Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Might if I wear my tinfoil hat

1 2

April 14, 2009 11:41 a.m. rob_lewis Dork

That's supposed to be "Mind if I wear my Tinfoil Hat?"

OK, I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist and am still not, but I started thinking about one recently....

The IIHS recently announced that small cars are much worse that big cars in crash tests. Info can be begun here: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/

Major media has started picking it up, which will begin to fan the fears of the great unwashed massess......

Was this all planned? Let's see....

American automakers are hurting. The govt. is looking to step in and help to keep them alive, even taking over "for a while" if need be. As we all know, the Big three don't focus on small cars like they do big cars. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a way to increase sales of big cars, again?

Hmmmm.....

What if the IIHS tested several of these little econo cars (of course, no Cobalt, Focus or Caliber are tested) against bigger cars and found out they're unsafe?

Joe Public won't want to buy a little car. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

Where can Joe Public find a big car to keep his family safe?

Yeah, it's BIG stretch, but fun to think about.

-Rob
April 14, 2009 11:58 a.m. RX Reven' Reader

A while back, my employer contracted with a company that provides “life wellness” solutions…you know, counseling, information, etc.

Anyway, as a first step, everyone had to complete an online survey and two of the questions were: how far is your daily commute and what size car do you drive.

I was blown away by the inference…sure, all things being equal, it’s safer to be in a larger car. However, more energy is released when two large cars collide than when two small cars collide so if everyone goes out and gets a larger car to be “safer” the net result will be decreased safety along with greater GHG emissions, increased road wear, spotted owe stress disorder, etc.
April 14, 2009 12:12 p.m. John Brown MegaDork

If you look at all the bricks that are being sold right now it is amazing. There is a Scion Xa in the parking lot that is taller than a Subaru Forester.
April 14, 2009 12:12 p.m. Keith UberDork

It's easier to avoid an accident in a smaller car, and the accidents you're not in are often the easiest ones to survive. It would be interesting to see the stats on vehicle size vs accidents per mile driven.
April 14, 2009 12:45 p.m. Cotton Reader

Keith wrote:

It's easier to avoid an accident in a smaller car, and the accidents you're not in are often the easiest ones to survive. It would be interesting to see the stats on vehicle size vs accidents per mile driven.

It's even easier on a motorcycle, but the last time I tangled with a car on a bike I lost.

One time I pulled up to Sonic in my 85 911. An Excursion pulled up beside me and the top of the front tire came to the top of my head.....that was weird. A lot of accidents can't be avoided regardless of what you're driving. I drive small cars A LOT, but I'm under no illusion that in most cases I wouldn't fare better in an accident driving something larger.
April 14, 2009 1:01 p.m. Bobzilla Reader

Wait... you mean a smaller car loses against a bigger car? OH noes! I never woulda thunk that one.

Apparently this article should be titled "Common Sense no longer exists".
April 14, 2009 1:03 p.m. CrackMonkey Reader

I don't understand why this is even news. It's just physics and has little, if anything, to do with the cars themselves.

They could just as easily have written "Mid-size sedans fare poorly against tractor-trailers."

We can either mandate everybody drive microcars (or tractor trailers), or we can accept that as long as we drive vehicles of substantially different sizes, safety will be compromised in the smaller vehicles.
April 14, 2009 1:11 p.m. Kramer Reader

Keith wrote:

It's easier to avoid an accident in a smaller car, and the accidents you're not in are often the easiest ones to survive. It would be interesting to see the stats on vehicle size vs accidents per mile driven.

Not according to the IIHS:

IIHS wrote: Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.

It's not that I don't believe your claim, but it sounds like the IIHS already heard your counter.
April 14, 2009 1:12 p.m. fiat22turbo SuperDork

Already debunked:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/smart-on-iihs-crash-tests-sandbagged/

Hi Robert - My name is Karah Street and I work for a PR firm that represents smart USA. I see that you have written about the new crash test conducted with the smart fortwo by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which the smart for two was paired against a Mercedes C-Class. Two other cars were paired with larger vehicles from the same automaker (Honda Fit vs. Accord, and Toyota Yaris vs. Camry). What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.

