRASH OF 59 CHEVY WITH 09 CHEVY: Many have sometimes wondered how a 50's vehicle would compare with modern vehicle in a major crash. Somebody else wondered the same thing and arranged its simulation, AND, videotaped it. Watch and be amazed. Stay with this until the end as there are several camera views and summary text.

Guess which one wins. NO SOUND, but the video is enough. How many times have you heard: "I wish they would make cars the way they did in the old days." This video dispels that myth. You know how we always think about what big huge tanks the old cars of the 50's and 60's were for size? And how we talk about how there is so much plastic on the new cars that if one of the old tanks ever collided with a new car, the new car would be demolished? Well, someone in the insurance industry put that theory to the test.

Be sure to watch toward the end to see the overhead view - and the assessment of driver injury.

[John E]

Very interesting. I think it would have been more dramatic if they had shown the driver's compartment in each car after the collision.

[Jack M]

The first scene is a little misleading. It looks like the Malibu practically impales the Bel Air relatively unscathed. This is because it's an offset head-on crash - driver's side to driver's side. The first scene shows the passenger side of the Malibu and the driver's side of the Bel Air, so the Bel Air looks a lot worse. The overhead view tells the story more fairly. But the overall outcome is still pretty astonishing.

[tpalka]

Very cool. Here's another version with some other view points:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/joMK1WZjP7g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Gcarve]

Modern engineering is amazing. We take it for granted everyday. Interesting video! Thanks for posting it.

[skatha]

I can tell you the difference in the last 20 years from working in the ER. The likelihood that you would die in your auto accident was much higher when I was a surgery resident. I routinely see people now brought in by EMS who were ambulatory on the scene of fairly horrific accidents-rollovers, T-bones, etc.

Note-the narrator of the controlled crash did not bring up the nontelescoping steering wheel of the 59 BelAir. Many drivers got impaled by their steering wheels back in the day. You can clearly see how the rigid steering wheel juts straight up in the crash from the BelAir view.

I also see people with burns on their forearms from the explosive charge that inflates the air bag. When they complain, I tell them it's much better than dealing with facial fractures from the radio knobs, which I've seen, too

[BobD]

A more modern comparison really surprised me. I had always believed Volvos are built like tanks, but ...... skip to 5.00 to miss the waffle

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/emtLLvXrrFs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[C5 Golfer]

True or False...

Hitting an identical car head on at 60 mph is the same thing as hitting a solid steel immovable wall at 60 mph?

[Gcarve]

True or False...

Hitting an identical car head on at 60 mph is the same thing as hitting a solid steel immovable wall at 60 mph?

If both cars are going 60mph, that's the equivalent of a 120mph single car impact into the steel wall.

[C5 Golfer]

If both cars are going 60mph, that's the equivalent of a 120mph single car impact into the steel wall.

you sure about that????

[D.T.]

True or False...

Hitting an identical car head on at 60 mph is the same thing as hitting a solid steel immovable wall at 60 mph?

True

If both cars are going 60mph, that's the equivalent of a 120mph single car impact into the steel wall.

False - see Newton's Third Law

[terekhov]

Guess which one wins.

so risk homeostasis told us that when modern drivers must drive lotta faster than in 1959 to receive required impact :)

I mean that statistically there's not a lot of fatality decrease since 1959

[Neil Gendzwill]

True or False...

Hitting an identical car head on at 60 mph is the same thing as hitting a solid steel immovable wall at 60 mph?

Neither.

[C5 Golfer]

Neither.

That is an interesting answer. -- what would be different in what the Front of the car would look like after it is all over? Would not the depth of carnage be the same?

[John E]

True or False...

Hitting an identical car head on at 60 mph is the same thing as hitting a solid steel immovable wall at 60 mph?

I'd say approximately true. Two cars travelling the same speed have twice the energy as one car but should have twice the crush zone as one car hitting an immovable wall (assuming the wall doesn't deflect at all).

[Neil Gendzwill]

That is an interesting answer. -- what would be different in what the Front of the car would look like after it is all over? Would not the depth of carnage be the same?

