[US///M3]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Sure, but you also shouldn't cherry pick obviously incredible accidents, where the car splits in two, to suggest that BMW's aren't safe.
Most modern cars are incredibly safer than ever before, and even small cars allow people to survive accidents that someone in, say a late 60's Cadillac, would likely not survive or have extensive physical damage.

That accident you posted only shows that everything has limits.
I think you're overstating the point some are making, which is that BMW builds cars with great passenger safety engineering.
Those who think BMW's are the only safe cars and/or a BMW can survive any accident, as strictly speaking out of their proverbial exhaust pipes.

I wasnt arguing BMW's werent safe...
My point was, you can't for example post a picture of Angelina Jolay,Olivia Wilde then reach the conclusion that American Women are thin.
Even the Kia's saved its occupants that night, its green house structure didnt collapsed and the doors opened...
Most of the fanboys posts are misleading, oh I collided with an SUV, it turns out it's a 3,300 lb kia, smaller and lighter than the F30, the Kia was mangled,turns out it didnt look any worse than the 335i.

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by RPM90

And specifically, I disagree about your generalized "luck" comment.
You were showing a specific car, but your comment is generalizing that any accident where a car hits a stationary object and the occupants survive is strictly to do with 'luck'.
I disagree for the reasons I put in my post.

Some of the crash tests are specific to hitting stationary objects.
Thus, cars are designed for occupants to survive and/or suffer less injury.
Just because the vehicle suffers tremendous damage doesn't always mean that when an occupant survives it was strictly due to luck.
Car structures are designed to crumple and absorb the force of impact.
The attempt is to send the energy through the body and with certain structures breaking/crumpling in order for that energy to not get transferred to the occupants.

Just because a car ripped in half doesn't always mean that the occupants were still not protected by the safety designs.
If the vehicle splits in two and the occupants area is intact, that shows that the impact energy went around the occupants.
The vehicle may not have been engineered to split in two, but engineering and design went into diverting impact energy away from occupants.
You can't back up a statement that it's "ONLY" luck for why a driver or passenger survived. I haven't seen "luck" quantified or verified.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I to mine.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

It is luck, you know like the DC-10 crash landing in Sioux City IA some survivors had people sitting right next them die but they lived.

99.99% of crashes resulting in a car spliting in half, means its occupants don't walk away without a scratch.
That's why regardless of the country doing a crash test, after the crash they look at the structural integrity of the green house.
They dont go, "oh this car split in half, that was perfect"

[F555]

Originally Posted by US///M3

I assume that u r not reading properly
my comment was pointing to the exact crash on this thread with a hyundai
on a fatal crash incident like the picture u shown not even a single car could make it

then again we all love our BMW so most member are bias toward BMW.

[F555]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Your statement is hyperbole.
Data doesn't support your "never fail" comment.

And, yes, Hyundai's are safe cars as well.
Many of their models get high ratings based on crash testing.

LOL
we all love our BMW then love makes u blind
& will do anything to defend it

& yes I won't be buying any hyundai even they're safe.

[F555]

Originally Posted by Antares

well, the members here love their BMWs, and love is not always 100% rational

so true...

[JamieA]

Glad to hear that you are OK, and that your replacement car is just as beautiful. It is moments like these that you realise where all that money spend in R&D goes!

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by F555

I assume that u r not reading properly
my comment was pointing to the exact crash on this thread with a hyundai
on a fatal crash incident like the picture u shown not even a single car could make it

then again we all love our BMW so most member are bias toward BMW.

My reading is fine, it's your bad English that's hard to understand.
When you say "BMW never fail" it's not specific to the op's crash.

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by US///M3

My reading is fine, it's your bad English that's hard to understand.
When you say "BMW never fail" it's not specific to the op's crash.

You realize he's Indonesian, right?

I would absolutely love to see you write Indonesian (or whichever language they speak there)

[tkila]

If a Kia did that, I'm sure a better built vehicle would do a lot worse!

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by turbolag

You realize he's Indonesian, right?

I would absolutely love to see you write Indonesian (or whichever language they speak there)

You realize that If I spoke bad Indonesian or whatever language they speak and I wrote something confusing in Indonesian, i wouldnt be mocking their reading comprehension for not getting what I really meant.

[BavarianFanatic]

Originally Posted by RPM90

And specifically, I disagree about your generalized "luck" comment.
You were showing a specific car, but your comment is generalizing that any accident where a car hits a stationary object and the occupants survive is strictly to do with 'luck'.
I disagree for the reasons I put in my post.

Some of the crash tests are specific to hitting stationary objects.
Thus, cars are designed for occupants to survive and/or suffer less injury.
Just because the vehicle suffers tremendous damage doesn't always mean that when an occupant survives it was strictly due to luck.
Car structures are designed to crumple and absorb the force of impact.
The attempt is to send the energy through the body and with certain structures breaking/crumpling in order for that energy to not get transferred to the occupants.