The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test. As I mentioned earlier, this test unfairly singles out only mini and micro cars, rather than testing vehicles in all segments, big and small.

This test also does not address where we are heading as a society, where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership). smart USA has created a new website, safeandsmart.com, where smart drivers are sharing their own real-life stories of how smart’s advanced safety features helped keep them safe.

I also encourage you to speak with the following organizations for their take on the crash test: 1. Eli Hopson, Washington Representative for Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists 2. John DeCicco, Senior Fellow – Automotive Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund 3. Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign. For an official statement from smart USA, please visit smartusa.com or read an official blog by smart USA’s president, Dave Schembri. Please let me know if you need any other resources (images, video, etc) from me. Thank you for your time. Karah Street.

Um, yeah
April 14, 2009 1:54 p.m. Bobzilla Reader

fiat22turbo wrote:

Already debunked:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/smart-on-iihs-crash-tests-sandbagged/

Hi Robert - My name is Karah Street and I work for a PR firm that represents smart USA. I see that you have written about the new crash test conducted with the smart fortwo by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in which the smart for two was paired against a Mercedes C-Class. Two other cars were paired with larger vehicles from the same automaker (Honda Fit vs. Accord, and Toyota Yaris vs. Camry). What you may not know is that this test represents a type of crash that is rare and extreme — less than 1% of all accidents can compare to this type of test — and it is neither recognized nor required by federal safety regulators. By pitting “big vs. small,” this test seems to have one goal: to imply that bigger, heavier cars are always safer.

The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government safety standards, including earning a five-star side crash rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the highest ratings for front and side crashes in the IIHS’s own barrier test. As I mentioned earlier, this test unfairly singles out only mini and micro cars, rather than testing vehicles in all segments, big and small.

This test also does not address where we are heading as a society, where people are choosing small yet safe cars for many reasons (fuel economy, smaller carbon footprint, low cost of ownership). smart USA has created a new website, safeandsmart.com, where smart drivers are sharing their own real-life stories of how smart’s advanced safety features helped keep them safe.

I also encourage you to speak with the following organizations for their take on the crash test: 1. Eli Hopson, Washington Representative for Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists 2. John DeCicco, Senior Fellow – Automotive Strategies, Environmental Defense Fund 3. Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign. For an official statement from smart USA, please visit smartusa.com or read an official blog by smart USA’s president, Dave Schembri. Please let me know if you need any other resources (images, video, etc) from me. Thank you for your time. Karah Street.

Um, yeah

Sounds like a commercial for Smart. Biased much?
April 14, 2009 3:22 p.m. Keith UberDork

Hey, at least she states her affiliation right up front. Of course she'll couch her answer with respect to the Smart. I don't have a problem with that.

So there's no such thing as a "compact" anymore? It's either a minicar or a "midsize"? Nice spin :) That's interesting that the claims rate is higher for the minicars, I'd love to see more details on the numbers. Could it be that minicars (dumb term) get used in city situations where there are lots of very low-speed collisions?

I know that my Miatas and my classic Mini have many more dynamic options than my Tundra or my wife's Grand Cherokee do when it comes to accident avoidance. If I'm in a situation where I have to either do an emergency stop or perform an avoidance maneuver, I'll do far, far better in the cars.

Numbers: Car and Driver tested a Tundra like mine and found it stopped from 70 mph in 189' - and called that excellent performance. When they tested my Locost, it made the same stop in 141'. That's a difference that's pretty close to the length of a semi trailer. Granted, the Locost is an extreme case in terms of braking performance. So let's use a more generic selection. Say, a MINI Cooper (base model, so we don't get into big fat tires) vs a Chevy Suburban. Numbers from Car and Driver

Mini: 162'

Suburban: 190'

You can't tell me that being able to stop 38' shorter at highway speeds isn't going to have some sort of benefit.