I'd say roughly, maybe even approximately - I'm really not any expert in this stuff. But when you say "immoveable steel wall" you are talking the sort of assumptions we made in undergrad physics. "Assume the cow is spherical", etc. Dealing with two cars crashing is not so neat and clean. The point of the question is to show people's gut is wrong about the physics, so my answer is I guess somewhat nit-picky.

[Jack M]

I mostly agree with D.T., but John E's point about twice the crush zone is a factor. For one thing it means that scenario would have slightly higher odds of survival.

[C5 Golfer]

I'd say roughly, maybe even approximately - I'm really not any expert in this stuff. But when you say "immoveable steel wall" you are talking the sort of assumptions we made in undergrad physics. "Assume the cow is spherical", etc. Dealing with two cars crashing is not so neat and clean. The point of the question is to show people's gut is wrong about the physics, so my answer is I guess somewhat nit-picky.

ok on the cow.. my thought would be if you were to video the 60 mph crash looking down like the OP video does with the 59 Chevy... at point of impact there would be an imaginary line on the video representing the front of both cars, this line would not move during the period of crash motion - so this line in essence is an immovable wall. All carnage and damage to both cars would theoretically be the same – wall or no wall – energy absorbed by both cars is the same. So my guess is “no” on twice the crush zone.

[John E]

Interesting thought experiment but if the theoretical line represents the immovable wall, the car going 120 mph would have twice the energy as at 60 mph - and twice the damage.

[C5 Golfer]

Interesting thought experiment but if the theoretical line represents the immovable wall, the car going 120 mph would have twice the energy as at 60 mph - and twice the damage.

I thought velocity was squared in energy calcs...

[John E]

Actually I think you are correct. Mometum is MV. Energy is MV**2. DT would be the expert on this.

On this immovable wall concept: I've seen videos where they slammed either a plane or rocket sled into a huge concrete wall. The wall wins. It is for all intents and purposes immovable.

[skatha]

so risk homeostasis told us that when modern drivers must drive lotta faster than in 1959 to receive required impact :)

I mean that statistically there's not a lot of fatality decrease since 1959

Not true....the fatality rate has dropped 30%, adjusted for population.

[D.T.]

I mean that statistically there's not a lot of fatality decrease since 1959 - in Russia?

Not true....the fatality rate has dropped 30%, adjusted for population. - In the United States?

When comparing statistics such as these, keep in mind that DOT standards for vehicles in the US does not necessarily apply to vehicles/manufacturers in other parts of the world.

[C5 Golfer]

When comparing statistics such as these, keep in mind that DOT standards for vehicles in the US does not necessarily apply to vehicles/manufacturers in other parts of the world.

good point.. look at Bumper design of a couple of German cars that are imported to the US as opposed to Euro Cars - sometimes aesthetics have priority in Europe. Case in point 1972-1989 SL Mercedes.

Also - this is interesting..

United States On 11 July 1984, the U.S. government amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208) to require cars produced after 1 April 1989 to be equipped with a passive restraint for the driver. An airbag or an automatic seat belt would meet the requirements of the standard. Airbag introduction was stimulated by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.However, airbags were not mandatory on light trucks until 1997.

In 1998, FMVSS 208 was amended to require dual front airbags, and de-powered, or second-generation airbags were also mandated. This was due to the injuries caused by first-generation airbags, though FMVSS 208 continues to require that bags be engineered and calibrated to be able to "save" the life of an unbelted 50th-percentile size and weight "male" crash test dummy.

Outside the U.S.A.Most countriesoutside North America adhere to internationalized European ECE vehicle and equipment regulations rather than the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. ECE airbags are generally smaller and inflate less forcefully than U.S. airbags, because the ECE specifications are based on belted crash test dummies. In the United Kingdom, and most other developed countries there is no direct legal requirement for new cars to feature airbags. Instead, the Euro NCAP vehicle safety rating encourages manufacturers to take a comprehensive approach to occupant safety; a good rating can only be achieved by combining airbags with other safety features. Thus almost all new cars now come with at least two airbags as standard.

[Willow 15]

Check this one out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dI5ewOmHPQ

It is open to interpritation on the maths/physics/body position/impact force/etc side of things, but I know from experience only very, very lucky people walk away from high speed/dead stop impacts. Drive safe.