Just because a car ripped in half doesn't always mean that the occupants were still not protected by the safety designs.
If the vehicle splits in two and the occupants area is intact, that shows that the impact energy went around the occupants.
The vehicle may not have been engineered to split in two, but engineering and design went into diverting impact energy away from occupants.
You can't back up a statement that it's "ONLY" luck for why a driver or passenger survived. I haven't seen "luck" quantified or verified.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I to mine.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I absolutely agree with you with respect to the advancements in engineering relative to crashworthiness. I also am fully aware of the physics involved (I'm a mechanical engineer).

Perhaps I should have clarified in my original comment that I was referring to an semi-inelastic collision with a stationary object with the SIDE of the vehicle - i.e. a tree, concrete barrier, etc (as shown in the photo). No matter how well constructed the vehicle is, the primary objective of side impact protection is with respect to elastic collisions with other vehicles, not a concentrated impulse. The physics involved in this sort of wreck are nothing short of amazing. Even if a vehicle was able to withstand the impulse and channel it around the passenger compartment, the deceleration forces would be so great that the occupants would not fair well. There simply isn't enough room on the sides of the vehicles to decelerate the vehicle like there is in the front/rear of the vehicle.

In these cases where the vehicle does literally get torn in half, the fact that the car DID tear in half actually attributed to the survivability. Had the car simply collapsed around the tree there's a much higher likelihood the driver would have been crushed. At least in this case the energy was dissipated in tearing the structure.

However, the single biggest threat to the occupants is contact with the offending fixed object as it penetrates the passenger compartment. In the case of the Audi shown, had the impact been a foot or so further forward with respect to the cabin, the driver would have directly impacted the tree which would be unsurvivable. So, he was lucky that he didn't hit the tree at that point.

The point that many are trying to make is that while BMW builds very good cars, it doesn't mean that you'll walk away from every accident because they are superior to everything else on the road. It also doesn't mean you can drive like a reckless idiot without risk. I think that's the main point people are trying to get across.

I'm glad to see that the OP emerged unscathed and able to find a nice replacement. But this wreck isn't particularly out of the ordinary. Most cars built within the last decade or two would likely have fared similarly.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by BavarianFanatic

In the case of the Audi shown, had the impact been a foot or so further forward with respect to the cabin, the driver would have directly impacted the tree which would be unsurvivable. So, he was lucky that he didn't hit the tree at that point.

Completely true. Extremely lucky.

But this wreck isn't particularly out of the ordinary. Most cars built within the last decade or two would likely have fared similarly.

Also true. There is nothing unique about a BMW's crash worthiness.

Fortunately, the OP crashed with a Kia - which weighs less than the F30. The Kia handled the crash well also. The result may have been unfortunately different if a full size SUV had been involved.

[Kabrich]

And sometimes a BMW is on the other end - and still showing its safety - when driven by a 15 year old:

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2013/8/1...Moron-7715715/

[F555]

Originally Posted by US///M3

My reading is fine, it's your bad English that's hard to understand.
When you say "BMW never fail" it's not specific to the op's crash.

Thanks for pointing out my bad English
me cannot write things in specific coz me bad english mon
please excuse for me bad english

[F30_JC]

Wow man! I live local to you I know exactly where that happened. I live near the Sawgrass Mills. Seeing the pictures sent a chill down my spine but then to see the proof on how strong our F30 is.. without any doubt boosted up my BMW pride and confidence.

What a piece of sh** of a person to do such irresponsible actions. You hear about these things but never actually see it or think you would witness it or be a victim!

I hope to see you around. I have not seen you at the Florida Bimmer Coffee Runs!

[BMWDavid]

My first accident was in a BMW in 1994. It was a severe impact like yours but my '84 528e wasn't equipped with airbags. I walked away unharmed. Glad you're safe and sharing this incredible story. "Safety first" really means something at BMW.

[DrShimmy]

I am very happy you made it well. It is sad seeing people driving under the influence. BMW <3

Congratulations on the replacement. She is a beauty!

[bastiN54]

wow. looks horrible, glad nothing really bad happend

Nice replacement, i like the color.
Black Kidneys and done

[Heiznberg]

Originally Posted by bastiN54

wow. looks horrible, glad nothing really bad happend

Nice replacement, i like the color.
Black Kidneys and done

Thanks, and done


Also, installed lip spoiler:

[BenzWorld]

Dude, super glad you're ok... definitive proof these vehicles are built with safety in mind. On the other hand, I hope the other driver gets the book thrown at him... douche.

Congrats on the awesome new ride.

[Dave F30]

posted deleted. changed my mind