Sure, you can't avoid every accident by driving a nimble car. But the most dangerous ones - the high speed ones - should be easier. Assuming, of course, that the driver takes advantage of the capabilities of the vehicle. And that's another discussion
April 14, 2009 3:27 p.m. Bobzilla Reader

^ Off those numbers, C&D tested the Fit and it stopped in 191ft. So it offers no benefit in braking over the MUCH larger and heavier Tundra.
April 14, 2009 3:31 p.m. Keith UberDork

I saw that - they tested the Fit in 2006 and 2008. The 2006 test shows a stopping distance of 169' and the 2008 test in 196'. Obviously there's a problem with one of those tests. That's why I didn't use the Fit as an example, but used the MINI as three tests of the MINI showed similar stopping distances. The Suburban was typical for SUVs.

There are always going to be outliers. If you want to crunch numbers, it wouldn't be hard to turn that C&D page I referenced earlier into a spreadsheet and get some averages.
April 14, 2009 3:35 p.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

Keith wrote:

That's interesting that the claims rate is higher for the minicars, I'd love to see more details on the numbers. Could it be that minicars (dumb term) get used in city situations where there are lots of very low-speed collisions?

That sounds reasonable. I suspect WHO buys small cars is another factor. Typically, younger drivers are buying inexpensive compacts while older, more experienced drivers are buying mid-size or larger cars.
April 14, 2009 3:40 p.m. JFX001 Dork

That's 28', not 38'.
April 14, 2009 3:43 p.m. Cotton Reader

Keith wrote:

Numbers: Car and Driver tested a Tundra like mine and found it stopped from 70 mph in 189' - and called that excellent performance. When they tested my Locost, it made the same stop in 141'. That's a difference that's pretty close to the length of a semi trailer. Granted, the Locost is an extreme case in terms of braking performance. So let's use a more generic selection. Say, a MINI Cooper (base model, so we don't get into big fat tires) vs a Chevy Suburban. Numbers from Car and Driver

Mini: 162'

Suburban: 190'

You can't tell me that being able to stop 38' shorter at highway speeds isn't going to have some sort of benefit.

Sure, you can't avoid every accident by driving a nimble car. But the most dangerous ones - the high speed ones - should be easier. Assuming, of course, that the driver takes advantage of the capabilities of the vehicle. And that's another discussion

I have to give another bike reference here. I used a sportbike as my DD for a couple of years.....they brake really well. The number one thing I had to worry about when braking hard in an emergency situation was getting run over by the person behind me. They were either not paying attention or in a vehicle that doesn't brake as well as a sportbike. There were many times I had to use the bikes brakes at less than its capabilities to avoid getting rear ended. Same argument can be used for a small car.........stop as short as you can and risk being rearended by the Toyota Sequoia that was too close to you in the first place. One place where a bike or small nimble car would excel is lane change, but sometimes you're stuck and another lane isn't an option.
April 14, 2009 3:51 p.m. Strizzo Dork

lets break this down real fast: IIHS = INSURANCE Institute of Highway Safety. who do they work for?

there was a similarly spun release in the early 2000's about the F150. guess what vehicle was the best selling at the time? you guessed it, the f-series. think they might be trying to get a jump at the increased number of smaller cars hitting the road nowadays? also note that the test used by the IIHS happens in less than 1% of all accidents, and is also not tested for by federal crash standards.

tinfoil hat be damned, the iihs has a history of targeting the better selling vehilces produced for negative test results and then raising rates on those cars.
April 14, 2009 3:58 p.m. Toyman01 Reader

Keith wrote:

Hey, at least she states her affiliation right up front. Of course she'll couch her answer with respect to the Smart. I don't have a problem with that.

So there's no such thing as a "compact" anymore? It's either a minicar or a "midsize"? Nice spin :) That's interesting that the claims rate is higher for the minicars, I'd love to see more details on the numbers. Could it be that minicars (dumb term) get used in city situations where there are lots of very low-speed collisions?

I know that my Miatas and my classic Mini have many more dynamic options than my Tundra or my wife's Grand Cherokee do when it comes to accident avoidance. If I'm in a situation where I have to either do an emergency stop or perform an avoidance maneuver, I'll do far, far better in the cars.

Numbers: Car and Driver tested a Tundra like mine and found it stopped from 70 mph in 189' - and called that excellent performance. When they tested my Locost, it made the same stop in 141'. That's a difference that's pretty close to the length of a semi trailer. Granted, the Locost is an extreme case in terms of braking performance. So let's use a more generic selection. Say, a MINI Cooper (base model, so we don't get into big fat tires) vs a Chevy Suburban. Numbers from Car and Driver

Mini: 162'

Suburban: 190'

You can't tell me that being able to stop 38' shorter at highway speeds isn't going to have some sort of benefit.

Sure, you can't avoid every accident by driving a nimble car. But the most dangerous ones - the high speed ones - should be easier. Assuming, of course, that the driver takes advantage of the capabilities of the vehicle. And that's another discussion

Hope that Urban isn't behind you when you stop 38' shorter than he does. That would put him in your back seat and you under what ever is in front of you. Large urbans are a fact of life. They are going to be safer in a crash because they have larger and longer crumple zones. They have more time and space to absorb impact energy.

They aren't going away any time soon and are getting larger. When driving a small car I give them extra room just like I would a commercial truck.
April 14, 2009 6:10 p.m. Keith UberDork

So, if I'm reading this right, short stopping distances aren't a good thing? That's it, I'm gonna wrap myself in bubblewrap and stay here on the couch.

Yes, sometimes there's nothing you can do. It's always possible to come up with a scenario where driving a tank is best. But you can't convince me that having the ability to come to a stop in a shorter distance isn't a good thing. It's a tool. If you can't take advantage of the shorter stopping distance, fine. But at least you have the option, and there may not be a behemoth tailgating you. While the "Urban" is crumpling to absorb impact energy, a car with better braking capability has less impact energy to absorb because of the slower impact speed.

We all judge driving risk based on our own driving habits. Me, I live in a relatively low-population area where "rush hour" means there are probably a couple of cars in front of you at the light. I'm more worried about having to avoid a deer, dodging a rock (or a semi with no brakes!) on a mountain pass than I am about getting caught in a multi-car pileup. If I'm away from home, I'm on the interstate and I don't have other cars in close proximity. So in my environment, the ability to react and avoid what could very well be a single car accident is really useful. If I was playing bumper cars on the ring road around Washington, I might find that simply entering the behemoth arms race would be more beneficial and I would have a different viewpoint on the whole thing

Thanks for the correction on the math JFX, my bad :)
April 14, 2009 6:16 p.m. Schmidlap New Reader

I'm curious what they mean by less than 1% of accidents are of this type (not that I'm disputing it, just that I'm curious). Is it that less than 1% of accidents in minicars are offset, head on crashes with a midsize car? Or that less than one 1% are head on crashes with any size car? And what are they considering accidents? Accidents where the damage is more than the deductible? Could bumping another car in a parking lot and having to buff out the scratch in the bumper be considered an accident? Statistics can be used to prove just about anything if you pick the conditions.

Regardless, if that kind of destruction happens in 1% of the accidents in a minicar, that's still a lot of seriously injured people.

Bob
April 14, 2009 6:25 p.m. Type Q HalfDork

IIHS is a product of the insurance industry. They are interested in minimizing the number of injury claims. I doubt it matters to them how much extra owners pay for fuel, parking space, extra steel, atmospheric carbon, or any other cost associated with a larger vehicle, because we pay those, not them. Life is often difficult and entails risk. Reducing injury claims is a laudable goal since there is real pain and suffering behind most of them. However I suspect there are other factors that influence my risk of injury while driving much more than the size of the car I am in. If so could someone link to it.

Has anyone done studies to see if driving a vault like, impervious feeling large vehicles changes peoples driving habits?
April 14, 2009 7:23 p.m. Toyman01 Reader

Keith wrote:

So, if I'm reading this right, short stopping distances aren't a good thing? That's it, I'm gonna wrap myself in bubblewrap and stay here on the couch.

Yes, sometimes there's nothing you can do. It's always possible to come up with a scenario where driving a tank is best. But you can't convince me that having the ability to come to a stop in a shorter distance isn't a good thing. It's a tool. If you can't take advantage of the shorter stopping distance, fine. But at least you have the option, and there may not be a behemoth tailgating you. While the "Urban" is crumpling to absorb impact energy, a car with better braking capability has less impact energy to absorb because of the slower impact speed.

We all judge driving risk based on our own driving habits. Me, I live in a relatively low-population area where "rush hour" means there are probably a couple of cars in front of you at the light. I'm more worried about having to avoid a deer, dodging a rock (or a semi with no brakes!) on a mountain pass than I am about getting caught in a multi-car pileup. If I'm away from home, I'm on the interstate and I don't have other cars in close proximity. So in my environment, the ability to react and avoid what could very well be a single car accident is really useful. If I was playing bumper cars on the ring road around Washington, I might find that simply entering the behemoth arms race would be more beneficial and I would have a different viewpoint on the whole thing

Thanks for the correction on the math JFX, my bad :)

Short stopping distance is a great thing. Nimble handling is even better. I bet better than half of the wrecks I see are some SUV driving cell phone using yuppie piled into the back of the small nimble car that stopped short. My point is even though you can stop 40 feet shorter, you might be better to use that handling to get out of the line of fire. My "fun" car is a 1st gen RX-7. Stop on a dime and handles pretty good too. In the last 10 years I bet I have put in off in the grass 2-3 times to keep the Ford emblem off the back of my head. Once was running a light I had already stopped at because the Peterbuilt behind me wasn't going to be able to.

Unfortunately my DD is an E-250 van. You don't swerve in them to miss a deer. Through luck and paying attention I have only hit one. But I didn't even consider swerving.

Man I wish I lived where you do. I could do without the rush hour. I probably spent 2 hours in traffic today alone. It sucks, big time.
April 14, 2009 7:25 p.m. Strizzo Dork

Schmidlap wrote:

I'm curious what they mean by less than 1% of accidents are of this type (not that I'm disputing it, just that I'm curious). Is it that less than 1% of accidents in minicars are offset, head on crashes with a midsize car? Or that less than one 1% are head on crashes with any size car? And what are they considering accidents? Accidents where the damage is more than the deductible? Could bumping another car in a parking lot and having to buff out the scratch in the bumper be considered an accident? Statistics can be used to prove just about anything if you pick the conditions.

Regardless, if that kind of destruction happens in 1% of the accidents in a minicar, that's still a lot of seriously injured people.

Bob

less than 1% of all accidents are offset frontal impact with something, not neccessarily another car.
April 14, 2009 7:35 p.m. JoeTR6 New Reader

Here's a data point for IIHS. Twenty years ago I was driving home on a heavily trafficked wet interstate when some dimwit decided to lay on the brakes for no reason. Of the 17 cars in a line, my Miata was the only one not damaged. I credit that to it being small, nimble, and able to stop better than all of the mid-size sedans and trucks more than any difference in following distance. Fortunately, the Acura behind me had anti-lock brakes (not so common at the time) and I was able to dodge off onto the shoulder just before coming to a stop. Otherwise, he would have tagged me.

What scares me most is being hit from the side by a red light runner in an SUV.
April 14, 2009 9:11 p.m. S2 New Reader

Keith wrote:

It's always possible to come up with a scenario where driving a tank is best.

Yep, riding in a 13 ton M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier and was hit by a 68 ton M1A1 tank. Guess who won.... The tank TC was grinning when he drove away. Me, not so much....

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.